Virginia Key Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

We're ready to start the meeting for the Virginia Key Advisory Board. Thank you all very, very much for being here tonight. Our board members and guests and city staff are here working late again to help us out. Any announcements you want to start with, Rafa? Lobbyists note.

Yeah, I'll go ahead with the lobbyist note. Any person who receives compensation, remuneration, or expenses for conducting lobbying activities is required to register as a lobbyist with the city clerk prior to engaging in lobbying activities before city staff, boards, committees, or the city commission. A copy of the applicable ordinance is available at the office of the city clerk, Miami City Hall, located at 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, 33133. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I guess we'll move to the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you very much. Are there any requests for abstinence waivers?

No.

All right. Well, we're going to move quickly to the agenda.

We only have three items that are... Let's do the call of order first.

Please. Thank you very much.

Andrew Frey. Peter Ehrlich.

Here.

Stephen Leitner. Here. Lynn Lewis, Gary Milano, Vincent Richter, Monty Trainor, Nicholas Lopez Jenkins, Jackie Collier, Carrie Johnson.

Thank you very much. We have three items on our agenda, and in addition, I'd just like to announced that Roger Bernstein is here with an interest in the mooring field, the mooring field issue. Roger, would you like to quickly speak on that, or do you want to wait until later? Would you like to hear that first? Let's move on. If you don't mind, we'll move to... Item number three, which is an update on the proposed mooring field, we'll do that one right now. And is that Andrew Fry going to be giving us the update on that? Thank you very much, Andrew. And then Roger Bernstein might have a question for you after your presentation.

I don't have a presentation because we don't have any updated drawings. However, I'm anxious to get them, as I'm sure you all are. And for that reason, I had a call with the engineer just to check on the status. They said that they're still working on the drawings, trying to incorporate feedback, particularly that was received from, I guess, the rowing club, specifically talking about the perimeter marker buoys. I think there was a concern that those marker buoys could be reduced in size to minimize the chance of rowers hitting them with one of their oars. So they're having some conversations, I guess, with the state and the county about options for reducing the size of those perimeter marker buoys. And I guess when they... you know, have done their homework and, you know, got all the answers to feedback and other things like that. They'll put pen to paper and get us some revised drawings. But we don't have them now, but like I said, I did call them a couple weeks ago to get an update, and they said, like, as I mentioned, they're, you know, taking some of the feedback that they got a few months ago and kind of running all those issues to ground. So that's where we are.

Thank you very much. Quick question, Andrew. I believe the city commissioners approved 75 mooring balls. What's the number that you're currently working on with your experts?

Whatever the number is. I'm not sure. There is some, like you said, there's some resolution or something like that. I'm not sure if it was from HEP Board or if it was from the city commission itself, but there was a cap somewhere in, like, in the range of 70 or 75 buoys, and that's what we're working with. That's what we are taking as the de facto cap on the number of buoys. Now, as the plan that got circulated maybe around the holidays, the very first draft, in order to designate a mooring field, you have to have a certain maximum spacing between the anchors that are on the seafloor. And if there's bigger than that gap, then that becomes a gap or a hole that somebody can anchor in and it's not legally technically a mooring field. So we want to prevent there from being any of those gaps where somebody could just anchor their boat there and then we have no legal recourse. So we want to... meet the minimum spacing or maximum spacing requirements on the anchors on the seafloor, but then we'd only attach 75 buoys to those anchors. And then that would also give us the flexibility to reconfigure. For example, assuming that we have more than 75 anchors on the seafloor, but only 75 buoys, you know, maybe the default configuration can be those buoys are kind of in the center of the basin, you know, and then there's, you know, more clear area around them. But for certain events, for example, like if Marine Stadium gets renovated and we have the barge, you know, floating on the near side, well, and then maybe in that case, you know, having the buoys in the center of the basin wouldn't be appropriate maybe they'd encroach on the barge so we could then move the buoys to the open anchors on the far side so that you could have you know balance the competing interest during that concert time and and so we'd have those open anchors available and then after the concert then we could move the buoys back to the center. So that gives us flexibility to balance the interests of the different stakeholders within the basin. But the 75 buoys is what we're taking as the hard cap on the number that we can install.

And there will still be space for Dragon boats and shells to practice and compete in the basin?

Right, yeah, that's the idea. I mean, like I said, to generally keep the buoys at the center, leaving the open area around the perimeter. But again, that's an operational issue, right? So we're not locked into that, right? If we, in conversation, that could be the configuration on day one, right? But with input from the different stakeholders, That's, again, and over-installing the number of anchors on the seafloor, that gives us the flexibility to respond to concerns and comments and, you know, any changes to what the baseline configuration would be, and also different configurations for different events. BOSHO, regatta, you know, concert, music concerts, things like that. So there'll be a number of different configurations depending on the different events, and then there'll be kind of a standard baseline configuration. And that can all change.

Thank you very much. Any board members have a question? Lynn?

Is it one... boat or one vessel per buoy? Yes. And is that established somewhere either in the reso or in the ordinance or just by the engineering of mooring fields?

I think it's an engineering standard. And I've never seen it depicted otherwise. But I don't know if there's a state law that says that as well. But it's certainly our assumption in how we're designing things.

Any other board members have any questions?

Where do the boats go during the concert and you pull them off the anchors?

Well, so there's a couple of different things. One is, if we relocate boats for a concert, then, you know, what we can do is we can install a buoy at the new location where the boat's gonna go. They can sail to that new location, tie up, and then we can remove the other one. So there's always a buoy available for them to tie up to. The other option is, and again, the Country Bay Music Festival makes use of this. The regatta also makes use of this, which is the Coast Guard temporary vessel exclusion. Permit and that means they wouldn't anchor somewhere else in the basin. It means they would have to temporarily leave So for example for the rowing regatta Caesar gets you know his Temporary vessel exclusion permit for the rowing regatta and for that week The boats have to leave they're all given proper notice that they have to leave and Well, when we have a mooring field, we'll be able to contact them. Right now, because we don't have a mooring field, we have no idea who's there. And so we have no contact information. We have no boat registration. We have no insurance certificates. We have nothing. When we establish a mooring field, anyone that wants to anchor in that area will immediately have to register or have to provide their registration. contact information, their boat insurance, credit card information, things like that. And then, certainly in that case, well in advance of something like the rowing regatta or the Country Bay Music Festival, we'll be able to communicate with folks and give them heads up and give them a one-month notice. Hey, a one month from now for this week, you're going to have to find somewhere else to anchor.

And if you don't get in contact, there's a way to get everybody moved and out of the way, right?

Yeah, so right now, even with the vessel exclusion permit this year, you know, Marine Patrol had to work really hard to get people to comply with that. Because just because an organizer has a vessel exclusion permit doesn't mean that any of the boats in the basin are aware of that. Because again, we have no way to contact them. The marine patrol kind of has to go boat by boat and kind of like knock and then show this vessel exclusion permit to the boat owner and hope that they move. It's a real crapshoot. So in the future, with the establishment of mooring field, we hope to have a much more orderly process, including ample notification.

Andrew, one more quick comment before we hear from Roger Bernstein. On June 22nd of 2021, this board has been discussing this item in the mooring fields for four or five years now. On June 22nd, 2021, we voted unanimously, this board voted unanimously to limit the number of balls or boats attached to the buoys to 50. And that resolution, which we have a copy of right here, was passed on to the city of Miami commissioners. And I think they saw it and they discussed it. But unanimously, this board requested a maximum of 50 votes. The commissioners subsequently inserted their own number. over our objections, I guess you could fairly say. Roger Bernstein, would you like to ask Andrew? Andrew, don't go away. You probably have a question for Andrew? I do. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Roger Bernstein. I live in the city of Miami and I'm here as a citizen interested in the Marine Stadium Basin, and also on behalf of the Virginia Key Alliance. I am not here on behalf of the Miami Rowing Club. The Rowing Club has started a dialogue with Dream, with the city manager, and things are moving along as I understand it. But I have a concern that this idea of I'll call it a wall-to-wall mooring field in the basin with use only of let's call it the center mooring anchors with the idea that simply because you have a mooring permit means you can keep boats from anchoring on what looks like water. And does that make sense? You know, the good news, and I believe Dream is aware of this, is the Florida legislature in House Bill 481, which was passed 105 to 0, has decided, if it's passed by the Senate and signed, that the Perimeter exclusion around a mooring field will increase. Right now, if you put in a mooring field, no boats can anchor within 100 feet of the perimeter of the mooring field. They can go 101 feet and put an anchor down. That 100-foot level or perimeter is, by the legislature's action, about to go to 300 feet. That would allow a great deal more room in the basin without even having to put these unused anchors down. I believe that you've asked the consultants to do the work on the 100-foot and the 300-foot bases. Is that right? That's for you.

Well, the law hasn't passed, so we're designing to the current law. But if the law changes, then we'd have to take a look at that. I think on the one hand, having a wider perimeter in law is a good thing. On the other hand, if we design to that, it gives us less flexibility, because then we wouldn't have anchors in all the different areas of the basin that we might want to move folks to. So we'll have to see what happens with the Senate, with the governor, and then see how that would potentially change the design, and then also balance the interest about reducing costs you know, installing fewer anchors versus giving ourselves the flexibility of having anchors on the seafloor to allow for many different configurations. So we're not there yet, and we'll have to see what the law change is, what that would allow, and then balance the different interests that that would enable. Like I said, there's some interest in cost savings and reducing the number of installed anchors, but there's also the interest which I think is helpful in balancing the interests of all the stakeholders in the basin, as there are many, in allowing for flexibility. So we don't know at this point. I have another question.

Excuse me. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Just wanted to make sure that we're following procedure. So questions should be directed to the chair, and then the chair can direct or discuss with different board members as appropriate. But technically, we shouldn't have. the public directly engaging with any particular board member, but except through the chair.

Thank you for the update. Of course.

So another question is, has the city considered putting anchors outside the basin so that in the event it was necessary to empty boats out of there for events, you'd have a place to put them? That isn't in the basin. Mr. Fry, can you answer that question?

Yeah, so I think the design that was circulated around the holidays showed that. And that is still something that we want to have. I assume that the next iteration from the consultants will still have that. A certain number, a smaller number of buoys outside of the basin. The thing is, outside of the Mooringfield area, people have the right to anchor anywhere. So they could tie up to one of those handful of buoys, or they could just sail somewhere else in the bay and anchor there, as we see with the mooring field here in Dinner Quay. Some people choose to tie up to the mooring buoys and pay the fee and make use of the services available to the mooring field patrons, and some people just choose to anchor beyond the... you know, the barrier islands and just in the open water. So for the basin, you know, we felt as important, you know, because we've had, you know, we've had the jet ski deaths and we've had, you know, conflicting needs of different stakeholder groups, we felt it was important to establish the mooring anchors and then, you know, 75 mooring buoys to get the mooring field designation within the basin because that's kind of where the need for control to help balance these interests is most important. Outside of that, if people leave for an event or for the rowing regatta, they're technically free to anchor anywhere. So we will provide a smaller number of buoys outside of the basin for that purpose, but otherwise the whole bay is available to them.

Last point, that is, it would make a lot of sense if the stakeholders with an interest in the basin were put in touch with the outside consultants before they finish their work. Last time around, they designed a mooring field. And it had to go back to them because there were assumptions made about things like the turning radius of a dragon boat and so on, which was not right. So is there any problem with setting up a meeting with the consultants and dream and whoever has information to contribute and, you know, another two weeks, we'll know what the legislature has done on the 300 or versus 100 foot perimeter.

Director Fry, is it possible for you to?

Yeah, and in fact, that was done, like I said, around the holidays. We met with, I believe, Virginia Key, Donald Lutton, our former marina's manager, who's now retired. I believe met with the representatives from Virginia Key Alliance as well as the Miami Rowing Club. But that's certainly our intention going forward is that when we have new work product from the consultants, which, you know, but then we would obviously do a little QA, QC on it, right? Because make sure it's good. But then, you know, take it again to certain stakeholder groups for meetings and additional feedback. We did that, like I said, back around the holidays and we intend to continue that sort of feedback approach. I think that's important and valuable and that's why we, as soon as we had our first draft, we showed it immediately to stakeholders. So we believe that's important, and we intend to continue that way.

Roger, have you met with the consultants?

There have been meetings with DREAM and with city officials, but it just seems to me that if they're outside consultants who are tasked with doing a job, stakeholders should also have a chance to sit down with them before they finalize their work rather than having them do it then say no that doesn't work you have to redo it it's much better to talk to them directly dream has been helpful they've been cooperative but if there's an outside engineering firm why not have a sit down with them as well would that be possible director fry like i said that that's our intent is to when again when we get a revised work product you know we got feedback and we're trying to incorporate that some of that feedback to the extent possible

And it's an iterative process. So, you know, I think that it's, in my mind, it's important, and that's why we took the first draft as the way we did. It's important to first get on paper kind of what the legal requirements are, because not all options are on the table, right? There's certain things that, because of legal standards like the 100-foot perimeter or engineering standards that the engineers are very familiar with, there's options and configurations that are just not possible. So what we want to do with the first draft is say just what are the sort of the global constraints that we're working under and show that. And I think that's kind of what the first draft did. So that's why I like having something on paper to respond to. And that's just for me the way I like to do things too. If I'm working with an architect, or I don't want them to show me a building that has a 80-foot corridor, because I know 75 is the maximum corridor length per fire regulation. So don't, you know, first come to me with a building that has a 75-foot corridor and then we can talk about it, right? Let's not talk about something that we literally can't do. So we wanted, that's why we took the first, that's why we gave the consultant the first stab at that draft that we showed around the holiday time was to just sort of put some of the overall general limitations and constraints on paper. So, and then we got, we got great, you know, we got feedback about the perimeter buoys and about some other issues. You know, that's just taking some back and forth, you know, with the state folks and with the county folks to see if there are other makes and models available that they're comfortable with. You know, it's a good request, it's a fair request, but I guess it's not one that they had received before, so just a matter of having a series of meetings and phone calls about that to see if we can spec a different buoy. And then hopefully we'll come back and show the stakeholders something that reflects that.

Roger, can you communicate via e-mail with Director Frey? Sure. Thank you for taking this up. Thank you for bringing this great information. Any other board members as we move on to the next item? Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Andrew Frey.

There was an article included with the agenda package. Go Big or Go Home, Rickenbacker Causeway. It seemed like a very well-researched article from the Islander News. Did everybody get a chance to read it? And Rafa was very kind and included some color photographs and drawings from the article to help us. Rickenbacker Causeway, Bearcut Bridge, Project Development Environmental Study from Miami-Dade County. Any comments from board members on this? Particularly Louis. Louis, you keep a Skane resident. He's familiar with the causeway.

Well, yeah, I read the article. I'm a little bit familiar of the work that's being done only because I've been involved in the city or village meetings with David Martin presenting his proposed project and what he has offered to do for the village and the city and the county. So we're still waiting on that. So I think waiting on that proposal I think would be the next step to understand what the opportunities are. The fact that we need a change, obviously we need a change. We talked about that in the last meeting with the traffic that we have. So hopefully we can find a solution, even though the solution from what I read in the article will take seven to ten years, but at least it's a start. It's better than nothing. I mean, I'd give more comments once we have something to look at. But right now, it's just an idea. An idea without execution is a hallucination.

Thank you very much. Anybody from the city? Hector Padilla, or is anybody following this issue closely? I gather it's more of a county issue, and it's a village of Key Biscayne issue. Anybody like to add anything?

Any board members?

Hector, do you have comments on it?

I know that the causeway is under a PD&E study with the county, but that's the extent.

And I think as we've read, this is seven or 10 year or maybe longer term to see new bridges and incredible construction projects.

I know they're looking at financing based on the meeting we had today. So that's something that they need to examine to move the project forward, but yes.

Any other questions from any board members? And then our next item. Update, oh.

I want to ask just a dumb question from someone who goes across the bridge, but only rarely. What would the increase in toll be for their bridge? Is there an idea of what what they're thinking the toll would be?

No, I haven't heard anything. Does anybody have any information on potential tolls or new tolls for the bridge?

I just don't want it to be, you know, you'd have to second mortgage your house to get across the...

I know that was included in the discussion of that. It was included in the article. I don't know the answer to that. Our next item is an update on the landfill in the park project. I think We will hear an update on that, where that stands. Thank you very much. Thank you, Lorraine.

Hi, good evening, everyone. So on the landfill, we have two consultants, SCS engineers, which are, their expertise is site remediation, and Sabino Miller, which is a landscape architect firm. And what we have tasked them is to review previous plans from the Virginia Key Master Plan to review the feasibility and to provide potential options for the layout of the park. Now, the consultant has provided to us three options. The city is not going to make a decision or a determination until we present this to the public. So first we have to brief Commissioner Pardo and Commissioner Regalado After we brief the two commissioners, the idea that we have is kill two birds with one stone. And in one of the advertised Virginia key advisory boards, we will also present public outreach so that the community is aware that we're gonna be discussing the project and they can attend and provide comments and feedback and recommendations for any options they may deem will be of their interest, okay? So any questions or comments?

Lynn?

So we first have to brief commissioners. In the past, when we go to the public first, it's a no-no. So we're still coordinating. I will let you all know ahead of time. But the idea is to have it on a Virginia key advisory board. Yes. Mr.

Chair? Yes. Is this going to come before the board before you go to the public?

We want to be concurrent. So bring the consultant to the board and at the same time the public.

We received numerous copies of the site plan that you put together with a consultant, and I'd like to make some comment on that tonight. Is that okay?

Yeah.

Okay. As some of the audience may not know, my name is Gary Milano, and I worked with the government for 37 years, completing over 50 South Florida environmental restoration enhancement projects. I was designated by the Virginia Key Advisory Board to work with the city in the development of a park plan at the 117-acre landfill site. Unfortunately, the city staff did not provide me with the opportunity to work with the consultant team on the development and presented plans. I have no idea why the city forgot to include me. As a result, important details that are in these plans that were provided to the board tonight and Virginia Key Advisory Board testimony relating to the landfill closure plan and park development are not included in the most recent plans. For example, tree planting information provided by government landfill experts are not in these plans. So today on Earth Day, we are presented with a plan that has deficiencies, questions, and inaccuracies. Unfortunately, time and money have been wasted. For the record, I have the highest regard for the consultant and their capabilities, but they are not getting good direction from city staff. A major omission in the plans that were presented to us tonight is the creation of approximately 75 acres of hardwood hammock forest. Why? The hammock area is detailed in the City Commission approved Community Consensus Master Plan. And as per the Virginia Key Advisory Record, government experts have testified that the planting of native vegetation at the site will be an authorized enhancement at the completion of the landfill closures. So many questions come up as far as what information was provided to us tonight. And you can do what you want with them, Lorraine, but I was surprised to see how high the elevation is at the center of this site. It's on page six of what you distributed, 30 feet. What amount of that fill has been added to the landfill? Question mark. Is it all clean fill? If so, what percentage is clean? And what is the elevation of the landfill itself? Is it at plus 10, plus 7? There's no way for us to understand this. So the hammock area was designated by the city commission. It was approved as a community consensus master plan, and it's a major omission. As per the Virginia key advisory board record government experts have testified that the planting of the vegetation of the site will be an authorized enhancement. So option three reduces in this plan I don't know if board members have had a chance to look at this, but again I think it's important for us to keep pace with this, because the train is leaving the station. Option three reduces the leveling of the site and provides cost-effective level soccer playing fields at the northeast corner outside of the landfill site. I think that's a great idea. Excuse me, Gary.

You're reading from a handout the other board members haven't received.

No, this is my copy.

Oh, this is your copy.

OK. You didn't receive the site plans that was distributed?

It must have been at another meeting.

No.

Raffaella? I'm checking now to see if it was sent with the agenda, but I believe it was.

They were. They were. I know they were. So anyway, let me continue. Option three reduces the leveling of the site and provides a cost-effective level soccer playing field at the northeast corner of the landfill site. You know, guys, this is a significant park site, and it deserves better management and strategic planning. If you look around the globe, you'll see some amazing parks associated with landfill closures. And regardless of the options, I don't recommend the plan be approved by this board unless the 75 acres of hammock, which has been forgotten somehow in this plan.

All the plans, all the options, there's no hardwood hammock in it.

In closing, I would like to propose that we rename the Virginia Key Landfill Park to Virginia Key Central Park. It's a little more inviting for the family outings rather than going to a landfill, let's go to the park. Thank you for your attention.

So Gary, I have a couple of questions for you.

Well, make sure you jot down the questions I just mentioned, unless you want me to send you those by email.

What you have submitted or what you have read right now is gonna be on the record and the city can provide you answers to your questions. I don't have any problems with that. Have we invited you to the meetings with the consultant and key stakeholders?

Lorraine, when at the last meeting you said you were gonna send me copies and you never did. We did. No, you didn't. It got sent a month later through Rafaela after I came to one of these meetings and said that there was a lack of transparency on the city. So here's what happens. I don't want to get into it with you. I just want to leave it there.

I want to put this on the record. We do meetings on Teams in which you can see our screen. And Gary always connect to these meetings via the phone. So he never is able to see what the consultant is sharing on their screen. I think it's very unfair that you say to the city that we are not showing you the plans.

Did you or did you not say you were gonna send them to me and you did not?

Yes, but we invite you to our meetings I have to say, no. You have been at the kickoff meeting in person. You have been at the kickoff meeting in person. Every time the consultant give us an update in which they're showing materials, we ask Chris Evans to step aside so that you can join the meeting.

Do you really want to get into this? Over the last year, I've been asking to work with the development team, and you have shut the door.

We are including you. You did not. Yes, we are.

This is what we have today, a waste of money.

Second of all, what you are going to see is not a design. is concepts for the alignment and the placement of the fields. Once the consultant narrows that down, then we can get into design, and then we get into landscaping and other items.

So I want you all... Lorraine, can you go through what you sent out? You made a presentation.

Gary, this is not a design. In the engineering world, you have a master plan. Then after the master plan, you have a schematic plan. Then after a schematic, you have 30, 60, 90% design, and then you have construction drawings. What you're seeing, and it happens a lot, because people confuse planning with design. This is not design. I'm sorry, I don't take that.

Hold on a second. We're definitely gonna be able to discuss this item

Maybe. I don't know because there is a lack of transparency. Look at page 10 of your handout. It has a question. Can the Virginia Key landfill closure plan topography be modified? That should have been the first question your consultants asked a year ago.

But that is what you see in those slides. We gave them all those questions for them to develop. They're working on it. I'm being transparent here. So you guys all know me. If you have any additional questions or comments, see the material that was sent to you by the city. And I'm telling you, they are not in design. This is on a conceptual basis.

Raffaella, were you looking up?

Yes, it was sent to the board on Friday, April 18th at 1235 afternoon. All board members.

So we did receive it via email. We don't have a hard copy.

If you don't trust us, ask the Village of Cubiscayne, which they have been invited to these meetings, if Gary has been in these meetings or not. Ask The District 2 Commissioner Representative, he has been in these meetings, and the District 7 Representative has also been in these meetings.

They're going to say... We're going to discuss this again next month. I just want a commitment that you do your best, Lorraine, and your department to... Reach out to Gary Milano, who has so much experience on this issue. Oh, 100%.

I totally respect Gary's experience.

She won't let me talk with the consultant. I am closed out of it because she has a plan.

If I had a plan, we would have already designed it. I'm telling you, we're bringing things to the public for feedback, comments, for us to get feedback.

You need to develop a plan based on fact, Lorraine, and the fact is you have topographic surveys here saying that the fill is 30 feet high on the site. Well, the landfill material, guess what? It's not 30 feet high.

Remember that this is a project that the county is doing on their separate site, and they are the ones that are developing that mound

Wait a minute, let's hold on for a second. We're going to definitely discuss this next month because it's very important. But any other board members have any questions while Lorraine is at the podium? And Colleen, do you mind agreeing to follow up with this with Gary in the next few days?

What is she going to follow up with? Are you going to connect me to the consultants?

You have been in the meetings with the consultant.

Answer the question.

Yes, you can call the consultant, talk to the consultant.

Can we have a sit-down meeting at your office with the consultant next week?

We meet on Teams.

Here we go. Let's have a meeting.

Have we invited you to our meetings on Teams?

COVID is over, Lorraine. Let's have a meeting, meeting. This is the only way we can cut through. So the meetings are on Teams. On Zoom or Teams, right? Yeah. That's what you're saying. So the meetings aren't in person, per se?

We don't meet in person. We usually meet with the consultant. Is the consultant local? Yes.

Okay. So let's figure it out.

Okay.

Okay.

Gary, you work on it with Hector and Lorraine, but would it be possible?

They don't work with me. Would it be possible? I email her, and she doesn't email me back.

Gary, we'll contact after the meeting, and then we'll organize something.

Pardon me?

We'll contact you and organize something with the consultant.

Can we do it next week?

As the schedule provides, yes.

Before the train leaves the station, we need to do the development prior to it going political.

Understood.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And Gary, thank you for your history, your knowledge, and your passion on this. I know it's super, super important.

It's frustrating.

And Saviano-Miller, they're really wonderful landscape architects.

I think they're great. I think they're great. If they could get some good direction from the city manager or the city staff, I mean, we'd be good.

Thank you. Any other questions from board members on this issue?

I think we're...

Yes, Lynn.

Mr. Chair, the last page in my package is called Management of the Miami Marine Stadium, Virginia Keys Center. Mr.

Chair, I think there's people here from the public that want to talk about the landfill site. Can you ask if there's anybody that would like to say anything?

Yes, thank you for bringing that up. Anybody like to talk on the landfill site?

Yeah, you just bulldozed over me, Gary. I had the politeness to keep quiet while you were off attacking a staff person.

Well, maybe the agenda needs to be followed.

Can you wait?

I'm going to Vincent's brother's birthday party. You all don't know how to run a meeting. Adios.

We're gonna discuss your item as soon as we heard from the public. Sir, would you like to speak?

Good evening. Thank you for the chance to speak about this. very important issue. So my name is Sam Van Leer. I'm president and founder of Urban Paradise Guild. We have been doing habitat restoration and fighting sea level rise and climate change since 2008. Some of you may know me already. What you may not be aware of is that I designed the charrette that created the consensus that became the consensus master plan for Virginia Key. And so we joined together to crystallize what people wanted for this 1,000-acre barrier island. The Charette took place in September of 2009. There were a series of follow-up Charette meetings in early 2010. And ultimately, the city of Miami voted to make the Consensus Master Plan the official master plan for Virginia Key in 2010, in July. This effectively overwrote the EDS-A master plan, which really shouldn't be referenced. It has no further relevance. The consensus overwhelmingly was in support of nature and recreation in nature. And it amounts to a series of promises, once the city accepted it, for what the community would get from the city in their master plan. Now the city and the designers are commended for seeking and offering alternatives that maximize the potential for space in nature. The problem is that in the documents that I have seen, there is no indication whatsoever that there will be habitat restoration on this site. Now if you look at the original documents, it indicates mangroves and hammocks 85.0 acres or 73% of the footprint of the site now that sounds pretty good and that's a good objective and Thanks to how the city and the consultants have reconsidered things. It might even be more space available That's wonderful unfortunately, nothing indicates what's going to happen on that hill and Nothing. And we are left to believe that it is going to be a huge conventional landfill mound covered with grass that'll be mowed in perpetuity. And that does not serve the public well, and that does not honor the intent of the consensus master plan. So we have options, we have alternatives. One is there can be additional fill laid on top of the landfill once it's capped that will allow for additional root space for planting larger trees without endangering the cap of the landfill. And there is ample fill nearby on North Point. Believe me, I know. So having a single pyramid as a landfill is suitable for mowing, but it doesn't offer as much to nature as a variety of topography. So I would suggest that the hill should be spread out further and add topography, add fill on top of the cap, so that that way it's an interesting place where wildlife can exist. We don't need a 30-foot tall hill on Virginia Key. What we need is a lot of space for nature.

Now,

Excuse me. Now, it is very possible, it's been proven possible to plant larger trees on landfills. There are two specific examples that I'm aware of. One is the Tiff Nature Preserve in Buffalo, New York. Another is the Seattle Japanese Gardens in Seattle, Washington. Both are gorgeous, highly successful projects that the community loves. So I'm gonna call on the city to fulfill the specific commitments made in the master plan. And one of those has already been broken, but we can restore it. So the original plan for North Point, as we designed it, oh, and I facilitated the table for North Point and natural areas at the Charette. So I was both responsible for and intimately aware of what we created, what we designed. So the mountain bike trails have virtually been allowed to take over North Point. And I understand that the bikers love it, and that's not a horrible thing, but it did displace the nature trails and the recreation in nature that was supposed to take place on North Point. So we're in the position where we can fulfill the promise for North Point even better on top of the landfill. And we should take that opportunity. Now, I have reviewed the various options that are presented, and there's a lot to like. And I really appreciate the work that's gone into this. The preferred option would be option three. And that's because many of the athletic facilities are shifted over closer to Jimbo's Lagoon. That site was not being made available to us during the Charette process. We didn't have the opportunity to consider it. But here we are, and that's very likable. What is missing, however, is a baseball field. I know that this was something that the Charette promised, multiple baseball fields. Well, at least one would be good. So seeing where that can be fit in would be a huge plus. To avoid further missteps and delays in the process, I suggest that the city staff and the consultants should reach out and engage with those who are actually involved in the Consensus Master Plan, which, by the way, also mandated this advisory board as part of its plan. I would be happy to work with the landscape architects and city staff to work with them to craft a park that they can really be proud of. Let's do it once, let's do it right, let's make it beautiful. So thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer questions. My name is Sam Van Leer, and I'll give you my card if I may.

Sam, thank you very much for coming. I didn't know you were going to be here tonight. I think I first met you over 20 years ago, maybe 25 years ago. Thank you so much for your organization and the great work you've done.

And thank you for your presentation.

I have a copy of the Virginia Key Master Plan 2010, and it references many of the meetings that you're describing.

How many master plans have we had since?

Just the one. Only one that I'm aware of that's legal and operational we should be following. And they're available from the city.

Oh, no, I'm happy. Gee whiz.

I suggest that everybody on this advisory board who isn't familiar with it should become familiar with the Virginia Key Master Plan because that's what the city promised the community.

Sam, have you been communicating with Lorraine?

No, this is the first time.

I am happy to. Will you reach out to them and help them?

You've been doing this for 20, 25 years. More? 18, 19 years.

And your father before that? He's a physical oceanographer. He doesn't do habitat. Now retired.

Any board members have any questions? And then we're going to hear from another member of the public. Steve?

I do, if I may. Thank you, Sam. We always really appreciate your wisdom. How did baseball fields become part of the master plan?

So the EDSA master plan that preceded this was universally reviled by the community that represented Virginia Key, the stakeholders. Nobody had really asked for a huge sports village, but There is value in sports, and there are people in the area who love to play baseball and soccer and all these things, and so the environmental community agreed that having some sports fields in here does serve the public good, and there was demand for it from the public. The general consensus was, yeah, let's make this a friendly place for people to use for sports. Does that answer? Yes. Thank you.

My name is Craig Rosenbacher. I'm a private citizen. I'm not representing anyone, but I want to say that I've been involved in planning initiatives in Virginia Key going back more than 35 years, all the way back to Jack Luft, your city of Miami planning director 35 or more years ago, including working on the master plan. I recently retired from Durham, Miami-Dade County Durham. I'm not representing Durham. I just want to make a couple points. And first, I'd like to first say that Mr. Van Leer is absolutely spot on with regard to the comments about the forested area, the consensus, the agreed upon 75 acre or so forest. And I watched a bit of back and forth here between your advisory board and city staff, and the city staff explained, unless I misunderstood, that the reason this element was left out of the plan is because this is a conceptual plan. Well, from a planning perspective, let me assure you that these concepts that are supposed to be in the final product need to be concepts in the conceptual plan. It's simply a mistake. or an oversight not to show these basic concepts in the concept plan. And I would just urge better guidance to the consultant to make sure that these basic planning concepts are included in the conceptual plan. You can't build from something that you don't have a strong foundation on. This is an agreed upon concept, an agreed upon portion of the project. Another thing I want to mention, in case the city or their engineers are not aware of it, there is a mangrove wetland, a very significant mangrove wetland at the southwest corner of this landfill. And the survival of that mangrove wetland depends on a culvert, a conflict culvert that connects to Biscayne Bay from that wetland. It's a conflict culvert, the engineers all understand my meaning. bridges a large force main, the county's wastewater force main that brings the wastewater to Virginia Key, among other underground infrastructure. And that culvert, I was recently there, that culvert has failed. It is no longer working. And I urge there to be some attention to put on that culvert because it's no exaggeration to say that the ability of those mangroves to survive depends on that culvert functioning. Thank you.

Oh, sir? Thank you. You have wonderful comments. Can I get your name for my records?

Yes. My name's Craig Grossenbacher, former employee of Miami-Dade County, Durham. Just retired after 37 years. I want to make it clear that I'm not representing Miami-Dade County. I'm representing myself as a private citizen. Do you need any other information?

No, thank you. I remember Jack Luff, too.

I worked with him way back at the beginning, even before The master plan was an idea on Virginia Key.

And if you have a chance tonight, can you get a chance to say hello to Hector and Lorraine from the Office of Capital? Absolutely.

I know Hector, sure.

Oh, thank you very much. I will, thanks. Anybody else like to speak tonight? Thank you all for being here. We had a quorum. It's wonderful to see you. And it's now April. We'll be back in May. Anybody have any questions or anything they want to bring up? Anybody want to make a motion?

I just have a follow-up question. Yes. What is the next step as far as the landfill plan? I mean, I'm here and they want to get together with me, but if they don't, what is the plan? Is this something that's going to go to the politicians as is, what they sent to us? If so, I would highly recommend that that not happen.

I'm hoping they communicate with you in the next two or three days about a meeting for you and the consultants.

And if they don't, what recourse do we have? Oh, you think? Okay, good. We'll see.

I'm confident that you guys will communicate in the next 48 hours.

Chair, if I may, and I apologize for my tardiness, I'm, as usual, dependent on the kindness of mass transport, which wasn't too kind today. Did I miss the update on the Marine Stadium boat launch?

We didn't have an update on that today.

Did not?

No.

Lorraine, is she next to Mr. Padilla?

She's here if you'd like to ask that question.

Can we do that at the next meeting? Hold on. Can we do that at the next meeting? Because, you know.

You have another meeting. Yeah. Steve, would it be okay to wait till May? Or do you want to hear a quick? Three minutes? 90 seconds.

Nothing lasts three minutes. 90 seconds.

Nothing, I promise you. An update on the boat launch. Is it opened yet or when is it opening?

And we'll put it on the next schedule as well.

Okay. 90 seconds.

So last time that we were here, we explained that the ramp cannot be open until we satisfy a mitigation with FDEP. And we continue on the process of making sure that we have a mitigation plan, that FDEP agrees on it. And again, it cannot open last time they mentioned to us until we get a baseline zero survey. So baseline zero survey is when you do the dive and select the site that you're gonna mitigate for seagrasses and you Once they determine the site is appropriate for mitigation, we do a dive and we document the status of the site before we plant. So once we have that baseline, we can submit it to FDEP and then we can open the ramp.

Thank you, Lorraine.

Thank you, Lorraine.

Quick.

Any other questions? Motion to adjourn? Or this city attorney?

I'm so sorry. So I just wanted to make a very quick note. This will be my last meeting as the assistant city attorney assigned to this board. But Ileana Jerez is the new assigned assistant city attorney and she'll be here and available to assist you guys through these meetings. these meetings. She's new with the city, but is not a new attorney. So I would just ask that you all be kind and have some, as you always are, and keep in mind that she's still getting familiar with the city's different background.

We're going to miss you. You've done a great job.

Are you still gonna be with the city or just?

Yes, yes, I'm still with the city. It's just we're reorganizing the assignment of boards so that it's equal among the staff.

Thank you. And Lorraine and Rafa, thank you very much for getting all these items together for us. Some of them are on short notice, particularly the list of the bidders for the Marine Stadium.

Any motion to adjourn?

All in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you all very much. Thank you all members of the public for showing up for our meeting.