Vice Chairman McGee. Chairman Rodriguez. I'm here. Ten members present. You have a quorum. All right. This morning, I'd like to ask Commissioner Gilbert. Yesterday, I understand, would have been his father's birthday, and he was a pastor. So if you'd have the honors of doing the invocation this morning, Commissioner Gilbert, I think that would be honorable. Please rise for invocation. Let me just say, my father was a Baptist pastor. He was from Camilla, Georgia, originally. He came here when he was 14 years old. He believed in this county, and specifically the city of Miami Gardens, like no one. He really believed this was a special place. I believe that also. I know my colleagues believe that also. And so in honor of him, please bow your heads. God, today we come saying thank you, treasuring every moment, every breath, understanding that what we have was not promised and is not given. Keep us in your will and your way. Order our steps. Make us wise stewards of your resources and your land. Make us one united community, not always agreeing, but always moving forward. Together. Amen. All right. Now I'm going to ask. We're going to do this a little bit different today. The pledge. I'm going to ask all of our kids that are skipping school today for bringing your child to work day. If they can come down to the well and line up next to each other. You can give them a hand of applause. Just line up next to each other. Ari, I see you in the back. Can you work your way down, please? Thank you. If he wanted to skip school, he's going to have to do the pledge. It's, it's, uh, Mr. Chair, it's not skipping school. It's a field trip. And to make you feel better, I'll send Sebas down there. Sebas, join him. Why wasn't Sebas down there to begin with? Sebas, go that way. Why wasn't Sebas already down there? Because he's 21. Because he's not a kid. But he's going to accompany them. They are still our kids. All right. Now we're going to face the flag. All of us still. We're not going to look at the kids up here. And, uh, the kids will lead us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic on which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Amen. Wow. That was so good. Thank you very much. And I hope you all enjoyed the day. You're welcome. Oh. JP, where are you? JP. JP, raise your hand. That is, he created those. Thank you all very much, and I hope you enjoy your full day here at the county. Take care, guys. You very much did. Bye, everyone. Yeah, it's all downhill from here. Let's get started here. Miss, let me look up before I say this. All right, you're blink, you're whatever it's called. I can't do it. Wink, blink, nod. Mr. Attorney, can you please set the agenda at this time? Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair. As noted on the changes memorandum, you have two additions to your agenda. That's 3C supplement number two and 7A supplement number two. And with that, the motion to set the agenda would be in order. I'll entertain a motion at this time. Commissioner Bastien moves to set the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Regalado. All in favor of setting the agenda, signify by saying aye. Aye. All oppose, nay. Mr. Attorney, can we have the zoning director at this time read his opening statement and swear on the speakers? Yes, Mr. Chair. In accordance with the Code of Miami-Dade County, all items to be heard today have been legally advertised in the newspaper. No has been mailed, no properties have been posted. Additional copies of the agenda are available here in the chambers. Items will be called up to be heard by agenda number and name of applicant. Please note, board action at any item at today's meeting may be reconsidered, and additional action may be taken on such an item at the same meeting. Applicants and members of the public may wish to govern themselves accordingly. The record and file for the hearing for each application will include documents from the public, agencies, the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, where there's an appeal from the Communities on the Appeals Board, but we also have the transcript from those hearings. All documents are physically present today, available to all interested parties, and available to all members of the Board of County Commissioners who may examine these items from the record during the hearing. Parties have the right across the examination. This statement only with the fact that all witnesses have been sworn in shall be included in any transcript of these proceedings. In addition, there's an official translator present in the chambers to those individuals requiring such assistance. Will the clerk please swear on the witnesses? Witnesses, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God? Interpreters, do you swear or affirm that you will make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the testimony given? All right. We're good to start? All right, then, Mr. Director, it's my understanding that the applicant is requesting a defer for item 8C1? 8C1 to the next meeting, correct. All right. Do I have a motion to defer 8C1 to the very next meeting, which I believe that will be in July? It's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by... Mr. Chair? Sorry. Yes, Abby? My understanding is the next BCC zoning meeting is June 18th. Okay. Yeah, that's what... Oh, okay. June 18th. That's the next BCC... Oh, we're constantly May, not July. Okay, got it, got it. All right. So to the June 18th meeting. All right. So it's been moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. All in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. All opposed, nay. All right. Show that item deferred. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 3A, 3A Supplement, and 3A Supplement number 2 and 4, as well as 3A1. And if the Director needs to read anything into the record, now will be the time. Yes. First, I'll read this. This CDMP item was previously heard on first reading and is before you today for public hearing and final action. I'll read the ordinance title and reference the companion resolution in the event the Board wishes to convert to a standard application and transmit. However, if the Board takes action on the item today, the companion resolution shall be deemed withdrawn. Item 3A is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2023-0018, located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Southwest 192 Street and Southwest 177 Avenue, Chrome Avenue, filed by Okla LLC in the May 2023 cycle to amend the county's Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing severability, exclusion from the code, and effective date. That is item 3A, 3A Supplement, and 3A Supplement number 2, as well as number 3 and 4 and 3A1. My understanding is there is not a companion zoning item with this CDMP application. All right. I'm going to go ahead and open a public hearing at this time. I'll start with the public first. When I call your name, please line up. State your name and address. And I'm going to know the item that you're speaking on already. And you will have two minutes to speak on this. I have Mary Waters, Mario Consuelo, Perez Melo, and Julio Angel Melo. Mary Waters, come on down. Ms. Waters, the timer's working, but the little beeping thing is not. So I'm going to, if you're not paying attention, I will say thank you very much, and that means the time is up. Oh, actually, I just keep talking. Yeah, I mean, you can try that. I can try. I got away with it once, remember? I mean, not with me as chair, I'll tell you that. And surely, certainly not with Gilbert as chair. No, it wasn't him. Actually, it was you. All right, let's go. Let's do this. Okay, all right. Mary Waters, 13600 Southwest 229 Street, Redland. This is regarding the OCLA application that has been attempting to get this passed for the last two and a half years. It has been deferred so many times. I am very opposed to this application being approved, and your planning staff has vehemently denied that this should not pass. It's not on a commercial node, which is what is required for properties, in particular retails that intend to have food at their site. But this is a big leap to go from an ag zone, which it is currently, to a BU2, which is a business and office zone for that. What they're wanting to do is to bring in a retail shop with a grocery store that's really not needed in that area. You're going to be hearing probably comments from people that live in that area that say they desperately do need a grocery store. There are grocery stores three miles away, six miles away, and everywhere north, east, and south from there. There is really no need for a small grocery store to even be there. The other thing is the county is always opposed to adding new facilities that do not have public water and sewage services. This does not. That would have to be privately built operations to have. Currently, there is an old establishment that is there that has a lot of retail stores. It's been there since 1973 before the CDMP was there, before the zoning was there. Thank you, Ms. Waters. That's two minutes? Are you sure? It's like two and a half now. Are you sure? All right, Mr. Julio and Maria, right? Melo? Yes. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Maria Perez Melo. I reside at 19845 Southwest 152nd Street, 33187. I am in favor of the construction of the grocery. We're being old. Our neighbors and my family, whenever I need to get something to make for my grandkids, which they're all grown up and they come for a visit, it's very hard to get to Coma Avenue. And now with the amount of traffic to get to Kendall or 184 to the big supermarkets, a small supermarket would be a necessity on these days. It would be less dangerous for us because we could use the back roads to get through the new grocery and get what we need. And I've been here asking for it before, and I ask again. Now it's a necessity. It's not only a convenience. I would really respectfully request that you approve it, and thank you for your attention. Thank you, Maria Consuelo. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Julio Mello. This is my wife. Just telling what she says, which is good, Coma Avenue is getting to be really, really bad. So we really appreciate it if you do approve, which has been approved already before. So respectfully request that you please take that in consideration. And believe me, the traffic is really, really dangerous on Coma Avenue at any time. Thank you very much. Thank you. And Julio, can I ask you a personal question? Yes, sir. How long have the two of you been married? Excuse me? How long have the two of you been married? 43 years. I can tell. That's the secret right there is because you said whatever she said plus 42 years. That's the secret. Listen, we've been very active in the community for over 60-some years. We've been 77 and 83 with cancer. Oh, wow. God bless you guys. Thank you so much for coming all the way down here. Thank you for asking. You owe me. Here we go. Now I owe my friend Julio. All right. All right. Public hearing, or I don't even know what this is called anymore. Public hearing is officially closed, and the applicant can approach. I see. I imagine you're the applicant's representative. And how much time are you going to need? Like 30 seconds? Sure. 30 seconds is fine. Go ahead. I'll be as quick as possible, Mr. Chair. Members of the board, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant, joined by Mr. Lewis Alexander, Mr. Tim Gomez. As has been discussed, this property is on Chrome Avenue. It is at a signalized intersection. What's interesting, Commissioner, about this site more than anything else is that it is the oldest commercial site on Chrome Avenue outside of the city of Homestead. This commercial shopping center predates the adoption of the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan in 1988. It was developed in 1980. It's almost 50 years old. It has served the agricultural area for that long. When it was built, it was designed to serve only the agricultural area. The county's position is that this could generate sprawl and that it is contrary to their policies concerning sprawl. That's impossible. This is so far removed from the urban development boundary that it is incapable of creating sprawl. But what is happening is that you have several nonconforming subdivisions in this area with smaller lots than are required today. So what that means is that there are many homes that are on lots that are less than five acres. So the density is naturally higher in this area than it is in other parts of the ag area in the Redland, which is why this shopping center was developed here in 1980 to begin with, because that's where the people were that needed the service. It wasn't developed in 1980 to bring in people from inside of the urban development boundary. Nobody would drive from Kendall or Westchester. Let me pause you for one second. Yes, sir. And just stay right there. Yes. I'm going to do something. I'm going to recognize the district commissioner. To see if he has actual questions for you to address. Thank you. I have a couple. I might have a couple of questions. I just want to see if he might ask them or satisfy them for me. But yes, commissioner from district nine, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I do support adopting this application pursuant to what the planning advisory board actually surmised at their meeting. But I do have a few questions for the actual staff and county attorney really quickly. We did hear that this is already a shopping plaza, a shopping center. Is that correct? Did the chair ask that? That's correct. Okay. And is it correct that the applicant made a representation on the record that this is not near the UDB line? Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. I also overheard, if I listened to the mellows correctly, that this being located off Chrome Avenue, this is something that the community has asked for. Do we know whether or not there has been any letters of support in favor of this applicant at this time? Let me check how many. I can answer that question, commissioner, if I may, through the chair. You may. We have 207 letters of support. They're already submitted for the record. The planning advisory board recommended approval of this application, and those letters were submitted at that time. Thank you. Quickly to staff, really quickly. I have about two more questions. The planning advisory board, what is that made up of? That's made up of representatives from the various commission districts have appointees, as well as a few ex-officio members and a few members at large. Thank you. Thank you. Our motion is to accept this application and move it forward. We have a motion by the district commissioner. We have a second by Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you. to the district nine commissioner for the questions that he asked. It included some of the questions that I had, as well. I am authentically perplexed from staff's perspective as to why this application is being recommended for denial, and I would like for the applicant, I don't know what is currently on our screens. I know what's on my screen. I see a, I don't know if it's, what is on the screen there? Is it the GUBU1A? Yes. Can you go back to the slide that shows what the site currently looks like? Now you're stealing my words. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, no, go ahead. That's exactly what I was going to point out. Is this what the site currently looks like to staff? Yes. Okay, and to the applicant, what is it that you are proposing to replace this with? That's what it looks like today, Commissioner. The liquor store and other retail and market options. The tire repair opens up to the GU portion. The tire repair is entirely legal. It was approved by resolution. What has happened over the years is that you have the natural parking of trucks in this GU area because they're being serviced by the tire repair. My understanding is that this commission chose years ago to relocate all trucks from the ag area to specific areas. It shouldn't even be here. Mr. Chairman, just point of information. I thought she asked to see what the proposal was. This is what it looks like. Thank you. No, no, my question was what is it going to look like? That's it. What you're seeing. Oh, there. Okay. Yes. Got it. Okay, this is what I, and so the previous photos is what it's currently functioning as, and this is what your clients are going to be replacing that site with, and it's a grocery store and other retail options for the residents in the area? Correct, Commissioner. It's a framed vernacular architecture, which we think will complement the area's rural character. It's like a farm style consistent with our beautiful south. Yes. And to our staff, this is, there's covenants and other documents that require them to build to this image that's being shown to us now? Yes. Yes, there is? Yes, yes. Okay, thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. With that, you literally asked all the questions I wanted to ask. The covenant was the part that I was really going to get to, and then the last thing is the size of the grocery store, because I know that that could be an issue, especially if you're trying to keep it seat-to-table type of grocery store. Does the covenant speak to the size of the grocery store? Yes. Is it a Publix type? Is it? No. Mr. Chair. You may answer. If I may, it's limited to 18,000 square feet, which is a very small grocery store by today's standards. All right. Some could go upwards of 30,000, 40,000 square feet, right? All right. That's it. With that, Commissioner Regalado, you recognize? Yeah. I just had a comment that I think this application brings up an interesting point. Our comp plan is very general and has a tendency to want to preserve existing. But in this case, what's existing, should it be preserved? So I think that that's what we're all kind of responding to. I think the staff is making a recommendation based on a policy decision that's embedded in the comp plan. And I think this is a moment for us to consider that when we receive an application where what is existing is not what is best for the neighborhood, then it's an opportunity to shift that general policy statement, right, that's available in the comp plan. So I think staff is just responding to what's in the comp plan. But when you look at what's actually there, clearly this would be an improvement. And I think that's why the comp plan can be overwritten by this board. And finally, I don't, with all due respect to some of the folks that are against it, I don't think you should have to go three or four miles for a grocery store, even if that's the case. So I think this is an example of an application that is well-placed and will provide a benefit to the neighbors in the area. So I'm happy to support. Thank you. And the wonderful thing about the county is that we are a choice county. So if you decide to still go to the grocery store three or four miles up, you're welcome to do so as well. With that, is this a voice vote or no? Mr. Chair, can I just restate the motion just to approve the item? It's a motion to approve with acceptance of the proffered covenant, and the applicant would need to submit the executed covenant, opinion of title, and any necessary joiners within 10 days, unless additional time is granted by the director or the application is deemed withdrawn. All right. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastian. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Melian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Four. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Oh, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 3B, 3B Supplement, and 3B1, and then we'll take its companion item in zoning as well, 8C3. If the director needs to read a statement or anything into the record, now will be the time. Yes. The next CD&P item is a small-scale application previously heard on first reading and before you today for public hearing and final action. Again, I will read the ordinance title and also reference the companion resolution in the event the board wishes to convert to a standard application and transmit. However, if the board takes final action today on the small scale, the companion resolution is deemed withdrawn. This CD&P item has a concurrent zoning application associated with it. A single public hearing will be held and incorporated into the record as to both the CD&P and zoning items for each application, and this hearing will be conducted in accordance with quasi-adjudicial principles. Separate votes will then be taken on the CD&P and zoning items. This is item 3B, an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CD&P 2025-0008, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Southwest 232 Street and Southwest 124 Court, east of US 1, followed by 232 Holdings, LLC, and 12499 Holdings, LLC, in the May 2025 cycle to amend the county CD&P, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. That's item 3B, 3B Supplement, 3B1, and the director will now read the zoning item, which is 8C3. Application 8C3-232 Holdings, LLC, and 12499 Holdings, LLC, application number Z-2025-000-125. We've had no protest and no way to support this application. Mr. Chairman, the Water and Sewer Department like that are conditioned to this application to include a pump station at the project, and they have a new memo this morning for distribution to the board. Make sure it's been distributed, and at this time while it's being distributed, I will open up public hearing for both items. I'm going to go ahead and start with the public first, as usual. Call your name. You'll have two minutes to speak. I have Frederick Bowles and Michael Bowles. Please come up. Thank you. Please state your name and address, and you'll each have two minutes to speak. Yeah, my address is 22600 Southwest 126th Avenue, 33170, Miami, Florida. Okay, I have been living where I'm at since 1983, which at that time, U.S. 1 flowed real smooth, and the development around me has turned from cool air to hot air because of all the building that Dade County has done behind Cawley Square going both north and south. Now, I don't mind them building. I have nothing against it. What I do have against it is when you try to change the amount of occupants that can be within a certain amount of area to three to four times as many, and U.S. 1 from, I'd say, a little above Marlin, where you have, well, Marlin is still a four-lane road, but if you go past that, then you go to six lanes, down to U.S. 1 all the way through Homestead, which is four lanes, and the traffic for the amount of building you're doing, someone didn't think, because you can't widen the road no more if you're letting the people build almost right on it. I tried to get a road fixed near my house and was told that there's not 21 feet so you can put a two-lane road rather than shave two feet off of one side of the road and two feet off of Dade County's property on the other, tar the area, and make it so cars could probably squeeze by without driving in chuck holes. Now, I brought this up many times, and I was told from our Dade County Mayor now that there's not 21 feet so you can't do anything with the road. Thank you, Mr. Bowles. No. Thank you so much. A question would be. There's no question. Why don't you guys ensure that they make the road white? All right, Mr. Bowles, you've got, please state your name and address for the record as well, and you've got two minutes. My name is Michael Bowles. I live at 22600 Southwest 126th Avenue. Thank you. I'm not in favor of increasing the amount of people on this property or the multi-resident units that are being built because more people resorts in more resources being used. Currently, we are under water restrictions, according to Google, in all of South Florida, and adding more people would tax or strain that water system to the point where people will end up getting fined for using said water because there's not enough. On top of that, the infrastructure is, again, needed to be worked on first before moving in the development so that way traffic can flow freely without having to worry about accidents and people getting irate on the roads. I understand that the busway is a solution that was supposed to alleviate a lot of that issue, but this morning when we took the bus, it was almost like Jewish people being packed in a train in 1944 Germany. It was that packed, and I have pictures to show that. But, again, I pray that you, the commission here, will have the wisdom that before starting another project, that they take a look at the infrastructure and the resources and say, is this beneficial for all the residents or is it just beneficial for us? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Balls. All right. Now we'll move on from that analogy. Public hearing is officially closed to the applicants. Actually, do you have something specific you have to say, or can I recognize the district commissioner? Please do. Thank you. Should I call you? Hugo R is at 701 Burkle Avenue for the record. Is it not? All right. No. All right. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Harza, can you put up some pictures of what your client is planning to place on this location? Sorry. Well, how do I go back here? Let me see if I can just scroll through it again. Apologies. McGill would not. Sorry, if they could. Here we go. There we go. And what was the community council's opinion on this application? Recommendation of approval at both community council and PAB. Planning advisory board also recommended approval. And our staff's recommendation on this? It is for approval also. Okay. And talk to me about the water pumps and the water infrastructure. One of our speakers spoke about that. And there was an amendment that was just circulated. Yeah, I think the water and sewer, we were approached before the meeting that the water and sewer department's memo just had failed to include that there would be a pump station on the property. We were always aware of that. Our agreement with water and sewer contemplated it. The memo before you did not. They're updating the memo. It's the same end result for us. We have no issue. We were planning to do it. And where is this in proximity to our corridor, to our busway? It touches US 1, if I may. It's that property. So US 1 is, at our northwest point, we touch the US 1, we touch US 1. Right directly next to it? Yes, yes. A buddy. Thank you. I have no further questions. I move this application consistent with planning advisory board, community council, and staff's recommendation. It's been moved by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, seconded by the vice chair. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none. Mr. Chair, can I just add? And that would be with the proffered covenant and with the same 10-day condition that I read. I believe we've submitted all our covenants, but we'll take the 10 days, but I think we did that before. Abby, should I just recognize you after every motion? Yeah. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Yes. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Item passes unanimously. All right, Mr. Attorney, I'm going to take item 8C3. It's companion item. I think the director already made his statement right. Yes. Nodding yes. So, Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized to move this item, a companion item. I move the companion item consistent with staff's recommendation. And with the covenants and all the things that Abby needs, as she said in the prior item. So, it is seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Yes. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Four. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Four. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Item passes unanimously. All right. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 8C2. And if the director needs to read anything into the record, now will be the time. Application 8C2. 1315 Partners. Application number Z2024000260. We've had no protests and no waiver to support this application. I will now open a public hearing at this time. I have no public speakers registered or signed up to speak. This morning on this item. You want to move past this? You want to go to the next item? Okay. I only have one more item before we have to get to this, though. All right. So we're going to pause the 8C2. And we're going to go ahead and take item 3C, 3C supplement. 3C supplement number 2 and 3C1, as well as its companion item in zoning 8C4. Mr. Attorney. Yes. Mr. Chair, I was hearing that the applicant may be seeking a deferral on these items, but... Yes. That's what I have. That's what I understand from you all, as well. Mr. Ghassan. Absolutely. We're seeking to defer the item. All right. Is there a motion to defer the item? Would this be to June 18, as well? Yes. Okay. To June 18, defer the item. All right. So it's been moved by the Vice Chair to June 18, seconded by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. All in favor of the deferral, signify by saying aye. All oppose, nay. Thank you. All right. So the item deferred. Mr. Chair, that includes the zoning item, as well, 8C4. It shall travel together. All right. Commissioner Hardiman, on 8C2, the director... We're waiting on some word from the developer for a moment. Do we have public comment on the next items? They're going to take long. The next items will take long. I understand, but... I can take it at the end, but there's a risk. Well, the hope would be if we engage in public comment and we have a resolution, we can pause public comment, handle the matter, and then... Once I'm on it, I'm going to stay on the item that we're on, but I can do it in between the two items. There's two items I might take long. My will is to take Calusa first, which might be the lesser complicated one of the two. I'm not sure. Okay. That's fine. I'm willing to do that. That works? All right. All right. So, Mr. Attorney, let's take up Calusa Club Drive, which is 8A1. And if the director needs to read anything into the record, now is the time. Application 8A1, Kendo Associates, 1-9800, Calusa Club Drive, LLC, and home at 9810, LLC. Application number Z-2021-000031. We had 3,905 protests and 646 waivers of support for this application. All right. And to all those that came out today, as I said, on the record, near the end of last meeting, well, to the prior meeting that we had a lengthy, lengthy conversation and a full and fair public hearing when this application came before us on February 19th, everyone was given an opportunity to speak, and your voices were heard at that meeting at, not ad nauseum, but definitely a lot. So, this item was ultimately deferred, and as I said at the end of that meeting, we would not be having another public hearing today. But I also said that if there are proposed changes to the application, I would like one representative from the applicant and one representative from the objectors to address this board for a few minutes regarding their position on the applicant's changes. But, again, I'm not reopening the public hearing. So, therefore, if I can have the attorney for the applicants and the attorney for the objectors approach the podium. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. And as you're approaching the podium, I'm going to recognize some of my colleagues that may need to put a disclosure or disclaimer on the record. Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't at the last meeting. I reviewed the public comment. I feel well-informed enough on what was said that I can make a decision today. Also, I don't know that I've had any ex-parte communications about this, but it's been around so long that I find it hard to believe that I haven't. All I know is I'm impartial and I can make a decision on this. Commissioner Steinberg, you're recognized. Thank you. Yes. I, too, have listened to the recording from the meeting, of which I was not here, and am fully apprised and able to participate. And, to the best of my knowledge, I have not engaged in any ex-parte conversations. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anyone else? Need to give a disclaimer? Commissioner Hardiman. I adopt the same language that my previous colleagues did. All right. That should work. Anyone else? We're good? Mr. Chair? No, we're not. Commissioner Bastian. Yes. Same comment. Same comments from the three previous commissioners? Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. No, I got to say it. Do you have to say it, too? Yeah. All right. Do you adopt the same language or do you want to read it? No, I adopt the same one. All right. So, Commissioner Bermudez is walking behind the Chair right now and, on the record, is saying that he adopts the same language as the prior commissioners. All right. Do we have anyone? They adopted your language. I think they adopted that. Okay. They adopted Commissioner Steinberg's language. Mr. Chair, with respect to the attorneys that are up, I'm not sure whether they were all sworn in. I didn't see certain people standing. I just want to make sure that if they need to be sworn in, that they are. Please, if the Clerk can swear them in in the abundance of caution. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? I do. Thank you. All right. So, to the objector's attorney, Commissioner Regalado. Thank you. Just, I know we, can we just take up, like, where we left it off? So, in the last, I don't want to rehash everything. So, in the last meeting, the objectors put up a series of requests. So, can we just go through if they got what they wanted? That's what I was saying. Right. And then see, because I know Audubon also says that they got what they wanted. So, just to narrow it. That's exactly my wish. Thank you. Thank you for that, though. All right. To the objector's attorney, who in the audience are you representing? Yes. So, David Winker, law office is at 4720 South Lejeune Road, Coral Gables. Happy to be here. Thank you for your time. I represent Saif Calusa. I have Amanda Prieto here to discuss where we got to in the settlement negotiations. Okay. So, I am going to grant, for right now, each side five minutes, and if we need more time, I'll determine that at said time. But I do urge that you use your time wisely and speak, like Commissioner Regalado said, to the points that we left off on in the last meeting that a lot of us here asked you all to work on. So, you are recognized with five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I live at 13390 Southwest 91st Terrace Unit D in Calusa. My name is Amanda Prieto, and I'm the leader of a nonprofit called Saif Calusa. I've been advocating for seven years now. I will be the first to admit that I stand here in disappointment that I was not able to reach an agreement with a developer. I really wanted to be the shining example of how our community could work with a developer and make improvements. We have made some improvements to the rookery protections, and I'm very happy with that, and I'm very pleased that Tropical Audubon agrees and has reached an agreement with the developer. But for my community, it was impossible to make the distinction between only rookery protections and a meaningful community benefit, as well as the negative traffic impacts to quality of life that this brings residents. So, where we couldn't reach an agreement was on density, and I want you to know that this weighed heavily on me. This was not an easy decision. I went to my community. We did a meeting with KFHA where 80 people showed up, went to five HOA meetings. I presented the revised plan, and I said, not what do you want, because I know the answer. Everybody wants a park. I said, what could you live with? What is a reasonable compromise here where we will feel like we have a win and we made improvements and we could live with this? And every single person I spoke to mentioned the traffic and wanting a park or a preserve that was meaningful, that the community could either have access to or be proud of that would be a legacy for our community. And that is where we couldn't reach an agreement with the developer. I want to say that this was not an easy decision, and when I declined to reach a settlement agreement, which would have also included waiving my rights to appeal, which I also take very seriously because I've been very involved in this process, in having residents have a voice, in meaningful notice, and in meaningful discussions. And I knew that I knew that I was putting the recovery protections at risk if I didn't sign. I didn't know they were going to make an agreement with Tropical Audubon. But what I realized was ultimately this responsibility falls on you, the commission, to balance responsible development, environmental protections, and quality of life for the residents, and that it really wasn't up to me to make that decision. And so what I'm asking you to do is to listen to the resident concerns. This is your chance. This is not a couple exceptions that they're asking for. This is a change in zoning. They could currently build 34 homes. They're asking to build now 524. And our concern is this is in the middle of an existing built community, and that our local roads and the surrounding intersections will just be bombarded with traffic, and then it will destroy our day-to-day life. So that's where we ended up in terms of discussions. I do want to thank the commission for pushing back a little bit in the last meeting and asking for the developer to make some concessions. It made the world of difference. You hold such tremendous power and opportunity to hear resident concerns and make improvements. Things that were not possible for years after asking were suddenly possible within a week. And so I do really appreciate that, and that is how we got to the Rookery Protections. But I stand here before you saying this is our one chance to decide what happens with this property. It is 168 acres. This is not affordable housing. This is not workforce housing. This is not live local. This is designated parks and rec land that was intended to be preserved for 100 years. Is this the best use of this land for my community and for the county? And that's the decision before you. I am proud that I think along the way my community improved this process and made sure that you had factual, you know, surveys of the Rookery and wildlife and that we had meaningful input. The decision ultimately lies with you, and I ask you to consider it heavily. Thank you so much. Thank you, Amanda. All right. The applicant, you will have the same five minutes to address what progress has been had since the last meeting that we heard this. And please introduce yourself. Before you start the clock, do you have a remote here? Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Eileen Mehta. I'm with the law firm of Bills and Sundberg. And I just wanted to mention, first I want to thank both Ms. Prieto and Mr. Winker for cooperating with us in an attempt to settle. We have a few legal comments that we have reduced to writing. We're going to hand it to the clerk because we know you don't want to hear from the lawyer. You want to hear from Mr. Norrock, the executive vice president of GL Homes. He has a brief presentation to explain to you the settlement that we were able to reach and the progress that we've made. Thank you. Thank you so much. I will say at the last hearing, we took Save Calusa at their word, and there was a what-we-want list presented to us. That list included documentation, rookery, and wildlife habitat items. With a concrete list to address, we reached out immediately. We conceded all points and created a new rookery plan. We met. We exchanged settlement agreement drafts for six weeks with Tropical Audubon and with Save Calusa. Amanda Prieto and I jointly presented the new rookery plan at the Kendall Federation meeting. Tropical Audubon was in the negotiations. They've been a strong advocate for rookery protections. Objectives concerned about the rookery were well represented by their efforts. Tropical Audubon and us, we signed an agreement with additional rookery protections. I think Lauren Junitis, the executive director of Tropical Audubon, is here today, and I want to thank Lauren and her team for constructive engagement. She's right over there. There we go. So Durham approved our new plan. In fact, all county departments have recommended our project's approval, and here's the new plan. The revised plan expands the lake, whereas before the lake was getting smaller. The existing three-and-a-half-acre lake with the redded dotted line, now look at the blue, is over four acres. We eliminated all the houses that backed up to the rookery. No homes are going to be built in this black circle, which, by the way, at the last meeting, Mr. Winker was saying, oh, that black circle's measured wrong. We reconfirmed with FWC that we had measured it correctly, and it was in the misrepresentation. Anyway, that measures 330 feet from the nesting area. Plus, we put a double hedge and trees that are shown in dark green there, so there's going to be a visual buffer around the rookery. And in addition, where the lots are orange, we're going to construct nothing for two years to allow landscaping around the rookery to grow in. This plan far exceeds regulatory regulations. So, the Tropical Audubon settlement covers physical area and restrictions. These are some of the points. Additionally, there's use restrictions. There's access provided to Tropical Audubon. So back to the what we want slide. All items were addressed. We filed the documents requested. The cut-through traffic study that they requested showed that there are less impacts now than the last time the Commission approved this application. So all of the other listed items up there, beyond those two, addressed the rookery plan. And by expanding and protecting the rookery areas, we did create the better wildlife habitat. So if we address the issues from the last hearing, what happened to save Colusa? It was a little bit of the goalpost moved again, and she said she could live with 300 homes. That was not on this list of demands. 300 is lower than what's permitted in the comprehensive plan. The CVMP says Colusa supports 2.5 to 6 units an acre. Our 524 plan is 3 units per acre. And the path to 524 has been a series of compromises. I'm not going to restate them here because I know that you guys are time-sensitive. But I will say that it's hard to reconcile Ms. Prieto's public support of apartments just 250 yards from Colusa at 23 units per acre, with opposition to Colusa at 3 units per acre because of density. This Atlas Grand Project provided no traffic improvements for its 342 units. Meanwhile, we voluntarily proffered traffic calming improvements with police enforcement funded by RHOA for everybody's benefit. These improvements are so comprehensive that cut-through traffic will be less after build-out than it is today. Our entry bypass is Colusa Club Drive, which took those impacts away, and we voluntarily proffered eight off-site improvements to reduce the incentive to cut-through Colusa in the first place. So, I mean, and with respect to community benefits, which I have just heard, these traffic calming measures funded in perpetuity will reduce cut-through traffic from current levels even after build-out. Our on-site 5-acre recreational amenities will reduce the impact of our residents and county parks. And we're funding bike trails based on a request from this commission in 2021 when we got approved because this area is already over-parked, according to your parks department. And we address existing drainage issues for surrounding homes. So there's plenty of community benefits here. Well, let's get to the recap. The February 19th objection is focused on the rookery. We in Tropical Audubon agreed to a settlement agreement and to protect it, and Durham supports that agreement. In fact, every department supports this. We address every Save Colusa stated objection. Three units per acre is way at the lower end of your CDMP designation. We meet traffic county standards. Your traffic department and all other departments recommend approval, as do the most impacted homeowners. Half of the people that live on Colusa Club Drive were the people that signed the settlement agreement with us. All right, that's enough. Okay. Anyways, I'm in favor. I mean, if you weren't, there'd be concerns. All right. Commissioner from District 7, this is within your district, so you may start. I'm happy to wait till the end and hear if my colleagues have any concerns. And if no one has any concerns, I'm happy to move the item. I'm very happy with the agreement with Audubon. And I think that a lot of the concessions that have been made make this a very different and much better application. But happy to answer questions at the end. Okay. So then, did you officially move it, or? Yes. Okay, so it's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. Any discussion on the item, seeing Commissioner Hardiman? Rosely, is that a yes or no? No. No discussion. I don't even know what happened, but I'm not going to ask. I was waiting for her to tell me something. You were moving to vote. I was unready for the vote. Instead of her looking to say yes or no to my question. I got you. I'm not asking that. Just trust. All right. All right. If there's no further discussion on the item, clerk, please call the roll. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez. No. Commissioner Hardiman. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Four. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Four. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. No. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote no. Item passes 8 to 5. Congratulations. Since when do we clap? Like, what's, what's, I actually, I, I, can I move to reconsider? Because, like, we don't, we don't do that. We don't, we don't do the clap. So, like, contain your supporters, please. All right. Are you ready, Commissioner Hardiman? Or, I can go to the last one. I can go to the other one. No, I think we are, well, what we're waiting on is the, the actual applicant. I think you got the attorneys coming in. Okay. Okay, they're, I think they're ready. They're probably going to proffer something on the record that'll be captured by the county attorney's office and everything will be copacetic. Madam Court Reporter, can you get that one, copacetic? Yes. Say copacetic. All right. Can we exit quietly? I want to make sure that I said the right thing. Sergeants, can we secure the chamber? All right. So, Mr. Attorney, Director, Item 8C2, you read your statement, right? All right. So, I will now open up public hearing. There is no public speakers signed up to speak. So, I will now close public hearing. And to the applicant, do you need to, how much time will you need to present? Under five minutes. Three minutes. Let's do three minutes. You can start now. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Ethan Wasserman with Greenberg Charg, 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. Here on behalf of the applicant, I'm joined by Eric Zichella and Fred Quinn from ownership. So, briefly, we're just north of the signature bridge, north of the underdeck at 1315 Northeast Miami Court. As you can see in this image, we're surrounded by multiple high-rise multifamily residential development. The reason we're in the Metro Mover subzone is because we're surrounded on all sides by four stations within two to four blocks of the site. We are about a half an acre in size. We're proposing a 378-unit residential building with ground floor commercial activation. What's interesting about this site is we are really focused on the pedestrian experience. We have about 20 feet of sidewalk on our north and west. This is different from what's required in Miami and from what you're seeing in some of the surrounding buildings recently built in Miami, which have about 10-foot sidewalks, sometimes less. So, jumping into our public benefits proffer, we're offering a couple things. First is a 10% set-aside for workforce housing. We're splitting that up into two tranches. 5% will be up to 140% AMI, and the other 5% will be up to 110% AMI. So, we're kind of reducing the typical workforce housing proffer. We're also proffering about $600,000 worth of public improvements. These are to the sidewalk systems. There's a really well-known, trendy pizza shop just north of us generating tremendous activity in the neighborhood, plus the underdeck is coming. So, we want to add sidewalks, crossing signals, some of the electrical boxes for – I forget the civil term – but so the people can crosswalk in the neighborhood around our project. We are offering a third proffer, which we are working on currently with the county attorney's office, to make a financial contribution in a few ways. One is we're going to provide a $50,000 payment towards an educational fund within the next 60 days, I believe. And we are also going to provide $400,000 towards educational endowment for educational opportunities to kids in our community. So, if families are in need, this will be given to a private school to help facilitate academic opportunities to kids in our community. And so, if the district chair would accept that proffer, or if you have any other comments, I'd be happy to entertain it. Yeah. The $400,000 contribution wouldn't be necessary to a private school. You can use it for a private school. Right. But it will be towards an endowment that's already existing for – through the Miami Foundation that we established for District 3 residents. Perfect. We're happy to accept that. So, that proffer was obviously made on the record. I know the county attorney's office has some notice of it, but you haven't finalized the language. Do you want to be recognized for this? Yes, if you don't mind, Commissioner. Through the check. So, as I understand it, the covenant is still in need of finalization for – Madam Attorney, Madam Attorney, just for the record, because you don't always sit up there, you do have to be recognized by the – I said through the chair. You did. You did. But you do need to be recognized by the chair. I know you're not normally sitting there, so – I apologize. You're good. Mr. Chair. May I be recognized? Yes. So, yes, the conditions – or not the conditions, but the voluntary proffer that will be part of a covenant, as was stated on the record, includes a voluntary proffer, a $50,000 contribution to a 501c3 within District 3 to be made within 60 days of a recording of the covenant, as well as a $400,000 contribution to the Miami Foundation. Both of those will be for the local public benefit and the public interest. And the finalization of the covenant will be within 30 days of this approval. Just to clarify on the record, the $50,000 contribution to a 501c3 is not necessarily a 501c3 that's located in District 3. It's to the benefit of scholarship endowments. Understood? And the $400,000 is paid at time of permit, correct? Application for permit. Application. Now, permit issuance. Could we push that to permit issuance? We'll take it. So, with all that being stated on the record, I will move to approve the item with the recommendations made by staff and the additional representation that were made on the record by the applicant. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Hardiman, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Hardiman. I'm certainly in support of the application, and I just want to take a moment to note the extraordinary community benefit that you just yielded for your community. I think that it's important to highlight moments like this. And so I applaud you, it's not the first time that you've done it, but I think it's extraordinary when we have commissioners working with our developers that are coming into new communities and making commitments of this size, because this is a sizable community benefit commitment. I love to see it, and I think it's worth highlighting. I applaud the district commissioner, and I applaud you for giving back to our community in such a great way. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I got a question. Commissioner Bermuda, is you recognized? Yes. Commissioner Hardiman, and I do applaud you if it's scholarships for students in your district, which it is, correct? Yes, the endowment fund produces scholarships. Because the important thing for me is every time that we ask for something else, we increase the cost of doing business in Dade County. But if it's for a good cause like this, I certainly think it's appropriate. And this particular, I know your district has you commendable. And I want to hear you say copacetic again one more time, but the, so I'm going to be supportive of it because of that. Because I think it, especially working with the Miami Foundation, moving in that direction is a, and helping children in that area that definitely sometimes don't get the same shake as other districts. So I'll be supportive of it. All right. With that, seeing no further discussion, clerk, please call the roll. And Abby, do you need to say anything else? No, Mr. Chair. Oh, all right. Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzales. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Four. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. I vote yes. Item passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations. Mr. Attorney. Can we take item 7A? 7A Supplement. 7A Supplement number two. And if the director needs to read anything into the record, now would be the time. Yes. This CD&P item is a standard application before you for public hearing and final action. I will now read the ordinance title for this item. This is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Conference of Development Master Plan providing disposition of application number CD&P 2023-0013 located west of Northwest 137 Avenue and State Road 836 Interchange and north side of the theoretical Northwest 6th Street, followed by Kelly Tractor Company in the May 2023 cycle to amend the county CD&P, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. This includes item 7A, 7A Supplement, supplement number two. This is a public hearing. All right. We will now open up public hearing. I will start with the public first. When I call your name, please line up and say your name and address when you reach the podium. You will have one minute to speak as I have several speakers. All right. Caitlin Nicole Daly, Elio Lopez Minot, Nivaldo Soria, Gianna DeNicolas, Laura Reynolds, Lauren Adele Giannis, Amanda Prieto, Mary Waters, Noel Stewart Cleland, and Steven Lidner. Those are the first ten. You may state your name, address, and you'll have a minute to speak. Do we speak at the same time? No. Oh, sorry. Hi, my name is Nivaldo Soria. I live at 869 Southwest 149th Court, Miami, Florida 33194. And I came here today to speak about the 300-acre land that is being considered for redevelopment. I please urge that we halt this project since this land is considered to be part of the wetlands ecosystem. And this development not only will bring an eyesore to me every morning when I'm on my way to school or work, instead of being greeted to a beautiful landscape, I will be seeing nothing more than a bland gray parking lot and office complexes. A site I look forward to seeing every morning and afternoon almost as a representation of my home will now be taken away from me and my community. Additionally, not only is it a site to see, but it also contributes to the flood control systems and natural drinking water supply for the county. If these wetlands are removed, it will lead to an increase in flooding for communities within the area, including mine. Enough talking about my home getting its beauty stripped away. What about the animals and native plants that run free in those 25 acres of land? Sorry, correction, 300 acres of land. This area is home to various protected species of wildlife from the Everglades. These habitats cannot be replaced once they are destroyed. This land is something that defines our area and our community. Instead of a forest, there will be noise, traffic, and other development issues. Therefore, I ask the city to protect this land and preserve an environment and quality of life for our community. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me. My name is Caitlin Daly. I live at 1605 Southwest 90th Ave in the heart of Westchester, Miami. I want to speak to you on the issue of the redevelopment of wetlands in the Sweetwater area for Kelly tractor parking. See, I was born and raised here in Miami, no more than 10 minutes away from the site proposed for this project. It seems that over my 20 short years of life, I have watched Miami slowly change into a concrete city, continuously expanding and stripping away the nature that makes Florida so beautiful. I have always grown up in the same house and have witnessed project after project like these have a detrimental effect on the environment around me even in my own neighborhood. If I wish to see any more green that could be seen in a suburban lawn, I have to travel away from my home and scout out any glimpses of wildlife I could find. This area just west of 137th Avenue is an example of one of these far and few environments that have been left untouched, free to crawl with native plants and animals. To destroy this area and pave it over for a private company is to not only disrespect our earth, our state, and our city, but to disrespected citizens as well, turning their once rich and biodiversity into nothing more than concrete. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. Lauren Janaitis, Executive Director with Tropical Audubon Society, address 5530 Sunset Drive. And I urge you to uphold the mayor's veto of this application. At its core, this is a process issue. The applicant has attempted to bypass the county's long-established UDB amendment process by using a CDMP text amendment, avoiding the higher standards, full review, and accountability. If approved, this sets a very dangerous precedent. Equally concerning, there has been no credible demonstration of need. The applicant has not provided data, benchmarks, or projections to justify expanding more than 200 acres outside the UDB. The bottom line, this application undermines the integrity of the CDMP and sets a dangerous precedent that weakens your ability to manage growth responsibility. Please uphold the mayor's veto. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. Hello, my name is Elio Lopez Minot. I am 19 years old and from Miami, Florida. I came here on behalf of everybody that I know is on the same stance as I of upholding this veto that could not make it today. And I simply wanted to speak on this land that we are considering absolutely vandalizing. I understand truly that there are corporate interests in upholding this incentive, but this is native land that is very precious. And I simply hope that we can trust as me and all of my family members and friends that are students that are growing as adults, we can look up to adults that are making these decisions and that we are supposed to be looking up to. So, just with that, I just wanted to truly hope that we can have the most intelligent foresight in mind when taking these laws into consideration. So, I just wanted to voice that. Thank you for your use. Thank you so much, my friend. Can you put your address on the record, please? Yes, it's 5256 Northwest Renato Avenue. Thank you. Sir. Hi, my name is Easton Rosa. I signed up, but I don't think I heard my name, but I should be on the list. Well, maybe you just haven't been called yet. What is your name? Is that okay, though, right now? What is your name? Easton Rosa? Yeah, you're number 11, but you could go ahead and just... Okay, thank you. Okay, so I live at 1424 Northeast Miami Place. Thank you for giving me the time to speak today. I am urging you to uphold the mayor's veto on this application. Building outside the UDB line is only going to be the beginning of approving more applications outside of it and moving the line farther into protected areas. Durrell has always had plenty of vacant land, and now since you guys have approved so many developments and running out of mass land, Kelly wants to conveniently expand into protected environments. There are still areas in Durrell near their headquarters that they can take advantage of, whether Kelly says differently, and they have failed to come up with an adequate reason not to. Commissioner Bermudez has mentioned how we need corporations to flourish, and if we lose Kelly tractors, it will cost Miami more money. But if Kelly has been here since 1933, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I urge you to think about the community and the ecosystem and focus on preserving that and not vote towards what is going to fill your pockets. Finding a connection to protected waterways is not the resolution. You need to have your humanity and protect the area in between. Animals are going extinct every day, and if you keep pushing them out of their homes... Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am. Hello. My name is Gianna DeNicolas. I live at 8401 Northwest 8th Street, 33126. I am here today to defend the Everglades. Kelly Tractor, a company that has already shown their lack of respect for this highly important ecosystem, plans to destroy over 240 acres of Everglades wetland. Failing to explain why they cannot use already land that they own near their headquarters, Miami-Dade deserves an explanation. Why are we even entertaining an industrial complex being built on land vital to our water security, economy, and safety? Paving these wetlands creates physical displacement, pushing millions of gallons of floodwater into sweetwater homes. Installing fuel tanks over the Everglades' already high water table threatens us with possible water contamination. Replacing this functional wetland with industrialization will create a permanent ecological liability, a liability that the people of Miami may very well pay for in the end. Please, I ask you kindly, please do not let this go forward. Thank you so much. Thank you. Sir. Good morning. Noel Cleland. I'm with the Sierra Club. My address is 5990 Southwest 50th Street. And I just wanted to recognize the fact that it's very important to this board that we follow the rules. And so I'm looking forward to getting an explanation today, hopefully, as far as why you would consider moving the room development boundary. Thank you. Hi, Commissioners. Thank you for hearing our comments and reconsidering this item. Laura Reynolds with the Hold the Line Coalition, 6820 Southwest 64th Court. You've heard there's no need established here. And with a full application, you would go through the process. Getting a letter from GMX in the 11th hour is proof that this hasn't gone through the full process. So I ask you, I ask you to uphold our CDMP, show that you have to establish a need, and that a private company who has nothing to offer for the public good, usually we reserve text amendments for the county or for something that we need, like a water treatment plant or a road. Having a private company do this makes the urban development boundary irrelevant, and it will be difficult for us to protect property that we need for Everglades restoration or anything else. So I urge you, and if you think there was some misguidance here, have the applicant reapply the correct way, waive the fee, expedite this process, allow them to go through the process unhindered, but do not set this precedent. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Waters again. Other comments, good, bad, and otherwise. Mary Waters, 13600 Southwest 229 Street, Redland. I am president of Tropical Fruit Growers of South Florida, also president of the Redland Citizens Association. This is very near and dear because of the UDB movement. I know a little bit about the Kelly family, and I also know about the regulations that will be required of the Kelly project as far as safety, things that they have to do. I would far rather see Kelly Tractor get to build this operation on their own privately owned properties than I would see all of the, excuse me, tractor trailers that are being proposed to be built all throughout the Redland area, that there will be no supervision of what happens with these trucks. Kelly is going to provide hopefully a whole lot more jobs than what Amazon has just been found to close down their operation. I would like to think that that is in a location to where it's farther away from the- Thank you, Ms. Waters. Thank you. All right. The next group is going to be Diana Elena Van Dalen, Will Larkins, Maverick Quartiano, Zachary T. Dunkel, Sofia Maya, Emily Alfonso, Stephanie Damien DeJesus, and Philip Charles Err. Ma'am. Hello. My name is Diana Van Dalen and I live at 118th and 117th Street. I was born and raised in Kendall and I'm a very big nature lover who just recently fell in love with the negative agriculture of this place in the Everglades. I currently have to drive over an hour away to be fully immersed in the nature here, the Everglades. And I think the last thing Miami needs right now is further development over the wetlands that provide so much protection, beauty, and more to Florida and Miami. I urge you to uphold the mayor's veto. And just like many have mentioned, this product would bypass the UDP, which would establish a new benchmark that should stay where it is. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sir? Hi, Commission. My name is Will Larkins. I'm an FIU student and I work as a guide at Everglades National Park and I live at the FIU main campus. Yesterday was Earth Day and the worst possible way to celebrate is by passing a development that is going to harm a bird rookery and get rid of land that could be restored. And I really hope that you all do better with this vote today. More than 10 acres of Florida's wild land is cleared every hour for development and you guys are actively contributing to that. And it's really, really difficult to see growing up in Florida watching all of our land disappear. Please don't make the urban development boundary irrelevant. I know that you all accept some political donations from GL Homes over $100,000 in the past two years, so I'm not surprised you passed that development 8 to 1. But I really, really hope you reconsider destroying land that could be used for public benefit, destroying land that filters our water and provides ecosystem services for a tractor corporation to keep tractors. That doesn't benefit us as Miamians and we're paying attention. I hope you know that. Thank you. Happy Earth Day. Happy Earth Day to you as well. Sir? My name is Maverick Cortiano. I'm a resident at FIU. I live at Parkview Hall. And I'm up here for the similar reason that all my peers are up here, just to express my concern for the future of Miami-Dade and the natural wildlife that we have here. And as my peers have all said, it's very important that we uphold this urban development line because if it doesn't stop here, then where does it stop? It just keeps going further in until what greed has been settled. And I'm not here to demonize anybody up here. I don't think anybody up here is not looking out for us. And I acknowledge that Miami-Dade has taken a leap towards creating a more green and sustainable future with Miami Freedom Park and whatnot. However, and I do think that there can be some sort of compromise reach between Kelly tractors and with all the interests of the people. And I'm sure as you guys may know, the government has already looked pretty down unfavorably among me and my peers. I know some people that have thought this was fruitless coming here. But I believe that some change could be made by speaking to you guys. Thank you. Hello. My name is Zach Dunkel. I am an FIU student. I'm from Naples. But I am a student here. So this issue affects. And your address? Me. 7884 Gardner Drive. And basically, I just don't want to see more area from the Everglades get taken away from what could be preserved and what could be used for other purposes other than just development. And yeah, I'm just here today to support the cause and to speak for all my other fellow students at FIU. So thank you. Thank you so much. Ma'am. All right. My name is Cardinal Alfonso. I live in the Kendall area of Miami. I'm here to speak against the Kelly Tractor. All of you already know how developments on wetlands will negatively affect us. You know how this will affect our water, impact our environment, and ecosystem. Do you not care about the quality of life for your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren? Not only will this affect us humans, as all of us have already mentioned, but I truly don't understand how anyone can have the heart to allow a development that will destroy these beautiful wetlands, destroy so many animals' homes, leading to possible extinction for some. How can you not think about that? How could you be so greedy and take from a land that is here to balance us out and benefit us? I urge you to vote no on the Kelly Tractor development. Thank you. Can you state your address for the record, please? I live at FIU. There's no address at FIU? There is. I guess we can Google it. Our staff could Google it since, can you start with your name and address as it's a protocol, please? Me? Yes, sir. Yeah. I'm Damien. I live at 4791 Northwest 2nd Street. Okay. Go ahead. You have a minute. Thank you for your time. My name is Damien. I'm against this development. This plan is outside the UDB line and will destroy 62 acres of remaining wetlands in the county needed to help control increasing flood waters. This is yet another development, destroying our nature. This private company doesn't benefit us at all, so where do we draw the line? So Florida is full of concrete? Do we want, like, a cyberpunk future? Like, I don't understand. What about your grandchildren? Like they said, I want all my peers to have just somewhere to go to. Like, you've got to drive so long to the Everglades, and even that's getting overdeveloped, too. So, like, can we please just actually have some compassion here for our animals? Like, at some point, we're going to have nothing to eat, no fruits. So please, like, this is just another stepping stone. Why don't we draw the line? So please vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you so much, Damien. All right. Phil Ayer, 8962 Southwest 142 Avenue, number 1219, Miami 33186. I stand opposed to this incremental step into the Everglades. And you can see it. You can see it in the people here and the people everywhere that have the ongoing incremental just march into the Everglades. The point that was made earlier that the UDB needs to have some integrity for Miami-Dade to have further integrity when we talk and we advocate for restoration of the Everglades. There's a lot of concerns already expressed about the lack of complete planning about why this company is choosing to go into the Everglades instead of elsewhere. And it's just emblematic of overall development that is not internal to the UDB. So I say hold the line. And I do know that all of us are trying our best to balance jobs. Jobs are important. Really important. Company success is really important. But also we need to balance everything. And we need to make sure that we have federal backup or state backup to the UDB. Thanks. Thank you, sir. All right. With that, did I miss anybody that registered to speak? All right. With that, public hearing is officially closed. Can you stand up? What is your name? Sophia Amaya, I did call you, but you're welcome to come on up. Yep. You're on the list. Anyone else that I did not call or did not hear your name? Okay. Sophia, you are the one. Hello, commissioners. My name is Sophia Amaya. I live in, sorry, 9517 Fontainebleau Boulevard 33172. I wanted to express my concerns for Kelly Tracta development and how it will be harmful for South Florida's wetlands and the Everglades. Wetlands are vital for mitigating flood water and storm waters in our community. With so much development in South Florida, green space and wetlands are becoming more rare by the date. Kelly Tractor already passes the existing UDB boundary, which is established to limit development in the protected Everglades. Kelly Tractor will also add utilities and amenities such as fuel stations with eight pumps, helicopter landing pad, trans-loading facilities, freight rail connectivity, and et cetera. All these utilities can and will be damaging to the Everglades. More traffic will disrupt wildlife and destroy necessary wetlands. Development and greed should not be a larger priority than protecting our environment. We must think about our future and quality of life in Miami. Residents and our environment are being forgotten, and we're paying that price. We show up and we speak here because we care about our home. We don't want it to become only concrete, okay? So coexisting for our environment will be beneficial, but Kelly Tractor will not. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you so much, Ms. Amaya. Steven Leitner, 1130 102nd Street, Bay Harbor Islands, Miami Sea Air Club. Please support the mayor's well-considered veto. No need exists for this development. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And with that, I now officially close public hearing, and the applicant may approach the well. Welcome back. How much time will you need? Good morning, Chairman. I will try to keep this to eight minutes and cut where I can. Eight is a lot of minutes. We have a lot of new points to address, so I will try to address those quickly. And, again, I will cut where I can. Okay. Let's definitely keep it no more than eight. And then if you want to, and I know that they didn't register, but I see sure it's like, do you want to acknowledge whoever's here in support of the application? I want to make sure that they're acknowledged as well. Can you please stand up for a second? Just everyone in support of the application. All right. And I want to thank all of you for not registering to speak in support. So thank you very much for doing that, and thank you for being here, of course, to all of the speakers, both objectors and in favor. You may sit down. Thank you. All right. And you have the floor. Introduce yourself, please. Perfect. Good morning, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Alessandra. Senator Malwood Law Office is located at 701 Brickell Avenue. With me today is Mr. Jose Gonzalez, Mr. Edward Suekan, and Mr. Christopher Kelly on behalf of Kelly Tractor. This application is before you all, again, for final adoption. Given that we have had several hearings on this item, I would like to incorporate into the record the prior hearings and focus today's hearing on updating the Commission on new items since the mayoral veto on February 18, 2026. Again, you're all very familiar with Kelly Tractor, a family-owned supplier of heavy machinery in Miami-Dade County that's been operating in this county since 1933. You're all familiar with the current Kelly Tractor site and the inability to meet growing customer demands on the site. On the screen, again, is the application area, which consists of 246 acres, generally located north of Northwest 6th Street and west of Northwest 137th Avenue and State Road 836. Now, as previously discussed, Kelly will consolidate and centralize the storage and maintenance of heavy construction and specialized equipment. Kelly is not introducing urban uses to this area. If you think of the rock mining industry, for instance, which is one of Kelly's most important customers, these uses and functions already exist within the open land category. And as it stands today, Kelly Tractor's facility is severely constrained. The approval will allow Kelly to grow to meet the county's current and future needs for critical equipment and services. As part of the more recent application package, the applicant provided a very detailed business plan to further support the need for this application. It details market demands, operational drivers, and the public and economic benefits of the proposed additional space. Additionally, I want to reiterate that this property is located in a strategic area of the county. It is located in the western half of the county's north central planning tier, in an area where existing and proposed uses are currently supported by the applicant, including the rock mining industry. There we go. This application is also consistent with existing and proposed uses within open land sub area 3, ranging from limestone quarries and truck and bus parking to commercial retailers. This area and the property, I want to remind this commission, once were included as part of the waste treatment plan facility, which is shown on the screen. To support our request, the applicant prepared various analyses, including a needs analysis, a site alternatives analysis, and a business plan. These reports heavily document the limitations of the existing facility, the economic impact of Kelly on the county's economy, support for the overall regional industry, and future needs of the facility to keep supporting our county. We further showed the need for the additional land and how the county's analysis of available industrial land was inappropriate based on our need. There are not at least 150 contiguous acres of industrial land within the UDB today. The examples provided are either similar in acreage to the current facility or smaller. We have also shared how there are existing facilities in and outside of the state that have similar acreages as requested today. In the end, after the preservation of wetlands on the site, the stormwater areas, and the potential land for the 836 extension, we will net approximately 158 acres left on the site. It is not 246. I want to continue to emphasize that this is a proposed facility that serves a public necessity, and an interest on the screen just highlights one of the few items on this. As a recap, various state reviewing agencies, including the Florida Department of Transportation, reviewed the application and raised no objections to this application. On February 18th, 2026, the veto hearing on the application was held. There were two main points that the mayor addressed in her veto, the use of the text amendment process and wetlands. Since the veto hearing, we have been working extensively with the mayor and her team on addressing these issues, to which we provided everything we were asked for and more. On the point of the text amendment process, we sat down with county staff to mirror as much as possible the UDB expansion process without having to restart the process and further delay the application. Since 2023, we have provided and refined several analyses from traffic studies and needs analysis, to environmental studies and business plans that are required as part of a UDB expansion application. The full list is on the screen. Additionally, and arguably one of the most important changes to this application since February, is that the applicant has committed, thanks to Senator Garcia's input, to increasing the total preservation area on the property from 33.92 acres to 63.11 acres. Moreover, the applicant is committing to providing 20 acres of off-site wetland preservation areas to the county, at no cost to the county, at the request of Commissioner Regalado. The applicant will provide for the maintenance of the site in perpetuity. The applicant is only requesting, as part of this commitment, that in exchange for the donation of land, that the applicant is able to receive credit, only credit, towards our cut and fill requirements, not wetland mitigation credit. The property will be enhanced by the removal of exotics. On the screen is the previous conceptual master site plan of the proposed facility we shared with you in January. And with the additional on-site wetland preservation commitments that the applicant made, on the screen is the new conceptual master site plan showing those areas all along the west, south, and eastern property borders. At the January hearing, the applicant committed to providing wetland connectivity and a wildlife corridor, where Northwest 142nd Avenue is expected to traverse the southern portion of the property. On the screen is a profile of that corridor. Now, the proposed declaration maintains all of the commitments from the January BCC hearing. It also establishes clear development criteria and future rezoning parameters for the site. It ties development to the site generally, the conceptual site plan, except that there will be no changes to the wetlands as shown on the site plan. It also makes the commitment to the 20 acres, as I discussed, and preserves the archaeological site. The applicant understands that if there is a public acquisition, there is language in the declaration that will require the applicant to replace or substitute any wetlands or stormwater areas on the property. The applicant is committing to those obligations, but it's not waiving or otherwise diminishing its constitutional entitlement to full compensation. More recently, on April 9, 2026, GMX sent a letter to Miami-Dade County opposing this application. The applicant is aware of the corridor and, in fact, took it into consideration when preparing the conceptual site plan by placing most of the buildings towards the west side of the site plan. We want to emphasize to this commission that by no means does approval of this application impair or limit GMX's ability to use its full eminent domain authority. We have been in this process for three years now and have not been contacted by GMX yet. We continue to emphasize that our door has been and will remain open for further discussion and cooperation. As we have emphasized each hearing, the application area is located in a strategic location near major transportation networks and Limestone Quarry customers. It's also consistent with existing and proposed developments in the area, and the site is an environmentally appropriate site. The application presents an opportunity to further provide good-paying jobs, over 1,000 proposed jobs for the site, and further support economic growth throughout county's public and private developments. Since 1933, Kelly Tractor has grown with this county. While the size of the operation has changed, the sole, as a family-owned Miami-Dade-grown business, has not. We respectfully ask that you adopt this amendment with a proffered declaration of restrictions. Our entire team is available for questions. If necessary, I'd like to reserve time for rebuttal. Thank you. All right. Just in time. Thank you very much. All right. I closed public hearing prior to you speaking. So, I will start with the Commissioner of the District. Commissioner from District 12. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Just to remind you, I'd like to make an opening statement. Sure. I mean, the opening statement has already been made, but like, yeah, I'll let you speak. Thank you. How much time are you going to need, Mayor? Very short. Go ahead, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I want everyone to understand that since the last hearing, my administration and staff have, in fact, worked diligently with the applicant, as was mentioned, to address the concerns that led to my veto. Since that time, the applicant has largely addressed the wetlands issue, including revisions that preserve 63 acres of wetlands on site and prioritize mitigation for additional wetland impacts upon, within the county. But, the urban development boundary exists for a reason. It's there to protect our environment, protect our residents, and protect our economy from the consequences of over-development. These guidelines are not bargaining chips. They exist to ensure that any request to move beyond the UDB meets a clear and compelling standard. Major outstanding issue remains. As required by the Comprehensive Development Master Plan for UDB Applications, I requested a substantiated, data-driven demonstration of the necessity for expansion outside the UDB. And that showing still has not been provided. The materials that were submitted by the applicant do not provide the benchmarks, the metrics, or numerical growth projections that are needed to justify expansion onto more than 200 acres outside the UDB. There has to be a compelling need, and none has been shown. In addition, I formally requested a final site plan showing how the 836 extension affects the property layout because the plan before us remains conceptual, and it does not yet incorporate the board-supported project of the 836 extension. And so that issue also remains unresolved. And this is exactly why these guidelines exist, and why they must be honored. This is not the right time or the right place to sidestep the rules that apply to everyone and grant an exception without a compelling cause. So for these reasons, I cannot support the application, and I urge the Commission to stand strong and uphold the rules this county put in place to protect our residents, our quality of life, and our future. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And with that, I recognize the Commissioner of District 12, and then I will go around and let- I'm going to pull a regalado and say that I want to come back after I hear all your concerns. But I want to be clear on two things. First of all, this is in the urban expansion area. Let's begin by that, okay? And obviously, we don't have to go on to all the concerns about jobs. I expressed that before. Today was take your child to work day. I hope there will be jobs in about 20 years because apparently we're all just going to live for free or something because there may not be a take your job to work day because you won't be working. Then again, we may not have democracy, but that's okay. Apparently, it's going to be, you know, the things we get in this society that other societies don't provide will- It's amazing. But anyways, it's in the urban expansion area, number one. Number two, Kelly Tractor is not presently in Doral. It's actually an unincorporated date. And this site is an unincorporated date also, just to be clear on the record on where it's at. There were letters, and I'll have some questions, but we had letters from the Miccosukees, from South Florida Water Management, from the State of Florida in support of this project per se. There are things that are going to be built there regardless that have already been approved. And then the final thing, what's it called now, GMX? Because obviously they took it away from the county, and I think the mayor was a commissioner when that decision was made. I find it odd that a highway through all the way to Kendall, through not only this but other areas, would not be more controversial than a business that has been here since 1933. It will provide jobs for people to actually work in this community in an area where there's already things being built, supported by South Florida Water Management, which is right to the west. The Miccosukees, who, by the way, built the largest gas station out in that area, but they are in the Everglades, and they are in District 12. So, sometimes, obviously I'm going to support it, I'm going to make the motion to support it, but at some point this county has to take the concerns of these young men and women and the concerns of the business community and put everybody in the same room and talk about how we're going to, if we're going to continue to, or we're going to have to not let anybody move into South Florida and then just say, which I don't think we can legally do. At some point, we have to have to have the discussion on the reality of where this county is situated and the future of this county. It cannot all be about one side or the other, which I'm going to make a motion to approve this. But I also want to reiterate, we need to talk about the urban development boundary. If we do not, we are going to set up, first of all, it's not fair to the people that are here today, those that are for and against it, number one. Number two, providing jobs and being a business is not a crime. That is what this country was founded on, okay? And at some point, the young men and women that are here today will grow up to be, you know, older men and women. And if they're going to stay here, they've got to have places to live, places to work. So I believe, regardless of what happens today, that we need to have that discussion. I'm going to move, Madam Attorney, what's the proper motion? Where are we on this thing? I've been told that this is not just an override of the mayor's veto. It's actually a new vote. So you've got to tell me how to phrase my motion in support of it, which I will do. And then, as a concession to my colleagues, I will channel my inner Raquel Regalado and preserve time for rebuttal. Through the chair? You're recognized. Commissioner Bermudez, you're correct. This is, the board already reconsidered this item. It's properly before this board. I believe your motion would be a motion to adopt with the revisions before you with the proffered covenant, with the 10-day covenant condition that I read earlier on item 3A. That would be my motion, and I want to point out, I want to thank both the administration, and I want to thank the members, some that spoke today that are here today, and obviously that were involved in this, and also the applicant for taking the concerns of this commission, listening to them, and working between the last meeting and this meeting. That is a sign. That's the way democracy should work, whether we end up agreeing or disagreeing. Discussion, saying no to everything or saying yes to everything should not be the way that democracy should function. So whatever Abby said is my motion, and I move it. It's been moved by second by Commissioner Bermudez, seconded by the vice chair, and I will start with you, Commissioner Gilbert. But I will just say, because you brought it up, Commissioner Bermudez, and I find it irritating that the GMX will send this letter to the administration and us, I suppose they copied us, opining now on this application. When they've been sitting idly by, they have stalled the progression of the parkway. They were granted $100 million from the state of Florida to start this process, start acquiring property, and they have done nothing with that money. I don't know what the board of directors of the GMX is doing. The state, from the governor down, and all those legislators that passed and terminated MDX and made GMX, for what? And then the statement that I read was that the board is getting acquainted with the situation. That was the statement out of GMX in the paper. It is just, it's almost insulting to us as a body and as a county that they now want to opine on our business because they have lacked and they have not been productive and they have not done what they need to do to go acquire the right of way. So when it comes to me, and there's 13 bodies up here, I think if everybody's here, that does not move me at all. That letter from GMX does not move me one single bit. This is on them, and for them to give a quote that this hurts them, that this hurts, and use that as a tactic, what are you guys doing? GMX needs to be abolished. Why don't we go back to, at least MDX got things done. GMX has done nothing. Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. Yeah, you came in hot there. So, I don't know that I'm going to actually lower the temperature some, but before I get to the substance of this application, I feel an overwhelming, like, compelling spirit inside me to say that we should have overridden her veto. That I said in this seat, and I said that they could not change their mind, they would not change their mind. And they said, no, we'll have an open mind. There couldn't be a capitulation. There would not be a compromise. There wouldn't be a balancing. There would just be, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, and we'd be back here again, and we're in the exact same spot. I remain awed by the unimaginable hypocrisy of an administration that can recommend building a waste-to-energy facility outside the UDB, but object to this. That is absolutely amazing to me. It is absolutely amazing that we're going to hang our hat on the idea that private people shouldn't be able to make text amendments. Only the government should. But it's our rules that allow them to make text amendments. Rules that everybody up here could have changed, that this mayor, when she was a commissioner, she could have changed, that as the administration, they could have proposed. There are rules. So, we're going to complain about our rules. That's what we're going to do. And we're going to say, do as I say, not as I would have done, which would have been so much worse? No, I completely disagree. I think that they have compromised. I think that we sit here as a balancing board, and we try to balance the interests of our economy, the interests of preserving nature. And I think that they've compromised to try to do that. I did not believe this administration could actually ever formalize support for a compromise, and that's why I was against not just voting before. Because I also think there's a value in time. Like, this thing has been before us too many times, and it's taken too long. I support this application. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez, and then Cohen Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank everybody that came out to speak today. I think that we've heard a lot of input from a lot of folks all throughout Miami-Dade County. I want to thank my colleagues because I concur with a lot of the sentiment that they've expressed. I want to start off by saying that I am not for development, and I am not against development. I'm for responsible growth for the benefit of the people of Miami-Dade County. I've many times talked about the biggest issue. There's two big issues in Miami-Dade County right now, right? There's many issues, but there's two main ones. Traffic and unaffordability. And if we're really going to solve these issues, we need to look at how, if we're going to build, we build responsibly. And so, I want to look at the substance of this, and I do have some questions. Mr. Chair, if it's appropriate, I'd like to ask some questions of the applicant. You're recognized for a, I've been flowing Q&A. So, to the applicant, you've been in Florida for 90-something years. How many people do you currently employ? Through the chair. There are 600 employees in South Florida, 300 of which are in Miami-Dade County. Love the state of Florida. I'm concentrating on Miami-Dade County. 300 in Miami-Dade County. What is the medium salary for those employees? They average around $30 an hour. $30 an hour. What is it that you folks do? We actually have Mr. Kelly here, if you prefer to hear from him. Good morning. Chris Kelly, Kelly Tractor, 8255 Northwest 58th Street. Mr. Kelly, what is it that you folks do? Are you in manufacturing? Are you in engine overhaul? What is it that you folks do? We're an equipment distributor. We're a dealership. So, we sell service. We rent. We sell parts. Equipment? Yes. Do you employ mechanics? Yes. Do you employ engineers? Yes. Do you employ... What other types of jobs do you employ? We train and employ skilled labor. If you're able to expand, how many more jobs will this create? We anticipate long-term it could be 1,000 jobs, but obviously that takes time to do. Would that mean that it would be 1,300 jobs in total, or does that mean that in the end it's going to be 1,000 jobs? Because then it would only be about 700 jobs if we take away the 300 that already exist. We anticipate long-term it could be 1,300 jobs, but that's... Of those 1,300 jobs, are you guys bussing in people from other states, or are these for locals? Locals. Are you guys training young people within Miami-Dade County to take these jobs? We actually have a partnership with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, where we have apprentices with the Diesel Technician Program. And so, if they go through this apprenticeship program, and you hire them, what is their starting salary? Well, I'd say that the average is around 30 an hour, but obviously that... For the average kid that just graduated at a high school with zero student loan debt? 24 an hour. 24. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Unaffordability is cured through job creation. I have said many times in op-eds and in public that if we are going to solve the traffic issue, we need to create connectivity. And connectivity means that we need to create jobs for locals because I am familiar with this area. I live close to this area. And what happens throughout all of Miami-Dade County is folks live on one side of the island, but they have to work on the complete other side of the island. And creating more nodes where we can live, work, play is essential. But we can't pretend that we're going to solve the traffic issue and then not address the traffic issue. So, when I honestly, when I first got the letter from GMX, I was upset. I was upset at GMX for dropping it at the last hour, but I was upset because I thought that the folks at Kelly Tractor, from what I've heard in the past, have been in favor of the Kendall Parkway. So, my question, and I don't know if it's a proper question for the administration or if it's a proper question for the applicant, will this, if this is approved, will this impede the Kendall Parkway from moving forward? I don't know if this is for Lourdes or for the applicant. Through the Chair, I only know what I've read in the news about this, that there's concerns about the price. Obviously, permitting would take into consideration any future need for the property. Anything you want to add to that, Lourdes? No, just that the statement was correct that, you know, as an independent agency, they do have their eminent domain authority and can negotiate with the property owners. The Mayor, you know, articulated the concern. We did include some precautions in the covenant that was agreed to by the applicant in the eventuality. You know, whatever scenario, if the highway is developed first or if this development is approved and ultimately comes online for permitting, that whatever that occurs, that all obligations to the county end up remaining intact. But that's a separate issue from what GMX has articulated as to their concerns. Thank you, Director, and thank you, Mayor. I mean, those were very complete answers. So if you're following, this is on you now. And the reason I ask is because the folks that you just said that you're going to employ are residents of Miami-Dade County. And there is no resident in Miami-Dade County that is in favor of traffic. And the folks that are going to be traveling to work where this site is going are more likely than not going to be using the Kendall Parkway. And so my question is, are you folks in favor, one of the Kendall Parkway? And will you commit on the record today that you will work with GMX, that obviously you're not going to take advantage of them, and that it is in your best interest that the Kendall Parkway be built? Commissioner, respectfully, 20 years ago, there's some history here. Our family had, the property was bigger, and we actually worked with MDX at that time. And was it 28? I don't remember the exact amount of acres, but we worked a deal out with them to build that extension that's there now. That was our property before. So we've shown that good faith. You've worked with them in the past. Yes, our family worked with them 20 years ago. The same property was bigger, expanded further out east. And where that exit, kind of the flyover that kind of comes in to 137th from 836, that was our property. And we worked with them. And there's an agreement and everything documented. But basically, we worked with them so we could get that exit onto our property. And the money that they wrote us a check for, we turned around and gave it back to them to pay for that access. So we've invested a lot in this property over the years. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but what you're saying is that you already have skin in the game in the Kendall Parkway. Absolutely. Is that what you're saying, sir? Absolutely. And will you, you're the owner, right, sir? Yes, since 1984. Will you commit today on the record that you will work reasonably to make sure that the Kendall Parkway gets built reasonably with GMX? Absolutely. We've never wanted to fight against them. We'll work with them reasonably. No further questions, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleagues. I frankly agree with everything that my colleagues have said. And I think all of us appear of different focuses on whether or not we support this application for different reasons and in different areas. And I think Commissioner Gilbert's points, frankly, are very, very well taken when you look at some of the recent history that may be similarly situated as it pertains to inconsistencies on land. I, however, have been very consistent on this. I didn't support the Opelaka West location for a proposed site for our incinerator because it is outside of the urban development boundary, and that's just one example. And I do think that this applicant has endured a bit of a tumultuous path to get here that I think is somewhat unfair to our business community. I addressed it at the last meeting, and I spoke about, you know, I believe that you had represented that you were told to bring this forward in the form that it was, i.e. a text amendment versus a standard application to move the urban development boundary. And we didn't kind of push further on that. But believing that to be the case, I think you all have done everything that you're supposed to do. I believe that you've worked in good faith with the administration to get to where you are. And I can read the room. I believe you have the vote, certainly, to make this pass. I might be the only one that is not supporting it, but I want to put on the record why it is that I am not supporting this. I am treating this as an application to move the urban development boundary, and I hope the attorneys are not going to get me in trouble for saying that, or I hope I didn't cross any lines or break any rules in saying that. The reason is because when we are developing outside of the urban development boundary, in the same way that you were moving forward with a text amendment, we are setting precedent here at this board. And in the past, I've been very vocal about, particularly on environmentally sensitive lands, if you're going to build outside of the urban development boundary, you have to demonstrate a need, and it's an extraordinary need that I have found to be of great import in protecting our environmentally sensitive lands. And so I do not believe, again, I understand from the applicant's perspective, Commissioner, this is not a UDB application, it's a text amendment, and it's a text amendment because we were told to travel under a text amendment, but I am treating this as an application to move the urban development boundary. And I do want to speak to our attorneys on the record, whether or not you know if there is a hold on this idea of a text amendment in order to move the urban development boundary. I'd like to have an answer to those two questions. Commissioner, with respect to your question, I'm sorry, through the chair, with respect to your question about whether there are other pending applications, we would, of course, want to defer to staff. With respect to your question about a legislative request, we may need to check on that, depending on how, I guess, the scope of your question. There may be other legislative requests related to UDB matters in general, so if we can get back to you on that one as well. Sure, and to staff, is there any pending applications similarly situated, as I've stated clearly before, i.e., text amendment applications that are in reality applications to move the urban development boundary? We don't seem to have filed, at least, pending a pure text amendment. There's one pending for another truck designation to a terminal, similar to the Terra one that was previously approved, but it's not a pure text change as this one is presented. Okay, and the reason I'm asking the question is because I'm trying to prevent future situations like the one that our applicant finds themselves in today because I just don't think it's fair to our business community, and it creates, I think, a messy situation for us here moving forward. So for me, I'm not going to be able to support the application just because I think of the precedent that it sets, and I will work with our attorneys and our administration to see if we can't tighten our rules so that we're sending a very clear message on if you are trying to develop on the outside of our urban development boundary, you know exactly which lane you need to travel in, and there need not be any back and forth between administration, applicants, no backroom conversations about how you will best likely get your application approved. I think that needs to end in this county as it pertains to the CD&P and zoning application. So for all the reasons that I've stated previously, I will not be able to support the application. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Regalada. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think speaking to the text amendment issue is important. Currently, there is no reservation on the use of text amendments, and I think that we should create some parameters to the use of text amendments. But this is still an application for a text amendment, not an application to move the UDB. So legally, while I agree ideologically with what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins is saying, I also understand that it is what it is, and it is a vehicle that is open to you, and you have availed yourself of that vehicle. I want to commend you for listening to what the board said, and I'll talk about your wetland proposal, which I really think is spectacular. No, I mean, I met with you. I really think that you answered all of the concerns that I had regarding the wetlands. I'll quickly dispense of the issue with GMX. Choices have consequences. GMX decided to unravel MDX, and that has delayed several things. And I don't believe that GMX's negligence is our emergency. So I figure GMX can figure out their own problem on their own time. So I discard that as an issue. And I don't think that we are in a position, given what happened with MDX, to sit here in support of a GMX and the delay and the time and the cost and the grief that they caused the county and the home rule, for that matter. So I'll dispense of that. The wetland protection plan that you provided is very good. It's very thoughtful. One of the things that I've mentioned time and time again when we talk about the UDB, and I know that the commissioner of the district wanted to have a workshop, and I think that we should do that sooner rather than later, is not everything outside this line is something that we should protect from an environmental perspective. Some of these wetlands, I think, are and should be protected because of their impact on our water quality. We can't say that everything out there is impacting the water table because not everything out there is impacting the water table. And the line was not created to protect the environment. It was created to prevent urban sprawl. I think that we should have a conversation about the environment now, but we have yet to have that conversation. That being said, the idea of us owning it is the path forward. I believe, as a county, if we are going to be stewards of the land that exists outside the UDB, we have to have some ownership interests, and we have to have Comet and Step protected. At the end of the day, we are making decisions on property that is not ours. And I've said this on other UDB applications when we were talking about the BBC or we were talking about other things. The path forward is to own it. If we do not own it or covenant it, we will never be able to protect it. We can't sit here meeting by meeting and make decisions based on applications that are reactionary and not taking into account the overall wetlands and their connectivity. So I think that the path that you have chosen here is the right one, and it is the right one for the county because we have control. It has connectivity. It deals with the animals. We're cleaning it. You know, I hope that it's not contaminated and it could be given to EEL. You know, I really look forward to that. And I'm glad that one of the considerations was providing EEL with the funding to be able to maintain it because, obviously, as many of us know, EEL doesn't have funding. So it's great if you donate stuff to EEL, but if it doesn't come with money to take care of it, then it's just a draw on our general fund. So I think that moving forward, it's a good example of what we can do. We can protect wetlands. We can go beyond a covenant. We can physically own them and maintain them under DERM, and the developer can pay for that. So I think that that is, moving forward, something that we should always consider. I do think on the need, you just ran out of tarmac. So on the need, you mentioned the April 9th, 2024, and the March 2026. And you also mentioned that it was a very detailed business plan. I respectfully disagree on the very detailed. I think it was a good start of a business plan, but I do have some questions because we keep coming up on the need. And I think if you would have had something a little bit more expansive and if you would have had more time, I believe that you could have come to something with staff because there's a lot in here. But, you know, in Spanish, we say mucha puma, poco chocolate. I think there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of big words, but I don't, we're not drilling down on the stats that staff wants to see. So if we can go through that really quick, I think it would help to clarify that point. And what my hesitation is on this, irrespective of the tax amendment and all the other stuff that we've already mentioned, that's a bit of a mess and we all agree. On page, it's 32, our document, page 32, when you talk about the economic analysis, this is your page. This gets confusing. So, okay, so we're looking at the March 2026 letter, one, two, three, four. Okay, we're looking at page four first. In the service and maintenance facility piece, you mentioned that you're improving service capacity and turnaround time by having dedicated expanded service buildings, including multiple service components, increased bait count, allow workforce separation, diagnostic cover machinery, warranty work, and quick turn repairs and improved scheduling reliability during peak seasons. I wish you would have provided numbers on that, you know, and I get it. We're not here to have you completely disclose your business plan. And under our code, you can say that some of it is protected by your IP and it wouldn't be disclosed to us specifically. It would just be told to us by staff. But I feel like there's a lot there and you could have drilled more and given us more specifics. In the next two paragraphs, you talk about the administrative and training facilities. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned that. In the next page, you provide a little bit more detail on that. Specifically, you speak to over 400 employees, you know, in operations, and then you believe that it's going to go up to 1,000 employees with the new projected business expansion. Here you said it was 1,300. That's fine. But you also talk about recruiting, and then you talk about working with public schools and a partnership with Miami-Dade County, which I think is fabulous, and we've talked about that. Norman Brayman has one. There's lots of programs that you can emulate that exist. But I think here, if you would have provided a year-by-year analysis with some of these numbers, right, what schools are we actually talking about, how many humans are we actually talking about, right? I think there would have been more meat there, and we would have been able to drill down a little bit more on the economic impact of it. The paragraph above talks about the economic impact generally in South Florida and emergency response. I also think we could have done a lot more with that. Our emergency response after Irma cost us a small fortune, and Irma wasn't even, like, a thing. Like, Irma, like, knocked over, you know, a few trees in some areas. So I think an analysis of the past four, you know, incidents and your deployment, right? Because we deal with the deployment of this all the time when we talk to FPL and we talk to our staff when we talk about disposing of hurricane debris. Those are all the things that come up. And I know that FPL and many of these other utility services couldn't do this work without your assistance. So I wish you would have kind of explained that to us and given us a few examples of deployment and the categories so that we could see if there was a CAT 3, if there was a CAT 4, why you needed that level of expansion in order to provide that emergency response service. I also think when you talk about, there's another piece here where you mention placement. And it is unclear to me why this goes to the Holland and Knight letter, April 7, 2026, page 2. And I don't understand why this wasn't in your business plan. So in the Holland and Knight letter, page 2, you say, The area is located within the boundaries of the rock mining overlay zoning area and is close proximity to major mining operations in the county's Lake Belta area. The MIA equipment and supportive services area is also critical in supplying the county, state and their contractors with equipment vital to building and repairing highways, roads, bridges, terminals, railroads, water, sewer and stormwater and environmental infrastructure, landfills, marinas, corrections facility, airport and the Port of Miami. Okay, that's a lot. But we all know this area intimately now, as some of our colleagues pointed out, because JC has been trying to move an incinerator. So we're all very well-versed with everything that happens out here. And I feel like you didn't mention the proximity to rail. You didn't mention the distance to the rock miners and how being further away from the rock miners impacts your response time. You didn't mention your existing state contracts. You didn't mention, you know, how you guys participate in all that. And I think that really would have given us the ability to talk about need. I don't agree with staff that the fact that you haven't built on the little piece that you have states anything, because I think when you look at the site plan, it's clear that what you're planning on building is much larger than what you have. And why would you build half a something to then decommission it and then build a third of a something and a fourth of a something? That's not how that works. But I think the lack of specificity as to your particular business and how it is different from other businesses and why this location is important puts us in this weird situation with need. Because my understanding from what staff is saying is that they're saying, well, the comp plan is very general. The comp plan says, could you do this somewhere else? And if you don't provide specific reasons why you're tethered to this area in the business plan, then obviously they're going to say, well, you could go somewhere else. You could do this. You could do that. Right. So I wish there would have been more information in this business plan as to why a campus of this size is important. What are the existing contracts? What are the future contracts? I mean, listen, we all know the business that you do. We're going to go to the TPO after this and sit over there. And when you look at the F thought five year plan, they couldn't do it without you. Right. So why isn't that here? Right. Why aren't we talking about that here? So I really, I feel like you ran out of tarmac. I appreciate the wetland bit, but I think you could have gotten to the need. Um, and I think if you would have gotten a lot more specific on it, it would be a lot easier, um, to deal with staff and really drill down on the need bit. And I just can't do that right now with the information that I've been given. Um, and that's, so that's why I can't support it, but I really want to, and I really wish that it would have been more so that we could have done more. All right. Um, anyone else? Chairman. Commissioner. Uh, okay, hold on. So I'm going to do Bastien, Senator Garcia, and then if Gilbert wants to second right at the apple. All right. Um, Bastien, you're recognized. Thank you so much, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, first I'd like to, um, congratulate all of you who came out today, um, in favor or against, um, this application. Uh, it's really make, it really makes my heart sing whenever I see you coming, uh, in great numbers. And, uh, I truly, truly appreciate the students from FIU coming. I'm an FIU grad, so thank you for coming in great numbers. I don't know if you're calling classes today, but, uh, I appreciate you coming to, uh, share your, your, your thoughts about this application. I've been, uh, listening, uh, with great, um, a lot of attention to my colleagues, so I don't need to repeat, uh, all that has been said. I agree, um, with most of, most of them, um, sometimes, it doesn't happen often. We, on this board, we are taxed with difficult decisions. Um, however, we were elected by our constituents, our residents, to tackle these, uh, difficult decisions. But no matter what we do, we must be considerate and deliberate, even as we are making them. Um, um, um, um, always in support of businesses, and I want, I want to commend the applicant because I believe that in this harsh economy, I mean, providing so many jobs, over 400, from what I see from, um, the application, I, I hope good-paying jobs is something not to really, um, snob at. I think it's extremely important. However, my, my main concern is about, uh, the, the lack of, of, of, um, arguments for the need of this application. I understand the want, but when I, when I reviewed, uh, all the documentation that was presented, uh, presented to me, and I read the mayor's memo, um, the burden was on you to really express the need, and I cannot say that I'm satisfied with the arguments that were presented for the need, though I understand your want. To me, um, people know my records in, in terms of the environment, and, and, and I, I tend to be aligned, well, with the comment that, um, Commissioner, uh, Cohen-Higgins made, and I see this as an, as an expansion of the UDB. And in my, uh, opinion, any decision to support expansion outside of the UDB should include a comprehensive need analysis, comprehensive need analysis to fully assess the proposals that may impact the environment now and in the near future. The, the, the environment, an environment that we are responsible, uh, to protect. And, and I was listening to our young leaders, um, with attention, and I shared some of their concerns. Um, I'm going to end by saying, uh, that I commend you for, for the application. I, uh, I support businesses, especially strong businesses like yours with a long-standing, um, resume portfolio, um, in our, in the county, which we need. We need good businesses. We need strong businesses. And this is not debatable here. It is not debatable. So, um, I, unfortunately, will not be able to support this because I am not satisfied that you've really convinced me, the burden was on you, that you've really convinced me of your need to, uh, for us to approve this development. Thank you. Thank you very much. And before I go to my colleagues, I saw you came up and, Jose, do you want to address the body at some? Good morning. Good morning, still, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Uh, Jose Gonzalez, uh, on behalf of Kelly Tractor, 7700 North Kendall Drive, Unit 604. I wanted to address a Commissioner Bastien's and Commissioner Regalado's question on need. Um, we, we prepared that business plan. We had a needs assessment, right? We did prepare it back in 2024, um, which is a general needs assessment, which is done for typically spec type of, of developments. Um, and that addresses is there's enough supply, enough demand. Like you said, this is a very unique business. And that's what the business plan tried to, to explain. And I appreciate the comments you gave us in such short time. Wish I would have had those comments. We submitted it over a month ago. Wish we would have had it, uh, in our, in our coffers to be able to address them. Um, to that extent, we have the data. There is clearly a need. You know, they wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new facility to fail and not to have a need for this. Um, what I would probably proffer, as we discuss here, is give us the time to give you that need assessment. We do have time. We have, uh, worked with staff and we talked about that, um, that the deadlines that the state imposed on us. We've pushed it out to June and we're happy to provide that. We'd hate to have this go down in the wrong way. I think everybody agrees it's a good business. They've been a good corporate citizen. They employ a lot of people. They're going to employ a lot more people. Let us demonstrate that need. They believe in the need. They know it because they're going to put their money where their mouth is. But allow us to demonstrate that on a technical basis. They're not economists. We had an economist give a general one. We can drill down on those data points. If there's staff, if staff can give us, hey, here's a list of stuff we want you to give us, we'll be happy to do that. We've never had that. We did the needs analysis based on the general needs. So that's one of the things I would ask, if that's something that can be done. Because I hate for the Kelly family to, you know, they bought this property in the 1980s. They've always had that vision of a need. They've seen that vision of a campus, right? Ring Power and Jacksonville is the same thing. They started small. They have 160 acres. They're the two largest Caterpillar dealers in Florida. Without them, Florida can't build roads. They can't do Everglades restoration. That equipment does all that stuff. And that's where it's a shame for not to be able to provide that. Because, again, we worked very hard to get the environmental questions addressed for the mayor. Let us provide the need discussion. Commissioner, I still have two others. Are you going to just respond to the closing? Go ahead, Commissioner Regalotto. Thank you. Just to respond to that, and thank you. And I would like to, you know, hear from staff when everyone's done specifically on that. And I think either way it should be done. Because one of the concerns is that there hasn't been a determination of need and that that opens a door. And I think everyone here agrees that we don't want to open that door. No one wants to endeavor, whether text amendment or UDB application, if there isn't a need. I think we all agree. So I would ask staff to work on that, no matter what the outcome. Because I think that that's something that should be part of this analysis. I would say that probably they're saying, well, you know, we're not here to do your job for you, right? You have to provide us with a need. They put the onus on you to really demonstrate the need. That's why I wanted to give you concrete examples. That's what I appreciate. Right, and I'm happy to help with that, just like I did with the water piece. But I can't speak for what staff is going to find. So I think you also need to hear from them. I understand what their concerns are, because we've talked about it so many times, just generally. So that's why I think you need data, and you need it over several years, right? Because you're planning a phased development, and then the question is, why not do it in pieces? And my understanding of your business is that just doesn't work for you. You're not selling widgets, right? You can't just do, like, expansion one, expansion two, expansion three. So that is the more specific information that I think staff needs here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Hold on, but I have Senator Garcia, then I'll go to Koenig's, and then all of it go. Senator Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do have a question. I do want to talk about the property itself a little bit, because last time, and I appreciate all the concessions you made based on some of the comments that I made here and the other commissioners made on the dais. To the county attorney, as it relates to the text amendments, I keep on hearing that this will set a precedence. Isn't there a precedent set already, one? And two, are we not always allowed to vote against these text amendments, so the county commission ultimately will have the final say with or without a precedence? That's correct, Senator. Okay. And I appreciate that, because it's always important to clear the record, because when we hear precedence, we think, oh, this action by the county commission, then it's going to bind other county commissioners, county commission's hands on what we can and cannot do. So we just want to be clear that we can always vote against this at any point. And, Jose, so when we talk about the environment, you know, I agree with Commissioner Gonzalez that it's not one or the other. We always have to grow, but grow responsibly. The last time that we had a conversation up here, there was a certain amount of acreage. You subsequently improved, increased that acreage from what to what again? It was from about 34 acres to over 63 acres on site. On site. And that was determined by Durham, which said we want these are the most pristine wetlands. That was the footprint that they wanted. Everything else had been impacted. Remember, there was agricultural use on the north part of the property. I understand. And that acreage will remain contiguous. Contiguous. It was on the site plan, Senator, and it was contiguous, and it does not get broken even by the road. That's where we have a wildlife crossing, and it'll be, again, a contiguous path for what? Those wetlands will be given back to the county. So those wetlands can be, but they're asking us to put a preservation covenant on it, so basically the public can only release by this body. Perfect. See, that to me means that you all are serious about preservation and working with us, because, again, I think that the line should be moved only on, you know, when we can protect our wetlands or protect our lands, and especially our farmers. That's one thing that I'm always trying to fight for here. So, anyway, let me ask you this. There's a lot of talk about the land, the line itself, outside of UDB. What else? Because my understanding is, and I've been out there, to the north of your property. What is to the north of that property? It's an industrial park that's under development right now by Prologis. It's about a million square feet, more or less, to north of us. To the south of us is a truck parking that was approved via tax amendment. That is also under development now. Okay. And then the rock miners, where are the rock miners in relation to your property? Just to the north of the industrial park. Okay. There's a cement plant, and then there's a rock mining zone. So, all the customers are around us. This is why it's important to note that while the advocates, which I understand, we need to make sure. We need to protect our wetlands, and we need to protect these pristine lands. And I appreciate the fact that you did it. But we have to be intellectually honest with the public to let them know what is actually happening out in that area. So, I do appreciate you coming before us now and giving up those properties, those lands. Now, you did ask for something right now. Commissioner Regulato had some concerns about the tax. I think we all have those concerns. Some of us have those concerns, and I get that. I kind of maybe not as much based on the fact that we always have the ultimate say when it comes to these tax amendments. But you did ask for some time to come back on the needs. How would that work? Mr. Chairman, can I ask the county attorneys how would that process work? Would there have to be a motion for us to maybe have them come back with a needs assessment or needs? We have provided one. We're happy to augment that and drill further into it with, again, with working with staff. And I know Commissioner Regulato had various points. We'd love to sit with her and make sure that we can answer those questions because we have the data. Kelly Tractor's been in business in 1933. We have data. There's no doubt. Look, I personally now think, you know, because I was ready to vote against it last time because of the fact that we didn't have those lands proffered. That was my big problem. And I appreciate you guys working with me anyway. But I do recognize the work in the service that the Kelly family has done for so many years. I mean, obviously, it's not just for road building. It's for all types of building in our community from construction to even, you mentioned earlier, even out to the Everglades and all the Everglades restoration project we do. So anyway, so if you give me one minute to the county attorney's office, how would a process like this work for the county commission? Senator, is your question about giving them time to come back with the needs to try to address some of the issues that some of the commissioners may have? So, Senator, if the board, if you wish to have that additional needs analysis before voting on the merits of the application, then this board could consider a motion to defer to a subsequent BCC CDMP zoning meeting, for example. Mr. Chairman, if, I don't know, I feel to try to address some of the concerns that Commissioner Regalalo has, I think maybe a motion to defer at this time to the next BCC meeting will be, the next BCC or the next CDMP meeting, I think it's a motion that I would try to proffer and see if they can come up with any resolutions to that. And look, I'm, of course, open to that, and that might be where we end up today. But my question to those that have addressed need, and it was Commissioner Cohn-Higgins, Regalalo, and I think one more, maybe Bastian, is there, if we give that time, and I don't know, I mean, you're saying you can't address it, but, you know, you, I don't know how to ask this. Mr. Chair, because of proprietary information, we didn't give certain data on sales and things like that, and those metrics, I understand that that's important, and, again, we'll work with the Kelly family to not give away any proprietary secrets. The question that I have, man, like, very, very black and white, is, like, is it ever going to be enough? Like, is the need going to get satisfied to the administration and to my colleagues that mentioned it? Like, is this a UDB thing? Is this, like, I'm just going to be a no no matter what, and I'm always going to find a new excuse? Or are we actually going to work with the applicant and try to get to a yes? Because I just don't want to get to the same place, right? Like, you know, Mr. Kelly, I think you've been a great corporate partner in your entire family of this community. But, you know, I'd rather be the bearer of that news today, right, if that's the case. But to keep strolling along, and some of my colleagues may just never get there. And that's okay. Like, they have their minds made up. The administration may never get there. You may address all the need. Which, by the way, to me, you've addressed it. To me, you've addressed the need. You're the property owner. You own the property. I'm a small business owner. I will not make the type of investment that you guys are making, or even a fraction of that, if I didn't have a need. If there wasn't a need in the community, that tells me all I need to do. No. I'm in business to make money. You guys are in business to make money. You might do philanthropic work. You might be a community supporter. But you're in business to make money. You would not be dropping and spending all this money, investing all this money in our community, if there was no need. That's enough for me. So my question is, to the administration, to Director Lourdes, to Chief Coley, and I don't know if the mayor is still in the room, is addressing, is it ever really going to get there? Because Commissioner Gilbert said this in the last meeting, and, you know, you can respond. It's kind of a rhetorical question. I mean, I just don't know that. I don't want to sit through this again in the next meeting or in two more meetings. Like, I just, and by the way, there's no meeting next month because we're in, so what, Chief Coley, I mean, is there a. Mr. Chairman, the mayor has consistently stated that if we could get all the things in this application that we would get in a traditional CDMP, which does include a comprehensive needs analysis, she has directed us to try to find a way to, yes, on all applications. And they have done an amazing job dealing with the needs for the wetland preservation. They've done what's been asked of them. We're very happy with that. That the mayor just says continually the need has not been fully addressed like we require all other applicants in a CDMP application to do. So, so, Chief, my, my, my, my question to the attorneys is on the addressing needs. Is that a board policy? Did we create that policy? Is that a state? Like, who, who said that when something like this happens, they need to prove and establish a need to us? Who created that? Was that a state thing? Is it in our charter? Is it this body that did that at some point? Through the chair. Mr. Chair, I believe that we're referring to things that are in our Miami-Dade County comp plan, which, of course, is, those texts are approved by this board. I may wish to defer to RER staff for more details on that, but. Well, this body can undo that by policy of this board. We can say, you don't have to come and prove the burden of need. We decide. And if we want to ask for it in a certain application, then we can do case by case. But just to make it impossible for a good-standing corporate partner of this community to jump through loopholes time and time. It's easy for us to make decisions on other people's money. That is the easiest thing to do that we do up here. And I take issue with that. And I know a lot of my colleagues take issue with that. But while the Kelly family and Kelly Tractor might be a very successful business, I think, I don't know, I've never seen their financials, that doesn't make it right for us to play with our corporate partner's money. We can make the argument what's, you know, I think there's a need, of course, for this, but same could be said for waste to energy, that we're going to put it out there. I mean, we were landfilling now. Can we not landfill for the next 30, 40 years? Can we not put it back in Doral inside the UDB? And that's not what I'm going for, Commissioner Berman. It's not in Doral right now. You don't need to. It's got to be clear. You don't need to jump. It's an unincorporated date. You don't need to jump into it. I wasn't a, but, you know, we're not going to apply it to ourselves, but we're going to apply it to our corporate partners. Look, I get that you guys are reading the room. You need nine votes to pass this. You may not have it. You may want to defer it to work it. I respect that. I'm in favor of that. I'd hate to see you guys not do this. But the reality is that I don't know that you guys jumping through those loopholes is going to get certain people there to get you where you need to get. But I just don't know. I'm going to continue in order, though. I think I was with Senator Garcia. Then I have Gilbert, Commissioner Gilbert, and then I have the Vice Chair and Cohen Higgins. Oh, and Bermuda. Okay, so Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments about what need is, because sometimes when we look at these applications and we talk about, for instance, that we don't acknowledge the nuance and the differences in applications. So when someone's coming and they're speculating like they want to get the approvals to build houses or something, that's different than when a company's coming to actually expand their business. I know that good business sense means that you're not going to try to expand something that's going to actually lose you money. And so I think that we have that provision written in there, but I'm often taking issues with that provision because the way we do the analysis sometimes is also kind of hot spots because we're taking the available inventory throughout the entire county. And, you know, that sometimes isn't practical because all of those places won't necessarily be accessible to the applicants that are in front of us. That's why we have the ability to override the need requirement. But to the larger point of whether it will change someone's mind, I have absolutely no confidence that it will change the administration's mind. I have no confidence that they're going to change their position. I respect Chief Coley. What he said was essentially what the mayor said. He said the mayor has consistently, I would argue with both of those words. I don't think that the administration's position on this has been consistent. I do not believe that they're going to change their mind. But I have a greater confidence in my colleagues. So I believe that if you all have presented information that satisfy your questions, that you all may actually change your votes. I have a greater confidence in that. And I would just note that the underlying premise of the mayor's objections was the process. She didn't want to do it via text amendment. She wanted to do it through a UDB application. That was the underlying premise of her objection, satisfying all the criteria, which is similar to what I said last time. They can go through and satisfy all the criteria. It's still going to be the same process. So if that's her objection, then asking the administration whether they're open to it, they're going to say yeah, because they can't say no. But in the real world, they're going to do exactly at the next meeting what they did at this meeting. That is what's going to happen, because the process would not have changed. And so Commissioner Cohen Higgins asked the question that I've been waiting for. Who has the hold on changing this via text amendment? She asked the attorneys. No one answered the question. If the question's not going to be answered, we could waive the rules. We could override that right now by majority vote or two-thirds. Who's the hold? Take the hold away from whoever has that hold. You have it? No, I haven't. Okay. I put in a request for it, but I'm happy to draft on it. Yeah, we put in a request last time we went around and around and around and around. So happy to draft on it. I mean, I think we need to. So we'll work on it. We'll start working on it immediately. It works for me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I think that if it's the process that we're arguing, it's very difficult with a straight face to say that they shouldn't take advantage of a process that we made available. That is amazing. And that some indications say that people on our staff recommended. You have to understand how hypocritical that is. You just have to. I have, he was after, but I have Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, then Vice Chair, and then, actually, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, Bermudez, and then the Vice Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I just want to, I don't know where this is going, if you all, I don't know where this is going. But I do think it's important to know, we're talking about need, and even the applicant said at the microphone, surely we can demonstrate need. We've spent, you know, millions of dollars, et cetera. Need, under our comp plan, the analysis has nothing to do with the private business need. Every business applying to do anything in this county will always say they need whatever it is. The need analysis under our comp plan is whether or not there is sufficient available supply of land within our urban development boundary that you can utilize elsewhere in order to protect and maintain our urban development boundary. That is the needs analysis under LU8F. So I don't know that this is going to change between now and a deferral because I believe that analysis has already taken place, and our administration has already opined that there are alternate available sites within the UDB for you all to expand your business footprint. It may not be convenient, you may have to drive a little bit, but in our code, need is described in that fashion, not in the way that we have been discussing it regarding private businesses spending millions of dollars and them deciding that they need to expand their footprint into our wetlands. So I'm going to follow the will of my colleagues. I don't know what direction this is going to take. Frankly, I'm surprised that I thought the votes were there for you all to pass this today, and I'm glad, Commissioner Regalado, that you have shared that you're going to work on our text amendments and who it is available to and when it will apply. Because I've said it before and I'll say it again, I recognize that the applicants are sadly in a bit of a bad spot here because they traveled under a lane that apparently they were advised to travel under, and so here we sit. So I understand both sides of this, but again, I've been very consistent regarding my position on protecting wetlands outside of the UDB. And to the attorneys, I just want to be clear, is it your position that a needs analysis has already taken place on this application? You all have determined that the needs under LU8F has not been met? I just want to be clear on that answer. It's either yes or no. Commissioner, we would want to defer to the administration to answer that question. Sure, to the administration. Through the information we have presented today, no. No what? You said, has the need been assessed? What was the question? I'm sorry. Have you all analyzed need and determined that a need has not been met by the applicant? We analyzed the business plan that they presented. It's in your packet. And it did not provide the data, the metrics, the growth projections that we would have relied upon as an alternative to that land supply analysis that you mentioned. The answer is yes, they analyzed it and they found it lacking. Is that accurate? That's my understanding. Jesus Christ. Lourdes, can you just confirm that, please? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you for establishing that. So, to the applicant, you all have already provided data to the administration that they have reviewed and they have determined that the needs analysis is lacking or you all have not met that need component that they are looking for you to meet. We haven't provided metrics, though. I'm sorry? The metrics were not provided because we were thinking of proprietary information, Commissioner. So, it wasn't a complete needs announcement. It was a need based on projections that Kelly has in their market, but not with the level of detail that Commissioner Regalado was referring to because it's not normal for this type of application. Because if we're building warehouses, to a certain point, you can say, how much land is inside the UDB? Does it fit that much land? How much supply is inside the UDB of vacant land, of vacant warehouses? You do that analysis for that type of use. It's hard for such a user, a specific user, to be able to explain that unless we have these metrics that are typically proprietary, like their sales reports, how they've grown. All of that has to be put out there and we have to have a conversation because we don't want it to be too public, but we want to be able to provide the information to give staff that comfort. And when we talk about available land, we did do an alternatives analysis, which does exactly what you're talking about, a need. There is no 160 acres inside the UDB. What staff is saying is, you don't need 160 acres. You need 30 acres. And we're saying, that's where the metrics come in. I think that's where the disconnect is. We're not disagreeing with staff. I think we're just missing information. But that's what the code requires. The code requires that level of analysis. If, again, and we are assuming if we were doing a spec type of development, that's really what we're used to. This is the first time I work on a project that's so specific to a user like that. Okay, thank you for explaining that. And so my subsequent question was, then there is additional information that you think that you need to submit to the administration in order to further have that analysis take place, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have the vice chair and then, don't forgive me. I'm sorry, I have Bermudez, vice chair, Steinberg. All right. I was going to say wow, wow, wow, but since Raquel got to speak in Spanish, I'm going to use what I was thinking. Que politiqueria. Oh, my God. Really? Let's go point by point, okay? Because, and I appreciate the comments, Mr. Chair, because without businesses, there is no Miami-Dade County. At least, you know, people that have had businesses know that. Let's be realistic. So I do appreciate your comments. Let's begin. Let's begin by the text amendment. This August body voted on an adjacent property through a text amendment with a unanimous vote. 12 to 0 on the recommendation of staff. Lest we forget. But we all did. So to the young men and women that are here, intellectual honesty, as Senator Garcia likes to say, is very important. Don't tell me one day you're, I'm better off that you tell me you don't agree with me, and that's okay. I can live with it. But don't tell me it's, you know, one day this, one day that. Because that, to me, is politiqueria. That's number one. So, and that vote is public record, and it was unanimous. Okay, it was 12 to 0. Somebody was missing, but we're not going to get into that at this point because I'm going to be collegial. So, reference to the parkway, okay, reference to the parkway, it's amazing to me that the administration would actually, and I concur with Commissioner Regalado on the MDX, GMX, and I think a number of us did, okay, it's amazing to me to build the parkway. All we're going to do if we do this, we're going to actually force, we're actually going to impact the value of the property for the entity that owns the property because we don't own the property. So, all we're trying to do is, and by the way, this body sits as a quasi-judicial body in zoning hearings, okay? But all we're trying to do is force somebody to sell their property to the state or to an entity that the state kind of took away from us because everybody wants to not talk about it, but the chairman is correct that that's what happened. And we're going to go right through the same damn wetlands. It's probably going to be even worse, but that's okay because we're not going to be protecting the wetlands. And anybody who's been out there in my district knows that right now there's a lot of people using that, and they're not worried about the wetlands, okay? So, we're not even taking care of it, so let's not even – the word precedent's been used. Okay, we're not a court of law with the exception of a quasi-judicial body. When we sit here as a quasi-judicial body, truthfully, legislatively, things change. They have in American history and in Miami-Dade County history because 52 years ago, a bunch of rich Anglo men decided to set, because they owned all the land, an urban development boundary that we haven't looked at in 52 years, even though Broward and Palm Beach don't have an urban development boundary. How interesting things change. And in 52 years, nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody wants to even – and there are institutions, they all get paid very well, that represent entities that are here protesting today, which is okay because that's how democracy works. As far as Commissioner Gilbert's comments, I do agree with him. There's a lot of things that are built beyond the UDB – jails, water facilities. You can go down a list all over in all our commission districts – well, not all, but the ones that are – that have the urban development boundary. And you will see things that are built that are definitely things that were built by government and even some that weren't built by government, too. They're there. They're beyond the urban development boundary. Everybody tries to – and again, I point out that this is actually in the UEA, but that's why we took that vote. Nobody talked about the urban development boundary. Nobody made it an issue. And in this case, they were told to go through this process. Why they were not told to go through the other process, I don't know. We talk about rules. Guess what? The administration should follow the rules. Tell them this is not the right process so they don't spend all this money that they've spent over the years. And that's what – this should be done. You know, what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander. And so the other thing I will point out is – and this is a question, if I may, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask the administration this question. All these parcels in my district west of the – what was then the urban development boundary got moved because it was approved by the former – well, two former chairs ago, now mayor of a small city where – well, no. Thank God, FIU is not in that city, just outside. How – what happened? Were there needs assessments on Beacon Lakes, Beacon Park? I don't know what those places are called. Beacon this, Beacon that. Where were the needs assessments then? I'd like to know. There – according to staff, that was – Okay, well, that's just specific to this. Did you ask all the people that built that out? There has – I'm going to hold you to it because you guys have – you guys have – you're the kings of nebulous answers. Are you saying that as strict as this – as strict as this – is that what this administration is saying? That as strict as this application, you did that to that city – I'm sorry, Abby. That area you gave to the city of Sweetwater. That area you approved to the former – two chairs ago that you gave to the city of Sweetwater and gave away county land. Did you ask for the same needs assessment? Those applications, the at least Beacon Lakes, was 2001. So we need to go back and review what the policies were at the time. I don't – sitting here, I did not work here. I don't – I can't answer your question. It's amazing. It's amazing to me how everybody forgets. Oh, my God. It's – but, you know, wait, wait. You know, did you guys take any position on that annexation of giving away county land to a small city just because the chairman at the time was pushing for it? Because the planning advisory board voted against it. Do you remember? Did you have an opinion on anything on the – Sir, we would – You weigh in on everything. Did you weigh in on that? We would have to review the applications from the time. Okay. Review, review, review. You know, I got to tell you – and the last thing I'm going to say is to my colleagues. And I thank Commissioner Regalado if you do have the hold, which I'm assuming you do because I don't even – I believe the hold is unconstitutional. I know Commissioner Hardeman agrees with me. He never says it because the rules are the rules. I think it limits my ability to talk about anything that I want to talk about as an elected official representing the people. It's amazing to me that we can say – by the way, this commission – Lord, is – no, no, no. This commission never had a hold until four chairs ago somebody decided to create this system. To keep me from speaking on issues is unconstitutional. Those are the rules today. And Commissioner Hardeman and I play by it. It's okay. But it's unconstitutional. Just like those young men and women have a right to speak, I have a right to speak. So now we're going to – you want to look at the rules? And, Roy, by the way, you do a fantastic job. So great that the mayor just came in and did the great, very nice Southern Draw All Act. The line is, if we're going to have rules and we're going to say we're going to treat everybody the same, then let's vote that way. If we're going to – why not look at the UDB? And let's draw the line in the sand and keep it for another 50 years. You know why you don't want to do it. You don't want to do it. Because the only people that benefit from this case-by-case-by-case process are the politicians. And the bureaucratic employees of a county that really deserves to have more corporations instead of having everybody working for Jackson, the school board, FIU, you know, all the public entities. Instead of trying to attract business, we do everything possible to make it harder for businesses. So there's no way in the world a county that's been based on construction and real estate and the only way we can change the economy, the only way these young men and women will stay in Miami-Dade County is if they can work. Unless, of course, the government will work like everybody else and then, you know, it won't make a difference. So I believe that there's a lot of hypocrisy going on here. I don't – look, I don't have a problem voting today. It'll be what it'll be. I agree with Commissioner Gilbert that I think everybody's made up their mind. They know where they're going. It is about politics. It isn't even about policy. Come on, man. You know, it's about this election, that election, this election, that election. So the bottom line is if – and this is one thing, if I may, Mr. Chair, ask the applicant, do they even want – do they even want to be able to answer Commissioner Regalado's questions? And then I guess you have to talk to the administration because they've said they're not convinced. Do they even want – and there hasn't been one proposed because I have a motion on the table. But if there is a proposal to have a motion for continuance, I don't even know if the applicant wants a motion for continuance. I'd like to know if they do. Or like you, and I agree with you, do we just want to take a vote today and let the chips fall where they may? Commissioner Bernoude, through the Chair, Commissioner Bernoude, we would like the opportunity to answer it. Just so we can demonstrate what the Kelly family has seen and what they have in their books and share that with the administration. Show the growth of the company and their future projection growth, which is, again, proprietary stuff that we'd be happy to share with the administration in confidentiality. But we would love to have the opportunity to answer the questions that Commissioner Regalado gave us. I've spoken to Chris Kelly, and he's willing to do it. And he'll spend the money. We'll bring another economist in and do a full-fledged report, not a business plan. We'll do a full needs analysis, answering all the questions in detail. And, look, I'll tell you, with needs analysis, all the UDB applications I've worked on, staff never accepts the needs analysis. There's always enough land in the UDB. But that's just always going to be that same mantra. But I think in this case it's very unique because it's a specific user versus a spec user, right? That's always been the question. Is there enough demand in the market, right? That's always been the question. This is a little different. And this is enough demand for their existing customers and their future customers. They've got to prove that. And I think that's the metrics we did not show because, obviously, it's competitive information. But we want to be able to share that in the right format with the Commissioner and the Commission so you guys can see that. But we would love a continuous and love the opportunity to do that if the will of work. Mr. Chair, may I ask one question of the applicant? You may, but what I would ask you also is to ask them, or I'll ask them, and you still have the floor, Commissioner, but is to what I said earlier, and honestly, it's frustrating as a small business owner, but putting passion aside is we're speaking two different things. Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Cohen-Higgins identified two different sorts of needs. The need of the company needing more space, need that they need to grow, need in the industry, in the market. And then Cohen-Higgins pointed out the need that the county might take the posture, which is, is there land elsewhere? Mr. Chair. I know there's not 160 acres elsewhere, which then raises the question of do they need 160 acres? Who are we to decide as government, that's government overreach in my eyes, who are we to decide how much space they need for their business? I mean, if they want to sunbathe in each corner of the property, that's their property. Like, I just don't, I'm perplexed by it, but. Mr. Chair. My question goes along your lines, if I may, because I think I heard them say something that goes exactly to that. And there is a definite, different definition of needs in the comprehensive master development plan than there is in what an entity would do in a business plan. It doesn't mean the two minds can't meet, but that can always be used as an excuse in a comprehensive master development plan. I'm like you. I believe, you know, as long, there are rules, but as long as you're within the rules, you should be able to do what you want with your business. But I heard, and I'd like the applicant to answer this question. Did I hear you say that there are only two companies in Florida that actually do this type of work that are the Florida-owned companies, not from other states? There are two Caterpillar dealers in Florida. Ring Power in Jacksonville and Kelly Tractor in South Florida. So. They split the state in half. There's John Deere. There's other. Yeah, yeah, of course. There's John Deere. I'm sorry. There are two Caterpillars, which is a national company that vendors are one in Jacksonville, one in South Florida, and they're a large one, obviously. Um, so my other question would be, obviously, and I'm not going to put Mr. Kelly on the spot because he's a longtime Miami-Dade County resident, so is his family. But you could take this business somewhere else, couldn't you? That would not be the desire of the Kelly family, but. I didn't ask if that's your desire. I said, could you? Yes or no? If growth is hindered, they're not going to have a choice at some point in their business decisions that they're going to have to expand somewhere else. And if it's not Dade County, it'll be somewhere else that can accommodate it. All right. Look, I'm going to go with whatever the will of the body is. I'm ready to vote today if needed. But obviously, the applicant has indicated, and I don't know if this suffices enough for both Commissioner Cohen-Higgins and Commissioner Regalado. I don't know if it's going to make a difference, like Commissioner Gilbert says, to be honest with you. Not sure it'll make a difference because it's the politiqueria. So, you know, the bottom line, in the long run, it's just going to be, you know, hey, you know, so I don't know what the decision will be. But truthfully, it's, to me, we've, we're, the only thing I ask is if this gets moved to another date, we got to decide at that point. Because I don't believe if they're, and I'll ask you one last question I would ask the administration, are they open to even having these discussions? Because it makes, it's no good, Mr. Chair, it's no good if they are open to having this discussion. And then my good friends across the aisle over there say, well, we're going to move the bar a little bit further. This is, the N doesn't mean, the N is an inye, or the inye is an in. Are you open to actually have a discussion, or are you, or is it going to be, you know, you know, that would be the question I would ask. That's exactly my point. And by the way, I'm perfectly okay, like, and some of my colleagues up here as well have taken that posture, is if the answer is, if the mayor's will, as the mayor of this county is, she just doesn't want this for her very own reasons, that's okay. Like, that's, that's, I respect that. But you just got to say that. We can't keep stringing them along and, and, and, and giving them rope to hang themselves. And it's okay. I respect, look, Commissioner Steinberg is a perfect example, not to pick on her. She's been a no across the board from the beginning. This is just her posture. This is, this is how she feels. This is how she thinks. And, and, and there's no, she's not, but she's not asking to prove a need. She's not, she's just, she's just a no. It's outside the EDB. She says, no. The thing is, if we, if we defer today, which I'm open to that, and I, and I'd like Commissioner Regalado to bring the item, I would, if whatever, I need to see what the process is to bring that item. But I would like to see it at the very next BCC meeting. Yes. If not May 5th, May 16th, or whatever that date, that second one is. But remember, I think some of you, there was something going on the second part of May. Yeah, but that's for the, for the CDMP and zoning meeting. But we do have a BCC meeting that week, and we could adjust the comp plan there. So, look, if it's okay, just, and I'm with you, Commissioner Bermudez. I just, I want to make sure that we're not misleading. But I, I still do have some speakers left. Actually, I do. But if you want to, just to wrap this up, if you want to withdraw your motion and move to defer it. Look, I will withdraw the motion based on what the applicant said and the concerns expressed by Commissioner Regalado. And if the will of the body is to accept, have another motion that would bring it to that date, then that's fine, too. Okay. So, that's fine with me. So, all right. So, let's, so it's been withdrawn a motion by Commissioner Gilbert to defer the item to the next zoning CDMP meeting, which is? Mr. Chair, the next BCC CDMP meeting would be June 18th. If that is the will of the board, I would like to just ask the applicant related to timing. I believe the applicant requested an extension of certain state law statutory deadlines and has that through June 1. So, I just wanted to get their position related, related to, related to that and, and whether they believe there's a possibility of seeking an additional, additional extension. That's a good point, Abby. Thank you for that. We, we don't have a meeting before that date, but Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Chair, our rules do allow us to hear this at the regular BCC meeting if it's noticed. So, we could hear it at the May 18th BCC meeting. There's always, there's already been public comment. So, you know, I think that's, that's the better path. That gives us, we only have to work on this, on this need piece. We might need, we might need to, we might need to do it May 5th. And I don't know if you have enough time. May 18th for me is not something I can put on the agenda. I cannot put this item on the agenda on May 18th. Half of this body is catching a flight by 1, 2 p.m. out of this, out of the state. So. Through the chair. Or 19th it is, right? So, my motion would be to the May 5th meeting? The May 5th meeting. I defer this item to the motion to the May 5th meeting. All right. The May 5th meeting works for us. The Senator seconded my motion. All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Gilbert, seconded by Senator Garcia. All in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the item deferred. Thank you. All right. Show us adjourned. Wait. Chairman. Chairman. Chairman.