Village Council - Regular Meeting

Do I?

Yes.

Okay. Good evening, everyone. If you can please find your seats. Silence your phones. My name is Seth Salver and I'm honored to serve as your mayor. Mr. Clerk with the role please.

Yes, roll call. Mayor Salver.

Here.

Vice Mayor Wolf. Here. Councilman Fremark. Here. Councilman Levy. Here. Councilman Sklar.

Here. We have quorum. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. If we can all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You may be seated, thank you.

So I'd like to call the Bell Harbor Village special meeting to order tonight. It's very nice to see all of you here because this is probably the single most important issue that this community has ever faced since its founding. So I'm comforted in seeing a big crowd tonight. And frankly, the reason why we were pushing for this meeting is that since this all started, we've been in active litigation. And given that all of our deliberations have been subject to attorney-client privilege and wouldn't really be able to be discussed in a public meeting. So this is that opportunity. We've been cleared. We have authorization from opposing counsel to be able to share things that normally wouldn't be made public at this point in the process. So we're happy that you're all here tonight to hear and to listen. And obviously your voice is heard. and um we have a very uh packed agenda so we will get right to it and i'll turn it over to our village manager george gonzalez thank you mr mayor um what i would like to do for the council and for the community is to kind of walk through a a very

brief but hopefully detailed timeline of events that has brought us to today so that we all can get to a level playing field from an information perspective. After which, our council will be able to speak more deliberatively about the matter that is at hand. And then as you mentioned, there'll be some opportunity for public comment. So let me just kind of remind everybody where we've been so that we can know where we're going. And I'm not going to go all the way back 60 years when the Bell Harbor shops first opened, but I will remind everybody that in 2017, almost 10 years ago, the village and the Bell Harbor shops entered into a development agreement, a contract that allowed the shops to expand, which is the expansion that you're seeing under construction today. In that agreement, there were a number of different requirements, both on the village and on the shops to be performed. And we have been over the past nine years or so working to perform those different requirements. That development agreement was amended in December of 2018. Not significantly, but enough that it required the council to take another action. Many of you were here and might recall that a little bit after that, in January of 2021, the Bow Harbor Shops presented a proposal for a referendum to raise the height limitation that existed in our charter. And that referendum failed pretty near unanimously. It was about 90% of the voters voted against removing that height restriction. Subsequent to that, later that year in 2021, October, due to a number of factors related to COVID and other things, the shops again petitioned the village to amend a third time. or a second time. So I have the third agreement related to the development agreement, which provided them with some modicum of relief in performance of a lot of the deadlines that they were required to meet due to the COVID impacts. So that was approved, as I said, in October of 2021. Soon after that, in the following year, the shops began to meet with members and myself to discuss the idea of a hotel as a concept that they were thinking about proposing, but that never materialized. In 2023, the Florida legislative session enacted and the governor approved what is called now as the Live Local Act. And that was what we euphemistically call it 1.0, because it was the first version of that in 2023. I'm not going to get into the details of it, but as you've probably heard, it has a lot to do with giving developers an opportunity to build more if they commit to at least 40% of the units to be affordable. Our lawyers can get into more details, but you can see for yourself the Live Local Act online. And then about a year after the legislation was enacted, in January of 2024, the Bal Harbor Shops filed an application with the village under the Live Local Act for their proposal. And I'm just going to show it so you can look at what is submitted as their initial proposal in January of 2024. It requires no judgment or no comments. Again, that was January of 2024, a little over two years ago. January 16th of that, a week later, we held a meeting in this room, public comment, to react to that proposal. And a week later, the Bell Harbor shops filed its first lawsuit with the village. Subsequently, the village passed a number of ordinances to deal with the implications of the Live Local Act as was approved in 2023. And in 2024, after we passed our ordinances, the state legislature once again enacted amendments to Live Local Act 2.0, which was a glitch bill to fix and correct issues that had come up from the first initial legislative act. June of 2024, Bow Harbor Shops filed its second lawsuit with the village. So now we got two active litigation. It's coming. All the while, the village was proceeding to review the application per the state statutes that were required us to do so. And in July of 2024, we deemed the application to be complete. but not approved. Six months later and a few months later in November, the village actually denied the application pursuant to the state statutes and all of the implications that we felt were insufficient. So that's November of 2024, nearly nine months after the initial application was filed. In September of that same year, this council approved an amendment to the budget to increase the millage to fund and have dedicated monies associated with the Bow Harbor Shops defense. So that was done in September of 2024, following in concert with the denial. February of 2025, just a few months later, we had lawsuit number three. They filed a fluidra, which is a fancy term, but it's litigation relative to the denial that they received. Later that year, the Florida legislature acted one more time and did fluidra. Live Local Act 3.0, further preempting communities, including ours, from many of the zoning requirements that we have. In August of 2025, pursuant to the litigation that was pending, the village and the Bow Harbor shops entered court-ordered mediation. And court-ordered mediation is a step in the litigation process. Our lawyers can get into the details of that. But we began to discuss whether or not there was a possibility that there could be some kind of mediated settlement. Again, that was August of last year. A little bit after August, in October, the Bell Harbor Shops filed their fourth litigation with the village. This is a federal litigation regarding takings and illegal taxing. You get the picture of how this is going. Earlier this year, now we're into 2026, the Florida legislature actually passed more amendments to the Live Local Act, minor as they may be, they still keep making more and more, making it more and more favorable to the developers. Which brings us to today. And so for those of you that have been hearing rumors, innuendo, that the decision has been made, that it's all cooked or baked or whatever term you want to use, I've laid out to you that everything that this council and this community has done so far has been to deny the application, to establish a legal defense fund to defend all of this litigation, and has entered mediation as required through a litigated process. And we're now at the point where we can finally share with you what the mediator believes is what is represented as the shop's best and final offer. That's it. It doesn't mean that it's been accepted. It doesn't mean that it has approved anything like that. This is simply an opportunity now to share that with you for the first time in the public. It's been a little over two years since we've all gotten together, so maybe it's a good time for you all to get up to speed and understand where we are. But there is something that we want to show before the lawyers come up. So you want to speak to the shops?

Yes. So the Bell Harbor shops was not available to be here tonight. But they did send a video message. uh well but before we okay oh sorry yeah but but before we do play that i i just i see a lot of people standing if you have an empty seat next to you can you just raise your hand so people folks know that they can Okay, I guess there aren't that many empty seats. Okay. Okay, so maybe we can work on that. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome some local elected officials and former elected officials. So I want to recognize Bay Harbor Islands Mayor Isaac Salver. If the name sounds familiar, it's because he's my dad. Bay Harbor Islands Council Member Robert Yaffe. Bay Harbor Islands Town Manager Lindsay Nolte. lindsay noelle sorry they wrote it backwards but i correct it surfside commissioner david weingott uh former bell harbor mayor martin packer former bell harbor mayor gabriel groisman and former vice mayor joni blatcher so PB, Harmon Zuckerman, As you can see, as you can see this proposal doesn't just affect bell harbor it really it it affects this entire community and really South Florida so are we ready to play the video. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay let's see what they have to say.

My name is Matthew Whitman Lazenby. I'm the principal owner and steward of Bell Harbor Shops. The shops have been part of this community for more than 60 years, and this village has been part of my family for even longer. The village is my family's home community. My grandfather was one of its original incorporators, and I live here myself. It is ingrained in our DNA. There can be no doubt that everyone here is aware of the dispute between the shops and the village over our Live Local Act application. We are here tonight to discuss a potential settlement of that dispute, a settlement that is a genuine compromise between neighbors. But to understand where we are going, it's important to understand where we have been. Through decades of hard work across three generations, I'm humbled to say that Bal Harbor Shops has become one of the world's most iconic shopping destinations, boasting more than 100 designer stores and a truly unique and picturesque environment. But the Bell Harbor Shops experience isn't just about fashion. It's a place where the community comes together, where familiar faces, families, and friends share moments beneath the palms. A place where the heart of the community quietly lives and emotional connections are made and reinforced every single day. The Shops was born out of a bold vision. Back in 1965, my grandfather, Stanley Whitman, transformed a site occupied by former army barracks into Florida's first high fashion shopping destination. breaking away from traditional malls and creating a tropical open-air experience unlike anything anywhere. It didn't take long for the shops to attract some of the world's most prestigious brands, forever changing luxury retail, and our village community. But Stanley always thought the shops should be even more and ought to become a proper village center where residents could live, work, and play. In 2017, we embarked upon the retail expansion presently underway and slated to open by September, bringing a wonderful array of new stores and restaurants to or back to Val Harbor and investing hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements. Now, the shops is entering a new chapter, guided by a renewed vision for the future. Like my grandfather, I am guided by the core principle that this village isn't just where we do business. It's our home. This community and its interests are deeply rooted in who we are. Today, I am driven by the purpose of making this a more affordable community. Like all of you, I have watched the housing affordability crisis reshape this region. Across South Florida, working families and essential employees face real challenges finding homes in the communities they serve. In recognition of this issue in 2023, Governor DeSantis signed the Live Local Act, comprehensive legislation designed to spur affordable housing development statewide. Shortly thereafter, we engaged Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, SOM, to design a project that would put that law to work and transform the shops into the true village center we always envisioned. In January of 2024, we submitted a Live Local Act application to the village for a new project that would expand the shops through the addition of residential housing, including designated affordable housing and additional hotel, office, and retail space. Since the application was filed more than 27 months ago, we've been working through the legal process, negotiating and spending dozens of hours mediating before Judge Hansman. We believe strongly in the legal merits of our original application and are fully prepared to continue to litigate to seek its ultimate approval if we must. But tonight, you will hear about a proposed settlement term sheet born from the process with Judge Hansman aimed at resolving this dispute and allowing us to move forward together as neighbors. For context, in the project proposed in the Live Local Act application, we are seeking to develop 528 residential units in an expansion that would add more than 2 million new square feet to the shops across four principal buildings, each one of which is designed at 300 feet tall. but the Village rejected that proposal. While we continue to strenuously disagree with that rejection, we have spent significant time and resources reworking the proposal to be more in keeping with what we've discussed with Village leadership. In this settlement proposal, the number of residential units has been cut nearly 66% to 180 units. The new square footage has been cut nearly in half. We would develop three principal buildings instead of four, and the overall height has been reduced dramatically. For us, this is about people. It's about the workers who help keep Val Harbor running but can't afford to call it home, forcing many to commute long distances each day, clogging the roadways between where they live and where they work. It's about giving those same familiar faces the opportunity to live in the community they help support and turning the shops into a true village center. To be sure, the settlement plans include additional amenities that the village's existing residents will enjoy and benefit from. A hotel, a private club, office space, and new retail. All part of three beautifully designed buildings meant to reflect the same quality and character the shops are known for. This isn't just another project. It's a continuation of a legacy first built right here in my hometown of Bell Harbor. a community that has been built across generations on the promise of innovation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Okay. We're now going to recognize the attorney that's representing Bal Harbor Village in the multiple litigations, Mr. Eitan Mark. But Eitan, before you begin your formal presentation, one of the things that stuck out to me from this video was how much the Bal Harbor Shops was discussing the importance of affordable housing. Can you just highlight how many affordable housing units are in the settlement proposal?

I'll speak this way.

That's fine. Yeah, just grab the mic or turn it around.

Okay. Good evening, everybody. I'm Eitan Mark. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Mark, Frayer, and Hayden. So the original proposal, as proposed, contemplated 40% affordable housing across 520-something units. So that's going to be about 200 or so affordable housing units. This revised proposal contemplates 180 total units, of which 10% would be affordable or 18 18 units okay so high units okay so i'm not going to speak for a very long time um although i'm sure you'd love to hear me speak for a long time um we've been acting as litigation counsel for the village for these pending cases four to five of them let me just say that We're deeply passionate about these cases. It's truly a privilege to represent this village. You're not going to hear a ton of passion from me tonight because we are not inside a courtroom. I am at a public meeting. I am not going to start talking about litigation strategy. I'm not going to tell you all the reasons we're going to win the case. I'm just not doing any of that. What I'm going to do here is I'm going to provide an overview. I'm just going to provide an overview of some of specifically the live local litigation than what I consider to be sort of the main piece of litigation and not the ancillary cases. I'm gonna talk a little bit about the mediation process and how we got to this point. Suffice to say that we have raised very substantial defenses and in some cases counterclaims to all of their affirmative claims. No, I'm just providing an overview, OK? One of the cases, which was the Fluedra case, has been dismissed without prejudice. The remaining cases, with the exception of the federal takings case, were stayed or put on pause pending the resolution of this mediation process. As you saw from the video, the shop submitted their application in January 2024, and then their first lawsuit was filed shortly thereafter that. And their main argument was that the village was required to accept that application as submitted. If you can put up, yeah. Yes, so that was the plan as submitted. That application contemplates a 528 unit, 300 or so foot development, multiple residential towers. Our arguments very briefly, just the sum of the defenses, include that the original Live Local Act application was defective. that the 2017 development agreement that George alluded to earlier between the shops and the village is a binding contract, and the application that the shops submitted contravenes that agreement, and that in the application the shops submitted, they relied on the wrong land development regulations and should have relied on land development regulations from a different district. There are other defenses as well. Those are some of them. Again, I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty too much. In mid 2025, In mid 2025, the parties agreed to globally mediate all of the pending pieces of litigation. We mediated with Judge Michael Hansman. Some of you may know Judge Hansman. He's retired now, but he was the judge that presided over the Champlain Towers. He was an excellent judge when he was on the bench and he's, in my opinion, probably the top mediator slash arbitrator in town. We spent a lot of time with him. We mediated with him three full days, August 25th, September 8th, and October 6th, 2025, and we continued negotiating thereafter. To date, he has not formally declared an impasse. I want to now talk about where the negotiation started and where it ended. You see where it started. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So again 528 units 2 million or so square feet 40% affordable housing after these negotiations we turned we got to this negotiated plan George can you click through. Or somebody? OK. So this is the revised plan. So you can see that there's one building that's been completely eliminated. Some of the buildings are shorter. And that green one that's on Collins is a hotel. The white one that's on 96th Street there is an office. And the orange one in the back is residential. And you'll see there's some residential on top of the hotel as well. This, as was mentioned, contemplates 180 new residential units, 10% affordable. The shops also agreed to pay the village $21 million as certain construction milestones are reached. There's other non-monetary considerations as well, but these are what I consider to be some of the highlights. As of today, the shops has moved to lift the stay. In other words, the pause that I mentioned earlier, they've asked to lift that pause on the live local case. And the parties are preparing to fully ratchet up the litigation, which has been in a little bit of a holding pattern for the past months. I can tell you that your council members have worked very hard to get from the shops what we are told is their best and final offer. And that's what this is. As in any litigation, I wanna be exceedingly clear. There is risk, okay? There's risk on both sides. There is risk for the village that the court is going to find that the village was required to approve this application as it was submitted. And therefore, the shops will get to build that other project you saw, the first version of it. Just as there's risk for the shops, that the court will find that the application was improper, or that the development agreement controls, and therefore the shops get nothing, among other defenses. And then there's also legislative risk, which is important to remember here as well. As you can see, and many of you probably saw the news cycle in the past few days, the Attorney General has jumped into this, and they've taken a position, they've interjected into this case, and it's possible that the state continues to try to strengthen the Live Local Act through legislative amendments. Regardless, and whatever the council decides today, whether or not they decide to continue the litigation or not, we... believe we have very compelling defenses, we are prepared and ready to resume litigation if that's the decision and we're very much looking forward to continuing to fight to protect the villages interest in these cases should that be the decision, thank you.

Thank you, a time. Before we go into public comment, are there any questions or comments from the Council. I'll say, Mr. Mayor.

Go ahead, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Vice Mayor David Wolf. So good to see everybody here. We hope you guys come to all of our meetings. It would be much more exciting. So anyway, welcome. Good to have everybody here. Again, just for the record, I would say, and I won't make it long because I look forward to hearing from anybody, but... From my perspective, I am ready to make a motion and to vote on a motion, but I will hold that off and wait to hear everybody's comments. I think for me, it's clear what direction we should take. And so that's all I have to say. I look forward to hearing everybody's comments and then we'll make a motion later. Thank you. Yeah, Councilman Sklar.

I think both yourself and Eitan put it very, very clearly. When you watched Matthew's video, he was all about affordability, affordability, we're giving back to the community. How you go from 208 units of affordable housing to 18 units is kind of ridiculous. It really is crazy. At the end of the day, the hotel increased 5x from what the original plan was. So he's pretty much letting us know he wants to have a hotel. And that's what he's showing us. He doesn't care about affordable housing. We have to really keep that in mind. So Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for your time.

City Council Chambers, Thank you so i'm going to just read the item that we are that i'm going to then call up the public to speak on, so. City Council Chambers, This is to receive consider and possibly take action regarding the mediated settlement proposal regarding the bell harbor shops live local act development application and related matters. So with that, I'm going to call up our first speaker, and I'm going to call up the following speaker so that folks are ready to go and we're not waiting for other people to approach the mic. So our first speaker is former Mayor Martin Packer, and our next speaker is going to be former Vice Mayor Joni Blatcher. Oh, you're not speaking. Okay. And then after Martin Packer, I'm going to call up Bay Harbor Islands Mayor Isaac Salver.

Here, here, here.

Hold it for me.

Good evening, guys.

Is it on? It's working.

Number one, I want to thank the council.

It's not on.

All right.

i want to thank the council number one first of all i can't uh add to anything that george added in the beginning because of the fact uh 15 years ago i believe it was about 15 years ago we went through the same thing and i was on the other side of the dais as far as the shops We shouldn't be referring to the shops as such. We should be referring to the family, which they put up on their sign. It's a family owned complex. The thing is, I think the family may be in trouble because of the fact they have two of their largest shops on the property that are in bankruptcy. Now, I don't know if these Saks and Neiman Marcus are paying rent. They may not be. I have no idea what's going on with the bankruptcy. But the family is in trouble, not the shops. And I would even agree if the shops say they want to have 20 more new stores there and forget about a hotel. The hotel has been being pushed for over 20 years, maybe 25 years. And we've had meetings and meetings the village people have voted 90% that it should not be expanded. As far as individual stores, if they want to increase their stores in there, I would have no problem. Traffic is awful as it is right now, and we have only two streets, one north-south and one east-west, and you cannot add anything else in it, even if they want to have 18 more affordable units. It's ridiculous.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Marty. Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council, No, I'll face this way, because this is for you guys mostly. I'm Mayor Isaac Salver from the town of Bay Harbor Islands. Although our town has not taken official position on this matter, I'm going to share some personal thoughts with you. I just want you to know that you guys did a great job, because I'm looking at the analysis that was done on this proposal, and It was denied, but it was denied with very specific purposes and very specific reasons. One, the hotel, which it seems that the shops are really pushing the hotel, the hotel, the hotel. The hotel, the height of this hotel that's being proposed is absolutely prohibited for the business district code. And it's funny, in the video that we saw, You know, the core purpose was making a community center for the community. Don't be fooled by that. The core purpose is profit, period, end of story. The notion of putting 1.2 million square feet on Collins Avenue when it takes you 20 minutes to get from the Hollover Bridge to Bay Harbor Islands is, or more, is, okay, I was listening to good music. I apologize. But, you know, not only should this denial be supported wholeheartedly and full-throatedly, Each and every one of you that are listening to this meeting should speak to the Florida legislature and correct this Live Local Act once and for all. When this was first proposed in 2023, I thought it was kind of a joke, the state preempting everything that local municipal authority stands for. preempting at all, like 80 years of planning we did to make our environment, our towns beautiful, they're just saying, guess what? Erase all that, we're taking over now. And that is absolutely unacceptable. So with that, I just want to close by saying you guys are doing your job. You're doing it incredibly well, especially you in the middle. I'm super proud of you. And I love all of you. Keep up the good fight.

Thank you.

Jose Bitton and David Cuiat, our next two speakers. Whatever you want.

That way, you can face that way. Face that way. I'm not supposed to say my address. Joseviton 168 Park Drive?

Yes. Joseviton 168 Park Drive. So I've been thinking about the proposal, and I wanted to think about it with respect to different stakeholders that may or may not be here, right? The shops, the Whitman family put up a beautiful video It actually looked like they didn't use AI, which was kind of nice. So I commend them for that. The video talked about, you know, families and affordable housing and how much they love the community, which is really nice again. But then, I don't know if you guys noticed the sort of sleight of hand, which I commend you for. When the lawyer got up here, he talked about how they're going to win this case. He talked about their legal argument after telling us that he's not going to tell us about legal strategy. Okay? So it's all horse manure. So let's talk about the different stakeholders. We'll start with the school, which is in Bay Harbor. The school is... doesn't have any more room for students. I mean, we're all adults here, but that school is bursting at the seams. It cannot hold new students, right? So I don't know where you guys are planning to put new students when you build this building, which has 18 units of affordable housing and the rest. Jose, Jose.

Sorry. Eitan represents us.

He's a good guy. So it has 18 units of affordable housing and the rest is not affordable. So I don't know where these students are going to come in. It doesn't change the subject matter. Number two, the current residents of the neighborhood. And by the neighborhood, I'll go to 33154 as a whole, right? I think that the traffic concern that was brought up is real. It's something that we're all feeling. We go from a three-lane road to a two-lane road, which causes a bottleneck. It's a big pain for all of us that live here, and we are already concerned. So that's a huge issue. Lastly, something that people may not consider is, I don't know how many people go to the beach on a regular basis, but even that's starting to feel really packed as it is already. There's never any parking under the bridge for those of us that want to park there and walk over. There's not enough space as it is. Um, and the last point, which was brought up by a friend is I think that living in a community is about balance and finding out, finding the right balance between your, your time is up.

I'm sorry to interrupt you. Okay.

Finding the right balance between the schools, the students, the residents, and clearly this, this proposal would completely offset that balance. Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Kliat, and if the remaining speakers can address their comments to the council, I think it would be more appropriate. I know, like, stand on... Yeah, yeah, just... Yeah, let's just address the council. I realize that there's a lot of emotion here. People are excited and passionate, but this is still our... We're the ones making the decision, so address comments here, and... Yes, and Eitan Mark is our attorney. He's a good guy. Yes. Okay, Mr. Kouyat, go ahead.

Okay. First of all, thank you for letting me speak. This is Deja Vu. Somewhere around 15 years ago, the Balhabar Citizens Coalition said, which no longer exists, most of the people have since passed. We passed an ordinance, got about 87% of the vote in favor of keeping the maximum height as currently is on the west side of Collins Avenue. This is on the west side of Collins Avenue. The proposals from the state, really refers to cities, not small villages. And we are a small one-mile village. And the Balhauber shops will never stop trying to take advantage. They enjoy lawyers. And we need to stand up against this. because it will hurt us. Traffic is horrendous during the season. We are not prepared to have an influx of people. And how much longer can we put up with their nonsense? And even... The construction of a cut by their shops now and working on it over a year and helping with the traffic congestion. It's not helping anything else. I think we should vote this down and try to put it to bed forever. I mean, it's just too much. It is not for Bell Harbor. This is for a city. This is not a city. This is a village. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next three speakers, Nancy Shammi, Bhavik Rahab, John Diamond.

Thank you for

all your work and having us speak. Yes. I guess I want to, first of all.

Yeah, name and address for the record.

Okay, Nancy Shammy, 9705 Collins Avenue.

Thank you.

That's fine. I'm kind of confused by the proposal because this whole issue started with the Live Work Act And it has to be 40%. So I don't know what that was that he just proposed because, you know, the idea of ramming a mixed use project is through the 40%. So, I mean, that didn't make sense at all. But what I really wanted to talk about was the critical concerns regarding the safety and welfare of the community and the environment. And what really scares me, if we allow this to happen, is it a precedent for the entire west side of Collins to go high rise? That's number one. Secondly, the proposal is not consistent with Bell Harbor's historical low density comprehensive plan and future land use map. It's the FAR, the floor area density was two times what is currently allowed, and the building height was 450% increase. I did notice one thing when I read the act, and I don't know if it was the most current because you're saying they have changed it, but there was an exception that said that if Um, two sides of the project are, um, bordered by single family zone, residential 25 homes or more. Um, and what that they have to restrict it to 150% of the residential. When I look down from my terrace and I look at the site, I see homes on the west side and I see homes on the, um, on the west side and the south border. Now there's only a couple because there is the city community center there. But that is an exception that would limit it to three stories. So I don't know if anybody's looked into that. So I thought I'd bring that up. The other thing is Bell Harbor is a FEMA designated flood zone of extreme risk. The last FEMA flood map was completed in 2009, which was 17 years ago and 12 years before the Champaign Towers fell down. We are having increasing sea levels and king tide flooding occurring more frequently. And I mean, I think you have to go to the safety. Is this project going to hurt our community and can it handle the growing density? During flood and storm evacuations, can we handle the density?

Mrs. Shemi, your time is up.

Okay. I just want to say the LOS level of service is critical, and you're not going to be able to get off the barrier islands.

Thank you. Thank you. And I know you brought up several questions. Our village manager is writing down all the questions, and they will be addressed at the conclusion of public comment. Babik Raheb, John Diamond, and A.J. Schachtel. Those are our next three speakers.

Well, I have one for Drive. If I may, the video was interesting. First of all, in order for you to be a neighbor, you've got to live here. The only Whitman that I knew was a late Mr. Whitman, and he lived in the gated community, and he used to be the member of the Bal Harbor Club. And I think people forget that during the oldest time of the late Mr. Whitman, he never spoke up against the violation of the Bal Harbor Club. How many of you do know that until 1982, there was a sign right there in Bal Harbor Security Dog that says no dogs and no Jews allowed. And Mr. Whitman never spoke as an influential business person to get rid of it. So let's talk about the history of Mr. Whitman, all of this family nonsense, which is bogus. Second, they're talking about 528 units for two million square feet. Little calculation that comes up to 3,303, basically if you divide it per unit. Now they go to 1.2 million for 180 units, basically doubling what they're asking, and they take the so-called affordable housing from 211 to 18. You see the bottom line is money. We've been fighting them. We should continue to fight. And I go one step further. First of all, Mr. DeSantis is going to be out. So let's fight until he gets off and maybe we get a better governor. And then we could pass a better laws. And if we don't, This community voted. This community made a deal with Bal Harbour Shops. And the deal was, if you accept the expansions, they forego the hotel and everything else. They want a renege on it. They keep suing, and they sue because they think they have money, they have power, and they could think. And we should not quit. If we have to sue the state of Florida in a federal court, we should do it as being unconstitutional. Beside the traffic that it will cause, and I love George when he said the other day, we talked about the city hall that we're going to build. You got to get used to traffic. You think about how many years that's going to take and what's going to do with the infrastructure, the sewer system, the water system. We cannot have this kind of a mega units being built. It does not affect the infrastructure. So I ask all of you, please vote. against this, do not settle, fight, fight.

Thank you. John Diamond, AJ Shechtel, and Nina Rudolph.

Good evening, gentlemen, ladies. Thank you so much. My name is John Diamond. I am a resident of the St. Regis in Bell Harbor. In fact, I'm four years running the vice president of the association there. So I understand both aggravation and litigation. So you have my deepest respect. I think what you're looking for today, I don't want to be repetitive what everybody else is saying. I think what you're looking for today is a cue from your residents, from your friends and your neighbors, what you should be doing as elected officials. And I think it's very clear that we would like to fight this to the very end, and whatever needs to be done, we will be willing to do, and you have our 100% support.

Thank you. AJ Schachtel, Nina Rudolph, Doug Rudolph.

Good evening, AJ Schachtel, One Bell Harbor. This is an abomination beyond any expectation that unfortunately may have a chance of being built. This boils down to a legal analysis, a legal analysis that we haven't been made privy to, but you guys, I suppose, have, hopefully, in a lot of... Mic drop.

That's a sign.

Just hold it. I'm sorry. It's a legal analysis. Was the contract binding? Was the application deficient? And on and on and on. What's the law now? What's the law going to be? But the question is, Ultimately, and I'm on the budget committee of the village, we have the funds to fight this. We just have to have the determination to put up those funds and if necessary, raise more. We have the funds to do that also if we need to. But do we have the resolve to stick with this? Can we take other actions against the shops, such as calling for a community boycott of not only this village, but the neighboring residents in the towns that are all going to be affected by the traffic and the construction and everything else and all the things that everybody can talk about? Do we have the ability to boycott the shops and the restaurants that depend significantly on people who are in this room and the friends of people who are in this room? And... So be strong and of good courage. Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Nina Rudolph, Doug Rudolph, Diane Randolph.

Bring my husband up with me. Hi, guys. Nina Rudolph, 212 Bell Bay Drive. Again, I'll make this quick. But a couple of years ago, we were in the same position. And I said, it's so nice, again, to be at a meeting where 100% of the people are for 100% to have you guys fight, as you can clearly see from here. The main thing I think that we're going to take away, these guys couldn't build a parking garage properly. I don't know if anybody has to drive into the Val Harbor shops, but it's an abomination. So to have the confidence that they would actually be able to build something to begin with in any way, they were not going to affect our traffic. They closed down 96th Street for two years. We couldn't move. Look what they built. I have zero confidence in them. I've lived here for 50 years and watched Bell Harbor grow. And it's a beautiful place and special people. And to see it change to something that we wouldn't be able to drive anywhere or do anything would be absolutely horrible. Guys, I just want to thank you because I think you can see how we feel. fight them. You have all of our power. I know that the Zoom is actually, they can't, there's so many people. So everybody is very upset about it. And thank you for doing a great job. Thank you. Thank you.

Doug, you're going to follow your wife? Okay. Doug Rudolph, Diane Randolph, and Anne-Marie Kelly-Stopa.

Yeah, they say not to follow little kids or animals, but you certainly don't want to follow your wife. Couple things. Yeah, she lived here for 50 years. I moved here 30 years ago. And I realized something when we moved here. The real value and strength of this village is that you guys are us guys. These seats come and they go. You heard from Martin Packer. You heard from Gabe Broisman. Everybody's here, Johnny Blanchard. You're us. We're together on this. And I think that what you're hearing tonight is that you have 150% backing of this community to stand your ground, OK? This is an issue, as you guys said at the beginning, that's the most important issue we've ever faced. We all really do live here, as opposed to what those guys said. So we deal with it all the time. We all have our lives tied up in this community, in our houses, in our homes, the values of what we've done, our children, our grandchildren. Since I moved here 30 years ago to live with my wife, I've heard constantly about all the great things that the Whitman's and the shops have done for us. You know what, guys? Honestly, they don't do anything for us. They do everything for themselves. That's what it's always been and always will be. And all this hogwash that they spread all the time This great live local thing they were so concerned about. As Buzzy said, we're down to 18 units now, and it'll be zero. It doesn't really matter. It's never about us. It's always about them. I think I'm not going to take the time to talk about all the reasons why we shouldn't allow this. You all know what they are. We live with them. I just want to say this. It's very difficult, as Eitan said, when you're in litigation. It's scary. You're spending money. You don't know where the end is. I will say this to you. We're a very lucky, wealthy community. And I think everybody here wants to stand up and have you guys stand up for us and spend whatever it takes. You have our blessing. You have our backing. Please continue to be our representatives and make this thing the least it can possibly be. Let it go away. Fight it, whatever it takes. That's what we need to do.

Hi, Diane Randolph, 10185 Collins Avenue. I've owned in Bell Harbor for close to 30 years and lived here full-time for the last five. I spent my career in retail, and I would challenge you to look at the Whitman family's claim of affordability. When are they going to kick out a Fendi and replace it with a Gap so that the people who might be living here could actually shop, right? Luxury retail, for the first time, in my 40 years in retail, is suffering a serious decline. And it's always been impervious to all kinds of economic downturns, but not lately. So they're scrambling, right? So I just, again, like everyone else has said, totally support you. We're behind you. We'll do whatever it takes to shut this down. The infrastructure cannot support it. Even before the construction started, it's just untenable and can't be sustained. Thank you.

Thank you. Anna Marie Kelly Stopa, Monique Benun, and John Bakshi.

Good evening. I started here when I was nine months old. I am now 77.

Name and address for the record.

Pardon me, dear.

Name and address for the record.

I can't give you my address because I'm in litigation. Okay. And I will explain it later. But my name is Anna Marie Kelly Stopa. I started at this hotel when I was nine months old. So I think I have a lot of history that goes to all of this. And I have questions. I don't have answers. And I think before anything is decided, before anybody picks a side, Questions need to be answered and brought to the residents who live here. It's very simple. I was the first one to break the barrier to the restrictions. I sold to a Jewish family with the help of the Logan family. And it's not about exclusion, it's about inclusion, to make it into a real community. We don't need to argue, we need to sit down and discuss. And I think the most important discussion is number one, have they paid what they promised in 2018? I don't know. I don't think so. Because at the last town council meeting, where they're going to move the police and the town and everybody else. No, they're not going to pay. Okay. Well, that means they can't keep their word. I would like an agreement where they must keep their word that there is a fund that is set aside for the issues that they have promised to keep. The second thing is, how long is this going to take? I haven't heard. In 2018, it was seven years. Well, that went out the window. We're still going into construction. How long is this going to take? I want to know, because I don't want to have to sit in an hour in my car to get from 163rd Street to Bell Harbor. I think that's everybody's concern. The biggest concern is, how are we going to get ambulances in? How are we going to get out of town in case there's a hurricane? How is this all happening? It's got to be explained before any judgment is made. The other thing that I have is, why are we in litigation for so long? This is more toward the attorneys. There is such a thing called mandatory arbitration. You present your case and it's resolved. You don't have a choice.

Your time is up.

What?

Your time is up. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I think you should arbitrate.

Okay. Monique Benoon, John Bakshi, Amanda Hand.

Good evening. My name is Monique Benin. Sorry, I'll be reading off of this. 9801 Collins Avenue. Most of the people already said the most intelligent things, which are the risk of flooding. I'm a former science teacher. You build, there's going to be more flooding. It's one plus one is two. That's it. The other thing is, as the woman just mentioned, emergency vehicles. We have an older population, but even not older population, it doesn't even matter. We must make sure that people can be treated or emergency vehicles can get through. It would be a terrible, terrible hazard having more people living there. We all want to see people be able to live in where they want, how they can afford best, but we have serious concerns about this. And I'm wondering, was there an independent study done, or was this just the shops who have made their studies done, analyses based on how much the area can support, how many people? Have there been independent agencies doing those studies? Were there alternative locations that these people may... present their hotels and apartments and affordable housing? I mean, why does it have to be when there's already too much traffic? Storm drainage, sanitation, sewer, emergency vehicles, local ordinances, as the mayor had said, over 80 years protecting the way our village looks and all of a sudden everything's going to change because of a Florida state law. I think we do need to propose things to the state And I thank everybody here, everybody that showed up, showing that it's so important to us. Thank you for all your time. And I'm wondering if we have some recourse for the frivolous lawsuits brought against us time after time after time at some point. Don't they have to pay for it? Isn't there something unfair about having to defend ourselves constantly? Maybe they should... Have to pay for some of that. Thank you very much.

Thank you. John Bakshi, Amanda Hand, Ellie Freund.

Hi, my name is John Bakshi, 1155 Collins Avenue. I just have one quick question. We entered into an agreement with those guys, and if they're not honoring the agreement, can't we renege on their agreement as well too? Is there some sort of a strategy to that?

Questions are being taken and answered at the public comment.

That's it. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay. Amanda Hand, Daniel Goldfarb, and Cindy Pereira.

Hi, good evening. Amanda Cork Hand, offices at 1395 Brickell Avenue on behalf of the Bell Harbor North and South Condominium at the St. Regis. I came here tonight not really knowing what is on the agenda because the agenda is a little ambiguous. It does sound like you're looking for a blessing from your residents about a settlement or continued litigation, but... I think the big question is, are any of these proposals approvable? Is the settlement proposal even approvable under the Village Code? And I don't know that we have enough detail, you know, with one slide to see even what is going on here. But the crux of the matter is, A reasonable proposal by a good neighbor doesn't have to hide proposals and details from the neighbors. You have a room full of people here. Everything that has been done by the developer in this case is to avoid facing the public. That's what the Live Local Act does. You can avoid facing the public by going through an administrative process. You don't have to face your neighbors. In addition, then you go to court, you go to closed-door mediation without your stakeholders. Now we have a nice video message tonight. I represent the Bal Harbor North and South that's immediately across the street. Bal Harbor Shops has not reached out to them at all. So that's a problem. If you are a good neighbor with a reasonable proposal, you should be reaching out to your neighbors. You should be talking to them directly, not sending a video message, not trying to avoid facing the public at a hearing. So I'll reserve any of my legal objections for another day.

Thank you. Daniel Goldfarb, Cindy Pereira, and Sandy Goldfarb.

Hello, good evening. It's very clear that... Name and address for the record. Daniel Goldfarb, 59 Camden Court. Thank you. It's very clear that these people don't care about us because they don't even show up here. And if the state of Florida care about us, they should do something. Because when we are in the election time, they come here, they come to our school, they come to this city, and they tell that they care about us. And if they don't care about us, We should sue them as well and prove that they are wrong with this law, not only the Whitmans, also the state. And it is what it is, not only for our city, for other cities that are going to be in this situation after us. Because as soon as this happens, it's going to happen in other cities as well. That's the only thing that I have to say.

Thank you. Sandy Pereira, Sandy Goldfarb, and Leon Wolf.

Hello, Cindy Pereira, 9705 Collins Avenue. I've lived in the St. Regis for more than 10 years. I used to live in a village, and now I already feel like I live in Brickell. It takes me 40 minutes to pass five blocks and 96th Street after dropping off my kids at school. There's been so much construction, I feel like it has taken over all my memories of the view I used to have. Can't imagine moving forward what many, many years of construction will feel like. I live in the 24th floor, and sometimes my son wakes up in the middle of the night from the banging of construction, 2 a.m., 3 a.m. It's constant. I also feel my building infrastructure has shifted from the constant construction all around, so it can't be good for any neighboring building. To think that in the future there will be about a 21% increase of residents, hotel guests in Ball Harbor sounds like I will need a helicopter to get out of my building. I understand that affordable housing is an issue, but literally any corner will make more sense in this intersection. I think it will actually repulse people from coming around. If Mr. Whitman really lives here, then he will know that our traffic is unbearable at certain times of the day, already without all these extra buildings. If he really cared about our village, then he will know that a village usually consists of up to 2,500 people. Currently, there's about 3,100. What Mr. Whitman wants to do is create a Brickell City Center. He should find another zip code to do that. Thank you.

Sandy Goldfarb, Leon Wolf, and Nika Logan.

Hi, Sandy Goldfarb, 133 Camden Drive. A lot of the points that I had on my mind have been mentioned, but one of the things I want to remind us all is that we also have rights. We have rights as a community and as a city to Um, if you were to look online at, at city planning considerations, there's a lot of considerations that are being neglected with the building of this, uh, hotel and space. Um, one of which is not to mention that's been mentioned as the source. Having good functioning source is a priority, but also if we continue to block off these arteries to the ocean, to, to the ocean. what we're doing is we're creating a space that's very stagnant and we live in a tropical climate. And I think we should really consider that the health and wellbeing of the neighborhood is at stake. We have the big, large green wall that was put up and now we would be closing off another one of our boundary walls. So just in terms of the health and safety of the community, I think that's another consideration to take.

Thank you. Leon Wolf, Nika Logan, Brian Saltz.

Before I spoke, a clap.

Thank you.

Leon Wolf, 9999 Collins Avenue. I won't repeat everything everybody said already. All the points are really important and well taken. Two things I want to mention. Number one, I don't have the document that was signed with the Whitmans in the village a couple of years ago, but it's incredible that you're telling me that they signed a document saying they wouldn't do X and now they're doing X. I mean, the audacity of some people. And could you imagine if one of their tenants said, you know what, we signed the lease five years ago, but we don't want to pay you anymore. Is that okay? It's incredible. The second thing I want to mention is You know, they've, with slight of hand, reduced the size of the development, but they want 1,200,000 square feet of something. Just to put that in perspective, if you're familiar with the Wachovia building downtown, which is 55 stories tall, that's 1,100,000 square feet. So it's incredible that they want to make this larger than that. I mean, it would be monstrous. traffic, safety, all those things, vote against. Thank you.

Nika Logan, Brian Saltz, and Susan Arum.

Nika Logan, 64 Camden Drive. The people at home haven't been able to all get on. So I think if we have one of these again, it needs to have a larger capacity. That's the first thing. And the Bell Harbor shops is disingenuous. There is nothing that they have done to date that is what they said they would do. They said we'd have fountains. They said the garage would be beautiful. The garage is horrendous. It looks ugly. The traffic is terrible. I think you know the sentiment of everybody in this room, which is we want to keep our community the way it is, beautiful. and meets the needs. And yes, we're feeling squeezed by traffic and all the other things. Last night, an enormous number of neighbors, we had no power for 14 hours, but the Bell Harbor shops had power. So there's a lot of things in the infrastructure that are not functioning well. and they're making it worse. And so I think we will all wanna implore you to continue fighting for us and on our behalf. And even the next person who comes after each of you, it's important because our way of life is being diminished. I was born here and I've lived here for more than 60 years. And I can tell you, this is not the same community that it was when I was younger, even 20 years ago. And we need to preserve what we have because green space and open space and our ability to go to the beach is being diminished all across the state. And the legislature is the big burden. And we need to really fight them because they're making our neighborhoods not pleasant anymore.

Thank you. Brian Salts, Susan Arum, Francis Newhut.

Hi, Brian Salts, 9601 Collins Avenue. First of all, thanks to the council for all the work. Everybody has stood up here with so many constructive comments. Just to echo them, continue the fight. You clearly have the support of the village in 100%. Thank you. Thank you.

Francis Newhart, Sheila Elias Taplin, and Paul Chaplin. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Susan. Sorry, Susan. Yes, Susan's next. Sorry. Yeah. Susan, Francis, and then Sheila.

Susan Aram, 10225 Collins. I feel that the shops are doing sort of a switch and bait on us, that they presented to us this complex because of the Live Local Act that's before us. But all of a sudden, this 18 units that they could possibly get in that Live Local isn't going to do it. And if they're only putting up 180 units, I'm not a developer, but I don't see very much money coming in from that. So the whole thing is based on them wanting this hotel complex. And I think that's what we have to consider that that's what they want. The whole Live Local was just a ruse to get us to accept. Fight. Thank you.

Thank you. Sheila Elias Taplin, Francis Newhut, Paul Chaplin.

I live at 9999 Collins. My late husband was Saul Taplin. He built the Harbor House. And he always remarked about the excellence and the quietness. When you went into Bell Harbor, it had an era about it. The streets were wider. They had the gardening. They checked everybody's gardens. They had a garden thing. All the other things, the infrastructure, this was meant to be a resort town, and it's become a big city. And unfortunately, we do not have the infrastructure for it. And it's extremely serious that we fight this because it's absolutely the way I have an I'm an artist. I have a studio right near Whole Foods on Saturday morning. I could make it maybe in nine, 10 minutes. I come home from at three thirty, four o'clock over an hour, many days. It's remarkable. Anyway, my husband would be heartsick if he saw this. He was so caring about this community. And I hope that you all fight. And I really appreciate all of you. Please keep it up.

Thank you. And I'm reaching the end of the speakers list. So Francis new hot our last three speakers unless someone wants to go pick up, you know, fill out a card. Also, I want to give the opportunity anyone who doesn't want to speak but wants to raise their hand, showing that they are against us proceeding with this proposal, you may do so now. Against Yes, against. Okay. Okay. And anyone wants to raise their hand in favor? Okay. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Newhut.

My name is Frances Newhut. I work at 1060 King Concourse, and I'm representing Bay Harbor Islands. And I would like to speak about the Whitmans. They have destroyed our town. you're going to start to destroy your town. And I want to explain what he has done to our town. Not only that, we don't have the money, I'm sorry, but we just don't have the money to fix our bridges because we have no money. He came to our town and he built a 90,000 square foot church right on the business district, which was not allowed to have this type of usage. They have not paid any real estate taxes on that church. And I'm sure everybody can see it when they come to Bay Harbor. I'm sure you can.

You can't miss it.

Okay, the other thing is, they're still in our neighborhood. They're using our only parking garage. Can you imagine Bell Harbor is using our parking garage? Which I don't understand. But more importantly is, and I will repeat myself, we don't have any money. We are not able to fix our Causeway Island. How are you gonna get over the bridge? How are you gonna get over? Because it's gonna fall apart. and they keep fixing it and fixing it and it's still not to par and we're threatened with that. The other thing is, I heard someone talk about the school, because everyone is affected. All your kids go to Bay Harbor. That's your zoning. With that, we just finished our comprehensive plan, and they did not put in the school element. And if you don't put in the school element, you can't build construction. You can't have more density. And they didn't put it in, and we just finished our comprehensive plan. They took away, we had in Bay Harbor a joint use agreement. That was with the school, because we did building for the school and we were overcrowded. Well, it was only limited to 1,200 students. Now they changed it. The government has changed it to a verification We have people coming in from Miami shores all over the place that don't belong in our school. We're overcrowded and we're back to square one. We don't have a decent school. It's overcrowded and there's nothing for these kids. It's taken up by outsiders. So I don't understand that either. But I have to admit, the other thing with our comprehensive plan, and this is with our, what is it called, the town planner. She comes to our meetings. She's looking at plans from 2008. Those are the traffic studies in there from 2008. Can you imagine these traffic studies that they're building?

Thank you.

Our last two speakers, Paul Chaplin and Mike Manzi. Or Manzo. I'm not sure if that's an I or an L.

My name is Paul Chaplin, 108 Balbay Drive. I want to say that we really appreciate what the council has been doing and will continue to do because I'm totally opposed to these tall buildings on this property. I think we also would like to know what actual is the legal process because are we ever forced into binding arbitration? Does this go to litigation in front of one judge or a jury and what's going to happen? And the other thing is, did you ever consider if Neiman and Sachs are really going bust and they're not paying rent, how about taking a three-story hotel and a three-story condo and tell them to go away? Thank you.

Our final speaker for the evening, Mike Manzi. Am I pronouncing that right?

Perfect. Okay. Excellent. Good evening, everybody. Thank you. You've heard the community. We're asking for you to continue this fight. Thank you. What I'd like to do for this community and all of us want to do is help you. Get us a list of people who we need to contact in the state government, because that's where we have to go with this as well. Also, also get us the names of those people and get us a letter, the form letter that we can email or send. Let us help. The other way if we can help as a community I am still a businessman. Hit them in the pocketbooks. We've said it. We as a community have to live it. We can speak all we want. Let's do it. Stop frequenting the shops. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Well, we had a very robust dialogue. It was great to hear. Did you fill out a speaker's card?

Okay.

Okay. Okay. So go ahead. Is there I just want to because I want to close public comments. I want to know, are there any other speakers in the audience tonight that wish to speak? Please be recognized now. Okay, I see. So just these two speakers. Okay, go ahead. Name and address for the record.

I'm Stephen Sachs. And I live in the plaza of Bell Harbor, right next to the Oceana, which you guys approved. I live on the north side. And the moment they put up the Oceana. If you look at the prices on the north side, they declined about 30%. Now, we have some women here from the St. Regis. I think, quite frankly, you could get another party to put up some money for litigation with the St. Regis because their view and their property is going to go down because of the construction, the noise, and... Again, I can tell you from the facts that our property has declined, my property, about 35%. So it's the same as the South, and I paid that premium for a beautiful, spectacular view. Now, the other point that I want to make, and two people brought it up about the traffic, but not the traffic from an inconvenience point of view, but specifically for medical reasons, for ambulances. Now, I happened to look at the north side, and I was looking... out that one day when there was traffic from the Hanover Bridge to where I'm in the plaza, there was an ambulance with its siren going. And you have those red light cameras. I could say it took about 15 to 20 minutes from the top of the Hanover Bridge to the plaza. That being said, I decided because I lived in New York, very close to the World Trade Center. And they said in New York, if you see something, say something. So I decided to call up the village of Val Harbor police. So there's a record of that me calling. And they said you should call the Dade County up 911, which I also called. So I hope that person made it to wherever they were going, but the ambulance was blasting and the people were not moving because they saw that red light. So this is separate distinct of the new buildings. So that's the only point I want to make. The most important thing is not the inconvenience. I don't mind waiting two hours, three hours, or whatever it may be, but I don't want to be dead. or somebody else being dead because the ambulance can't get through. And somehow the village needs some assurance for the residents here that medical takes priority. And I don't think that's been addressed. That's the only point I wanted to make. Thank you.

Final speaker of the evening, name and address for the record, please.

Okay, Charlene RJ, 9801 Collins. The legal counsel, and you guys talked about a mediated... A mediated solution is when both parties come up with a compromise that's acceptable to both parties, and then you go and see if everybody accepts. If you're going to talk a little bit at the end and answer some questions, if you could just explain... And you mentioned that the judge is a very reputable judge and he's trustworthy and we could trust him. Like, why isn't the mediated solution more reflective of what concerns Bell Harbor? So why is the mediated solution, it's not mediated because it's the Whitman's solution that they're offering like a new proposal. So I'm just wondering why wasn't the judge or why can't the judge go back and really make a way more mediated solution. Maybe there is no mediated solution, but if there is a mediated solution, it should be reflective of both parties desires. Anyways, if you could discuss that, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you.

And before staff begins, before staff begins addressing the comments that have been brought up, I do want to recognize Surfside Commissioner Andrea Trevani. Thank you. Would you like to address the community or no? Oh, OK.

good evening everyone um so i'm here on uh my personal capacity because we didn't have the opportunity to uh discuss this with the with the commission but uh personally uh this is something that i've been really trying to wrap my head around this the the concept uh behind the live local act which On one side, obviously, it's trying to address an issue. We all know that it is an issue in Florida. But on the other side, more at the technical level, this idea that the local conditions like traffic infrastructure are not considered is something that is... To me, I don't know, I can't really process that. So anyway, I really support your fight here. I hope you'll be successful. And yeah, and thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you.

Okay. George, you want to start?

Yeah, are you bringing it back up so I can try to address it? Yeah.

Public comment is closed. I appreciate you all making your voices heard.

Okay. I was taking good notes, but we'll see how good they were. A lot of the questions that came up surrounded what is called our concurrency and our level of service, whether it's water capacity, sewer capacity, traffic capacity, school capacity. emergency vehicles, all of those things were evaluated as part of our initial review of the application. And that's part of what led to the denial in November of 2024. I don't have them off the top of my head, of course, but what we will do is tomorrow on our website, we will post the actual denial letter. So if whoever wants to go and read it for themselves, they'll have an opportunity to do so. It's online already, but it'll make it easier if I just put it right to the front. But all of those considerations were reviewed by professionals, not just our staff. And for the various reasons that you'll read, we determined that the application did not meet the adequacies and we denied it accordingly. So I grouped all of those questions together. As it relates to the how long this will take to build, Your guess is as good as mine. Past experience on construction is whatever they've undertaken at the shops has taken longer than they even anticipated. It is their intention or stated intention that many of these buildings will be phased. So it's not their intention to build them all at once. that's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, you're gonna see construction, but if they're sequenced over time, then it's just that much more. So it is safe to say that it could be 10 or plus years of construction beyond the eight or 10 that you've already experienced. And that's something that we brought to the table and said, that's a concern. There's a fatigue associated with the construction that has already taken place. As it relates to frivolous lawsuits, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to let the lawyers speak to that if he's so inclined. I think part of the strongest piece of our defense is the development agreement that was entered into in 2017 and subsequently amended. And again, it's available online and it is very thorough and very precise. And the important thing to take with that is it's together with a site plan that was approved at the same time. And that site plan pretty much dictates every inch of the property, what will or will not happen on that site plan. And that's part of the argument we make is that the Live Local Act, while its intended uses are what they are, it did not intend and it clearly doesn't preempt existing contracts. And that's the crux of the live local argument that is being litigated. So we feel very strongly, they feel strongly on their side, and that's a judge ultimately will determine. As it relates to someone who said, well, is this an agreed upon settlement? As I mentioned, this is the best and final offer that the Whitman family developers have proposed. We have not accepted it from our perspective, but what we did insist on is that we did want to have public transparency, and so that's what you're seeing today. So no, it's not your typical mediated settlement where an agreement was reached and we're now here to present it. I'm trying to find if I had any others. What is the legal process? Well, it depends on what the council does today. Obviously, if it's accepted, then it would need to be memorialized as an agreement, a development agreement of some sort, maybe an amendment to the one that exists today. And then from that, another question came up about, is it approvable? It would require ordinance amendments. whatever they're proposing, whether it's the original proposal or the settlement proposal, in either instance, our current zoning ordinance does not allow for what is being proposed and it would require a series of ordinance changes, text amendments and the like that would be required to be approved together with the development agreement. If the council determines to not accept this proposal and instead pursue litigation, then buckle up. We'll be in a battle and that'll be what it will be. I'm trying to see if I have missed any questions. Mr. Mayor, Intended DA, are there any settlements approvable? Frivolous lawsuits, I'll let the lawyers. I talked a lot about the levels of service. Why is litigation taking so long? In part, that bodes to our benefit and in parts it bodes to their benefit. Sometimes legal strategy is to extend it and prolong it. The longer we are litigating, the longer the development doesn't happen and then other things could occur. So it's a double-edged sword as well. I think those are the questions that I captured, Mr. Mayor, if Susan or Eitan wishes to come up.

A couple of very quick points. Atomark, I represent the village. So there was a question about attorney's fees. We are seeking, under the development agreement, there's what's called a prevailing party fee provision, which means that the winner of the fight relating to the development agreement is going to get attorney's fees. So it works either way. We've invoked that clause. They have it as well. There's some statutory basis for attorney's fees as well in one of the cases involving the noise ordinance. There was some confusion, I think, about the mediator's proposal, the mediation process. Let me just make sure everybody understands what we're talking about. Even though Judge Hansman is a retired judge, he doesn't have the ability to decide this dispute for anybody at this time. We go into the mediation and we spent, like I said, a lot of time chopping wood. He, towards the end of that mediation, made what's called a mediator's proposal, which is a non-binding suggestion that this is something that the parties may wish to consider. It was not what you saw, but it was a variation of that. And again, as I mentioned, there is risk on both sides. And the sign of a successful mediation, as any mediator will tell you, is that neither side is happy. The suggestion from the mediator's perspective and from the shop's perspective is that the proposal, that they were not happy with their proposal either. They viewed it as a significant concession. That could be gamesmanship. That could be tactics. That's just what we were told. And as I said, that was what they indicated was their best and final offer. That was a little bit about the mediation process and how we landed where we were. There was a question about arbitration. Arbitration generally is not appealable. There's usually a lot of legal reasons why arbitration would want to be avoided. In this particular case, it wouldn't be available in any event. There was a question about a jury trial. None of these cases are going to the jury with the exception of the one, I believe, in the federal takings case, which that George alluded to earlier. I believe there was a demand for a jury trial in that case. But the other four are all going to be in front of a judge, and the judge is going to be the ultimate decision maker.

Thank you. Mr. Mayor, let me mention a couple of others that came late that I didn't pick up on. There were a series of different questions regarding the development agreement itself. And I think it's important to mention, I think somebody said, well, maybe we can renegotiate it or can we withhold things that were to the benefit of the shops since they're holding things from us. Essentially, that's what they should be doing, is renegotiating a development agreement, but they've chosen a different approach. The development agreement is an agreement like any other. Two parties can mutually agree to amend it. It's been amended twice since the time it was first entered into, and it could be amended again, but that, you know, it takes two parties to do that, and the other party has chosen litigation instead, in part because they feel the Live Local Act provides them certain rights that they did not have prior, and therefore they want to, I guess, take advantage of those. Unfortunately for us, a lot of the benefits that inured to the shops under the development agreement had to do with zoning and the ability to expand their existing footprint, which they're in the midst of doing. Permits have been issued. They're under construction. Newsflash expect that they will have the shops opening September of this year. We'll see. But those are all kind of in the works. So it's impossible for us to now pull the permits and suggest that they cannot complete it. By the same token, a lot of the public benefits that were in yearing to the villages benefit have already been received as well. So a lot of those exchanges that occurred as part of the development agreement have already been performed. There are a few elements that are still outstanding, but nothing that I would suggest is the material part of the project. But, yes, we could renegotiate, and that's something that perhaps one would argue that this mediation might be a renegotiation at that point. The other thing is the notion of the Live Local Act and what it did and didn't require, and does it open a precedent? The state keeps changing it, as I mentioned. Basically, every year, they are adding more and more preemptions. As it currently stands, it does not appear to us that it would allow for similar projects to occur beyond the site that is the shops. In other words, whoever asked about the west side of Collins, right now, as it's written, we do not believe that it would be an eligible project, but the legislature meets every year. And that's the issue is that every year the legislature meets and every year there's the possibility that some change could occur, including things that might be detrimental to us and our argument here. And that's something that we need to be cognizant of is that there have been efforts in prior sessions just two years ago to add a preemption for development agreements. In other words, that the state would preempt the development agreement and then that argument would be theoretically mooted. We were successful in preventing that from happening, but that doesn't mean it can't come up again in a future session. The proposal that is a settlement though, it's very clear that you should remember, that is not a Live Local Act proposal. The original proposal is, and we've denied it for the reasons that you'll be able to read tomorrow. But the proposed settlement is not anywhere near what the Live Local Act calls for. Most importantly, as you've heard about the Live Local Act requires 40% affordable in their units. and this is only 10% or 18 units, that's not a Live Local eligible project. The Live Local Act requires there to be a ratio of commercial versus residential square footage. That proposal does not meet that minimum ratio. um what they're trying to do is suggest that uh in this mediated settlement uh we reach a different agreement that is not a live local act application uh and i just wanted to be clear that that's that that would not travel under necessarily the same one sorry the same moniker um i think that does now cover it i'm happy to answer any questions you may have mr mayor thank you um

I guess before we get into deliberations, are there any comments from counsel or questions for the attorneys or for George?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Is it appropriate to make a motion at this point and then continue conversations? Or just conversations?

Mr. Mayor, I'll comment.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry? I don't know if my mic working? Yeah, there you go. The one thing that I really appreciate is the support of the community. And the continued support of the community is going to be one of the most important things. I think outreach is unbelievable for you guys to get involved with, whether it's calling our local representatives. I don't want to assume, but the Attorney General, it's an election year and donations go a very, very long way in this political arena. So whether it's letter writing, phone calling, donations to the right people to help move the needle, the way that the Whitmans obviously moved the needle, I think it's super important for us to always remember this and get behind it. And that's the best way that the community can help. So we'd really appreciate all that help from you guys. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so we're going to start with Councilman Levy. No, it's fine.

Go ahead.

Yeah, we're going to start with Councilman Levy. If you want to share your comments, say how you feel, then we'll proceed with the voting.

Thank you, Mayor.

Entertaining emotion. Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor. I think that one of the things that comes to my mind right now is something that we read in Pirkei Avot, which is a Jewish reading that we do in these few days of the Omer, which is 49 days that we come from Pesach until we get the Torah and Shavuot. And it says, Who is the wise person? The one who learned from everybody. And I think that what we have heard from the community is that the one has to stand behind them. So we are standing behind them. And so I want to say thank you for everybody for coming here today.

Councilman Sparrow, would you like to share?

No, Mr. Mayor, I think I said my piece. Thank you.

Okay. Vice Mayor Wolff. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a few points. Again, I don't want to be repetitive. I'll just, some that I had noted earlier. Again, we saw the beautiful video of Matthew talking about his family's commitment to our neighborhood and living in our neighborhood. I don't know if most of you know, he doesn't live in our neighborhood anymore. He's moved to North Carolina. But he has this nice place in the St. Regis he comes to every once in a while to do business and I guess check on his investment. So he doesn't have to really deal with the traffic like we are and what he's left behind or what he will leave behind. Again, I think one thing with regards to Live Local, again, a lot of people talked about, hey, what can you do? Why aren't we doing more? So again, I think our attorney, Eitan, discussed it and the mayor and the... And the manager talked about it. We are superseded by this Live Local Act. And so the state has preempted our rights and taken over our rights. We put setbacks, stupid things. And they said, sorry, none of that counts. Whatever they can do, whatever they want. So this this is just something that we don't have a lot of control over. And I think the biggest issue is, I think, like Councilman Sklar said, If people were interested, what we really can do is get a grassroots effort to really go after our legislatures, the Florida legislature, the senators and congresspeople, and really push back on this Live Local. Because as they said, this comes up every year. And they can, again, as these developers go in, this is a windfall for developers. Developers push this Live Local Act forward. to get windfalls and being able to build on this tiny little place huge, huge buildings without any local restrictions so that's a huge effort which hopefully somebody takes on because I think it's most important. Again, he shared in his video how much he cared about affordable housing. We know that his only benefit was he got the windfall of being able to say, hey, we're going to build four big giant stories because he knew all he's ever wanted was a hotel. I think as former Mayor Packer said, they've been asking for a hotel for a long time. So he would use this as an excuse. yeah so they would use this as negotiation you either let us build four buildings which we are able to do or we're going to come back and now we'll get our hotel and one building and so forth with 18 wonderful units that will solve our uh that will solve our traffic issue because people will live live here rather than having to drive to work so obviously this doesn't doesn't make sense um another point i wanted to make um Oh, somebody said just, you know, just vote this down. Obviously, the vote is not voting this down option or not. The vote is whether we continue fighting and we continue our legal battle, which again, I am for and I'll make a motion to do. But it's not totally, you know... We have to realize it's not totally in our hands. Again, if the legislature comes out and changes or if the courts decide that our position is not correct, there is some risk. But I believe and I think everybody shares we take that risk because we know what the other option is. Thank you.

Councilman Fremark. Councilman Fremark.

So let's understand as well that the reason, the primary reason that they're willing to fight as long and hard as they are is that one would estimate that 2 million additional square feet of rights would equate to about $2 billion of value. And one million additional square feet would equate to approximately a billion dollars of incremental value. So that does give the other side a lot of powder. We have to approach this with eyes wide open, though. We have to understand the risks that are involved. I was the one that was at the mediation sessions, all three of them, at Bills and Sundberg, and will provide some comments on the tone and tenor of the discussions and the negotiations. But I do believe it's important that we be aware that this can cut both ways. We can end up with them not being able to do anything, or we can end up with approval of the live local application of 2 million square feet. So there's the legal risk. There is the legislative risk. And as much as we talk about the grassroots effort and everything else, Miami-Dade County, Val Harbor, Florida is not all of Florida. There's a whole lot of the rest of the state that goes north and into the panhandle that are really not terribly sympathetic to what goes on in Miami-Dade County and in South Florida. The developers across the state spent well, and they will continue to spend for further changes to live local. The point that Eitan made on prevailing party fees, and he made this comment as well, works both ways in terms of how that could potentially end at the end of any litigation, however long that it takes. Affordable housing and live local. I'm here to tell you that's part of the world that I live in. In my other job, where I lead Miami Jewish, we have over 1,000 affordable housing units in South Florida, and we're in the process of building more. Live local is very well intended. These guys are abusing it in terms of it. The need for affordable housing in the state is real. It's real in Miami-Dade County as well, but it's not designed nor intended for this use, for this purpose, and for what they're doing with that. Going back to the negotiations, I can tell you that in my view, the negotiations were duplicitous in nature. There were any number of things that were agreed upon in one session, sometimes at the beginning of the session, and these were marathon days, that were then traded back. either at a following session or later in the day. So as much as we can take a look at potential negotiated settlements and so on, you have to be dealing with an honest, credible party on the other side of the table. You just do. You can disagree, and you can disagree vehemently, but you've got to have credibility in whatever that end result is. True, there's a lot of progress that's been made in what you see. You see it going from two million square feet to a million square feet. But it's not enough in terms of what we're feeling, I think, and what we're hearing. And I do compliment the community for being fully engaged and for appearing here this evening. and voicing your concerns and voicing your views. I can't tell you there's any surprise in terms of what we're hearing, but it's important for you to hear where we are, where the negotiations are, as much as can be shared, and for us to hear from you because there's a cost and there's everything else that comes along with that. So I am going to be supportive of continuing to defend the village and to reject the mediator's proposed settlement term sheet once a motion is made.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

So I think everybody has made their voices heard, including the council. Now it's my turn. I just want to say that I am so honored that all of you came out tonight because this what we did tonight, this town hall meeting is really the cornerstone of American democracy. And this is how. Decisions should be made in the public with comments, hearing from experts. And unfortunately, the legislators in Tallahassee sought to cut out this part of the process when they came up with the Live Local Act. And I believe that there are flaws in the Live Local Act that we might be able to exploit, but that's kind of a conversation for another day. But I'm happy that the community is supportive of continuing the fight because I certainly am as well. So thank you all for coming tonight. There are, before we entertain any motions, I know Vice Mayor Wolf is eager. I was notified that there were some emails sent to the clerk from residents that weren't able to attend.

I sent them to your email.

Do you want to read them? No, I'd rather not.

They pretty much echo what everybody said, but it's from Guy Ouellette and Cassie Ouellette.

Yes, okay. So their comments will be incorporated into the record. I do also want to recognize Surfside Vice Mayor Diana Van Merge, who's here tonight. And without further ado, I guess, Vice Mayor, would you like to make a motion?

Sure, it's my pleasure. I'd like to make a motion to direct the administration and the village attorney to communicate to the shops and the mediator that the settlement on the terms discussed this evening is not acceptable and to continue defending the pending lawsuits. Thank you.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. This is a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Passes unanimously. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Motion. We're adjourned. Thank you all.

Here. You want to shred these? Because I have notes and stuff on them.