Planning Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. All right, I'd like to welcome you all to the P a B's public hearing on the 2026 out of cycle application number CDMP 2026 10 and application number CDMP 2026 11 will staff please call the roll.

Yes, good afternoon for the roll call. Lisa Sopata, Carlos Diaz, the drown Eva Fernandez, Jr. Eric fresco Solomon today. Michael can go or a ratio when is Frank logo. Max Lassner. Michael Montiel. They will Morris. Daniel Rogers. Vice chair Thomas. And chair McRae was. Miami school board representative Natalie Simon homestead Air Reserve Base Larry Ventura Mr. Terry do a quorum

All right, thank you. So the PAB was established by the Miami-Dade County Charter and consists of 17 members. The PAB members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, four at-large members, one non-voting member representing Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and one non-voting member representing Homestead Air Reserve Base. We are all residents of Miami-Dade County and serve on this board without pay. It's our responsibility to make recommendations to the commission on planning related issues. The public hearings will be conducted by the P.A.B. 's acting or acting as the county's local planning agency with assistance from the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources Department. The purpose of this hearing is for the P.A.B. to receive public comments on the proposed CDMP amendments and the initial recommendations of the department. and to formulate recommendations addressing whether or not the Commission should first should transmit the standard application number CDMP 2026-0010 and CDMP 2026-0011. The PAB will also make recommendations to the Commission regarding subsequent final action on standard application number CDMP 2026-010 and 2026-011. Persons wishing to speak during the hearing should fill out a speaker card at the desk in the lobby and indicate the application they wish to address so just a little bit here on the public hearing procedure staff staff's going to go ahead and give a brief explanation of the application before public comments will be heard next at the conclusion of the public hearing for that agenda item the planning advisory board is going to adopt a resolution for its recommendation for the board of county commissioners Now on to the chair's report. I've got no items in the chair's report. Let's go ahead and introduce Mr. Garrett Rowe to get the show rolling for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon. Good afternoon, board members. So today, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, we only have two items, so hopefully this meeting will be quick. We have one, both our staff filed applications, so staff will be the only presenters today. I'LL CALL ON MR. JAMES McCALL TO PRESENT THE FIRST ITEM. SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE PODIUM. SO MR. CHAIR, I'M JOINED HERE BY OUR ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, MS. VERONICA SANCHEZ TO MY RIGHT, MS. ROSA DAVIS, OUR PLANNING SECTION SUPERVISOR TO MY LEFT, AND A FEW OTHER STAFF WITHIN RER. AND I WANT TO MENTION ALSO THAT WE HAVE MR. JAMES FERGUSON assistant director with water and sewer department, particularly here on the second item on the agenda. So with that, Mr. Chair, Mr. McCall can make the presentation. Recognize.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS APPLICATION NUMBER CDMP20260010. APPLICANT IS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES. THIS IS A 2026 OUT OF CYCLE STANDARD APPLICATION PRESENTED IN RESPONSE TO BOARD RESOLUTION NUMBER 687-25. THIS RESOLUTION DIRECTED STAFF TO FILE AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CDMP IN THE NEXT AVAILABLE CYCLE, AND IT ASKED US TO AUTHORIZE CONTAINER STACKING AND STORAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STORAGE IN AREAS WHERE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STORAGE IS ALREADY PERMITTED. So the request amend the interpretative text of the agriculture and open land, land use categories and the land use element to allow cargo container storage and stacking in designated areas for and in conjunction with commercial vehicle storage. And there's also a second request to clarify the agriculture text pertaining to temporary parking and storage of passenger automobiles that serve the commercial vehicle storage uses. The staff report mentions ISO standards. Oh, thank you, thank you. There we go. So the staff report references ISO standards. The standard for a cargo ISO 668 is the standard for cargo containers. Your typical container is 20 feet or 40 foot long, your most common sizes, 8 feet tall. You know, the weight is around 5,000 to 8,000 pounds of empty, unladen container. And if you were to stack those four high, in the photo here the left side is the white containers your typical 20-foot cargo container the right side of the image is a typical container stacking and storage operation so you've got a yellow forklift kind of in the back there and you've got the containers stacked three or four high in the photo and and so those The weight could be up to about 32,000 pounds if you were to stack the 20-foot container for high. Currently in the county, there's two distinct areas where commercial vehicles are allowed to be stored. The first one is in the agricultural area east of the urban development boundary, so outside the UDB. east of Florida's Turnpike, south of 326th Street, theoretical 236th Street, north of Southwest 248th Street, and about a half mile west of South Dade Landfill. So this area, cargo containers are permitted to be stored. Currently on a property, it has to be 10 acres or larger to be allowed. The proposed text amendment would permit the stacking and storage of the containers. The area for the cargo storage shall not exceed 20% of the site or one fifth of the site. The containers may be stacked up to the height allowable by right in the agricultural use at the AU zoning district, which is currently 35 feet high. And then there's also a request to clarify the text on temporary parking and storage of passenger automobiles that serve the commercial vehicle storage areas. So that's like if I'm an employee, I could drive my vehicle there and be a forklift operator at the site and the temporary parking would be allowed of the vehicle. There's a second distinct area in the northwest part of the county, open land subarea two. Also with the same rule, the property 10 acres or greater. So that's the agricultural area in the photo there. And this is the second area, the northwest corner of the county. Open land subarea two, east of Okeechobee Road. all the way north to the Miami-Dade Broward County line, west of Florida's Turnpike extension. This area is outside of the urban development boundary, and it excludes the former Opelika West Airport. So currently, commercial truck storage is allowed on 10 acres or greater sites. This proposed text amendment would allow cargo container stacking and storage, not to exceed 25% of the site or one fourth of the site. And also containers may be stacked up to four high in this area. The staff recommendation, transmit and adopt the proposed tax amendments to the CDMP land use element. The two main reasons for that, the proposed allowance of container storage and stacking in conjunction with truck parking, we find compatible with other uses in open land subarea one and agriculture areas. The second reason, the application supports commercial vehicle storage uses in the area. It allows cargo container storage and stacking on sites with a valid certificate of use for commercial vehicle storage. So resolution 687.25 It also mentioned that to the extent necessary, staff shall prepare appropriate legislation to amend the applicable zoning and environmental county code provisions necessary to implement the CDMP amendment. So that would come later. If this CDMP amendment were to be adopted, then staff would work on an update to the zoning code. In the section of the zoning code, is section 33.281, the section that deals with commercial vehicle storage areas. The application schedule, next stop, currently today we're at Planning Advisory Board, September 14th. Next stop is Board of County Commissioners on September 24th. In 10 days and then that's the transmittal hearing for you know consideration by the board and then a future adoption hearing we we expect would be in November of this year and I'm happy to take any questions on the application.

Thank you for the presentation does the board have any questions for staff.

I do have one question. Vice Chair Thomas. Thank you for the presentation. I just wanted to confirm that the areas we're talking about are specifically storage area one and storage area two, regardless of the change to the agricultural land use terminology. So it's just those two areas that we're talking about?

That's correct, right. Currently the land use element has the two figures. The figure 5.1 is the agricultural area, you know, south of, north of 248th Street. And then also the second area is defined in the land use element in figure 5.2. That's the northwest open land subarea one. So those two distinct areas are currently allowed for truck, you know, for commercial vehicle storage.

So to reiterate, they would need to be within those areas and they would need to be designated as agricultural or land use and have the ability to have truck parking. Is that a fair way to say it?

Right that's my understanding right that those 2 areas the truck parking is is allowed in the open land and the agriculture.

If I may miss a chair just what just 1, 1, I guess point of clarification. The the agricultural area there to the South which is just north of to 40 street that areas designated agriculture is roughly 220 plus acres right so that area is specifically a load truck parking. This amendment would allow the container storage and stacking there. The other area is the open land sub-area one that Mr. McCall spoke to. That area is designated open land, not agriculture. So I just wanted to make that clear. But yeah, that area would be allowed the container storage and stacking as well. Okay.

Some areas outside of those zones that are the as agricultural such as horse country and would not have the ability to do this is that correct all right.

Why wouldn't they be allowed to be done in those other areas that are designated agriculture.

The text in the application is specific to the area identified on the figure from 5.1 that Mister McCall showed on screen the 220 acres it does not speak to or provide an allowance for anywhere else, but that area.

Are those areas, those are urban expansion areas.

The the the the Yeah, let me let me double check. Let me double check.

I think one of them is I think the one to the south is where there's currently truck parking there.

So yeah, the area to the south is in the urban expansion area. It's designated ag. And just to reiterate that the text is specific for each of these two areas. The footprint as shown on the two figures, the text does not allow for the container storage and stacking outside of those areas. So just wanted to restate that point.

point the truck parking is already allowed.

Truck parking is allowed in those areas currently yes right we're just adding in association with the truck parking that the container storage and stacking actually would know be a load if this application would be a is approved.

And staff is doing this tax amendment because the applicants the owners of the properties wanted to modify this.

This application is filed in response to a directive from the Board of County Commissioners. So we have a resolution that directs that we file the application resolution are 6, 8, 7, dash 25.

Any other questions for staff. All right seeing none I'm not going to open public hearing for application number CDMP 2026-0010 I do not have any speaker cards does anyone here wish to speak on this item

sorry have to lower this all right please state your name and your address for the record you recognize yes um good afternoon mr chair board members george navarro with offices at 333 southeast second avenue i know there was a comment regarding the industry the operators of the different truck parking facilities are located within these two areas that your staff mentioned i'm here this afternoon on behalf of national truck parking which is one of the largest operators in miami-dade county They have an existing facility to within the 2 sub areas we're here to speak in support of this item. This is something that we believe has real practical impacts on improving the overall efficiency of the transportation network in the regional transportation network in Miami Dade County. BY ALLOWING EMPTY CONTAINERS TO BE STACKED ON SITE OF THESE FACILITIES, OUR DRIVERS CAN AVOID MAKING THESE UNNECESSARY TRIPS, THESE DUPLICATIVE TRIPS TO OFF-SITE LOCATIONS TO PICK UP AN EMPTY CONTAINER ONLY TO BRING IT BACK TO THE LOCATION THAT THEY NEED. THIS HAS SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT THIS REQUEST WILL CHANGE, WHICH IS INCREASING COST TO CONSUMERS. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

Well actually let me a go and close public hearing seeing no no further comments here will head over to a board discussion to have any discussion on the application. Discussion is there a motion. So can we have a second all right motion second. Please call.

Okay, just to clarify, the motion was made by Board Member Thomas, and that was to transmit and adopt. And seconded by J. Will Morris. On the motion, Evo Fernandez?

Yes.

Solomon Janay?

Yes.

Frank Lago?

Yes.

Max Lozner? Okay, stepped out. Michael Montiel?

Yes.

J. Will Morris? Yes. Vice Chair Thomas?

Yes.

Chair McRae?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right. Let's now head to the second application. Mr. Rowe, if you could please get started again.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Next up, we have application CDMP 20260011. And Mr. Alex David will present that application.

Good afternoon, board members. I'm Alex David with the planning division of RER. This revision to the CDMP is duly, it's because of what we need to do, we've gotten a new water supply plan, sorry, and because of that we've developed a new water supply plan and because of that we need to make changes to the CDMP. And I believe this is the fourth time the water supply plant has been revised since the initiation of the requirement to do water supply planning. So a couple things are happening with this application. We have to amend the text of the water and sewers sub-element. So the introduction is being revised. And also, since we have the new water supply plan, we must incorporate anything in here into the CDMP. The Florida statutes, as I stated, require this be done. It's a coordination, it's coordinating planning, land use planning with water supply planning and every municipality that does a water supply plan has to do, it has to have a 10 year horizon, but it must be updated every five years. So again the amendments are to incorporate any revisions to the water supply plan and also the South Florida Water Management District water supply plan which was adopted about a year and a half ago. This is our new water supply plan which was completed in May of this year. And basically, there are several things that are happening with respect to the CDMP. One of the items, besides some revisions, we have to revise the water use permit. It's been extended out from 2045 to 2065, so that's a major change. We're also defining wastewater treatment facilities as part of this exercise. updating dates to reflect the new water supply plan and the new South Florida Water Management District water supply plan. So with that, our recommendation is to transmit with change and adopt. And the reason for the recommendation is because we do have to update the CDMP based on the new data in the new water supply plan. And it's the same schedule as the last application. We're here for you today. We're expecting to go to the BCC for transmittal on the 24th with adoption on the 19th of November. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Do we have any questions here for staff in the application?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a request of staff. My understanding is the Water and Sewer Department has a mascot, DROP, the water drop. If possible, I'd like the mascot of Water and Sewer to make presentations for the Water and Sewer Department going forward.

We'll note it for the future.

No, no questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, so I actually do have a couple questions here. So in terms of the policy 6F, it does look like there's a, so I did notice, looks like a moratorium on that northwest Hialeah area. where if there is potentially a lag by the county, there could be a blocking of certificates of occupancy if water hookups lag. Is there any part in the county, any other area in the county that has something similar happening there in terms of that lag or blockage there?

So, Mr. Chair, if I may. Sure. So, policy 6F, it's water, WS6F is one of the policies that we're amending. This policy provides that the water from the Hialeah reverse osmosis water treatment plant is first, which accesses the Floridan Aquifer, by the way, it does not take water from the Biscayne Aquifer, that it's supposed to be oriented first to serving the area bounded by Northwest 154th Street, 97th Avenue Northwest and the turnpike. This area was brought within the UDB back in the 2005-2006 timeframe. At that time, the county had water supply limitations. As part of its water supply permitting, we had to identify then with the expansion of the UDB, we had to identify then a source of water specific for this area. So essentially, this policy is speaking to that commitment that the reverse osmosis treatment plant is first oriented to serving that area before it can serve other areas within the county. So just wanted to explain what the policy is about.

GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, BOARD MEMBERS, JIM FERGUSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT. I THINK YOUR QUESTION WAS ABOUT MORATORIUM?

YEAH, SO MORE SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO HOLD OFF ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES IF THEY AREN'T ABLE TO HOOK UP OR CONNECT. SO YOU COULD HAVE BLOCKAGES AT THE CITY OR AT THE COUNTY. WELL, YOU TELL ME, ARE THERE ANY SIGNIFICANT BLOCKAGES?

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY MORATORIUMS DUE TO WATER SUPPLY.

OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

IS THAT THE QUESTION ASKED?

So you're not aware of any lag, any potential buildup there in getting hooked up to the system? No.

Okay, all right. Obviously, developers, if there is no water distribution system in front of their property, they would have to extend it at their cost.

All right, understood. Thank you for that. Okay, no problem. All right. Do we have any other questions for staff here? All right so I'm now going to open the public hearing for application number 2026 0, 0, 1, 1, I do not have any speaker cards here as well is there anyone in the public wishing to speak on this item. All right going once going twice seeing none. I'm now going to close the public hearing is there any board discussion on this application.

move to transmit and adopt.

Seeing the motion we have a second. We please call the roll.

OK and that was a motion to transmit with change and adopt and that was made by board member Lozner and seconded by I'm sorry was that board member Thomas thank you. Okay, on the motion, Ivo Fernandez? Yes. Solomon Janay? Yes. Frank Lago? Yes. Max Lozner?

Yes.

Michael Montiel?

Yes.

J. Will Morris?

Yes.

Vice Chair Thomas?

Yes.

Chair McRae?

Yes.

A motion passes eight to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're now moving on to any or what any new or old business. Mister chair to have a yep, we do got one item here. You recognize the vice or Tom's.

Good afternoon, everyone. I wanted to follow up on a discussion we had at our last meeting. It was during the Biscayne Shores application where there was a request to modify the high density residential land use definition. i followed that through to the board of county commissioners it looked to me as a as an observer like that got bifurcated from the application and it looked like a county commissioner had taken it on as a potential item that they were going to work on but i wanted to find out if there was something we could do as a board to request that you consider that the staff consider working on this definition so that we can review it and resolve whatever the pending item was that you had. So that's the request of the other board members feel strongly about that, but I know it was something we had to kind of chit chatted about but never really had a plan on how to do and I don't think we've ever tried to do in the past. But I know we don't have directive authority, but I think we do have the ability to request and ask for reports and that would be my motion is to request that and have you report back to us if there's something to do on that item.

Mr. Rowe?

Yeah, so through the chair, I guess the question I'm having is pertaining to the basic insurers application. You said refine the definition. I didn't quite catch what definition we were talking about.

It's the high density residential land use category was the request. There was a change that was happening to that. And it ultimately I believe got bifurcated from the application Because the County Commission did not want to have it riding along with the application It's a I realize you'll probably have to go back and check on that and see how it was done But I wanted to make it Something that you could come back to us and report on if there's something to be done Because it looked like you were making an argument that something needed to be done

Yeah, so I can provide some background, right. So that application was amending the high density category text, right, which that land use category currently is on property within municipalities, right, Coral Gables, City of Miami, and Miami Beach. The designation does not apply to property outside the municipalities at this point, unincorporated at this point. The category allows for 60 to 125 dwelling units per gross acre or more. The text amendment was seeking to provide some scope of what the or more means, and it was including criteria that would guide how it would be applied. DIRECTING THE IDENTITIES OVER 125 UNITS TO THE ACRE TO OCCUR WITHIN THE SMART PLAN CORRIDORS AND ADJACENT TO A PARK AND AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

I DO REMEMBER IT, MR. I just want to make sure that if you didn't get that accomplished, that there's a mechanism for you to come back to us because it looked like it was an important item. And I want to make sure that we hear it if it's necessary.

So, one, there was conversation at the time when the BCC heard the item to have a separate, I guess, directive or item coming from the BCC to address what staff had tried to address with that application. And so we're pending that happening, right?

That means we don't have anything to do. The BCC is given a directive.

There was not a directive issued by the board, but there was conversation about something coming through the board. So I guess that's to be determined exactly what will happen there. But if something comes from the board or a commissioner, then it would be addressed in that way. would you guys be able just to report back to us certainly next meeting uh where we stand and if there's anything that needs to be done that's really all i'm asking for okay yeah certainly certainly we can close the loop on that certainly we can uh which which by the way um we that application got transmitted to the state and regional agencies for their review and comments and the their comments coming back to us was based on a statutory some state law right it's generated from a Senate bill 180 that limits counties and local governments from adopting more you know criteria that's that's more restrictive or burdensome or seem to be more restrictive or burdensome and And the comments from the state basically pointed to the fact that that application as filed, you know, could be seen in that way. So, you know, we've had to work with the applicants to revise it. But, you know, just to give you some background. So, you know, we're working through that. So, you know, certainly we'll update you as to where we end up with it. All right. I appreciate that.

Just follow up to the county attorney Realizing we don't have directive authority as a board Is it appropriate to ask for report back on items or suggestions that we can make to staff I Mean certainly you can ask staff and staff is willing to do it.

I

I just want to make sure we're doing the right way so following up on a similar item we had a discussion at the last meeting believe it was the same application same definition and I expressed some concern about tying the definition to the smart plan. The SMART plan itself, as I think many of us know, I personally know because I served as a trustee on the CITT, this is something that came through TPO and kind of works its way down through all the different mechanisms of the county government through code, through the land use plan in order to achieve the goals of that ideation exercise that happened at the TPO. And it's resulted in one corridor being completed. and the rest of them not. It's been in the news recently where it's been reported the mayor had a memo that stated we were $7.6 billion short over the next 20 years for that plan. But the plan still exists in the CDMP. It still exists in our code. And as the planning agency, I think we should test whether that plans transit assumptions, development standards, and implementation schedule still fit together. It's not a role to discuss transit. I'm a big transit fan. But as it relates to land use, I think it's appropriate for us to consider and to, when it comes time to making changes to the CDMP, which we're in that mode, consider whether changes should be made. So I have some ideas of what I would like to see and I'd like to hear from the fellow board members on whether they think this is appropriate to ask for now or what we're asking for. In particular, I'm interested in the Kendall Corridor because that's my area. I know each of you have your own corridors. I think in the news recently we've had an area called Continental Park that's gotten a little bit of attention because of the land use being 60 units to the acre related to that smart plan language in the CDMP. And the neighbors, I think rightfully so, have some concerns as to whether they're actually going to get rapid transit for changing the character of their neighborhood. So unfortunately, because it's there in the plan, our great staff doesn't have the opportunity to opine on the land use aspects of that application, and we don't get the opportunity to make a recommendation on it. So I think it would be appropriate for us to review the CDMP policies The maps, the code provisions that allow or encourage development based on the planned corridors. I think it would be appropriate for us to understand the current funding statuses and reasonably projected implementation timelines for each of the corridors. To understand the development standards available before transit service begins. including how they apply. So we know we have to build up the capacity to argue for funding to the federal government for these corridors and that's part of why we've implemented the plan and have changed the land use. But if the plan is not there or it's delayed by decades, We probably have the response like not probably we have the responsibility in my opinion to review that and make a recommendation as to if there should be a change should we as a board review that no absolutely not I'm not saying that I'm requesting that staff take a look at that and in particular come back with options to retain modify phase or remove the provisions where the underlying transit assumptions have materially changed. including which options require CDMP or code amendments. I know that's a huge task, but it is part of, in my opinion, the responsibility of the planning authority. So I'd love to hear from my colleagues on what they think about that, but that would be my request.

Do we have any discussion on Board Member Thomas' proposal here?

WELL, CONSIDERING THAT I GET TO WORK ON PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THIS CORRIDOR AND MANY OTHER CORRIDORS, I DO AGREE THAT IF, YOU KNOW, THE SMART CORRIDOR WAS DONE IN ANTICIPATION OF MASS TRANSIT, RIGHT, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, AND UNFORTUNATELY THINGS ARE MOVING QUICKLY, SO WHAT TODAY MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE MAY BE APPLICABLE IN FIVE YEARS BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY CONTINUES TO INCREASE AND AND SPEED UP THIS NEW OPPORTUNITIES OF MASS TRANSIT. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROBABLY A PHASING OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE CHICKEN AND THE EGG, RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T CREATE ENOUGH DENSITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR, YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE TRANSPORTATION. SO IF YOU PUT NO DENSITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR, THEN WE'LL NEVER HAVE TRANSPORTATION. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT TO BRING UP, AND I THINK IT'S A the planning staff should take into consideration in which some of this stuff should be phased right that we meet certain milestones and if there's a milestone that we say we have need to have certain number of you know homes or ridership to meet that that we don't trigger the next you know phase of that until that's achieved and we do it smartly

I appreciate that the feedback and I think if you look at the TPO's work from almost 10 years ago. basically what you've described. They're saying we need X number of people in order to qualify for federal funding. And that's why I think it cascades down into the various aspects of code and planning. But I think it's fairly obvious that some of the fundamentals have changed. And to your point, technology is changing. We're looking at air taxis at some point. We're looking at all kinds of things that are different than a decade ago. And that rate of change is happening faster and faster. So I think it would be appropriate, again, to, like you say, perhaps look at a phased approach. But I don't want to get into having recommend to the staff what they should do. I just think we should look at it.

Mr. Rowe.

Yes, Mr. Chair. And, you know, the PAB, I'll say the PAB will have the opportunity to discuss some of these questions when you receive the evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan. Right. So that's that's going to be due to the board in the coming months. You know, on the on the question specifically, how It is that age-old question of parallel with the chicken and the egg, which one comes first, land use or transportation? Because if you're planning for transportation, you need the densities to support the transportation, the motor transportation. Do you bring the densities first or the transit service first? So, you know, we grapple with that question quite a bit as planners. I will say, though, that with the allowances in the CDMP for the various corridors, right, and the development that the CDMP ultimately allows, one key criteria that's inherently built into the allowance is that compatibility with the neighborhoods is a significant consideration. So, you know, the development should be right sized based on the neighborhood that is happening in. And, you know, we are as we evaluate these applications from that perspective in determining, you know, essentially, is it allowed the can it take advantage of the allowances for these corridors or not? And, you know, so we are involved in that process. right but um as far as the pab is concerned right you will have an opportunity to get into some of that discussion when you have the ear before you so i think what i'm asking for is knowing that we're going into those discussions

It would be great to have this information so that we can make an advised recommendation. And so that's what I'm asking for is if it's possible, we can't direct you to do it, but we certainly can ask, can we have this information so that we can make informed decisions when it comes time to review the CDMP changes that will be coming in the next couple of months in addition to your previous comment The the way in which staff is involved is in the form of an interpretation letter, correct? That's one way yes, so it really all it is is it's reviewing the text it saying yes, you're conforming with the text and reminding you that you need to be compatible with it. It doesn't have full scope of the work that you do. Present to us to make a recommendation bypasses us when that bypasses that work and go straight to zoning.

I guess the context is appropriate to consider in that the allowances that are already in the comprehensive plan don't need to come back to this board whenever there's a project. So I guess that's what you're speaking to when you say it bypasses you guys. So yes, the comprehensive plan was already amended to include those allowances, then the appropriate path for any projects to seek the development rights or zoning. They go through the zoning application process. but there's a determination of consistency with the CDMP that we will evaluate and ultimately issue a position on.

Absolutely not our concern. That's at the BCC level for them to make that determination. Don't want to step on their toes at all. That's not the point here. Right. The point is we've made a change to the plan a number of years ago that was based off of underlining assumptions that arguably are not the same today. And I think we should have the information to understand what those underlining assumptions are so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation when it comes to changing the CDMP.

Yeah, and you know we can we can certainly follow up with you at any point, you know we're we're always welcoming to whatever questions you have information or Chris and I know we're here to help you make you know your your work easier on this board so certainly will be following up with you giving you a heads up yes, yes, so you know we're here we're here.

More than we're here I would love for you to come back to us with the information I described.

Okay so and I guess what I'll do is to ensure that we're fully responding to the questions that you have we'll have a follow-up with you before your next meeting with the board in the next board meeting so that we we ensure that we're hitting all the points that you're concerned about.

These things take time I realize this is a complex ask before we have to review the CDMP changes that are coming is when we would need that information. So I'm not asking for it right away. I think it would just be good for myself and my colleagues to have this information in hand so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation.

Yeah, you know I commit to working with you to making sure that you know, whatever information we can provide we will Okay, thank you Thank you.

Mr. Do we have any discussion or any other new business any old business? All right, I think we might have missed Staff announcement my apology staff. Mr. Oh, do you have any announcements?

I?

We did have an announcement. We passed out the flyer for the Shenley Park workshop and that's going to be this Saturday September 19th from 10 o'clock till noon at 80 dance ad Barnes Park. So if you're interested in that, please pick up the flyer and then the next PAB meeting is going to be in 3 weeks on Monday October 5th and as we have a lot less agenda items and we have expected we're going to be moving the time back from 10 o'clock to the regular 2 o'clock time and I'll send you out the email reminder about that and for the time change. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, see no further business. Board Member Morris moves we rise. Adjourned? All right, meeting's adjourned.