In the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida Resolution No. 14-0098, March 27, 2014 Agenda in the Matter Of: Miami Hist
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IN THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. 14-0098, MARCH 27, 2014 AGENDA IN THE MATTER OF: MIAMI HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, vs. MDM DEVELOPMENT GROUP. _______________________________________/ MDM’S APPEAL OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 2014 DECISIONS OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Eugene E. Stearns Gordon M. Mead, Jr. Museum Tower, Suite 2200 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN PASTORIZA COLE & BONISKE, P.L. Anthony L. Recio 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 700 March 24, 2014 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Museum Tower 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 (305) 789-3200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................2 THE HEP BOARD’S FEBRUARY 14, 2014 DECISIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED, THE MEDIATED ACTION PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED, AND DEVELOPMENT AT MET SQUARE SHOULD GO FORWARD .........................................................................6 I. The HEP Board Lacked Jurisdiction to Renege on the Action Plan in Favor of Full Preservation..............................................................................................................6 A. The HEP Board Blew the 60-Day Time Limit ...................................................... 6 B. The HEP Board Exceeded its Jurisdiction by Imposing an Economic Hardship .............................................................................................. 9 II. The Mediated Action Plan Should Be Approved Because It Exceeds the Requirements of the Historic Preservation Chapter, Advances Its Goals, and Contributes to the City’s Policy Objectives of Promoting Good Urban Planning, Protecting the Environment, and Promoting Economic Growth Downtown ................... 11 A. Preservation, Interpretation, and Education ........................................................ 12 1. Historic Preservation Chapter ................................................................. 12 2. The Mediated Action Plan Preserves and Displays the Post-Holes That the Parties Have Agreed Are Most Likely Associated with the Tequestas ............................................................................................... 13 a. The City’s and County’s Hypothesis about the Tequestas ............ 13 b. An Alternate Hypothesis about the Tequestas.............................. 14 i. The Prehistoric Record .................................................... 15 ii. History Of The Tequestas On The North Bank Of The Miami River ............................................................. 15 iii. History after The Tequesta Left The North Bank Of The Miami River ............................................................. 16 c. Consensus about the Importance of the Southwest Corner and Northeast Corner Circles for the Tequesta Period ................. 17 i d. The Mediated Action Plan Presents an Opportunity to Tell the Full History of the North Bank of the Miami River................ 17 e. The Mediated Action Plan Is Far Superior to the Outcome at the Miami Circle ..................................................................... 18 3. The Mediated Action Plan Promotes the Urban Planning Principles Outlined in Miami 21, the Environmental Principles Outlined in the City of Miami Climate Action Plan, and Economic Growth Downtown. ............................................................................................. 19 III. In the Alternative, the HEP Board’s and the City’s Actions Equitably Estop Them from Preventing Development from Going Forward at METsquare ............................... 20 IV. In the Alternative, the HEP Board’s Decisions Violated Due Process ............................ 22 A. The HEP Board Members Made Comments Pre-Judging the Dispute ................. 23 B. Most HEP Board Members Did Not Read MDM’s Pre-Hearing Written Submission ........................................................................................................ 24 C. The HEP Board, Without Advance Notice, Severely Limited the Amount of Time That MDM Had to Present its Case ....................................................... 25 D. The HEP Board Did Not and Could Not Identify any Evidence Supporting its Exercise of Jurisdiction or its Decisions ......................................................... 27 E. The HEP Board Attempted to Reserve Perpetual Jurisdiction ............................. 28 F. A HEP Board Member Made a Subsequent Public Statement and Another Requested to Testify in Front of the City Commission ....................................... 29 V. In the Alternative, The HEP Board’s Actions Constitute a Taking without Compensation ................................................................................................................ 30 A. First Principles of Takings Jurisprudence ........................................................... 31 B. The Scope of the HEP Board’s Decisions Addressing Action Plans.................... 32 C. The HEP Board’s Decisions Require a Physical Occupation, Which Is a Per Se Taking That Requires Compensation ....................................................... 33 D. If the HEP Board or the City Commission Deprives MDM’s Owners of All Economic Use, That Will Be a Per Se Taking Requiring Full Compensation .................................................................................................... 35 E. In the Alternative, the HEP Board’s Actions Are a Taking under the Three-Prong Test Established by Penn Station ................................................... 36 ii F. Full Compensation Is a Staggering Amount ....................................................... 38 VI. In the Alternative, the HEP Board’s Actions Violate the Bert Harris Act ....................... 39 VII. In the Alternative, the HEP Board’s Actions Impose an Unconstitutional Condition That Requires Full Compensation.................................................................. 40 VIII. In the Alternative, the Historic Preservation Chapter and City Policies Require Reversal ........................................................................................................... 41 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A — Renderings ..................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B — Agreement Reached at Mediation and Mediated Action Plan .......................... B-1 Appendix C — History of Permitting, Resolutions, Reports, Notices, and HEP Board Actions .......................................................................................................... C-1 Appendix D — Analysis of the Prehistoric Record .................................................................. D-1 Appendix E — Written Accounts of the Tequestas .................................................................. E-1 Appendix F — History of the North Bank of the Miami River after the Tequesta Left............................................................................................................. F-1 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ark. Game and Fish Comm’n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (2012) ............................................................................................................ 34 Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) ................................................................................................................ 31 Bd. of Cnty Comm’rs of Metro. Dade Co. v. Lutz, 314 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) ...................................................................................... 21 Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Brevard Cnty. v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993) .................................................................................................... 27 Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Int’l Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2001) .................................................................................................... 27 Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216 (2003) .............................................................................................................. 34 Castro v. Miami-Dade Conty Code Enforcement, 967 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ...................................................................................... 21 Cherry Commc’ns v. Deason, 652 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1995) .................................................................................................... 30 City of Hialeah v. Allmand, 207 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) .......................................................................................... 21 City of Miami v. 20th Century Club, Inc., 313 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) ...................................................................................... 21 City of Miami v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 286 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ...................................................................................... 21 Deel Motors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 252 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) .....................................................................................