City of Miami
City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, June 23, 2016
9:00 AM Planning and Zoning
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomás Regalado, Mayor Keon Hardemon, Chair Ken Russell, Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Méndez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
CONTENTS
PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
AM - APPROVING MINUTES
MV - MAYORAL VETOES
CA - CONSENT AGENDA
PA - PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES
FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RE - RESOLUTIONS
AC - ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
BU - BUDGET
DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS
PART B
PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S)
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
M - MAYOR'S ITEMS
D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS
D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS
D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS
D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS
D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS
City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Commissioner Gort, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Chair Hardemon On the 23rd day of June 2016, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:00 a.m., recessed at 11:53 a.m., reconvened at 3:17 p.m., recessed at 3:19 p.m., reconvened at 4:19 p.m., recessed at 11:59 p.m., reconvened at 12:01 a.m., and adjourned at 1:10 a.m. on Friday, June 24, 2016.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Suarez entered the Commission chambers at 9:03 a.m., Vice Chair Russell entered the Commission chambers at 9:03 a.m., and Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chambers at 9:05 a.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Méndez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the June 23, 2016 meeting of the City of Miami City Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Wifredo Gort, Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez; Ken Russell, the Vice Chairman; and me, Keon Hardemon, the Chairman. Also on the dais are Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager; Victoria Méndez, the City Attorney; and Todd Hannon, our City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Gort; and the pledge of allegiance, which will be led by myself. Please, all rise.
Invocation delivered.
Chair Hardemon: We will now make our presentations and proclamations. You may have a seat --I'm sorry.
Pledge of allegiance delivered.
Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry. Thank you very much. That was a first.
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
PR.1 PRESENTATION 16-00869 Honoree Presenter Protocol Item
Service Awards Mayor & City of Miami Milestones City Manager Pins
Clara Eshkenazi- Mayor & Certificate of Tampico City Manager Appreciation
Felix Carmenate Mayor & Certificate of Comm Gort Appreciation
Nitin Bakery Mayor & Certificate of
City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Comm Gort Appreciation
Officer Leonardo Mayor & Certificate of Carrillo Comm Gort Appreciation
Jill Turner Mayor & Certificate of Comm Gort Appreciation
18 Honorees Mayor & Certificates of Overtown Fair Chair Hardemon Appreciation
Emanuel Mayor & Certificate Washington, Jr. Chair Hardemon of Merit
Dr. Alana Grajewski Mayor Proclamation
Leonard Del Villa Mayor & Certificate City Manager of Honor
Alex Blandon Mayor & Certificate of City Manager Honor
Dayamy Rodríguez Mayor & Salute Comm Suarez
Employees United Mayor & Certificates of Way Campaign City Manager Appreciation
16-00869 Protocol Item.pdf
PRESENTED
1) Mayor Regalado presented a proclamation and recognized the late City of Miami Firefighter Rafael Garcia, who died very suddenly from a brain tumor that was detected just days before his passing in March of 2015. Rafael García, known as Ralf, is remembered by the many who loved him as brilliant, compassionate, driven and selfless, and was looked up to and respected by all who knew him.
2) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Gort presented a proclamation and recognized Alana L. Grajewski, M.D., an Ophthalmologist, Surgeon and Professor of Clinical Ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Director of the newly established Samuel & Ethel Balkan International Pediatric Glaucoma Center and is the Founder and President of the Childhood Glaucoma Research Network (CGRN), an organization dedicated to physicians and scientists who care for children with glaucoma, with members in thirty-eight countries around the world. Dr. Grajewski's vision to provide an integrated care model for the treatment of childhood glaucoma and a comprehensive center to coordinate research and train young physicians at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute has resulted in saving the vision of thousands of children here in South Florida, the United States and throughout the world.
3) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Gort presented a certificate of appreciation to Felix Carmenate, Jill Turner and Officer Leonardo Carillo; participants in the Keep Miami Beautiful project, a City of Miami project designed to protect and enhance the natural beauty of our Magic City.
City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
4) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Gort presented a certificate of appreciation to Clara Eshkenazi of Tampico Beverages and to Nitin Bakery, recognizing them both as important participants in the City of Miami's Arbor Day event.
5) Mayor Regalado presented a certificate of appreciation honoring the participants of the Overtown Health and Resource Fair.
6) Mayor Regalado and Chair Hardemon honored City of Miami native, Emanuel Washington Jr. and his outstanding culinary achievement as Chef Manny FD. Mr. Washington Jr. was selected as one of twenty-two Chefs out of twenty thousand contestants in the MasterChef competition.
7) Mayor Regalado presented City of Miami Solid Waste Department employees Alex Blandon and Leonardo Del Villa, with a certificate of honor for their commendable civic behavior in saving the life of a gentleman who fainted under the extreme South Florida heat. They rendered excellent first aid until the crew of Rescue 8 from the City of Miami's Fire-Rescue Department arrived.
8) Mayor Regalado saluted City of Miami Officer James Fraser who was the first responder at a dispatched call for a report involving a female that was experiencing a seizure. Upon arrival, Officer Fraser found that the subject was unconscious and breathless as she lay on the floor, his medical training and quick thinking saved a heart attack patient after he deployed the AED (Automated External Defibrillator and administered CPR (Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation).
9) Mayor Regalado saluted City of Miami Officers Kenny Rodriguez, Reynold Philippe and Diego Solano who were first responders at a scene of an accident and saved an elderly woman who was trapped behind an iron gate by methodically initiating lifesaving rescue methods. Their extraordinary efforts and compassion in addition to their expertise saved the victim's life.
10) Mayor Regalado and City Manager Alfonso recognized various City of Miami Employees and their respective department's for their fundraising efforts and dedication to the 2016 United Way Campaign.
11) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Suarez saluted Dayamy Rodriguez, for her entrepreneurship and civic consciousness in founding the Suarez Museum of Natural Science & History and her extensive involvement in community service. The Suarez Museum of Natural Science & History's mission is to educate, preserve, conserve, teach and enrich the general public in the field of natural history and to work for animal preservation throughout the world . Ms. Rodríguez's contributions to the community have also included fundraising for cancer research and for children with autism and other neurological disorders, networking with Native American tribes in order to pursue mutual interests, promoting investment in Latin America in conjunction with CAMACOL (Cámara de Comercio Latina) and many other activities which have greatly benefitted our constituency.
Chair Hardemon: Now we will proceed with our proclamations and presentations.
Proclamations and presentations made.
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, to APPROVE PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Just -- let's move through just a few things. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of May 12, 2016?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved, so moved.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
END OF APPROVING MINUTES
MAYORAL VETOES
NO MAYORAL VETOES
Chair Hardemon: Mr. City Clerk, are there any mayoral vetoes?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
ORDER OF THE DAY
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Vice Chair, may I read the procedures into the record? Any person who is a lobbyist, including all paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision by the City Commission must register with the City Clerk and comply with the latest City requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the City Commission. A person may not lobby a City official, Board Member or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office. Any person making a presentation, formal request or petition to the City Commission concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the City Code in writing. A copy of this Code section is available in the City Clerk's Office. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office, and online 24 hours a day at www.miamigov.com. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before the City Commission takes action on such proposition. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item. A video of this meeting may be requested at the Office of Communications or viewed online at www.miamigov.com. No cell phones or other noise-making devices are permitted in the Commission chambers; please silence those devices now. No clapping, applauding, heckling or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted. Any person making offensive remarks or becomes unruly in the Commission chambers will be barred from further attending Commission meetings and may be subject to arrest. No signs or placards shall be allowed in the Commission chambers. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The meeting will either end at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda; whichever occurs first. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by City
City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. At this time, the Administration will announce which items, if any, are being either withdrawn, deferred or substituted. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. We're going to ask to defer SR.4; and then, there's a companion that is PZ.14. I know that right now, it's not the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda, but that item will be asked to be deferred, as well, because it's a companion. This is the Art in Public Places Ordinance we discussed at the last Commission meeting; not ready to go, so we're asking to defer that to July 14. There's a --
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there any other item that anyone wishes to defer?
Mr. Alfonso: SR.4 -- I'm sorry, Commissioner. SR.4 and PZ.14, which is the companion item; and we're withdrawing DI.8.
Chair Hardemon: You said 14? It's --
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- PZ.14?
Mr. Alfonso: Correct; PZ.14, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: And you're withdrawing --
Mr. Min: The formal action on the PZ item will have to be taken after 2 o'clock.
Chair Hardemon: I understand. It's withdrawn, DI.8. Is there any other item that any of the Commissioners wish to continue, defer, withdraw?
Commissioner Suarez: Move the deferrals as articulated by the City Manager.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded by the Chair. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Later...
Mr. Hannon: Just for the record, the following items are going to be deferred to the July 14 meeting, and that's PA.2, DI.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1 1, 12, 13.
Chair Hardemon: That is correct.
CONSENT AGENDA
CA.1 RESOLUTION 16-00691 Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Works ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT TWENTY-THREE (23) RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS OF DEDICATION,
City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF SAID DEEDS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO KEEP COPIES OF SAID DEEDS. 16-00691 Summary Form.pdf 16-00691 Legislation.pdf 16-00691 Exhibit A.pdf
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0287
CA.2 RESOLUTION 16-00717 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Procurement ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION FOR BID CONTRACT NO. 334293 FROM HALL-MARK FIRE APPARATUS, LLC TO REV RTC, INC. D/B/A HALL-MARK RTC ("REV"); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH REV, FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S DEPARTMENT OF FIRE-RESCUE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO SAID CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 16-00717 Summary Form.pdf 16-00717 Back-Up Documents.pdf 16-00717 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00717 Legislation.pdf 16-00717 Exhibit.pdf
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0288
CA.3 RESOLUTION 16-00699 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Finance ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE PROVISION OF FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES, GENERAL SEGMENT, FROM PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC., ON A CITYWIDE AS NEEDED CONTRACTUAL BASIS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-111 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, UTILIZING THE EXISTING COMPETITIVELY BID CONTRACT OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 00008, EFFECTIVE THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2017, SUBJECT TO ANY RENEWALS, EXTENSIONS, AND/OR REPLACEMENT
City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
CONTRACTS BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM THE USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 16-00699 Summary Form.pdf 16-00699 Checklist.pdf 16-00699 Evaluation Committee Report.pdf 16-00699 Back-Up Document.pdf 16-00699 Request for Qualifications.pdf 16-00699 Bid Award.pdf 16-00699 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00699 Legislation.pdf 16-00699 Exhibit.pdf
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0289
CA.4 RESOLUTION 16-00647 Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Attorney DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY EMILIA DIAZ FOX, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, THE AGGREGATE TOTAL SUM OF $35,000.00 TO THE PLAINTIFF IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, INCLUDING ALL CLAIMS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, AGAINST CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OFFICER ARTICE PEOPLES, THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AND ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, IN THE CASE STYLED EMILIA DIAZ FOX V. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ET AL. PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, CASE NO. 15-20125-CIV-SEITZ, UPON THE EXECUTION OF GENERAL RELEASES OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS, AND A DISMISSAL OF CITY OF MIAMI POLICE OFFICER ARTICE PEOPLES AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, WITH PREJUDICE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT NO. 00001.980000.531010.0000.00000. 16-00647 Memo - Office of the City Attorney.pdf 16-00647 Memo - Budget Sign-Off.pdf 16-00647 Legislation.pdf
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0290
Adopted the Consent Agenda
City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hardemon: And then, also, on the consent agenda, is there anyone that wants to remove anything from the consent agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to accept the consent agenda?
Commissioner Suarez: Move the consent agenda.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Properly moved and seconded that we move the -- that we accept the consent agenda. Any further discussion on it? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: That motion passes.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PA.1 PRESENTATION 16-00840 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY GUILLERMO DE LA PAZ REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT. 16-00840 E-Mail - Personal Appearance Item.pdf 16-00840-Submittal-Guillermo de la Paz-Charles Avenue.pdf PRESENTED
Chair Hardemon: PA.1.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Is this PA.1?
Vice Chair Russell: It's not.
Chair Hardemon: PA.1.
Vice Chair Russell: But it's the calendar.
Chair Hardemon: Is your PA.1 here?
Commissioner Suarez: Guillermo de la Paz? Thank you.
Guillermo de la Paz: My name is Guillermo de la Paz, 3441 Charles Avenue.
Chair Hardemon: Can you make sure you give one to the Clerk?
Mr. De la Paz: I build my own house on Charles Avenue, and I move in in July 9, last year; and since then, I start a process of working with the City, trying to make the Code enforcement work
City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
in that area. Those emails that you're going to see here is a small compilation of what I have been doing with the City in trying to improve the Code enforcement in that area. In September 7, I send an email to the offices of Commissioner Sarnoff, with more than 11 violations on my block alone. If you go through that email, you going to see the answer from the Code Enforcement Department, where it shows that all 11 addresses have been citated [sic] for violations, and it's 11 in one block alone. October 15, my neighbor decide to build an illegal laundry, and I discovered that the City of Miami Code Enforcement have no power over that. It took me more than four weeks to fix that problem. There was no red tag at that property; there was nothing done, except me calling the City and trying to follow up. January 21, I asked for a meeting with my Commissioner, new Commissioner Ken Russell, and we talk at his office regarding overgrown lots and shrubberies on the Coconut Grove area. January 8, a truck from City of Miami Garbage Disposal dumping garbage in my street. I send an email to the supervisor, and he told me that he was going to investigate. March 3, took me three weeks to talk with City Manager regarding my situation. And when I finally was able to talk to him and Alberto Parsus [sic], they told me that my street was beautiful. Aprils 13, I drove with the -- Marilyn Pacheco from the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office through my neighborhood with the inspector in my car. I pointed out to him the overgrown lots. And April 14, I appeared in front of this Commission, and I expressed the same thing to you guys on April 14. May 24, I approach again my Commissioner office, and I explain to him that the situation continue the same. I was granted a meeting on June 15 with the director of the department, and I show this picture to him, which shows overgrowth [sic] lots, grass on the sidewalk, and so forth. At that meeting, the director of the department told me that he have drove by all those lots; there was no violation on those lots. That was on June 15. On June 16, all those lots were cited, which means that when I was in that meeting with Commissioner and the director, all those lots were under violation. If you continue to see the report, you're going to see a lot of those lots were cited on the 16, out of the same list of 10 months ago. So we have a group of neighbors that have decide not to comply with the Code, and the Code Compliance Department has a system that it doesn't work on the City of Miami. If you look through these violations, there's violation on February 23, they were supposed to com -- February 23, 2016, and they were suppose to comply October 26, 2015. Those are the notice of violation left on the overgrow lots by the City of Miami inspector. It has been 10 months dealing with this. I think I have been very proactive. I have done what any citizen should have done, and I have present to you evidence that it doesn't work. And I think it's up to you guys to do something about it.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: I yield to the Vice Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Russell.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And thanking you for coming again, Mr. de la Paz. I understand your frustration. Your ability to come to this Commission is a result of not -- feeling that you are not getting a result from your Administration, from the City acting on the Code Enforcement violations that you've brought to their attention. Then you came to my office. And as you stated yourself, after coming to my office, those properties were cited, correct? And so, in that sense, you brought it to them; it wasn't working. You brought it to me; it happened. I drove that street two days later, and I saw the bougainvillea bush was cut, the neighbor across the street. It seems that, at least the ones that I saw in these photos had been remedied, actually. It's not a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Mr. de la Paz: No, they not. (UNINTELLIGIBLE.).
Vice Chair Russell: So you're saying the bougainvillea bush is still on the sidewalk?
City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. de la Paz: That one was cut, but some of them, if you drive today, they're still 30, 40 inches high of grass.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So --
Mr. de la Paz: But the most important thing about that meeting is that your director of Code Enforcement state in that meeting that he drove by; there was no violation on my block; I was kind deluding, crazy; a crazy guy chasing overgrow lots.
Vice Chair Russell: I don't think he said that.
Mr. de la Paz: Well, it imply. The next day, he goes and he cite those lots.
Vice Chair Russell: So that would be an affirmation --
Mr. de la Paz: It take a while for the grass to grow.
Vice Chair Russell: -- so it's an affirmation that you were correct. I was in the meeting; and, for sure, he never called you crazy.
Mr. de la Paz: No, I --
Vice Chair Russell: Your frustration is well noted, because you have a lot of absentee owners in that neighborhood; people who are sitting on lots that are left, and they get unkempt. And so, we have a process through which we can cite them and then they have a process of remedy. And you, sitting there, watching the grass grow, seeing frustration on a day-to-day --
Mr. de la Paz: No, sitting --
Vice Chair Russell: -- because the results are as fast because --
Mr. de la Paz: No, I'm sitting there, watching the process not to work.
Vice Chair Russell: And so what I brought to you that -- what I said to you that day is if there is a change to the actual process in the -- that we as a Commission could bring, a change in legislation that would direct the Manager to conduct Code enforcement in a different way, that's something that we can consider, and that's something that I can work with you to write that legislation. If it's simply about our current form of Code enforcement or Code compliance is not working, then that's different. So I guess that's what I'm trying to understand from you; is your understanding -- which I know you understand clearly how our Code enforcement works -- do you feel that system is broken, or it's not being followed? Which one would you like to see happen?
Mr. de la Paz: I think it's a combination of both things. If you have to cite one law 10 times a year, it doesn't work. If you don't move on to the next step --
Vice Chair Russell: What can we do, other than citing them and placing the fines?
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Mr. de la Paz: That's why you got politicians, to --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: So -- you know, and I apologize again for interrupting, but --
Commissioner Gort: Let me a minute.
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Commissioner Gort: We have two legislation today to help him to do that. The problem that we have, a lot of inspectors cannot go into private sector. We cannot go and cut in a private sector. We have to go through a process --
Mr. de la Paz: No, you can.
Commissioner Gort: Okay --
Mr. de la Paz: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) if it's open --
Commissioner Gort: -- well, our lawyer says we can't, and my lawyer tell Code Enforcement they can't do that.
Mr. de la Paz: No. If it's open, you can.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Mr. de la Paz: And they have vendors to do it.
Vice Chair Russell: And we have teams that do that, as you know.
Mr. de la Paz: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Where there are not chain link or even barriers to a lot --
Mr. de la Paz: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: -- if there's a Code violation, such as grass height --
Mr. de la Paz: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: -- we do have contracting ability with a team on hand within a week after citation, if I'm not mistaken --
Mr. de la Paz: After 10 days.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that -- yep; that they go and they do that. Now --
Mr. de la Paz: How many you have cut in my area?
Vice Chair Russell: I don't have your answer for that.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): We have --
Mr. de la Paz: It's a good question for the Code Enforcement.
Ms. Méndez: -- answers.
City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. de la Paz: How many lots he have cut in my areas?
Vice Chair Russell: You did ask for these lists, and so we'll see if Eli has some answers for you here today.
Eli Gutierrez (Director, Code Compliance): Yeah. We're just on Charles Avenue. And we also visited Plaza; Day, which Mr. de la Paz has concerns, as well. And of the 23 that I have here on the list, as of 9:30 this morning, 20 are complied. The ones that are not obviously in violation -- excuse me -- that are in violation, some of them are locked. And as you know -- and our City Attorney -- when our lot -- our lots are locked, we can't send our contractor to cut it; but as of right now, I drove it again this morning; Commissioner, I think you have, as well.
Vice Chair Russell: But did you cite some of the lots after we had the meeting in my office this week?
Mr. Gutierrez: Not as many as Mr. de la Paz is saying, but certain --
Vice Chair Russell: We did find some.
Mr. Gutierrez: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: So his proactiveness [sic] did --
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- uncover some that were slipping through the cracks.
Mr. Gutierrez: Well, one of the things that we're doing as well with the new inspector that --
Mr. de la Paz: No, no, can you please answer that question?
Mr. Gutierrez: If I may. Commissioner, the question again, please.
Vice Chair Russell: That you did find some that he brought to our attention that had slipped through the cracks; that had not been cited that could be cited.
Mr. Gutierrez: I don't know they slipped through the cracks, Commissioner, but they were cited.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Mr. Gutierrez: Now, one thing with our new inspector that started in April, he's created a grid; not only on Charles. His zone currently is about five miles in a circular, and in his zone only, there's over a hundred lots. So we're doing the best that we can; emphasizing on Mr. de la Paz' avenue, as well. So, I mean, 23 or 20, I think it's pretty good.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, may I?
Chair Hardemon: Well, is there any other Commissioner that wants to speak?
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: He wants to speak.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll try to be brief.
City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Alfonso: All right.
Commissioner Suarez: So when I first got here, just so you know, we were not even collecting on a lot of the fines and a lot of the special assessments, which are levied after we cut the grass, for example, for residents. And the now-City Attorney -- then-Assistant City Attorney -- and I started initiative to start collecting and getting aggressive. That has led to the collection of -- I think the last report that you sent was over $2 million, if I'm not mistaken. We've collected over $2 million from people. But when I also -- what I -- one of the things I also realized is the -- one of our problems with Code Enforcement is that -- it is exactly that; Code Enforcement. It's not Code Compliance. So we changed the name from Code Enforcement to Code Compliance, because it does you no good if we enforce the Code; if we give people tickets and they never comply, right? If a guy keeps speeding and speeding and speeding, and you don't have the ability to take away his license and get him off the road, it does very little for you.
Mr. de la Paz: That's exactly what happen.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. So what I'm getting at is there's another level that we can do. There is another level of aggressiveness that we can get. And I'm not -- Can you please --? I'm not exactly sure whether we should do it by ordinance or how we should do it; by resolution, but --
Mr. de la Paz: I'm going to tell you what happening.
Commissioner Suarez: Let me just finish my thought. We can empower the City Attorney to sue these property owners, and through the court process, we can get them to do a lot of the things that they're not doing, or they're in contempt of court. If you're in contempt of court, that's a big problem as a landowner. You could be arrested, actually, for being in contempt of court. So the idea -- the issue here is, how aggressive do we get? Obviously, you know, I'm sort of pro getting aggressive, because my experience has been that the more aggressive you get, the better quality of life that ensures for the residents.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Ms. Méndez: Your microphone --
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Suarez: Of course. His mike is off.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, because --
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. It is; he's right. It's cheaper to pay a ticket -- or not pay a ticket is the cheapest, that's the cheapest, because mostly, people don't pay the ticket, yeah. They don't do anything, and that's the problem. And I think the problem is, how do we step up our, you know, pressure?
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Commissioner Suarez: Right. And so, that -- what I'm getting at is we need to empower the City Attorney under certain circumstances to file suit. It doesn't cost us that much money. It costs us $256 or 300 -- is it -- well, how much is it now?
City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: 400 per case.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Ms. Méndez: But what I was suggesting was in lines with what you were suggesting to Vice Chairman Russell. What we could do is get a list of all these properties that have multiple violations and double check one.
Mr. Alfonso: Right. Here's the issue: The properties get overgrown; we cite them. The property owner has 10 days to clear; he clears it, so he complies. Start from zero again. Two months later, he's overgrown again; we cite them again. He has 10 days to comply; he complies. We go back to zero. Three months later, he's overgrown again; we cite him again. So he has 10 days to comply. If we give him always 10 days to comply, then he's in compliance.
Ms. Méndez: Right. What I was trying to say before is that what we can do is -- from this, they are arguably repeat violators, but they're playing with the system. So what we can do is send the notice, send some letters. Advise them that if they don't either do weekly cuttings or -- especially in the summer, when it rains a lot, the grass tends to grow a lot faster, which is probably what's occurring now. We can send them letters from the Law Department, advising them and putting them on notice that if they don't have their lawn person there every other week cutting, in order to resolve the issue that then we will take further action.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Méndez: The further action would be as Commissioner Suarez had suggested; that we can take them to court.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Before we move forward --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Gort had his hand up for quite some time. Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Today we've been working with the Attorney's Office, because that's the biggest problem that I have in my neighborhoods. It took two years to get somebody out of -- a squatter out of a house that was deteriorating the whole neighborhood. I think when -- we working on the Law Department. I think we need to change some of the things. People don't pay the -- first of all, they don't own the home. They're in there, or they're -- they don't pay the penalties, so they don't care. That's -- we got homes that they owe the City a million dollars, and the home might be worth maybe $50,000. So somehow, we got to go to the Law Department where we can sue these people and go after them. And I'm with you; we got to go hard; hard on all of this.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Just one minute. Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. By the way, this is the importance of having our residents being able to come up and speak before us, because they bring legit issues like this, and then we could discuss, you know, the possible loopholes. You know, one thing is to remedy it how
City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez said. Another thing also we could do is pass an ordinance that if you're an habitual offender of this, let's say, and we could define what "habitual offender" is: either three consecutive times that they do the same thing where we have to cite them, and, you know, within 10 days, they fix it; but then, again, next month, it's the same thing or the next two months, it's the same thing. After three times, then we, you know, are able to either raise the penalty significantly or take some type of other measures for a penalty and pass an ordinance so everyone is clear on that.
Ms. Méndez: We have those ordinances in place. I will work with Mr. Gutierrez in order to --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Méndez: -- bring them to the Code Enforcement Board versus the ticketing citation process. What they -- I mean, normally, when they don't get the convictions -- that's convictions based on -- the adjudications -- based on these types of cases, it doesn't go through the system as a repeat violator. So I will work with Mr. Gutierrez, making sure that all these cases go to the Code Enforcement Board; that they are told --
Mr. de la Paz: They don't go -- go.
Ms. Méndez: I'm sorry?
Mr. de la Paz: If they cut the grass, they don't go to the board.
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Ms. Méndez: I understand, but they could be -- what can be done is --
Mr. de la Paz: And then the cycle repeats every 30 days.
Ms. Méndez: -- we will not --
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly; if the cycle repeats.
Ms. Méndez: Right. The problem is, right now they are here --
Chair Hardemon: But, you know, because grass keeps growing, right?
Ms. Méndez: Right. Right.
Chair Hardemon: But understand this: Right now, in my yard, my grass is probably higher than I want it to be; probably going to be cut today. Sometimes you don't realize how quickly your grass grow; then you cut it. So if you cite someone -- which is what Code Compliance does; they cite people to alert you, "Hey, your grass is too high." So if you then cut it, then you remedy that. Now, if you have an -- when you -- so I'm trying to follow you all when you're having the discussion about someone who is just gaming the system --
Mr. Gutierrez: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- because it doesn't sound like the system is working as it's supposed to, which is that you have -- you've been cited to let you know your grass is too high and you need to cut it. And --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: Right. The thing is there's a difference between the citation process, which is a ticket and allows you to get the compliance period; or if it's taken to Code Enforcement Board when it continually happens, and the board says, "Listen, you need to do a little more than just get cited," and it could be placed in a -- in that process, with the board basically saying, "If this happens again, you'll have stricter penalties," and stuff, because you could do it without -- it's two different systems. And then, the additional system would be notifying them of their duty to be much more vigilant of their grass than they have been, because, unfortunately, what they're doing is, "Oh, I'm complying, I'm doing what I need to do."
Chair Hardemon: And when you have this discussion, make sure you come back and tell me any other city that is doing something like this, where you come back and you're saying because of grass that you're going to --
Mr. de la Paz: I did that.
Chair Hardemon: -- not you.
Mr. de la Paz: I did that.
Chair Hardemon: Not you, though.
Mr. de la Paz: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: But you can give her the information. The -- that says, "Because of your grass growing too high, and you're following" -- "basically, you're remedying everything you tell us to remedy; and therefore, because you continue to remedy instead of" -- what I'm -- "because you continue to remedy, you've been abusing your authority," or "you've been abusing the system." So that's -- I just want to figure that whole thing out so I have a better understanding of it. Commissioner Suarez, I know you've been dying to speak.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, please. I've studied this issue a lot. I've made a lot of progress on this issue, but there's a lot more progress to be made. For us to get to where you want us to be, we need to use the court system, with all due respect. I don't feel that the -- just going to the -- you know -- through the special hearing process is going to be sufficient. Why? I'll explain. If you violate a court order, you're in contempt of court. If you're in contempt of court, you can be arrested. That is a severe -- that's a serious penalty that somebody would have to pay. And so what I had worked with the City Attorney's Office -- and I've been working on this legislation for a while now -- is trying to create that threshold where if someone is a repeat violator, and where we, as a city are saying, "That's it, we're done with this person" -- you know what I mean? Whether it's a certain level of fine, like an amount of fine -- maybe it's not repeat in terms of instances, but like an amount, when people just let their fines accrue, because we -- the other thing that happens is we let these fines accrue to $200,000, three hundred and four hundred, because they're -- per day. And then they come in and they mitigate. They -- when they sell, usually, and they pay a couple thousand dollars or whatever, and they realize at the end of the day they're gaming the system. They don't -- they're not really paying a penalty; they're not really behaving. What you're looking for from a quality of life perspective is you don't want to walk down your street and see a lot that looks terrible. That affects your quality of life. And my point is that the traditional system, it helps with people who are conscientious. Like, if you get a ticket and you're conscientious, and you say, "Man, I mean, I got to slow down," you know. That -- it works with that percentage of people. But there's a percentage of people that are not conscientious, that don't care, right? And so those people, you have to enforce at a different level, with a different mechanism. And my point is that we have to involve the City Attorney's Office in a more profound and aggressive way with this; whether it be through, you know, coming up with a threshold of -- sorry. So, to me, this is sort of distracting when you're talking and someone's trying to take your picture -- but --
City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: Yes, coming up with a threshold point at which we go to the next level. And based on this discussion and what you've advised and we are going to go to the next level. We'll follow the process. We'll make sure that this gets addressed, as we've addressed Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Carollo when we had the sink holes. Commissioner Gort has had several problems. We did the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) properties to help for -- in D1. In D5, we have other issues, as well. So we will go to the next level in the court system with regard to this, as well.
Chair Hardemon: You want to be recognized, sir?
Mr. Gutierrez: Just one last thing, Commissioner; just leave it for the record: Of the 23 in Mr. de la Paz' area, 20 are complied [sic]; just want to say that.
Chair Hardemon: 20 have been -- what?
Mr. Gutierrez: Are complied [sic]; of the 23 lots.
Mr. de la Paz: They are complying, yes; and in 20 days, it will be the same. And that's what I have been -- my bunch of emails show you 10 months, 10 months of overgrown lots in that area.
Chair Hardemon: You need better neighbors.
Mr. de la Paz: No. What we need is better enforcement. And what she just said about the next step, I heard the same thing on May 14 in front of this Commission. And I had a meeting on June 15, and there was overgrowth [sic] lots in my block. So we need someone to do something.
Commissioner Suarez: They need to take it to the next level.
Mr. de la Paz: But when and how and --
Commissioner Suarez: You file suit against the property owner.
Mr. de la Paz: Me?
Commissioner Suarez: No, not you; the City Attorney.
Mr. de la Paz: Then well, how --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Mr. de la Paz: -- can we do it?
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely.
Mr. de la Paz: Because the way that it works is the lot is overgrown. I call the inspector. The inspector show up --
Chair Hardemon: We understand how it works. We understand the process.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. de la Paz: And do you think it's efficient way?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Excuse me?
Mr. de la Paz: Do you think it's an efficient way of doing business?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, I can't say it's an efficient way. I know that the issue is brimming. Any time you have a harm, and say the harm is an overgrown lot --
Mr. de la Paz: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- you want to remedy that harm. The way that you remedy your harm in an overgrown lot is that you cut it. And so what you're saying is that the lots are cut, but they always grow back. So, for instance, I'll tell you what I did in my district. In my district, I started something called -- well, I started something that basically did this, that says: "If you have overgrown lots in your area" -- I wanted to get around this whole waiting period that you have to do within --
Mr. de la Paz: 10 days.
Chair Hardemon: -- I wanted to get around that.
Mr. de la Paz: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: So I said, "If you have an overgrown lot, report that overgrown lot to the NET Office. The NET Office would then contract -- well, they don't contract -- the NET Office -- I gave some funds to an organization that is a 501(c)(3), where it trains kids in leadership, and they go to school and such, and what they do is that they tend to these overgrown lots so that the lots aren't continuously overgrown; that's just one of the ways that I went about doing it. And so, some say that it may be a heartache; some say that it's good, because the kids now tend to these lots, so we don't have as many overgrown lots repeatedly, because you know that that lot is always going to be overgrown. Now, the person who has allowed that overgrown lot to continue to grow, they receive a benefit, I'm sure, because now that overgrown lot is being cut by someone else. However, what I see is that now I don't have my residents complaining about an overgrown lot that's next to them every single -- every two to three weeks, you know, so that's one of the things that I did. It didn't involve necessarily court. And I'll be meeting with my NET people to follow up on that, to see how well it's going, but I haven't heard a complaint from the community members about that particular program.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Is it possible for the City Attorney to come back at the next Commission meeting with various recommendations; whether it's to take it to court or an increased penalty, but the bottom line is to address the issue of a repeated offender or habitual offender?
Ms. Méndez: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. de la Paz, your neighborhood is different than the other neighborhoods around it.
City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. de la Paz: It -- I disagree on that.
Vice Chair Russell: I don't, because if you drive through, it does look differently, and we have pointed that out in even recent Commission meetings; that the West Grove has been neglected; not only by its own residents and neighbors, but by the City.
Mr. de la Paz: I agree on that.
Vice Chair Russell: And I've seen from a capital improvement standpoint that there are no plans at this point to do any improvements where it is needed. And some of the overgrown issues are the grass in the street; the weeds growing on the curb. And we have a responsibility that we need to step up for, and that's something that I'm dedicated to, that I'm working on. But as far as enforcement of lots, I think the Chair expressed a concern that, you know, over enforcement, where someone's just not mowing their lawn often enough, and it turns into a court issue is a concern. I think that's not who we're talking about here. We're talking about real offenders of -- absentee lot owners and developers who leave a lot overgrown and then just wait for the next citation, and I think we're looking at a plan here to address that. And if it requires legislation, I'm willing to work with the Commissioners and to bring that forward. Right now, I think that Eli has good instruction to provide the City Attorney with a list of repeat offenders, and we'll figure out what that threshold is and move forward. But you're not crazy; nobody said you're crazy.
Mr. de la Paz: No, I am not. I think my two kids, which happen to be here in the Commission, have the same right that your kid have to walk in a clean neighborhood.
Vice Chair Russell: I agree.
Mr. de la Paz: And I -- and my tax bill, it doesn't say, "Special discount to live in West Grove." I pay my taxes. By the way, I don't only pay my taxes; I paid impact fees from -- on the process of construction. I pay permit fee. I pay every single fee that a person have to pay to be able to build a house.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Mr. de la Paz: And I don't have a special discount. If that neighborhood have been neglected, it's an issue with the City.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And you're not wrong, and compliance and enforcement is some place we'll improve. On the other side, we're looking at finding other programs. I was approached by a single lot developer who wants to create some sort of Code Enforcement Trust Fund where local developers get money together to actually help remediate lots that are repeat offenders, rather -- you know, if the enforcement side of things aren't working that they find funds to help beautify the neighborhood.
Mr. de la Paz: But local --
Vice Chair Russell: These are ideas coming from all directions.
Mr. de la Paz: -- developers want to run away from that area for so many regulations that I have. And my street, for example, is an historic street, full of regulations. If you going to build a pool in my street, you have to pay an archeologist.
Vice Chair Russell: It's true. It's understood and you've been heard.
Mr. de la Paz: I been heard, but I have been in this Commission twice, and nothing had been
City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
done. This is all that I want to --
Vice Chair Russell: I wouldn't say "nothing has been done." What you --
Mr. de la Paz: I called the Code Enforcement --
Vice Chair Russell: -- brought about is that there's a potential loophole in the system that just lets someone continue to offend, and that's what we're addressing here.
Mr. de la Paz: And I agree that an inspector should not be chasing people as a personal secretary. I don't think it's as an efficient way of doing business. All that I ask is, if you have in the past five months cited it one, twice, three times to get -- by the way, this is the same Code that the City of Coral Gables use; the only difference is that the City of Coral Gable give you five day to comply. If you don't comply during the five days, they will charge you 150 on the house and 250 on the business; same system. And they cover the whole City of Coral Gables with seven inspectors.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, thank you very much, sir.
Mr. de la Paz: Same system.
Chair Hardemon: We appreciate your time.
Mr. de la Paz: Thank you.
Jesus Mario Bello: That same sentiment --
Chair Hardemon: You want to make a comment?
Mr. de la Paz: So what we take -- where we taking from here? What should I do? Who should I follow up with?
Chair Hardemon: One second. Sir, sir --
Mr. Bello: My name is Jesus Bello.
Chair Hardemon: -- see, you're impacting --
Mr. Bello: 3301 Northeast 5th Avenue, Bay Park Towers. I live in the same neighborhood for 30 years, and I have the same problem. When you are -- and I'm in the real estate business for 35 years. When you go into a neighborhood, you check before you go into that neighborhood, which is the grass, and you buy it cheaper, and then you complain later because the neighborhood is not doing what you want it to do? And this gentleman has been given time and time just because he live in South -- in Coconut Grove. Everybody know West Coconut Grove is [sic]. It's a wonderful place. It's a wonderful place for everyone to live in it, but we all have to have the same chance. When you are going to go into a neighborhood and purchase, you do your work and said, "I am not going to move into this neighborhood because it's depressed." But it's very nice to buy cheaper and then complain later because the neighborhood is not what you want. You know, he is representing me, too. I live in Bay Park Tower. He knows -- he's my representative, too. I had never been given such a -- much time like this gentleman is being given, and I really object to that, because, you know, we live in this City for -- I live in the City since 1955. I seen everything in this City, but I never seen anybody in real estate buying cheap and then complain because, you know, the neighborhood is not what he -- You have to do your work before you purchase, and that's it. I have nothing against this gentleman, but I been seeing this. Mr. Sarnoff before, he used to only care about Brickell Avenue. He didn't care about
City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Edgewater, because Edgewater, he didn't care at all. And I support him for many, many years. He's my -- he's -- also, Mr. Russell is my representative. I haven't seen anything -- we have a lot of issues in our neighbor -- in my building and nobody takes care of that. Everybody look the other way, because they don't want to get involved. So why is this gentleman, that he just came in here -- you know, I don't know from where or from -- and didn't do his job before he purchase in that neighborhood?
Mr. de la Paz: I did, I did.
Mr. Bello: So why did you purchase --
Chair Hardemon: Let me say this: I want to tell you --
Mr. Bello: -- then complain? You been sitting there for the last two hours --
Chair Hardemon: Listen, everyone.
Mr. Bello: -- taking our --
Chair Hardemon: He had an opportunity to speak because he came on a personal appearance. Everyone in the City of Miami has an opportunity --
Mr. Bello: Look, let me tell you something. Don't do that to me again.
Chair Hardemon: Sir --
Mr. Bello: Because you know what? Let me say something.
Chair Hardemon: Let me tell you something.
Mr. Bello: You know, that's enough.
Chair Hardemon: Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me.
Mr. Bello: No. You listen to me.
Chair Hardemon: Just listen to me. No, listen to me.
Mr. Bello: You know why?
Chair Hardemon: Sir, sir --
Mr. Bello: Because when the Haitians came in here -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Chair Hardemon: I'm letting you know right now --
Mr. Bello: -- okay. You don't want to hear anything. (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Chair Hardemon: Let me tell you something. You're going to make this about -- you bring -- the nerve of you to bring up Haitian Americans about an issue where you're being out of order -- I recognized you to speak, but you didn't have a right to speak. I gave you a right to speak.
Mr. Bello: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Chair Hardemon: Sir, I gave you a right to speak. And now, I'm wasting my time.
City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Bello: Don't you raise your --
Chair Hardemon: No. I can speak directly into this microphone.
Mr. Bello: Don't you raise your voice to me.
Chair Hardemon: You have the nerve to point your finger at me and you tell me not to raise my voice at you? Who are you, sir, to tell me --
Mr. Bello: I am a citizen and I got to tell you --
Chair Hardemon: -- the Chairman of this Commission, the Chairman of this Commission --?
Mr. Bello: -- I pay your salary.
Chair Hardemon: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- I don't give a -- you can pay it. You may -- you -- sir, let me tell you something. I apologize to everyone here for how I feel right now, but I am sick and tired of everyone disrespecting the authority of this Commission. I don't care if you pay a salary; I don't care if you are the richest or the poorest man here. The only thing that I ask you to do --
Mr. Bello: I'm so glad that you said that.
Chair Hardemon: -- the only thing that I ask all of you to do is to follow the procedures in recognizing people here in this Commission. The bottom line is that this man had an opportunity to speak because he appeared on this agenda as PA (personal appearance). You did not have a right to speak at this time, and I graciously gave you that right. I allowed you to say what you wanted to say. And now --
Mr. Bello: You are giving me my right?
Chair Hardemon: Yes; the right to speak, because you don't have one right now. And now that I give you that right, you insult not only me, as Chairman; everyone who's here; but also Haitian people that had nothing to do with the discussion today. The discussion today was not about an order that was put on or a motion that was --
Mr. Bello: You're (UNINTELLIGIBLE), sir. I'm sorry. I mention that happen because when I was sitting outside and the -- Well, look at that; he's walking out on me. Isn't that the most disrespectful thing did you ever see for a person that -- you know -- that I'm paying the salary? And I am an -- a citizen and he treats me like that? This isn't right, you know, for (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I'm requesting a recess. Can we have a recess?
Mr. Bello: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I am requesting a recess.
Mr. Bello: (UNINTELLIGIBLE.)
Commissioner Suarez: Let's take a lunch break, guys. Let's take a lunch break.
Ms. Méndez: Remember, there's --
City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: We're going to take a five-minute recess, please.
Commissioner Suarez: No, a lunch break; let's just do lunch.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, I think that's --
Commissioner Suarez: Let's just go ahead and take our lunch break.
Commissioner Carollo: No problem.
Ms. Méndez: There's a shade meeting at 3. Are we -- at 3?
Vice Chair Russell: All right.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, 3.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: We're breaking for lunch. We'll meet back at 3. Shade meeting.
PA.2 PRESENTATION 16-00454 District 2 - PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY WAYNE PATHMAN, CHAIRMAN, AND THE Commissioner Ken MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S SEA LEVEL RISE COMMITTEE TO Russell DISCUSS THEIR WORK OVER THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS.
16-00454 E-Mail - Personal Appearance.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item PA.2 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
PA.3 PRESENTATION 16-00867 District 4- PRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ, CHAIRMAN OF Commissioner THE CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE, REGARDING THE Francis Suarez COMMITTEE'S FINAL REPORT.
16-00867 Final Report For Referral to Voters.pdf
PRESENTED
(PA.3) RESOLUTION 16-00867a A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 13, 2016, AT 9:00 A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE ("COMMITTEE") PRESENT ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AS WELL AS TO ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSION TO TAKE ACTION ON THE COMMITTEE'S City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0302
Chair Hardemon: Okay, the -- I believe it was the final report of the --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- CRCC [sic], PA.3, so PA.3.
Commissioner Suarez: And thank you. And I apologize; my chief of staff just informed me that the actual time certain was not approved, and so I apologize. Then I -- it was requested, and I think it was noticed to the committee members as a 10 o'clock time certain. And I want to thank all the committee members who are here today. I have attached for this agenda item the final report of the Charter Review & Reform Committee. I've been honored to have been appointed by this Commission as its Chairman. It's been a privilege to serve with the distinguished community leaders, many of which are here today. Their commitment and dedication to the City of Miami has been unwavering throughout this process. It's been an unbelievably exciting process for me to be a part of. It's been collegial and collaborative; we've had disputes, disagreements; we voted some things down. And I think what you have here before you is a carefully considered set of recommendations for placement on the November 8, 2006 [sic] ballot. We've worked with professional support from the staff of the City Manager's Office, and I want to thank him for his support; the City Attorney's Office; the City Clerk's Office, and various City departments. They have been indispensable throughout this process, and on behalf of the committee, I want to thank all of them for their efforts. Many of the recommendations -- there's 17 here. The City Attorney has come up with a way to condense them to 12 questions; some of them have to do with the form of government; some of them have to do with Citizens' Bill of Rights; Citizens' Advocate; public safety; Fire and Police; suspension and removal of the Police Chief; City-owned property; the CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel); Citizens' Bill of Rights. I mean, these are very comprehensive reforms, and the way -- the reason why I put this on the agenda was because we had a workshop, which was meant to educate the members of the Commission, because I think, you know, based on my past experience when I've tried to bring Charter changes, it can be a little bit overwhelming with the work that we have to do on a regular basis in the normal course of things. So the way I'd like to do it -- with the permission of the Commission -- is I'd like to have a workshop that the Commissioners attend so that -- and it will be noticed as a special meeting -- so that, you know, we can look at the 12 reforms, decide which ones we want to vote on and not vote on; which ones we conceptually agree with and don't agree with; and ask questions, and then have an actual special meeting where we actually vote to put them on the ballot or not. I think that's the best way to do it. Go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: In doing so, let's make sure the -- all of us can be -- because --
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Commissioner Gort: -- too many that was not -- cannot be available and --
Commissioner Suarez: Understood, yeah. And, you know, it's hard for us to coordinate all our calendars, and we're --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- and I think we're seeing as we approach the summer -- the August
City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
layoff -- that we're having continual additional meetings, because we're trying to get things accomplished. So, yeah, I will definitely be checking with everyone to try to schedule those dates.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Commissioner Suarez, I just wanted to confirm. You said you wanted to have a workshop --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Ms. Méndez: -- and a special meeting, or did you want them both on the same date?
Commissioner Suarez: So what I would like is a workshop that is noticed as a special meeting, okay?
Ms. Méndez: You want to combine them?
Commissioner Suarez: Correct, or -- a special meeting, which is a workshop, right? And then a special -- and the reason why is because we have 12 reforms, and the Commissioners might review them and say, "Well, we really only want to take up six or eight," and I want us to have the ability to vote there on the reforms that they may want to look at in greater detail; and then, have a second workshop/special meeting where they actually -- where we will be taking the vote itself to be putting them on the ballot.
Ms. Méndez: Okay, so two separate meetings.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct.
Ms. Méndez: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: And again, you know, I would -- I will be asking all the committee members to attend. The way we had talked about it in committee is certain committee members will be making certain presentations, because we think that that's the most prudent thing to do, based on their expertise and their advocacy on certain issues. And I also want to make clear that -- to the Commissioners, in particular -- that there will be items upon which I will urge committee members to see the Commissioners independently of staff and the City Attorney's Office; not because, you know, I don't trust the City Attorney's Office's ability to inform you and to brief you, but because there were some items out of the 12 in which there was some disagreement as to what the law was that applied or what the effect or ramifications of a decision was, and I think it's fair to the work of the committee that all Commissioners hear both sides of the argument, and then they make up their bind as to what they think is best.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Mr. Russell.
Vice Chair Russell: Do you have a recommended date for our workshop?
Commissioner Suarez: I'd be more than happy to if --
Vice Chair Russell: Can we knock it out now while we're all --?
Commissioner Suarez: I'm more than happy to do that.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Since we're considering additional Commission meetings, can we discuss also the one from yesterday, and maybe pick a date for that, too, since we're adding Commission meetings and we haven't finished the one from yesterday?
Chair Hardemon: We did finish the one from yesterday; however --
Commissioner Carollo: Well --
Commissioner Suarez: We were thinking of July 13. Is that a date that works for everyone?
Commissioner Gort: It's not a Friday, is it?
Commissioner Suarez: No; it's a Wednesday. July 13, does that work for everyone?
Vice Chair Russell: Let me just see.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: One second, please.
Vice Chair Russell: In the morning?
Chair Hardemon: July 15 [sic] is a Friday, correct?
Commissioner Suarez: No, it's a Wednesday.
Ms. Méndez: Wednesday.
Commissioner Gort: Wednesday.
Ms. Méndez: Wednesday, July 13.
Vice Chair Russell: July 13 is a Wednesday.
Ms. Méndez: There was a question by Vice Chairman Russell if -- the morning or the afternoon?
Commissioner Suarez: Whatever; it's fine with me, either way.
Vice Chair Russell: Fine.
Commissioner Suarez: Morning?
Commissioner Gort: Wait. Morning would be better.
Vice Chair Russell: Morning is better.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, 9 a.m., July 13. And then the second one, really, you know, I don't want to infringe on August, because I think everyone sort of plans to have vacation time. We have a Commission meeting on the 28th. It could be the 27th; second one, 27th.
Ms. Méndez: The 27th of --?
Commissioner Suarez: 27 of July.
City of Miami Page 28 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: July. Before --
Commissioner Suarez: 9 a.m.
Ms. Méndez: -- got it. Wednesday, as well.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm not available.
Commissioner Suarez: You're not there? Okay, what about the 26th?
Vice Chair Russell: That was something else I wanted to bring up, actually; scheduling-wise.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, you want to just do one, and then we'll figure out the next one?
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah, perhaps.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, okay.
Vice Chair Russell: The 20 -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
Chair Hardemon: So the first thing is this: Are we saying that -- we're saying we're having a special --
Commissioner Suarez: July 13.
Chair Hardemon: -- City Commission meeting on July 13 at 9 a.m.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct.
Ms. Méndez: That one is a workshop. You're actually not going to vote on anything, but just give ideas --
Commissioner Suarez: I would say it's a special meeting, so you have the right to vote on things, and that's why I think it's good to call it as a special meeting in the --
Ms. Méndez: Okay. Well, then, I wanted everyone to --
Commissioner Suarez: -- because I don't know that the Commission's going to want to put 12 items on the ballot, and so I think there may be a discussion of, "Let's whittle it down to the most important ones," or whatever the case may be.
Commissioner Gort: You have to realize this is going to be in November.
Commissioner Suarez: That's my --
Commissioner Gort: It's a general election.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: There are going to be a lot of questions.
Commissioner Suarez: Yep.
Commissioner Gort: It's going to be very long, very difficult.
City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So --
Commissioner Gort: You got to minimize it; the fewer, the better.
Commissioner Suarez: Right, that's what I'm saying, right; and that's why I think it's good to have that first go through the 12, and then whittle it down, and then make a final decision on the -- whatever is left.
Chair Hardemon: So --
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: -- I'll accept his proposal as a motion to have a special meeting on July 13 at 9 a.m.
Commissioner Suarez: And we'll decide the next one after that, at that time.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: Thanks.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded.
Later...
Commissioner Carollo: Now, something that does pertain to this issue: I just want to verify, Commissioner Suarez, from what you originally said. You want two meetings.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: The first one is really intended to be a workshop.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: And not necessarily that we're going to vote on all this -- 12 or 13, 17 items. It's going to be a workshop; and then, we're going to have another meeting to actually take the votes.
Commissioner Suarez: That's basically right. The reason why I wanted to notice it as a special meeting is because I don't want to foreclose our ability -- If we say on that workshop, after we go through all of the reforms, we say, "Look, we just think the ballot," you know, as Commissioner Gort said, you know," this is a presidential ballot. We think" -- "we don't want to overload it with a variety of things," and we decide for whatever reason that there are some things here that don't merit further consideration that we can vote on those things and then have a -- you know, to take them out, if you will; to not consider them, and then have a final vote at the second Commission meeting as to what goes on the ballot. You want me to explain that again?
Commissioner Carollo: No. I understand what the intent is, but it's not necessarily just a workshop to understand each one of the issues and hear from the committee members or whoever you have planned. You actually think that we could possibly be voting on each one of these items.
City of Miami Page 30 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: No. I think -- Well, first of all, if we notice it as a special meeting, we have that right, but that's not necessarily my intent. My intent is for us to have a workshop where we -- the committee comes and makes presentations on the items. And then, the Commission may say, "Great, we like all 12," you know. Let's vote it at another Commission meeting to put it on the ballot; at another special meeting, if you will. You get what I'm saying? Or the committee might say -- you guys might say -- the Commissioners might say, "Look, we've looked at these 12. We think there's just too much on the ballot. Let's just look" -- "focus on these nine. Let's bring these nine back for us to vote to see if it's going to be on the ballot." Does that make sense?
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. So either way, we've going to have to vote on them.
Commissioner Suarez: Right, that's correct.
Commissioner Carollo: I don't -- well, you could call the question, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Suarez: Amen.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, guys.
Chair Hardemon: Hearing none, all in favor of the current motion on the floor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Passes.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, the committee members who are here, for your patience; I really appreciate it.
END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PH.1 RESOLUTION 16-00645 Department of Real A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Estate and Asset ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, Management AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING THAT COMPETITIVE BIDDING/NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; ACCEPTING THE TERMS OF A TERM SHEET BETWEEN HEINEKEN USA, INCORPORATED, THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A", TO CONDUCT A CROWDFUNDING CAMPAIGN TO RAISE FUNDS TO RENOVATE AND RESTORE THE COMMODORE RALPH MUNROE MIAMI MARINE STADIUM; AUTHORIZING THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO ACCEPT ALL DONATED FUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CROWDFUNDING CAMPAIGN, WHICH WILL BE LATER TENDERED TO THE CITY; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
AND EXECUTE THE TERM SHEET, AND ANY DEFINITIVE DOCUMENTATION RELATED THERETO, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. 16-00645 Summary Form 06-23-16.pdf 16-00645 Notice to the Public.pdf 16-00645 Back-Up Document.pdf 16-00645 Legislation(v2) 06-23-16.pdf 16-00645 Exhibit.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Suarez and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo
R-16-0292
Chair Hardemon: We're calling the June 23, 2016 meeting back in order. I'm posting something on the television screen. I don't know if everyone have ever seen this before, so if you can't read it, it says, "Roar. Whoa, man. Eat a Snicker's." It says, "Why? Because you turn into a horror icon of a successful Spielberg movie when you're hungry. Better? Better. He's buying." So if you don't get that joke, it's because of what happened earlier just before lunchtime. Yeah. I had my Snicker's so.
(Applause)
Chair Hardemon: I appreciate you all coming back. I apologize for what happened earlier in the day. Sometimes we get a little upset -- both sides -- and especially when there are remarks made about groups of people I think that are unnecessary. And so -- but I should not have lost my cool the way that I did, so I apologize to everyone who had to view that, and just take it to my heart. But this is my gift to you, so thank you so very much. I want to return back to our regularly scheduled hearings. I know we have a PA.2. I'm not sure if Mr. Pathman is here and the members; if not, I'm going to move past it. I know we have a number of items that we need to get through; as well as some PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that I know a lot of people are here to hear. And what I'd like to do is move through the agenda as expeditiously as possible, without sacrificing any quality; and to do that, I'm going to need everyone's cooperation. There will still be time limits; two minutes to speak on different matters. And I will strictly follow those two-minute time restrictions, and we'll move forward as expeditiously as possible. So there are four of us here. I'm going to call PH.1. PH.1 is to accept donations; it's the Crowdfunding Campaign. You're recognized, sir.
Daniel Rotenberg: PH.1. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Daniel Rotenberg, director of Department of Real Estate and Asset Management. PH.1 is a resolution of the Miami City Commission, by a four-fifths affirmative vote, after an advertised public hearing, approving and accepting the term sheet between Heineken USA, the City, National Trust for Historic Preservation. This is to conduct a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds to renovate and restore the Miami Marine Stadium.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. I'll open it up for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Recognizing you all for your contribution, thank you so very much. Is there a motion on the floor?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved.
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I'll let him move it, because it's in his district. I'll second it.
Chair Hardemon: So it's been properly moved by the Vice Chairman and seconded by Commissioner Suarez. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Commissioner Suarez: Congrats.
Justin Kissinger: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you for the -- what you're doing.
Unidentified Speaker: We appreciate it.
Commissioner Suarez: Good luck.
Mr. Kissinger: Thank you so much.
Commissioner Suarez: We'll be there to help.
Commissioner Gort: A lot of money.
Mr. Kissinger: Thank you.
END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
SECOND READING ORDINANCES
SR.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00676 District 2 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Commissioner Ken 2/ARTICLE II/SECTION 2-33 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, Russell FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION/ORDER OF BUSINESS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE", AMENDING SUBSECTION 2-33(c) TO REQUIRE THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, OR TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MIAMI 21 CODE, PROPOSED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION HAVE A COMMISSIONER AS A CO-SPONSOR; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00676 Legislation FR/SR(v2).pdf
WITHDRAWN
City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Note for the Record: Vice Chair Russell, the sponsor of the legislation, withdrew the item from the agenda.
Chair Hardemon: SR.1.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I'd like to see if we can hear SR.1 together with RE.7, if that would be all right.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: SR.1 was the co-sponsorship item that I brought up before.
Chair Hardemon: We can have the public hearing on both of those items at one time; however, we need to vote on each one of them individually.
Vice Chair Russell: Understood.
Chair Hardemon: SR.1.
Vice Chair Russell: And if I could hear RE (resolution) -- if we could hear RE.7 first.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So I'm calling RE.7. And RE.7, so just so everyone knows -- well, first of all, let's read RE.7 into the record first. What is RE.7?
Commissioner Gort: Who's going to read it?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): RE.7 is a resolution of the Miami City Commission directing the City Manager to create a new section in the City Commission agenda titled "Public Comment"; directing the City of Miami Administration to publish any amendment to the City of Miami Code and text amendment to the Miami 21 Code proposed by the City Administration at least 60 days prior to first reading for public comment; directing the City Manager to publish 15 days after first reading any changes to the proposed amendments, and allowing for a 15-day comment period prior to the second reading; and directing the City Manager or his designee to maintain all comments submitted by the public.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. This is an effort to change our system of transparency for new legislation that's being brought; very specific legislation on a grand scale. And originally, I had brought SR.1 before you with regard to co-sponsoring, where I was asking that any Administration that's bringing an ordinance or a Code change that -- something large scale -- that they needed a co-sponsor. And I've met with the Administration and various departments, and I think that this might be a good compromise or solution. And the basic idea here is that before something comes on our agenda, 60 days before, it will appear on the previous agenda; that the Administration will publish the text of that ordinance change or that Code change so that there's a 60-day period for public input; and also, for our benefit, because it's certainly not 60 days before something comes on an agenda that we see it. But this way, by the time we're actually dealing with it, it'll have had a really good round of public input on the text of that potential change. This is something that's done at the State level; it's done at the Federal level when Administration is bringing legislation. It does not apply to legislation that is being brought by the legislators themselves. So -- and that's also consistent with the State and Federal. There's a website at the Federal level called regulations.gov, I believe, that our City Manager is familiar with, and it's a really great example. And I believe my staff should be here and handy. I don't
City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
know if they were ready, knowing that this was going to be called right now, but I'd like to show you a brief example of how this works and how easy it is for the public to see what's coming, and to list their comments about that. And we were going to -- after talking with the Manager, I was going to amend this: That anywhere there's reference -- and there's three references that says, "in any form"; meaning if you receive an email or a phone call or whatever that you'd have to keep track of it and add it as backup. We changed the words, "in any form" to "a designated website or email address."
Mr. Min: Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: And the management would create an email address, such as [email protected], or something like [email protected], where people could comment on what they've seen in an agenda that will be coming 60 days from now, so there'd be a new section to our agenda that would not be an action item; that we would not address, but it would be published within our agenda, like a "coming attractions" of what's coming 60 days from now. And this will create a tremendous amount of transparency with the public and input on our legislation with the public, and I think it'll make our jobs a lot better.
Commissioner Suarez: Second; discussion.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. I'm opening up the public hearing for SR.1 and RE.7; understand, this is for SR.1 and RE.7. So if you want to be heard on this item, it is now time to speak on SR.1 and RE.7. At the conclusion of this public hearing, SR.1 and RE.7, this public hearing will be closed. You're recognized, ma'am.
Renita Holmes: Madam Holmes, on behalf of concerned citizens and the public; Women of Public Housing, Education, Finance and Development. Particularly, I'd like to thank you, because it is about transparency and citizen participation; and particularly with Miami 21, because of us, there are a lot of thin lines in the inner city municipal -- in the municipality, particularly in my district, in the poorest districts and those that are now separated in development lines. The biggest issue is traffic safety for our children; particularly the children now in the area of public housing, Wynwood and downtown, and you don't hear many, and that's who I represent. When you're talking about the parking situation, Miami 21, whether it's Liberty City or there, I could talk about that -- Flagami -- but there, where we have that thin line between residents and kids playing in concrete and so forth, we really want to have some things to say to you. You really want to be educated about us, so we appreciate you doing that. I think it is a sunshine issue for me, you know. In my profession, it's about freedom of information and intelligence and to keep kids safety, to keep people planning, you need good information, so that does provide it. It makes it easier to understand and it makes it easier for me to be notified, because although it's 60 days, you get 30 days; you get one shot and you get two minutes. Appreciate it.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any other person that'd like to speak? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Commissioner, do you have a presentation?
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. IT (Information Technology).
Chair Hardemon: IT, can you connect from the lectern to the television screen?
Commissioner Gort: Question: This is a concern with Code changes with the Miami 21, right?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes; sweeping Code; not individual zoning issues, for example.
Commissioner Gort: Right, okay.
City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: So I can't actually --
Commissioner Gort: I don't have it here.
Chair Hardemon: IT, can you put it on the screen for the Commissioners to see? IT, can you place it on the screens in front of the Commissioners, please?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): I want you all to know, Commissioners, if I may, while we're waiting that this August, we're renovating the monitors and all that stuff that we have on the dais, so when you come back in September, you'll have new monitors, and we're upgrading the technology a little bit.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: Don't worry.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll do it. We're going to --
Commissioner Suarez: I just -- before you -- so I'll just say I think this is -- I appreciate the Vice Chair, because I think he took the input of what the Commissioners were concerned about with reference to the second reading, and made it into something that I think is better, and I appreciate that. You know, it doesn't always happen and, you know, I think that that's, you know, a reflection of your, you know, consideration. I'm going to support this. I want to see how it works; you know what I mean? And see how it impacts the band width of things and, you know, because I think a lot of times, we get accused in government of slowing things down. And sometimes it's a good idea to slow things down, because the public doesn't feel engaged or they feel left out or there's a lack of transparency, as you would put it. And sometimes it feels like government is just getting in the way, and that oftentimes happens, too, because I hear that complaint all the time. And I have a reso on building permits that sort of dovetails to things that I think are efficiencies that we can create in the system to make things that area very basic more efficient.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. No, and you're right; I actually really did understand and hear the potential concerns with the first legislation.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: I appreciate the initial support on it, but I recognize the need to change it.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: And this is a complete different direction. Rather than asking our Administration to come and find a sponsor amongst us for an issue, this is just simple transparency and public input. So what we're going to try to show you here briefly is just the comments section, for example, on legislation and how the public can actually just click to a website, see what legislation is proposed, and leave their comment or question about it. And we have access to that; the Administration has access to that. But when legislation comes, our background information will actually have a summary of those comments made by Administration; basically, the feedback they received on this legislation they're bringing is mostly positive, mostly negative, and how they addressed it kind of thing.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I --
City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Not very simple to see the specifics here, but if you have any questions --
Commissioner Suarez: I do have a question. The -- you know, the Miami Herald a while ago used to allow for essentially random comments on their website, and what you got was a lot of negativity, hate, you know, venom, et cetera. And what they did was at some point, they said, "Look, if you want to comment, you're going to have to comment through your Facebook page, which is essentially sort of authenticating, if you will, who the person is; and it not being just a negative, sort of anonymous, you know, forum for people to just be -- spew hate. And so I just -- to the extent that we can have some sort of authentication procedure; to the extent that people have to, you know, sort of --
Vice Chair Russell: Accountability.
Commissioner Suarez: -- Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll look to the State and Federal version of this to see how they've addressed that. There may actually be rights issues where someone may not need to give their identity, but for certain, I'm sure we can screen for profanity or "hate" speech or anything like that. But I think part of it is we're probably going to hear stuff that isn't so friendly or popular about potential legislation, and sometimes that's kind of what we need to hear. But we're not breaking new ground here; this has been done before at levels above us. I think it's just something good for us to try out and see. And the Manager has expressed his willingness to create this website; and in the meantime, make the email address the catchall for those commentaries.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: I kind of like this better than the sponsorship of the ordinance by one of the Commissioners and so on, because I think this is much better; it's very open. My understanding is, Francisco, my understanding, 90 percent, maybe 85 percent of the ordinance that changes have been coming, Miami 21, have been at the request of the Commissioners. And I think most of the time, you -- if you start working on it way before, we can start giving the information to the individual. And I like also to know the differences with what we had and the changes that we going to make, how it's going to impact the individual, because a lot of times, we write things that we understand, because we have a background information, but the public out there does not understand it. So it's important that whenever we talked about the ordinance that's going to be expressed, it should be known what is the changes, why it's needed, and what kind of information they can have; and how is it going to improve, if it is going to improve, okay.
Vice Chair Russell: So if we're in consensus or agreement that this is a good thing that we should try, I will absolutely withdraw SR.1, as I think this is -- this completely solves that potential concern.
Commissioner Suarez: Great job, man.
Mr. Min: Mr. Chair, if I can just clarify, I believe the intent of the resolution is to apply to any legisla -- any ordinance that's sponsored or co-sponsored by the Administration. So as an example, FR.1 on today's agenda, which is sponsored by the City Manager's Office and District 4, would be subject to this type of notice provision, and I just wanted to clarify that's the intent of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry?
Chair Hardemon: He's saying FR.1, the amend -- code about the noise.
City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Min: Had this resolution been in place at the time today's agenda were printed, FR.1 would be subject to the requirements. FR.1 --
Chair Hardemon: It appears to be -- his concern is that we have an issue we're trying to solve; a wrong we're trying to remedy and -- such as noise; say an unlawful noise. And so if you were trying to make changes to the ordinance regarding something of that nature, the harm would be done or continue to persist longer than it would if you did not have this rule in place.
Commissioner Gort: By the way, talking about transparency, any time we have a subject that's not too well welcome by individuals of the community, I get a lot of emails on those things, so --
Vice Chair Russell: So now there's a place where --
Commissioner Gort: -- they're not (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and put the --
Vice Chair Russell: But the reason --
Commissioner Gort: Instead of sending so many email, they can go directly.
Vice Chair Russell: -- I wanted to include the co-sponsorship is exactly the opposite of why I wanted us to force the Administration to find a sponsor before, because now with this in place, if they just find a sponsor, they can -- a co-sponsor, they can avoid all the transparency issues; not that avoiding transparency is the goal, but that it would make it go faster by finding a co-sponsor. So if there's an issue of urgency, we can always four-fifths it and bring it without all of the process, if the Administration has an emergency item or issue that's time sensitive.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine. Absolutely. And I think -- I have no problem with FR.1 [sic] be -- having been subject to this provision. I don't have a problem with it. I'm saying if -- had it come after, I would not have had a problem with it. I mean, I think my resident might have been a little bit perturbed with knowing that it would take 60 days, but it is what it is. I mean, you know, that's part of -- sort of the balance that you take from being transparent versus -- and that's what I was telling you about.
Vice Chair Russell: But in that particular issue, why was there a co-sponsorship? Why wouldn't you have just sponsored that one on your own?
Commissioner Suarez: Which -- are we talking about FR.1?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: I did sponsor it on my own.
Vice Chair Russell: Oh, I thought it was a co-sponsorship.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't --
Mr. Min: FR.1 on today's agenda is sponsored by the City Manager's Office and District 4.
Commissioner Suarez: Oh, okay. I didn't know.
Commissioner Gort: District 4.
Commissioner Suarez: I didn't know the City Manager sponsored it, but -- Yeah, mine just says here, "Sponsored by Commissioner Francis Suarez." I don't know.
City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Right. So the only case where this website or input from the public or 60 days would not apply is where we are bringing it ourselves, independently, as an individual sponsor.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Then, fine.
Vice Chair Russell: We're accountable -- we're meant to be accountable (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Suarez: Well, that's good. I think that makes sense. I think that makes total sense.
Vice Chair Russell: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: So, in other words, this would not have then come under that, because I'm sponsoring it.
Vice Chair Russell: If you're the sole sponsor, then, yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, got it. I understand what you're saying. I know there may have been a co-sponsorship here, but even though, this only says, "Sponsored by Commissioner Suarez."
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Manager.
Mr. Alfonso: Commissioners, I just want to point out a couple of things. Again, if this is the direction the Commission wants to go, we will abide by the rules. I do want to say a few things. Number one, Mr. Vice Chair, you're saying that you want the actual item to be placed on the regular agenda, but on a section that says, "Coming Soon." So then, our -- you know, our agenda is already a couple thousand pages. So I don't know if we want to put the items that will be coming soon, or just as -- "If you want to see what's coming in the future, go to this website," and we'll put all those items there. I don't know. I'm just trying to --
Vice Chair Russell: The reason --
Mr. Alfonso: -- is that acceptable, or is that --?
Vice Chair Russell: -- I put it -- asked to put it on the agenda is because that's the most publicly visible and accessible document that everybody goes to and sees. I'm -- I was a little worried that if we just created a website off on its own that people would have to go to, to find the coming attractions, the coming legislation that it might be less visible. I don't know that it has to be printed in our version and in all the versions, but digitally, it certainly should be part of the agenda, I feel.
Chair Hardemon: I have a question.
Commissioner Gort: Let me give you a --
Chair Hardemon: It also -- it makes me feel like we're amending the agenda. The agenda is ordered by -- I'm assuming there's some sort of ordinance. Is the agenda number -- in the ordinance, I know we have some guiding rules that tell you what's supposed to be on the agenda, and the order of business you're supposed to handle things.
Mr. Min: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: So would this require an amendment to that, also?
City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Min: Chapter 2 of the City Code does state the content of the agenda, but there is language that says the agenda can be set upon prerogative of the City Manager, with directive of the Commission. So the ordinance itself does not have to be amended, because that's already built into the ordinance.
Chair Hardemon: So this doesn't have to be amended, whatsoever, to add another section to the agenda?
Mr. Min: No, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Suggestion is these future Code changes going to be taking place. Please look for it. It's going to be on the website; this one page.
Mr. Alfonso: Right. So you're saying don't put the full item on there; just maybe a link to it or something or --?
Unidentified Speaker: The title.
Mr. Alfonso: The title, just the title?
Commissioner Gort: The title.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: And then you can look it up, the title.
Mr. Alfonso: Fine, okay. And then you can link to --?
Commissioner Gort: Right. You can link to it and get the whole.
Mr. Alfonso: That's one. I also want to make it clear, because we keep saying "60 days." It's going to be more than 60 days. 60 days is the period of time that it has to be available for public comment. Then the Administration would have to take that and any and all comments that have been made, you know, make some summary about that; get into the regular agenda schedule at the proper time that it takes to get onto the agenda. Once we get onto that first reading, I would like to ask also on Section 5 -- it says, "The City Administration is directed to publish no more than 15 days after first reading the City Commission's agenda" -- "on the City Commission's agenda any changes to an amendment to the City Code." I would argue that 15 days may not be enough, because the City -- we have to get with the City Attorney to figure out how the law changes. For example, the Art in Public Places, we made recommendations on how we should change it. Well, we're still talking to the County as to how we might change it, and here we are, 15 days after we had that come, so that -- I would remove -- I mean, I would ask that we remove that, and we'll act expeditiously as possible to get it back onto the agenda. But to say that I have to get it out and published within 15 days may not be realistic, and I don't want to be in violation of the resolution.
Vice Chair Russell: Understood. If I could, Mr. Chair. The reasoning for that is that between first and second reading, a lot can change, and there may be public commentary there that we'd like to consider. Whether there's a 15-day rule or -- I was just trying to make it convenient so that we could get it in there by the time -- so commentary for the first 15 days; obviously, if changes happen after those 15 days, we wouldn't necessarily have commentary on it.
City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Alfonso: Right. I mean, we can leave it up the entire period of time that it's still being worked on through the first reading to the second reading, but I -- the way I understood this, it says that any changes that come as a result of the first reading. So we have the first reading. This Commission makes some recommendations. We go back and talk to the Law Department, figure out what that means in the Code, what sections may have to be amended, what changes have to happen. And the way this reads is that within 15 days, I got to get that new resolution or the new ordinance posted back up again for a new period of 15 days of new public comment. And what I'm saying is that it may take longer than that just to work out all the legal issues that may come up in this Commission to put it back up, so.
Vice Chair Russell: Understood. And I know this is actually going to be more work, significant more work, but I think the end result is going to be tremendously --
Mr. Alfonso: We'll hire two or three more people. It's --
Vice Chair Russell: So I am absolutely flexible on that. If it needs to be amended, specifically how would you recommend the wording change?
Mr. Alfonso: Well, where it says the City Manager -- "The City Administration is directed to publish no more than 15 days after the first reading on the Commission agenda any changes to the amendment," I would say the City -- you know, directed to publish as soon as practicable or as soon as possible. That would be enough so that we would have enough time to work with the Law Department to get it back up.
Commissioner Gort: But at the same time, it says "no changes," then it stays the same.
Mr. Alfonso: Right.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: If there's no changes, it's easy; it goes right back up.
Mr. Min: What I'm hearing is I think the City Manager doesn't want to have a time limitation, because he fears not --
Vice Chair Russell: Between first and second reading.
Mr. Min: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: To leave it up --
Mr. Min: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 15 days for comments, but to have to say it's going to be posted on a certain period of time, I think there's a fear that that directive may not be complied with; and obviously, we want to comply with the Commission's directive.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. So let's remove that and see how it works. Mr. Manager, the website portion of it, when do you think you would be able to put that together?
Mr. Alfonso: I --
Vice Chair Russell: We have a new -- we have -- Mr. Sirosky is our new --
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, I know. And we'll probably have to do some kind of hackathon to figure out how we best do this. You know, I don't know how quickly we can get it done, sir, but we'll report back to you at the next Commission meeting with an estimate of time, how long it would take to
City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
set it up, where it would reside; how we put the link, maybe in our front page; or, you know, whatever we think that would be most amenable to making it accessible.
Vice Chair Russell: If this proves unwieldy down the road, we can certainly change it again, but I think the intention --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, review of legislation.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that we have a website where the public can go and see what legislation is coming 60 days before it happens, and make commentary for us to weigh in, and have participation in their government, I think, is a great intention, so I hope you support me.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Suarez: I accept the amendment of the legislation as proffered by the parties.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly -- well, it's been properly moved and seconded. There's a friendly amendment that's been accepted, so to be clear, we've voting on --
Commissioner Gort: RE.7.
Vice Chair Russell: RE.7.
Chair Hardemon: -- RE.7. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended.
Commissioner Carollo: As amended.
Chair Hardemon: As amended.
Later...
Commissioner Suarez: Do we have to withdraw --?
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I'd like to withdraw SR.1.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Without objection, SR.1 will be withdrawn.
SR.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00708 District 1 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Commissioner 31/ARTICLE II/SECTION 48 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, Wifredo (Willy) Gort FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "LOCAL BUSINESS TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS/LOCAL BUSINESS TAX ("BTR")/REVOCATION; SUSPENSION", IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY THE REVOCATION PROCESS AND TO PROVIDE A MORE EFFICIENT AND City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR THE REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION OF A BTR; FURTHER AMENDING CHAPTER 31/ARTICLE II/SECTION 49 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "LOCAL BUSINESS TAX AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS/LOCAL BUSINESS TAX ("BTR")/BTR ENFORCEMENT", TO PROVIDE FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00708 Legislation FR/SR.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Suarez and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo
13611
Chair Hardemon: SR.2.
Commissioner Gort: SR.2.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): SR.2 is an amendment to the City Code to speed up the process for revoking business tax receipts for businesses that are not in compliance with the City Code, or otherwise in violation of City ordinances.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept --
Peter Ehrlich: Public hearing?
Chair Hardemon: -- SR.2.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: I'll open up the floor for public hearing at this time. If you'd like to speak on SR.2, please approach the lectern. You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Ehrlich: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Peter Ehrlich. My office is at 395 Northeast 59th Street, Lemon City. And I'm speaking in favor of the legislation; and also, I'm in favor of Code compliance. I'm speaking for myself and also for Bennett Pumo, who has over 400 tenants. Referring to the legislation; particularly, pages 3, 4, and 5 in your package, it refers to -- I'm talking about changes regarding notice in case there is an issue that's referred to by Code compliance. In order to get compliance much more quickly, we recommend you delete the word "or" in the legislation in front of you and just leave the word "and." In other words, notice --
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Where are you --? I'm sorry, Mr. Ehrlich. Where exactly are you in the legislation?
Mr. Ehrlich: I think it's referred to about 15 or 20 times on pages 3; I think 4, 5, where the notice -- there's notice re -- to the violator. It says it goes to the violator and/or the property owner.
City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: Right; the BTR (business tax receipt) holder and/or the owner of the property.
Mr. Ehrlich: Exactly.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Mr. Ehrlich: We recommend --
Ms. Méndez: So that's what's mentioned 15 or 20 times.
Mr. Ehrlich: Yes.
Ms. Méndez: Just to clarify.
Mr. Ehrlich: Exactly right.
Ms. Méndez: Okay. The "and/or" is necessary, though, because for our processes, whether we want to notice both of them, one of them, one or the other. So that allows us the flexibility to be able to do that; that's what the "and/or" is for.
Mr. Ehrlich: I understand.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to be sure that both of them get them, because a lot of time, the tenants get the letters from the City, but the owner does not get, and he's the one who's penalized.
Mr. Ehrlich: Exactly why I'm standing up here. We'd like to make sure that the notice goes to the violator and it goes to the property owner, and delete the word, "or." We don't want there to be any misunderstanding that it might go just to the violator and not go to the property owner . We'd like you to achieve property -- Code compliance much more quickly, and we would like the property owners to be informed concurrently so that if there's a problem, they can quickly work with the tenant, because Commissioner Gort is absolutely right; a lot of time, the violators -- and many a time, that's a tenant -- they do not inform the property owner that they're getting notices, and the notices might pile up for a year or two. And then the -- and the property owner doesn't even know until the tenant's already left, leaving a huge problem for the property owner. So we'd recommend deleting the word "or," leaving the word, "and," so that both the violators and the property owners get notice concurrently, and I think you'll get compliance much more quickly, because the property owners are extremely motivated to cure these problems quickly.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Commissioner Gort: You might have to change the applications. When the individual goes to apply, they should have the address of the person who's going to rent, and also the owner, so automatic notifications can go out.
Ms. Méndez: That is something, Mr. Manager that Commissioner Gort is advising; that he would like some type of notice for the owner, as well. So right now, the applications, when you go for a BTR or certificate of use, it just has a lessee going in and signing; not the owner. So sometimes the owner doesn't know --
Commissioner Gort: No, the owner doesn't have to sign. He's not pulling the application, but he wants to be notified if anything takes place; in other words, the address of both should be in there; and maybe the tenant might also be the owner, so.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Okay?
Ms. Méndez: So then you don't necessarily want the owner to sign on?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE)
Commissioner Gort: Yeah, I know.
Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE)
Mr. Ehrlich: The director of Code Enforcement, he supported the change.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Mr. Ehrlich: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Gort: That's the reason why we brought it up, because we had a lot of problems with a lot of things that are taking place in our neighborhoods.
Mr. Ehrlich: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Gort: And we want to be able to expedite.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any other person that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, SR.2.
Vice Chair Russell: Did you move it?
Chair Hardemon: Are those --?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah, I moved it, yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, it's already been moved and seconded. We've had our public hearing. If you --
Commissioner Gort: We did.
Mr. Hannon: -- wish, the City Attorney may read the title into the record.
Chair Hardemon: Are those amendments being placed; they were already included?
Vice Chair Russell: Were they accepted?
Ms. Méndez: And "and/or," if the --
Commissioner Gort: "And."
Ms. Méndez: Yes. The "and" will be the new language.
City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: But in -- if I may, Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: In some cases, "and/or" is appropriate, because it's talking about who is conducting the business; it's not just about -- we're talking about only changing the notification, "and/ors," right?
Ms. Méndez: Well, basically, the Code Enforcement really works towards the violations attached to the property.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Ms. Méndez: And the owner of the property is really the one that's held on the hook, for lack of a better word. So the way it was written, "and/or," was just to facilitate a faster implementation; however, the request now is to notice both the BTR holder and the owner of the property.
Vice Chair Russell: So the only "and/or" that will be changed to "and" is with regard to notification? Because, like number 7, for example, "The BTR holder and/or owner of the property has obtained a permit." That should probably stay, because it may apply one of them or the other, or both of them has obtained a permit. You kind of want to leave that, right?
Ms. Méndez: Yes. So you're talking about the -- with regard to notice is the only thing we're going to change the "and/or" to.
Commissioner Gort: Notice of violation.
Ms. Méndez: The notice of violation.
Commissioner Gort: The owner should be informed.
Ms. Méndez: So in section -- the sections that have to do with notice for the hearings and such will be changed to "and."
Chair Hardemon: Any further comment (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? I believe the amendments have been accepted by the mover and the seconder. Please read the title into the record.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item SR.2.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, as amended, 4-0.
SR.3 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00711 District 1 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Commissioner 2/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 2/SECTION 2-211 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF Wifredo (Willy) Gort MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENTS/ PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT/DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF USE", AMENDING SUBSECTION 2-211(B) TO PROVIDE FOR THE DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF USE WHEN THE HOLDER'S
City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
ACCOMPANYING BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT HAS BEEN DENIED OR REVOKED; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00711 Legislation FR/SR.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13612
Chair Hardemon: SR.3.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): An ordinance -- The public hearings were opened and discussed for both, right, Chair?
Chair Hardemon: No.
Ms. Méndez: No, okay. Then SR.3 is a companion to SR.2, and this is changing Chapter 2, Article 4, Division 2, Section 2-2.11, to make sure that the revocations of certificate of use is providing for a denial or revocation when it accompanies a business tax receipt.
Chair Hardemon: I open up the floor for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to discuss this item?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing none, I close the public hearing. It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion from the dais? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Ordinance.
Commissioner Gort: No, an ordinance.
Chair Hardemon: I thought we had it read.
Ms. Méndez: An ordinance of the Miami --
Mr. Hannon: You did.
Ms. Méndez: I just gave a little synopsis; I'm sorry.
Chair Hardemon: You gave a brief -- okay.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item SR.3.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
SR.4 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00562 Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, AMENDING CHAPTER Planning and Zoning 62 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING", MORE SPECIFICALLY CREATING A NEW ARTICLE XVI ENTITLED "ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00562 Summary Form SR.pdf 16-00562 Back-Up Documents.pdf 16-00562 Legislation SR v2.pdf 16-00562-Submittal-Planning Department-Letters of Support.pdf 16-00562-Submittal-Maite Alvarez-Letter of Exemption.pdf 16-00562-Submittal-Efren Nunez-Art In Public Places PowerPoint Presentation.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item SR.4 was deferred to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
END OF SECOND READING ORDINANCES
FIRST READING ORDINANCE
FR.1 ORDINANCE First Reading 16-00735 District 4- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Commissioner 36 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, Francis Suarez ENTITLED "NOISE", MORE PARTICULARLY BY CREATING SECTION 36-9, ENTITLED, "OFF-STREET FREIGHT AND COMMERCIAL DELIVERY HOURS PILOT PROGRAM"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00735 Legislation SR V2.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Chair Hardemon: FR.1.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, FR.1 is an ordinance that I guess is co-sponsored with the City Administration regarding commercial deliveries and -- that are abutting -- essentially 100 feet within a T8 transect zone. We're having a variety of issues -- particular, one with the Home Depot on 29th Avenue and 8th Street that has been for many years creating a variety of issues with our residents, and some of our residents have not been able to sleep at night, because deliveries are coming in at all hours. And so this is meant to ensure that our residents have a peaceful night's sleep and that deliveries can be made, you know, within hours that are reasonable, and not in the middle of the night. So I move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Is there a second?
City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman seconds. I'll open up the floor for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak about this item? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time. Any further discussion from the dais?
Commissioner Gort: Discussion.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: For example, the -- you going to apply it through the whole City?
Commissioner Suarez: If it's with a hundred feet of a T3.
Commissioner Gort: No, I understand, but the -- through the whole City? At the produce market, where people start working there 3 o'clock in the morning and they're within a hundred feet of T3?
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: If you stop those people from delivering at 3 in the morning, it's going to affect their business quite a bit, and that's a very large products [sic] market.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So do you have --? I mean, because, I mean -- I don't know. I -- if you -- Do you get complaints from people that are within a hundred feet of that --?
Commissioner Gort: No. I get a lot of complaint from the train, with the whistle blowing at 4 in the morning; that, I do.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: And I haven't been able to stop that for the last three years.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: No, I don't get any complaints from the people there.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So how do we work it out? Because I get complaints about this, big time, and I've been getting complaints routinely, for years. I mean, I -- the City Attorney knows, because she's been copied on all the emails.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Yes. What we can do is between first and second reading, maybe look at the geographic area, because that is a particular district, Commissioner Gort. It's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) area.
Commissioner Gort: You got to really analyze it. You got 8th Street, you got Flagler, you got 17th, you got Northwest 7th Street, where you have people that have businesses where they receive merchandise and those (UNINTELLIGIBLE) merchandise, so this is something we really need to look at. At the same time, you going to put all this traffic on the street in peak hours, and -- I don't know. That --
Commissioner Suarez: Look, I hear you. I think it's -- A lot of times when we do things, we're balancing a variety of interests. And I think, for me, my number one interest is the residents that I represent. So when they're complaining about deliveries at -- If it were -- if they were delivering at 5, you know, the "beep, beep, beep," at 4:30 in the morning next to my house --
City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- with my two-year-old, I would be very upset. And there's people that haven't been able to sleep for years. So I'm open --
Commissioner Gort: Look, you got to hear the train whistles. I'm going to record it for you so I can play it here.
Commissioner Suarez: I want to hear it. I want you to imitate it, though.
Commissioner Gort: No, but, look, I understand. Maybe that can be done in --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Gort: -- through a traffic pattern, maintain the people that have to go in through 8th Street --
Commissioner Suarez: I'm open, I'm open.
Commissioner Gort: -- in and out of 8th Street.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm open to anything that solves my problem and doesn't create a problem for your district.
Commissioner Gort: No, I understand, I understand; that's why I asked whenever we make a decision, let's make sure it affects the whole City and benefits the whole City. I think a lot of time, by changing the traffic study -- the traffic flow -- don't allow the trucks to go in the side. They have to go through 8th Street.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: And out of 8th Street.
Commissioner Suarez: Madam City Attorney, can we make this a pilot program in my district? And if it doesn't work -- you know, we can analyze it in a year?
Ms. Méndez: Okay, yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so let's bring back for second reading that it's a pilot program in my district, unless anyone else wants to do the same pilot program in their district. And we'll analyze it in a year and then see how it has impacted everybody.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Méndez: We'll make those revisions between first and second reading.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Bless you.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Suarez: No. Thank you, Mr. -- Commissioner Gort.
City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: There's been a motion and a second. The amendments have been accepted by the mover and the seconder. Seeing that they have --
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Gort: It's a pilot program. Do we have the -- we going to place it on traffic --?
Ms. Méndez: Yes. We'll do the revisions between first and second reading.
Commissioner Gort: First and second, okay.
Ms. Méndez: Since it's a diminishment of the area, it's not a problem to make that change between first and second, as amended.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, no problem.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.1.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
Ms. Méndez: As amended.
END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCE
RESOLUTIONS
RE.1 RESOLUTION 16-00771 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Procurement ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S EMERGENCY FINDING THAT IT IS MOST ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI TO WAIVE THE COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-90 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RETROACTIVELY APPROVING THE SELECTION OF ROYAL RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF RENTAL VEHICLES CITYWIDE, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED NINETY (90) DAYS. 16-00771 Summary Form.pdf 16-00771 Memo - Manager's Approval.pdf 16-00771 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00771 Back-Up from Law Dept.pdf 16-00771 Legislation.pdf 16-00771 Exhibit.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0293
City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Commissioner, RE.1 -- and before I say it, be ready to go into Saturday, because that's the second meeting in July. It's a full agenda, with Planning & Zoning and everything, and we have to accept the millage. We cannot leave here without setting the millage; very important. Okay, RE.1, Commissioners, is a four-fifths resolution requesting that the City Commission give the City the authority to pay Royal Rent-A-Car for the 90 days between the time when Enterprise Rent-A-Car pulled out of the City after their contract had expired and extended and now, until we approve the Royal Rent-A-Car in item RE.2.
Chair Hardemon: The Chair would like to entertain a motion to approve.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry, where are we?
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve?
Commissioner Suarez: What are we talking about?
Vice Chair Russell: Oh.
Chair Hardemon: RE.1.
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. I open up the floor for public hearing. Is there a comment from the public that would like to be made on the record? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, Commissioners.
RE.2 RESOLUTION 16-00772 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Procurement ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE PROCUREMENT OF VEHICLE RENTAL SERVICES CITYWIDE WITH ROYAL RENT-A-CAR SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA, INC., PRIMARY VENDOR, AND ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA, LLC, SECONDARY VENDOR, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-111 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, UTILIZING THE COMPETITIVELY BID AND EXISTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 8809-0/19, EFFECTIVE THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2020, SUBJECT TO ANY EXTENSIONS AND/OR REPLACEMENT CONTRACTS BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE END-USER DEPARTMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY
City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. 16-00772 Summary Form.pdf 16-00772 Checklist.pdf 16-00772 Bid Tabulation.pdf 16-00772 Back-Up Document.pdf 16-00772 Invitation To Bid.pdf 16-00772 Bid Award.pdf 16-00772 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00772 Legislation.pdf 16-00772 Exhibit.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0294
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): RE.2 is our piggyback on the County's contract for rental car services. This contract is mostly used by our law enforcement agency for the undercover vehicles, et cetera. We're piggybacking on a County contract that has -- the primary vendor is Royal Rent-A-Car and the secondary vendor is Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve?
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to approve.
Commissioner Suarez: Moved.
Chair Hardemon: And seconded. Any further -- well, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
RE.3 RESOLUTION 16-00786 Department of Real A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Estate and Asset ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A Management LEASE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND PSBP INDUSTRIAL, L.L.C., FOR THE USE OF APPROXIMATELY TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY (2,640) SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE/OFFICE SPACE, FOR THE OPERATION OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT ("MPD"), WITH A MONTHLY RENTAL FEE OF $2,213.20 ($10.06 PER SQUARE FOOT), ANNUAL INCREASES AS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT, AND ESTIMATED MONTHLY OPERATING EXPENSES OF $646.80 ($2.94 PER SQUARE FOOT), FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF $2,860.00 PER MONTH FOR THE FIRST CONTRACT YEAR, COMMENCING ON MAY 15, 2016 AND EXPIRING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2022;
City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM MPD'S BUDGET, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MORE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN SAID AGREEMENT. 16-00786 Summary Form.pdf 16-00786 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00786 Legislation.pdf 16-00786 Exhibit.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0295
Chair Hardemon: RE.3.
Daniel Rotenberg: RE.3. Good afternoon. Daniel Rotenberg, director of Department of Real Estate and Asset Management. RE.3 is a lease agreement for the Police Department for 2,640 square feet. This is for warehouse space for the Police Department. Effective date of the lease would be July 1, 2016.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's properly moved.
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: And seconded.
Commissioner Gort: Second for discussion.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Any discussion?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah. We gone way out of the City limit. Which Police functions is going to take place in this building?
Mr. Rotenberg: This is going to be for the Internal Affairs; it's a warehouse.
Commissioner Gort: The warehouse?
Mr. Rotenberg: It's a warehouse.
Commissioner Gort: Oh, okay. It's not the office or not the --
Mr. Rotenberg: Not the office.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, all right, all right. Stand corrected.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. All in favor, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): There was amendment as to the address on this item. It's just for clarification purposes on the agenda. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
RE.4 RESOLUTION 16-00578 Department of Real A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Estate and Asset ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WAIVE THE Management LATE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LEASED TO DOLORES, BUT YOU CAN CALL ME LOLITA, LLC, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI AUDIT NO. 15-001, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, IN THE AMOUNT OF FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN DOLLARS ($58,737.00), IN EXCHANGE FOR A ONE-TIME PAYMENT OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00) AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TOTALING FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS ($45,630.00). 16-00578 Summary Form.pdf 16-00578 Back-Up Documents (06-09-16).pdf 16-00578 Legislation v2 (06-09-16).pdf 16-00578 Exhibit (06-09-16).pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0296
Chair Hardemon: RE.4.
Daniel Rotenberg: RE.4. Again, Daniel Rotenberg, director of Department of Real Estate and Asset Management. RE.4 is a resolution of the Miami City Commission, authorizing the City Manager to waive the late fees associated with the City-owned property leased to New Spanish Concepts, doing business as "Dolores, but you can call me Lolita." This was from a City of Miami audit where there were some funds that were found we had paid delinquent, or there was an interest rate charged on the audit. This was settled over a year ago.
Chair Hardemon: I'll open up the floor for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to accept. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
RE.5 RESOLUTION 16-00854
City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
District 5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING THE UNITED Commissioner Keon STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR Hardemon THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO USE ALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE ACTS OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, THUS ELIMINATING THE TERROR THESE INDIVIDUALS INFLICT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT THIS RESOLUTION TO THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL OFFICIALS STATED HEREIN. 16-00854 Legislation.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0297
Chair Hardemon: RE.5.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): RE.5, Commissioner, is your resolution, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes. Let me pull it up. So we know we've been dealing with a lot of gun violence within the City of Miami; particularly within my district. And there have been a number of efforts that have come about that are targeted at thwarting gun violence; giving youth an alternative, rather than picking up firearms. And what I've noticed over time and after some research is that we need more support from our Federal partners and other resources that are within the State of Florida in order for us to truly solve this issue. And one of the things that I realized that, you know, sometimes you have shootings that occur with -- especially within our neighborhood -- that are with AR-15s, where we have seven people hit and two people died, and one -- the numbers that happen -- because it's never happened before, like in Orlando. However, any time in a couple square mile radius that you using AR-15 or an AK-47 to shoot that many people, arguably, it could be called domestic terrorism. And just to enlighten everyone, Title 18 of the United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" as follows: "'Domestic terrorism' means any activities with the following three characteristics: One, involves acts dangerous to human life that will violate Federal or State law; and two, appear, intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'" It is my belief that many of the incidents of gun violence that occur, especially within my area, are acts that are: One, dangerous to human life that violate State, and many times, Federal law. And also, they appear -- which I believe is a very low standard -- to be used to intimidate or coerce the civilian population. Now, in particular, I looked at "to intimidate the civilian population." In areas like Liberty Square, where you have women and children and young men that live in those communities, that play in those communities, and in -- on their front steps, when they're dealing with as much gun violence as they're dealing with; when someone is as brazen to take a high-powered firearm, to use that high-powered firearm to shoot into a mass of people, where they're not -- aiming particularly for one person, but the person was not there -- I believe that that is a form of terrorism that we're dealing with on a daily basis in the City of Miami. And that terrorism, it changes their way of life. They don't have the ability to walk freely upon our streets within our community without fear of being gunned down. It changes their habits. They don't play within their communities. They don't go outside to enjoy fresh air. They can't go to the park. They're afraid to walk to and from school. It really changes their life, and they're held captive in their community. Furthermore, they are afraid to speak to the police. And so if you witness someone take an AK-47, shoot down several people, look at you in your face and come back to the same corner in the next few days, then you would not, as a witness to that, go to the Police Department and say what you saw, because you're afraid that you would lose your life,
City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
too. In our law, in our system there's something that applies to witnesses where if a defendant or anyone associated with a defendant attempts to keep that defendant from -- oh, I'm sorry -- keep that witness from proffering testimony, they can be arrested for a crime. Well, in this situation, you never have them as a witness, because they're already afraid to come and bear witness to the crime. So, essentially, it's a loophole. It's a loophole that's created by terror, it's a loophole that's created by fear, and I don't think that anyone within our community should have to live within that. So what this is, is a resolution from the City of Miami that identifies -- and I won't read all of it -- but identifies what -- some issues that we believe rise to a level of domestic terrorism, and that in conclusion, that we need other authorities to provide as much resources as they can to help solve these issues. We should never only consider terrorism when you hear it in the name of some religion, because that is not always true. Terrorism is as American as apple pie, and if -- we have dealt with terrorism in the past by members of organizations that are not -- the people are not proud to be a part of today, or at least should not be, then we should deal with terrorism in our communities by people who live and breathe within our communities, and don't give our children a chance to learn and grow. And so in -- when I look at what Katherine Fernandez-Rundle, our State Attorney has said, she said, "Let us not forget that the community lets itself be ruled by these neighborhood terrorists, they will have manipulated all of us to fear them, to respect them; and worse, to give them what they want: the very power over life and death; to be silenced; to give up all of one's dreams and hopes." And she -- I deeply believe that it takes a partnership of citizens, law enforcement and prosecutors to get these shooters off our streets. Everyone must do their part. And so, therefore, in that spirit, I'm urging everyone and I ask that -- if there's a motion to --
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: -- approve this. It's been properly moved by Commissioner Suarez, and now seconded to send this message. So, "The Miami Commission urges the United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Wifredo Ferrer to use all available resources to investigate and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism in the City of Miami; thus eliminating the terror these individuals inflict on our neighborhoods." And what I'm hoping for is real action, and I want our Department of Justice to realize that this is not something that our community will continue to stand for, and we cannot sit around idly while anyone plays politics with what's happening in these communities. There is terror, there is fear, this is happening in our home front; and to me, that qualifies as domestic terrorism when you're using it to keep the people who live there in that form of captivity. And so, I open up right now for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item?
Brenda Betancourt: Good afternoon. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. When we talk about giving the power to the police or those investigating, how far are we planning on going? Are we actually going to go really far in order for us to secure our neighborhood, our houses and the public's area where we visit? Is -- they going to be able to keep those that they are trying to hurt the rest of the citizen really safe? How far that you planning on this resolution to go in order to secure our neighborhood and our houses? That's my only question and concern on -- sometimes we have our law that just protect us, but in the same time, it give you guiding and it give you some kind of limit. And sometimes those limits are the ones who tie the hands of the police or the -- any agency -- in order for them to protect us, because we can -- the law sometimes protect us, but it protect everybody. So how far can we go through --?
Chair Hardemon: So this doesn't change the laws that's on the book. It recognizes -- this is the definition that is for domestic terrorism that has -- and probably will be -- because this is what has been given to us by our Federal Government. What I'm asking for is for them to recognize the incidents of domestic terrorism that occur in our backyards; not just in the school grounds of Sandy Hook and other places of that nature. And so, collectively, what I'm saying is that if you -- if that gun violence was happening in these chambers every seven days, these Commissioners would not be here; you all would not come to visit. So I want you to think about that. So if these
City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
chambers were Liberty Square, and those incidents of gun violence is -- which are, in fact, happening there, it's beyond human nature to have HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) put people to live in that community, where people are dying every few days, right? That's not humanity to me. If it was happening here on these grounds, it would be made more secure. And so, because of that, what I'm saying is that our Federal Government needs to step in to make those grounds more secure by arresting individuals for incidents of domestic terrorism, where they apply.
Ms. Betancourt: And my question is -- because yesterday, we were having -- the Community Relation Board for the County was having that HUD director, Mr. Loo and the new appointed - GC (General Contractor) who is going to be building Liberty Squares Rising. And our concern is it's not just about building new housing. It's about how you going to integrate all these residents to be part of this $300 million project to give them work and to keep them safe. You are not just building houses; you are affecting a lot of families. And I think that's one of my concerns, because there are -- a lot of people, they are just thinking about it's going to be a brand new house. But are we moving the same individuals, the one that are in the criminal activities, to the same place? Sometimes, that's the concern. You know, just because you have new building doesn't mean that you're going to have new people or new environments around.
Chair Hardemon: Yes. Thank you so much. Madam Holmes.
Renita Holmes: Madam Holmes, on behalf of the Women in Public Housing, Education, Finance and Development. And we know that women are suffering a great deal, and mothers of boys, but mothers of girls, too. And when I look at the divide in 37 years when we first announced women under siege was when Wayne Rollins came into public housing, and we had this organization going. And it was an assumption that poor mothers did not consider safety and health. And I don't see any difference for safety and health, but when I saw the gap between LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual) mothers and their ability to participate -- and we lived for 30 years, and when I came here before this Commission -- and I'm going to jump a little bit, because it's two minutes, and that's the limit of our ability to participate in laws or policies or programs to protect our children, because there's an assumption that women don't protect their children; particularly, poor women. But yet, we're the war on poverty. Here's my concern: Even that the interpretation of "domestic terrorism" still applies to some things that children do just by association, assimilation because of the disparity. It's my concern that the City of Miami now has property on Liberty Square where guns were sold right next door, and we continued to give $200,000 for 21 cameras that more than half, as a matter of fact -- you see our report -- people have died in front of; that guns were sold for 10 years in the same building, right off of 12th Avenue, and we still put more cameras there, and children and women died in front of them. So I am on both sides of that. I'm on the side where they come to my neighborhood and they shoot at the cameras, but these are not kids from the neighborhood. I'm concerned that they can come over here in the marina and buy guns out of a trunk, and the government says we can't ask that that policy be changed. I would like to request, if I may, through the Commission that we have a lot more conversations. And I know we're changing, Chief, about that. But I'm much with Ms. Betancourt. We were at that meeting, and at the County, we have a lot more discussions. Here's my situation: If it was not for Ms. Betancourt been there, we would have no representation at the table. As an appointee on the Burns Task Force by the Mayor of the department as the first Weed and Seeder, I get two minutes. I'm still not able to participate. So, as domesticated as I may be, as terrorized as I may be, as a victim, I am -- as a defender or relatively LGBT affiliated, I'm concerned about just saying "domestic." I'm concerned that the terrorism goes on and that the language and the enforcement (UNINTELLIGIBLE) balance. And the lack of my role as a first responder will not be identified, and that some of the rules now inhibit me. And when I'm in a County facility, federally funded, and the -- and it says "Metro-Dade Police," and you call the City, different City officers say, "Well, I can't," and then other City officers say, "I can." I'm concerned about the justice. I'm concerned about what's been going on for 30 years of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) interpretation in who is the victim and who is the terrorizer. I may even be
City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
considered a terrorizer myself, depending on domestic law; it's a matter of interpretation. I think we need to have more conversation. I think the City needs to be more involved. And I believe that we need to talk about creating women in programs that make mothers safety responders. And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in impoverished areas, where is that real citizen participation? In Overtown, we don't have a community policing program, but we have all around us in Flagami -- I'm literally jealous of my good persons here and the people in my neighborhood, because the men in her neighborhood -- it's okay to be strong. It's okay to be a woman that talks about "Protect my children first." It's okay to stand and talk over and ask questions and have colloquies about safety and health. Lastly -- and I appreciate your giving me this time, because I put 37 years into this; 37 years, when Weed and Seed first came. We walked the talk. We have the assertive response program done by mothers. I'm just concerned that women ain't getting -- poor women and poor women raising children ain't getting opportunity to tell you when we're creating policies and laws that something's amiss of the reality of it and that maybe the perception of strong lesbian mothers and women is a little bit off. I'm not from Orlando; I'm from Miami. I'm concerned that we're giving money away to help the victims in Orlando, but we haven't spent anything on small ministries, like my own. I'm concerned about how we interpret these policies and how we apply these, because it gives people authority to abuse me more when I'm there to stop the abuse. I want to thank you again for giving your patience and time, but 37 years is a long time, and I'm standing my ground, whether it's at a microphone or whether it's in my front yard, it's on my block. But somehow, interpretation of policies or policies that's thrown out there, they ain't giving me a line of defense; they're just giving me a line and an excuse for others to abuse me. Help us. When you put this forward, please, Commissioners, come talk to us and allow Ms. Betancourt to help us, because after a while, women will show you that we're more than victims. And it's okay to be a angry black women when your children dying, one a week, but this law can't be something that gives somebody that be a little bit (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Domestic terrorism and assault rifles, police carry those, too. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir, you're recognized.
Miguel Soliman: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Miguel Soliman, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. Something happened to me this weekend that has been disturbing me, and today, you hit it, Chairman Hardemon. Today you hit the nail right on the head: domestic terrorism. We think of Al-Qaeda. We think of the terrorism worldwide that we've had, but we also have, as you said, domestic terrorism. And I'll give you a real simple example. In my district -- Commissioner Carollo, our district -- I went this weekend to a seminar, a class at the Police headquarters for citizens on patrol, so I could become a member. And I recruited several residents from our district to go ahead and serve, so we could form a citizens on patrol for District 3, Little Havana. In the middle of the class, one of the residents that was there, she walked out of the class because she's afraid. She was told that in order for her to be a citizens on patrol, she has to have a T-shirt on that identifies her as a citizens on patrol, and she's afraid to walk on the streets of Little Havana with a citizens on patrol T-shirt, because she may get hurt. The elements that she's watching out for may get hurt. Now, I'm not saying that that's a hundred percent true or if that's going to happen. I personally am very happy with the way we're heading, especially in Little Havana, and we have a new Police commander that has done an incredible, an incredible job; Commander Ibalmea, he's awesome. And all of you have done a fantastic job, Commissioner Carollo. But my point is exactly what you were saying: domestic terrorism. We don't think of it like that, but we have people living in our communities -- a community like Little Havana, which I consider a safe community, a good community -- that are afraid of precisely that -- domestic terrorism. So I commend you for bringing this forward, and I thank you very much as a citizen of Miami. Thank you all very much. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, ma'am.
City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Thema Campbell: Good afternoon. Thema Campbell. I'm with Girl Power. We're located at 1600 Northwest 3rd Avenue. I actually did not come here today to speak on this item. I'm here to speak on another item, but Commissioner Hardemon, as I was sitting there and listening to you talk about this item, a few things -- First of all, I want to thank you for your courage and for your insight in bringing this item to the attention more broadly of what's happening in Liberty Square and in Overtown. We serve girls who live in those communities, and whenever there's a shooting, we always have a rap session about it. And the number one thing that the kids always say is, "Miss Thema, we know who did it, but we can't say anything," because they are afraid, and that's the first thing. The second thing is, the thing that cautions me or makes me pause about this is I know that once you bring in the Federal Government and we open up our communities to these agencies, a lot of our kids are going to be arrested. And Florida is the number one State in this country for direct-filing juveniles to adult court. And so what I would not like to see is to have young kids, 14, 15 and 16 years old, who had guns put in their hands, end up being tried as adults and placed in adult prisons. What I'm asking you to make a part of this resolution is to have some form of an intervention process so that kids that are under 18 who get caught up in this domestic terrorism acts that there is some form of intervention that can happen for these teenagers, because a lot of these kids has grown up in some very unfortunate circumstances. Growing up in these communities, they learn at a very early age to be violent, because they grow up in violent situations, in violent communities. So there needs to be some form of intervention and prevention put in place along with this resolution so that more of our kids does not get direct-filed into adult court as a result of this domestic terrorism resolution that you place forth here. I support it and I know that it's necessary, but I just don't want to see more of our kids get put into the adult court system because of this.
Chair Hardemon: So I want to explain. I worked in the juvenile courthouse, and I've defended juveniles who've been accused of crimes. I've had juvenile clients who were threatened to be direct-filed and have been direct-filed in adult court. This ordinance -- or this resolution does not affect that, whatsoever. The court system, when you get filed to -- as a child to adult court is a State issue; that's if something happens within the State. So, for instance, the State's Attorney will have a crime that has been committed by a juvenile, and routinely, this is how it works, so all of you understand how it works: Child gets arrested. Once the child is arrested, he's brought before a judge. When the child is brought before a judge, he usually at that time gets appointed a Public Defender, because many times, the kids who are being arrested for these crimes qualify for Public Defenders. At that time, the State will make an announcement that they intend to direct-file that child to adult court. The judge does not have authority over that situation, whether or not the kid remains in juvenile court or adult court. So what happens is, the Public Defender -- or the attorney who is on that case -- also, there's nothing that he or she can do to stop that from happening. So what you'll see is that -- and I'm going to end this with something that's relatively scary. But what you'll see is that any time a child is threatened with being put in adult court, they don't have an opportunity to get all the discovery that they would need to prepare a defense for themselves. So, typically, the child gets arrested for a crime, you set it for adjudicatory hearing, they get all the evidence. You can take that case to trial and it's adjudicated. When you get filed in adult court, the State Attorney will say, "Well, we're going to file you in adult court," and they give you an option. And your option is you can either accept the plea in juvenile court -- and typically, that means that you have to take some type of confinement, and it's usually not in the local system. It's usually what we call "up the State" or "up the road." And if you choose not to take that plea, or you haven't had a chance to defend yourself, you haven't gotten your discovery; if you do not take that plea, then they file it in adult court, so that's your direct file. When they file it in adult court, then you have an opportunity to get discovery and fight the case; but, of course, at that time, you're in the adult system. So I say that to say there's so many more juveniles who just accept the plea without having the discovery, without having an opportunity to defend themselves so they won't get put into adult court. So if you think that Florida is bad or that -- especially Miami-Dade County -- is bad in the number of direct files that you have, imagine what they would be if every child then decided that they wanted to at least have an opportunity to have their day in court. Then you would see the real numbers that are
City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
really happening in the State of Florida and Miami-Dade County; however, this does not affect that, because a Federal crime -- the Federal Court System does not have a juvenile court, if you will.
Ms. Campbell: Could I say one last thing, Commissioner Hardemon?
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Ms. Campbell: I agree with Madam Holmes that the community needs to know more about this. I'm in Overtown. I run an agency in Overtown, and I didn't know anything about this. I don't know how many of the other agencies or businesses or parents in your district know about this, but I do think it's something that the community need to be made aware of. And the other thing that I wanted to say that I agree with Renita on, and that is sometimes, the community will turn against you, because the very same thing that's hurting them -- or the very same thing that they think is there to help them could sometimes turn around and hurt them; especially when it's their children, or it's someone that they know. So I would just ask that this be brought to the community so that the community can know more about this resolution that you put forth here.
Chair Hardemon: I completely understand. I mean, this is something that I've been writing about, I've been talking about on television; I write about it in the Miami Times; I've written about it in the Miami Herald; I've had numerous discussions about it on television with local news media. I'm not creating new law, but I'm, in fact, just saying, "Let's enforce our law so that we can save more lives in our community." I completely understand where you're coming from. Everyone that --
Ms. Campbell: And I agree with you, too. I want you to know I support this.
Chair Hardemon: -- you know, everyone will -- every -- it's one of those issues where you say -- we have parades, we have runs, we have vigils, we have marches, we have press conferences, all to say, "Stop the violence. The police aren't doing anything; our politicians aren't doing anything." And then the moment that someone gets arrested for a crime like this or they start to enforce the laws that apply to crimes like this, because it's my son, my daughter, my child that committed the crime, then there's a backlash. And --
Ms. Campbell: That's what I'm talking about.
Chair Hardemon: -- I understand that, and I'll accept that.
Ms. Campbell: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: You know, but if it's my brother that's doing the killing, then the law applies to him as it applies to anyone else that's doing the killing. And so, the fact of the matter is that it is unacceptable, the amount of death that we have in our community. And if other communities can declare that it's unacceptable to them; if a business can declare that it's unacceptable to it; if a school can say that it's unacceptable to it, then a community such as Liberty Square should also be able to say that thing. And just because the person is not from that community shouldn't make it okay.
Ms. Campbell: Commissioner, I agree with you 100 percent, but I also want to say that there are some circumstances in those communities that you just mentioned; that it's not prevalent in some of the other more affluent districts, like Mr. -- that Mr. Russell represents or some of the other Commissioners represent. I agree with you on a lot of what you're saying, but I'm just letting you know that there are some circumstances going on in our community that need to be addressed.
Chair Hardemon: I understand completely. I -- like I --
City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Campbell: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: -- and just to be clear with everyone, I mean, I was born in James E. Scott Housing Projects. My grandmother had 15 kids, right? I have a cousin that was shot on the -- shot in the head on 62nd Street and 15th Avenue -- or 13th Avenue. He did not die; he's still with us; however, he can't work; who is currently facing a case today of a hit-and-run. I have -- myself have friends that have committed monstrous crimes. I have friends' brothers, the same day, put on their knees, shot and killed in the community that I played -- I'm sorry -- that I went to school in there; Charles R. Drew -- right in front of the school. I've had these experiences as well, myself, and it's because of those reasons why I give a tremendous amount of resources to after-school programs, to training programs; I give a tremendous amount of resources to Parks, so kids have a way that they can participate in positive things that don't involve picking up a firearm; it is why I give money to programs that provide people a way out of poverty; it is why we build as much affordable housing as we do, to give them those resources. However, just the same way as I pump resources into my community to keep these kids out of trouble, you have to remember that in order to solve many of these issues, you have to pull the kids or adults who are committing these crimes out of those communities, and that's what I intend on doing.
Ms. Campbell: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: And so I don't think that it's a harsh thing. I think it's a form of reality. People commit crimes. They must be punished for them; that the degree to which, that is not my concern. That is the prosecutor's concern, and I am not, nor have I ever been a prosecutor. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment?
Ms. Campbell: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Anyone else from the dais? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
RE.6 RESOLUTION 16-00852 District 4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY Commissioner ADMINISTRATION TO CONDUCT A STUDY EXAMINING THE BUILDING Francis Suarez DEPARTMENT'S CURRENT PERMITTING PROCESSES, PARTICULARLY FOR SMALLER PROJECTS AND FOR THOSE APPLICANTS WHO DO NOT UTILIZE A THIRD PARTY PERMIT EXPEDITER, AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW TO IMPROVE SAID PROCESSES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXPLORING CERTAIN POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS ENUMERATED HEREIN; FURTHER DIRECTING THAT THE CITY ADMINISTRATION SUBMIT SAID STUDY TO THE CITY COMMISSION NO LATER THAN SIXTY (60) DAYS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION. 16-00852 Legislation.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
R-16-0298
Chair Hardemon: Moving on to RE.6.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, RE.6 is a resolution of the City Commission requesting that the City Manager study the building permitting process. And what I've discovered -- I've received complaints about from people who are building small -- particularly single-family residential homes -- that sometimes, the building permit process takes longer than the actual building process, itself. And in my investigating of that, I found that there's a variety of things that we could do to streamline the process, make it more efficient. And I think part of it, also, is that involves so many departments that, you know, we need to have the departments talking to each other on a continual basis. And I understand that we are experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. We grew 11 percent in property values; we had a billion dollars' worth of construction last year; 14 percent the year before. And I know that puts a lot of strain on our employees and on our resources. And sometimes, it doesn't allow us to be freed up to look at how to do a better process, you know, and how to make things, you know, more efficient. Some of the things that I put in here, as an example, is, you know, an electronic permitting system; which I know we're working on, but, you know, my issue is, let's get it going. Let's -- if we have to piggyback off an already-existing one for the short term, let's do that. A variety of other things that we've talked about; you know, maybe having a symposium. Sometimes the people are complaining that architects or engineers have to have three or four plan reviews for something that really shouldn't take three or four plan reviews. Is it that our reviewers are missing things? Is it that our reviewers are, you know -- or is it that we need to educate our architects and our engineers? Maybe having a symposium, you know, once a quarter where we tell them, "Look, these are the common comments that we make, and this is how you can avoid getting these comments so we can streamline this process." Do we need more examiners? Do we need possibly to go outside of the City, and look at contracting as a possibility of getting our pipeline to be reduced? I mean, I know that a lot of the big developers have private providers, and that obviously works well for them. But at -- there's a lot of people that are building smaller things -- homes, buildings, et cetera, very small buildings -- and, you know, some of them are taking months and months and months to get just a building permit. And when -- they're not asking for anything -- any zoning changes or anything like that. I know for a while -- and I want to commend Mr. Garcia -- the issue was the tree issue that we talked about, and that was creating some -- in particularly certain areas of the City. So I just want to ask the City Manager to come back in 30 days with a plan that is reflective of collaboration with all the departments that are in that process. I think he -- Assistant City Manager Ihekwaba is a phenomenal employee that we have, and I think if -- he can come to us with a very comprehensive way of how we get this process reduced. I've always talked about streamlining things. We talked about it in the case of our Unsafe Structures, and we streamlined that process. I'm talking to CIP (Capital Improvement Programs) constantly about getting -- narrowing the -- what I call the complaint-to-completion time frame; when somebody complains and asks for a public project to the time it's complete. And this is another big one, because I'm constantly getting complaints and concerns about this. So I just want to move the item and I want ask the Administration to come back in 30 days with a comprehensive report.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item?
Brenda Betancourt: Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. My only concern is I have around 35 different small developers. They do four-, five-, six-unit house, and sometimes, I think it's not the Building Department, but it's all the other departments that comes with it. And then it's so hard if you pass one, two, three, four departments, and then the new environmental review is not the same, and then the Zoning Department tell you what the other departments approve is wrong, you have to do this. Then you have to go back, change the plans, and do all over again.
City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
If you realize the person who's doing a house, for example, and they do the changes, and you have back and forth during nine months, regardless of if it's your private house or it's for investments, nine months is a lot of time. Then you haven't even built. You haven't even have a chance to do anything. Then you go back and forth. And maybe the reason is we need more reviewers, be able to -- the comments be faster. But it is really, really bad. And since I have the opportunity to have you all -- and I can put it on record -- I would love to have those directors having a meeting with a -- I don't know -- 20, 30 developers, small developers -- and be able to tell them what is all their concern. You receive a lot of phone calls from us, emails and all kind of things. And I love all of you guys, but he's always the one normally answer his cell all the time, and we drive him insane, you know. So it's really hard for people to try to build a house, and you have your plans sitting in somebody's desk for two months.
Commissioner Suarez: And that's one good point. Sometimes it's just a matter of -- we talked about this over the -- you know, I've talked about this with all the directors. Sometimes, because we don't have an electronic system, you know, you have to physically bring your plans to one place; it has to be physically moved to another place, and just that, alone, can take a day, just in the physical moving. Now, when you're talking about eight different departments, that's just eight days, just in moving paper from one place to another. And that's assuming that somebody is walking it over diligently from one place to another. When it's an electronic system, everyone can access it at the same time. And so, I think, you know, that's the concern; is that, you know, we're not being as efficient as we can be, or as other governments are. And part of what I've always pushed for is to implement and utilize technology as a means of being more efficient and effective at delivering our services.
Ms. Betancourt: At least to me, I just want to say this -- I'm sorry that -- two seconds. It's just I'd love to facilitate the meeting for all those that having so much trouble in this -- in the department, because sometimes, it's not Building; sometimes, it is Planning; or sometimes, it's Zoning; sometimes, it's Public Work; you know, sometimes, neither department. One approve you on one side, and then the next department tell you, "No, but you cannot do this." So how come you don't know if you are in the same process and then all supposedly know? I'm not even in building myself, nor do I want to be; but, unfortunately, I have to hear the complaints. So I would love to facilitate the meetings; 30, 60 -- you tell me how many do you want in one room; have them all and explain, and maybe that way, we all can start getting more answers that we need. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Miguel Soliman: Good afternoon again. Miguel Soliman, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I just want to bring up an issue, and first of all, commend Mr. Ponce. I've worked with him a lot, and since he's been at the Building Department, with him, his door is always available. You can always see him. No matter how complicated, how busy the day, he's there for you. So anybody that says otherwise, I mean, I don't know, but that hasn't been my experience, and I think we can agree on that.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Mr. Soliman: One element that I have seen -- and not so much in his department, but in other departments -- is -- I like to call it "the inspector" or "the processor with the 'God complex.'" Okay? And that is something very difficult. When you have to go to that individual and your business depends on that individual, and you've got employees that you have to feed that are depending on you seeing that individual all the time, and that individual has the "God complex," nobody, nobody is going to speak against him, because you depend on him, your business depends on him. We've got a few of these throughout the system. Maybe one of the directions we need to go is identifying these individuals. And there's not that many of them, but the ones that are hurt. And we need to let them know somehow that, you know, they're here to help facilitate and there is
City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
no place in public service for that kind of an attitude. And I just wanted to say that. And again, I'd like to commend Mr. Ponce; he's done an excellent job. But that's a point I wanted to bring up. It's not fair to the public. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any other person that'd like to speak on public comment? Seeing none, I'll closing the public hearing at this time. You're recognized, sir.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba: Good afternoon. Zeri Ihekwaba, Assistant City Manager. The respective departments in the City that handles plans review, we've already been meeting, and there is a tentative date for a workshop for most of the plans reviewers and the -- as well as the plans expeditors that work for the private providers. We are hoping to have the first workshop sometime this summer, so I would rather ask that, instead of the 30 days, you give us at least 60 days, so that the product of the workshop can be flowed into the template that we're going to develop and present to the City Commission.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with the 60 days, because I think I want it to be productive.
Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Certainly, if it takes more time for it to be a productive study, the better. I would say not just expeditors, but I think part of the issue sometimes is with the, you know, architects and the engineers, also, who are producing the plans, because the expeditors are the ones that are sort of bringing it from one place to the other. But I want to make sure that the engineers and the architects are collaborating with the Administration so that they understand what's expected of them, so when they produce the plans, they're getting less and less comments, which reduces everything; for you guys, as well.
Mr. Ihekwaba: Exactly. I agree with you in total. In addition to that, we're also looking in terms of preparing some checklists, frequently asked questions, frequently committed errors.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Mr. Ihekwaba: And we're going to put them together, provide solutions so that folks can have them before they actually commence a plans review or the development of the design drawings before they come in. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: So there was an amendment to the motion that was placed. Is there -- does the seconder accept the amendment?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion from the dais? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): As amended.
City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: As amended.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, sir. I'd just like to make comment that the City of Miami employees for the most part do a job to the best of their abilities and with courtesy, and if anybody is having a "God-like" conflict that you have a concern with, please let us know and we'll address those individually. So thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
RE.7 RESOLUTION 16-00853 District 2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ("CITY COMMISSION") Commissioner Ken DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE A NEW SECTION IN THE Russell CITY COMMISSION AGENDA TITLED FUTURE LEGISLATION; DIRECTING THE CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATION ("CITY ADMINISTRATION") TO PUBLISH ANY AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF MIAMI CODE, OR TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MIAMI 21 CODE, SPONSORED OR CO-SPONSORED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AT LEAST SIXTY (60) DAYS PRIOR TO FIRST READING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR FIFTEEN (15) DAYS AFTER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS PUBLISHED AFTER FIRST READING; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAINTAIN ALL COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC. 16-00853 Back-Up from Law Dept.pdf 16-00853 Legislation.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0303
Note for the Record: Please see item SR.1 for minutes pertaining to item RE.7.
RE.8 RESOLUTION 16-00693 Office of Management A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH and Budget ATTACHMENT(S), ADDING CAPITAL PROJECTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 MULTI-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 15-0394, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 10, 2015, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 15-0416, AND RESOLUTION NO. 15-0424, BOTH ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2015, RESOLUTION NO. 15-0463, ADOPTED OCTOBER 22, 2015, RESOLUTION NO. 15-0547, ADOPTED DECEMBER 10, 2015, RESOLUTION NO. 16-0021, ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 2016, AND RESOLUTION NO. 16-0234, ADOPTED MAY 12, 2016, AND REVISING CURRENT APPROPRIATIONS AMONG APPROVED PROJECTS; FURTHER DE-APPROPRIATING ONE PROJECT AND TRANSFERRING THE
City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
ASSOCIATED FUNDING BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR TRANSFER OUT FOR NEW APPROPRIATIONS AND TRANSFERS OUT TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AND COMMUNITY ENTITIES; FURTHER APPROPRIATING AND RE-APPROPRIATING FUNDING FOR THE EXISTING AND ADDED PROJECTS; RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING CERTAIN NECESSARY ACTIONS BY THE CITY MANAGER AND DESIGNATED CITY DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND GRANTS IN PROGRESS. 16-00693 Summary Form.pdf 16-00693 Legislation.pdf 16-00693 Exhibit A.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-16-0299
Chair Hardemon: RE.8.
Christopher Rose (Director): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management and Budget. RE.8 is a capital re-appropriation item. Lines 1 through 5 are at the request of Mayor Regalado; line 6, at the request of Commissioner Gort; 8 through 10, Commissioner Russell; 11 through 14, Commissioner Carollo; and lines 15 through 24, at the request of Commissioner Suarez. Lines 7 and 25 to the end are administrative items, moving funds from one project to another. There are two de-appropriations at the end; page 4 of Exhibit "A," which is both at the request of the Mayor; $200,000 to be transferred back to the general fund and then used to reimburse the State Attorney's Office for additional staff to close high -- clear open criminal cases in the City of Miami; and $85,000 to be used as a grant for Coconut Grove Collaborative, to pay for information kiosks on Grand Avenue; and then there's one new appropriation from special revenue in Parks, allocated to the Kinloch Park Building Addition Project. Be happy to take any questions you may have.
Chair Hardemon: Is there anyone from the public that'd like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there any -- is there a motion from the dais?
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Gort --
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded by Commissioner Carollo. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Mr. Rose: Thank you, Commissioners.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
RE.9 RESOLUTION 16-00857 City Manager's Office A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR PROJECT NO. 40-B70184, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $950,000.00, FROM GENERAL FUND TRANSFERS AND FIRE IMPACT FEES, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE-RESCUE' S COMPREHENSIVE CANCER PREVENTION PROGRAM: AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 16-00857 Summary Form.pdf 16-00857 Commission Presentation Cancer PPT.pdf 16-00857 Legislation.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0291
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I move RE.9, which is the resolution allocating the $950,000 for the Cancer Prevention Program?
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded without objection to hear it. Well, first, we're going to hear the item. It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept the item. I'll open it up for public discussion at this time if there's anyone from the public that'd like to speak on the item. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. You're recognized, sir, for discussion.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. I'll just say briefly that I can't comprehend the loss that the family has suffered. You know, when people are lost unexpectedly, everyone always has the impression that they are heroic or that they are exceptional, but when you hear about Ralph's qualifications, it's clear that this is someone extraordinary that we lost. And his legacy not only endures through his wife and his child, but has to endure through the work of his family in advancing the cause of making sure that tragedies like this don't happen again. And so, I think, as the doctor said earlier, you know, this is certainly a model for what other cities should be doing. And I think the presumption issue, which is a huge issue, is one that, you know, I'd also like the Commission to consider as a resolution supporting presumption at the State level. When you have a correlation that's 400 percent between incidents of cancer with people that are firefighters and the general public, there has to be some sort of a presumption that they're being exposed to certain chemicals that can increase the incidents. So I'd ask that that be a companion motion to this motion, but I also want to tell Doctor -- that as president of the Miami-Dade League of Cities, I'm going to be pushing for this throughout the entire County in terms of cities, and making this part of our legislative agenda statewide.
Chair Hardemon: Just to be clear, the motion on the floor is to accept RE.9, so that's the motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion about that motion? Sir, do you want to be recognized to speak?
City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Dr. Juan Garcia: My name is Dr. Juan Garcia. I'm Ralph Garcia's father. I live in 3850 Southwest 130th Avenue. I just want to thank the Commission again, and the Mayor, for your brave steps. We are one of 14 states in the United States of America that does not have fire cancer presumption. And basically, all the studies have already shown observational studies that correlate. Unfortunately, this year, we have been mandated by Tallahassee to prove the relationship between firefighters and cancer in the State of Florida, despite the fact that 36 other states have already established it. So thanking the Sylvester Center who -- taking the initiative of establishing a Firefighter Cancer Registry; and now, a national movement for establishing a National Firefighter Cancer Registry. I think we're moving forward; but, like I said, we're taking very tiny steps. It is a big, big mountain that we have to overcome, based on misinterpretation sometimes of what fire cancer presumption is. There are many clauses that protect cities and municipalities from abuse of such fire cancer presumption; unfortunately, there's a lot of misconception. And it's our job to go ahead and explain in plain English what it means. And what it means basically is the young firefighter has a right to have fire cancer presumption, a protection for their family. Ralph was far ahead of his time, as he had already a cancer insurance policy. When he established it, I asked him why. And he said, "I am aware of this." Ralph was a researcher, a very smart individual; but, unfortunately, that is not the case throughout. And, as I mentioned in one of my previous talks in front of firefighters, we have a lot of Venn diagrams that don't intersect, and so we must get together in all Venn diagrams. And I think the City of Miami is a very courageous city in pursuing it; and for that, we're so humbly grateful. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Any further discussion from anyone from the dais? All in favor of the motion, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Was -- Do I have to make a companion motion on the presumption issue? Resolution in favor of Fire Department's efforts and Dr. Garcia's efforts to establish presumption at the State level.
Chair Hardemon: Well, there's one thing -- I know that this triggers a lot of different concerns regarding a liability for the City and some other things, so I would be more comfortable if we had the resolution before us, so we can understand exactly what the issue is --
Commissioner Suarez: Fine.
Chair Hardemon: -- before we make a resolution blindly.
Commissioner Suarez: I'd like to sponsor that resolution.
Chair Hardemon: Correct. That'd be great.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chair, is that for -- would you like that drafted for July 14?
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Mr. Min: Thank you.
City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, thank you.
Chair Hardemon: All right, let's move back to our regularly scheduled agenda.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, there's a time certain item at 10 a.m., I believe. If I'm not mistaken, that was sent out by the Clerk for the Charter Review.
END OF RESOLUTIONS
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
3:00 P.M. TIME CERTAIN
AC.1 ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION 16-00841a Office of the City UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, Attorney THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF: VICTOR IGWE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-21603, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA; VICTOR IGWE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 11-35238 CA 05, BEFORE THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND VICTOR IGWE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 3D15-1307, BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO “WILLY” GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO; THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MÉNDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT KEVIN R. JONES; AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY, STEPHANIE K. PANOFF, AND BARBARA A. DIAZ. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION. 16-00841a Memo - Office of the City Attorney.pdf 16-00841a Notice to the Public.pdf DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Calling the meeting back into order.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chair, may I?
City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Mr. Min: Thank you. On June 22, 2016, under the provisions of Section 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes, the City Attorney requested that the City Commission meet in private to discuss pending litigation in the cases of Victor Igwe versus City of Miami, Case Number 15-21603, before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida; Victor Igwe versus City of Miami, Case Number 11-35238 CA 05, before the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Victor Igwe versus City of Miami, Case Number 3D15-1307, before the Third District Court of Appeal, to which the City is presently a party. The City Commission approved the request, and will now, at approximately 3:15 p.m., commence a private attorney-client session, under the parameters of 286.011, Subsection 8, Florida Statutes. The private attorney-client session will conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon; Vice Chairman Ken Russell; Commissioners Wifredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo and Francis Suarez; City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso; City Attorney Victoria Méndez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief of Labor and Employment Kevin Jones; and Assistant State Attorneys Kerri McNulty and Stephanie Panoff. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed; and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney-client session. Thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Therefore, the meeting is in recess until we're done upstairs.
END OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
BUDGET
BU.1 BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00731 Office of Management MONTHLY REPORT and Budget I. SECTION 2-497 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES (RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) II. SECTION 18-502 (CITY'S ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT) III. SECTION 18-542 (FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES) 16-00731 Summary Form.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: You can include the budget update at this point.
Chris Rose (Director): Certainly, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management and Budget. BU.1 is the status of budgets, monthly report. We've done a thorough projection of the month of April, which closed on May 10. We're projecting a budget surplus of nine and a half million; approximately 6.3 million in the general fund and $3.2 in the internal service fund. I want to remind Commissioners that the current budget is based on $27.6 million of prior year fund balance, so this will not mean that the general fund's fund balance is increasing by the 9.5 million; instead, it's going to go down by the 27.6, and then up again, so for a total of about $18 million reduction, but that's built into the budget, and that's built into our projections right now. This projection includes the purchase of the helicopter; everything in the midyear amendment; the cost of the Fraternal Order of Police contract; and the recognition of one-time net revenue from the SkyRise Project. At about 66 percent, two-thirds of the year, we've received approximately 75.8 percent of the City's revenues, and we have expended about 63.4 percent of
City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the City's budgeted expenditures. Again, I'll be happy to take any questions you may have.
Chair Hardemon: Are there any questions? Are there any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Rose: Thank you.
END OF BUDGET
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DI.1 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00803 City Commission STATUS REPORT ON HIRING POLICE OFFICERS.
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.1 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.2 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00802 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF MIAMI BAY Commissioner WALK. Francis Suarez 16-00802 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.2 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.3 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00829 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE Commissioner BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENTS. Francis Suarez 16-00829 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.3 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.4 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00557 District 3- DISCUSSION REGARDING AN UPDATE ON THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST Commissioner Frank FOR THE MARLINS BALLPARK TICKET POLICY DIRECTIVE FROM THE Carollo MARCH 11TH COMMISSION MEETING. 16-00557 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.4 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.5 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00331 Department of DISCUSSION REGARDING THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR AN ADVANCED Information INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI BY USING Technology FIBER-OPTIC CAPABILITIES.
16-00331 - Backup Document.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.5 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.6 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00388 City Commission DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY (MSEA) ORDINANCE. 16-00388 Back-Up from Law Dept.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.6 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.7 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00245 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING INCLUSION AND/OR IMPLEMENTATION OF Commissioner GREEN SPACE IN WATSON ISLAND MASTER PLAN. Francis Suarez
16-00245 E-Mail - Discussion Item 04-14-16.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.7 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.8 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00246 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING STATUS OF VIRGINIA KEY STEERING Commissioner COMMITTEE AND ITS FIRST MEETING. Francis Suarez 16-00246 E-Mail - Discussion Item 04-14-16.pdf
City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be WITHDRAWN PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
DI.9 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00304 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING UPDATE ON MINDS AND MACHINES CITY OF Commissioner MIAMI REVENUE. Francis Suarez 16-00304 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf 16-00304 Back-Up Document.pdf DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.9 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.10 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00237 District 2 - DISCUSSION REGARDING STATE OF CONTAMINATED CITY PARKS. Commissioner Ken Russell 16-00237 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.10 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.11 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00330 District 4- STATUS REPORT REGARDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TROLLEY Commissioner SERVICE EXPANSION. Francis Suarez 16-00330 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.11 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.12 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00522 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY RENTS. Commissioner Francis Suarez 16-00522 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.12 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.13 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00559 District 2 - DISCUSSION REGARDING NIGHTLY BED AVAILABILITY FOR HOMELESS Commissioner Ken RESIDENTS. Russell 16-00559 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf 16-00559 Back-Up Documents.pdf DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.13 to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
DI.14 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00868 District 3- DISCUSSION REGARDING RECENTLY ADDED CLASSIFICATION(S) TO Commissioner Frank AFSCME LOCAL 1907 WHICH RAISES INDEPENDENCE ISSUES Carollo RESULTING IN NONPERFORMANCE OF GENERALLY ACCEPTED GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS (GAGAS). 16-00868 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Now, can we get into the Planning & Zoning items?
Commissioner Gort: We going to go in PZ (Planning & Zoning) or --?
Chair Hardemon: PZ.
Commissioner Carollo: We still have RE.9.
Chair Hardemon: No. We did -- we passed RE.9.
Vice Chair Russell: We did.
Commissioner Carollo: My apologies. I -- that's right; that's the first item we took.
Vice Chair Russell: That was (UNINTELLIGIBLE), yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: We took it out of sequence.
Chair Hardemon: The only thing we have -- we have discussion items, but --
Commissioner Gort: You want to do discussion items now, or you want to go to the Planning? You got people waiting.
Chair Hardemon: No, I want to go to the Planning & Zoning items.
City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, there's only one discussion item. We have our Auditor here. I would like to, if possible, bring up -- I don't think it'll take long, but I need to make sure that the Commission is aware of an issue that has arisen, if possible, and I think it's DI.14; again, it won't take long, but I need to make sure that the Commission is aware of an issue.
Chair Hardemon: We'll call DI.14.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, DI.14 is a discussion item regarding recently added classification in the AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 1907, which raises independence issues, resulting in non-performance of generally accepted government auditing standards, and our Auditor General is here before us to discuss that issue and see if there's some possible resolution.
Ted Guba (Auditor General): Yes. I'm going to explain to you how the union employees can affect compliance with government audited (UNINTELLIGIBLE) standards.
Chair Hardemon: Can you speak more clearly into the microphone, please?
Mr. Guba: Hello? Okay. This is better?
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record?
Mr. Guba: Oh, I -- Ted Guba, Auditor General. And I plan to explain to you how union participation and my department can affect the performance can affect the performance of government auditing standards, and it would result in reliance problems on the audit product. I'm going to make a statement on how this can occur. The purpose of performing audits is to provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs.
Commissioner Gort: You got to speak into the mike. Mike on?
Mr. Guba: Microphone is -- oh.
Commissioner Carollo: Speak a little louder.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Mr. Guba, Mr. Guba.
Mr. Guba: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Can you pass him the portable microphone, please? Go ahead right now.
Commissioner Carollo: Right now.
Mr. Guba: The purpose of performing audits is to provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. All audit reports issued by my department state that the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, commonly called "GAGAS." What does the statement mean? It means that government auditing standards provide a framework for conducting high quality audits with competency, integrity, objectivity, and independence are being followed. As a result, the audit can be relied on by the public to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services. As I said, recently, I was informed that two positions -- my senior information systems auditor and an administrative aide position were both unclassified positions; were reclassified as union positions under an agreement that was effective in March of this year, ratified by the Commission. And my senior information systems auditor is a relatively high level position in my department. In an internal audit environment, employee membership with a union can create independence and conflict of interest issues under GAGAS. As a result, certain audits will not be
City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
performed under GAGAS, and the public will not be able to rely --
Chair Hardemon: Excuse me one second. Can the sergeant-at-arms please instruct everyone who is standing outside near the restrooms that the level at which they're speaking is interrupting those of us who are inside the gallery? Thank you very much. Please continue.
Mr. Guba: As a result of these independence issues --
Chair Hardemon: Let me -- Can you come here, please?
Mr. Guba: -- the -- certain audits will not be performed under GAGAS, and the public will not be able to rely on them. In all matters relating to audit work, the individual auditor must be independent in a GAGAS audit. Independence of mind permits the performance of an audit without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an auditor to act with integrity.
Commissioner Carollo: He was fine now.
Chair Hardemon: Right, but I just want to make sure, because he may not be speaking directly into the microphone, and that's what's causing the issue.
Commissioner Carollo: He was fine now.
Chair Hardemon: Fine now? Speak into the mike. Now, speak into the mike now. Yeah, so that microphone --
Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE)
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Commissioner Gort: We're being sabotaged.
Mr. Guba: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: It's very -- it's -- the thing about it is you're going into very technical things.
Mr. Guba: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: We can't hear you. And so if we can't hear you, we won't be able to respond to you.
Mr. Guba: Okay. In all matters relating to audit work, individual audit -- the individual auditor must be independent in a GAGAS audit. Independence of mind permits the performance of an audit without being affected by influences that compromise professional judgment, thereby allowing an auditor to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism. Also, an auditor must be independent in appearance or an absence of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party having knowledge of the relevant information to reasonably conclude that the integrity, objectivity or professional skepticism of an audit team member has been compromised. Prior to conducting an audit, an independent statement is signed by all auditors on the engagement, attesting to the best of their knowledge, there are no impairments to their independence, as prescribed by GAGAS. Threats to independence include self-interest threats, bias threats, familiarity threats, and undue influence threats, among others. If any threats are identified and cannot be corrected, the audit would result in noncompliance with applicable GAGAS requirements, and the report should state the auditor did not follow GAGAS; consequently, the public could not fully rely on the report contents. It should be noted
City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
that an opinion that we received from the United States Government Accountability Office confirmed our independence concerns as a result of having union participation in our office. More than 10 years ago, the department was created by referendum, and Section 48(A) of the City Charter states that the office provides independent oversight of audit and analytical functions of the City. Section 48(E) of the City Charter states that the Independent Auditor General may issue directives setting forth the operating procedures to be followed and responsibilities to be discharged by the office. The office operating procedures require the performance of GAGAS audits; also, most State, County, and local audit organization perform GAGAS audits, and do not operate with union employees. Section 48(D) of the City Charter states that the Office of the Independent Auditor General shall be staffed by such professional assistance and support personnel as shall be designated by the Independent Auditor General and/or approved by the City's annual budget. I never designated that these classified positions be part of the Office of the Auditor General. Management designated these positions as part of my office. Due to the potential independence issues resulting in audits that do not comply with GAGAS, as described above, I cannot agree to the classified union staffing positions designated by management for my department. The department has always operated and should continue to operate with unclassified employees to maintain independence, in fact and in appearance, and enable GAGAS audits that the citizens of the City expect. And this goes along with, you know, this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that was brought from outside accounting firms, because of the problems that we're having. These are strict standards that do affect the public's reliance on my audits.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: In essence, what -- and I don't want to put words into his mouth -- but he's an accountant; he's not a lawyer. And in essence, what our Auditor General is saying is that he will be conducting audits that will not conform to generally accepted government auditing standards. There might be an independence issue -- or there is an independence issues. So, in essence, the audits that he will be performing may be -- I don't want to say "worthless," but --
Mr. Guba: It's not what the public set up when they approved the referendum to create my office; it's not what they expected.
Commissioner Carollo: So he came to me to seek some type of remedy to this issue, and I don't know if within the union and our City Attorney's Office, maybe we could have a formal meeting to discuss this issue, to see how it could be remedied, but I think he was pretty straightforward, saying that right now, there is a fear of an independence issue; and again, the audits that he will be performing will not be really worth anything.
Kevin Jones: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Kevin Jones, City Attorney's Office. We have --
Commissioner Gort: You got to speak into the mike.
Mr. Jones: Can you hear me?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Mr. Jones: We have a meeting already scheduled for July 7 to discuss some other issues related to this with the union, and we intend to bring up Mr. Guba's concerns at that point.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: Will Mr. Guba be part of that meeting?
City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Jones: Sure. Mr. Guba will be present at the meeting.
Commissioner Carollo: Perfect. And then the next Commission meeting, could we have an update? I'll put a discussion item as an update to see exactly where we are at that time.
Mr. Jones: Very good, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Are you okay with that, Mr. Guba?
Mr. Guba: Yes, I am.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Just a question so I understand it. The concern is that the staff in the Auditor's Office, in his opinion, should not be classified employees, because that will change their ability to be independent?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Guba: Any other questions?
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Guba: Okay, thank you.
END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Chair Hardemon: Moving on to the Planning & Zoning hearings.
Unidentified Speaker: PZ (Planning & Zoning)?
Commissioner Gort: PZ.
Vice Chair Russell: We lost Barnaby. There he is.
Commissioner Gort: We had some deferrals?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chair, may I read the procedures?
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Mr. Min: We will now begin the Planning & Zoning items. PZ items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak must be sworn in by the City Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have been briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. The members of the City Commission shall disclose any ex parte communications to remove the presumption of prejudice, pursuant to Florida Statute 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4.5 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard for applications requiring City Commission approval. The applicant will then present its application or request to the City Commission. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation and no one from the public wishes to speak for or against the item, the City Commission may proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may
City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. For appeals, the appellant will present its appeal to the City Commission, followed by the appellee. Staff will be allowed to make any recommendation they may have, and the public may speak, as stated before. The order of presentation shall be as described in the City Code and the Miami 21 Code. Members of the public will be permitted to speak through the Chair for not more than two minutes each, unless modified by the Chair. The City of Miami requires that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action, pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the City Commissioners that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the Commission's discretion. If any Commissioner thinks that the documents supplied to the Commission less than seven days before merit a continuance, the item may be continued by the City Commission. Thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Are there any --?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Oh.
Mr. Hannon: Will -- If anyone will be speaking on any of today's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand?
The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Are there any continuance or deferrals to be heard -- or to be considered?
Francisco Garcia: Yes, sir. For your consideration, I will read a list of items to be continued or deferred. For the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. And the items proposed today for continuance or deferral are the following: Items PZ.1 and 2; items PZ.3 and 4; items PZ.5 and 6; PZ.7; and PZ.10. What I'm happy to do is read into the record the proposed dates if the Chairman so wishes. I'm also happy to read a brief excerpt of each item for your reference.
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. Items PZ.1 and 2 are proposed to be continued to July 28. They are a land use and rezoning proposal for 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. I've consulted with the applicant attorney, and he is in agreement.
Chair Hardemon: That date would have to be the 29th.
Mr. Garcia: Sorry, sir?
Chair Hardemon: I believe that date would have to change to the 29th.
Mr. Garcia: My apologies; July 29. Items PZ.3 and 4 are proposed to be continued for October 27. I've also consulted with the applicant attorney, and they are in agreement that it should be to -- if -- should the Commission wish so -- to October 27. Items PZ.5 and 6, which are land use and zoning applications for properties at approximately 3801 Biscayne Boulevard. Those are also -- those have also been consulted with the applicant attorney, and they are proposed to be
City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
continued to September 22; and the same applies to item PZ.7; also, in this case, only a zoning application -- zoning change application for a property at 3701 Biscayne Boulevard; also consulted with the applicant attorney, and they are proposing that it be continued to September 22. A couple more items -- actually, one more only, and that would be item PZ.10. That is proposed by the Administration to be continued to July 28 --
Chair Hardemon: Which was --
Mr. Garcia: -- I'm sorry.
Commissioner Gort: 29th.
Mr. Garcia: I stand corrected; July 29; my apologies. That would be the P&Z meeting in the month of July, and that is our recommendation.
Mr. Min: And also, just a reminder for -- this morning, it was announced that PZ.14 was to be continued to July 14.
Alexander Tachmes: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman; if I can be heard on PZ.10 on the deferral?
Chair Hardemon: Typically, we don't have public hearing on the deferrals for -- because it's procedural, but feel free.
Mr. Tachmes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I'll be brief. This is Alex Tachmes, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. And Mr. Chairman, we're opposing the deferral of this item, and I'll just briefly state the reasons why. Our client had applied for a rezoning of a parcel of property near Coral Way in order to be able to put a small parking structure on the parcel right behind Coral Way and get the project going forward. That rezoning was denied in January of this year. At the same time that that item was denied, the Commission that evening promised our client that they would -- we would achieve the same objective through a Code amendment, without needing to up-zone property that was going to be a bother to many, many residents in the neighborhood; and they also promised that this would be accelerated, so that our clients could get the relief that they deserved, and the project could go forward; that was in January. It's now five months later, and we still have not had even first reading on the item. We understood that the original ordinance, as drafted, raised some concerns with the Roads Neighborhood Association; so as a result of that, we redrafted the ordinance, sent it to the Commission and to Mr. Garcia. And I'm quite certain there is no objection now by the Roads, because we have eliminated that area from the scope of the ordinance; it only affects 10 blocks now on Coral Way. So we would like the Commission to take up the item tonight. The revised ordinance has been sent to you. And I just want to close with one final comment. When we did not prevail at the Commission meeting in January on the rezoning, we decided -- our client decided, based on our advice -- to file an appeal of the Commission denial of the rezoning. It was always our understanding that the Code amendment would go forward, and as a result of that, we'd never have to reach the appeal or prosecute it fully at the City. Given that it's been five months with no action from the City's part, our clients are not instructing us to move aggressively ahead with the appeal. And, unfortunately, that will be the worst outcome for everyone, because if we win the appeal, then the court will automatically install a T4 up-zoning on that property, which is what the residents don't want. And the Code amendment would be a much easier way to resolve this without the up-zoning, but we're being left with no options.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tachmes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Is there a motion on the floor on this so far?
Chair Hardemon: Not just yet.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So I have to say that I've -- I somewhat share the attorney's frustration, and I think other members of the community that I've talked to also share the frustration, because I think what we discussed was a very simple change to what is currently before us, which would limit it to areas between 12th Avenue -- and I don't want to speak for my colleague -- to 27th Avenue. It would obviously have to change provision number 1 to be T5 and T6. And, you know, I think there's broad consensus for that, because that takes the Roads section out -- and other sections of the City that may have had an objection to it -- out of the legislation. What I fear is if his lawsuit is successful, you know, we may end up with the worst case scenario; or with a scenario that the residents didn't want, which was the T4 with the covenant. And we did say at that time that we were going to essentially work on this issue, because there seemed to be broad consensus at that meeting for that proposal, and that exempts -- and when -- the people that I've spoken to from the Roads Association simply want to see a piece of legislation that they can analyze. I mean, if -- you know, we have deferred this twice. We haven't made any changes; therefore, we haven't put anything out there to the public -- to kind of go off Commissioner Russell's issues on notice, you know, we haven't. So what worries me is if we just defer this, you know, we're not doing anything; we're not advancing the ball. I think we need some clear direction as to where this -- how this has to be redrafted, and it needs to be redrafted so that the community can analyze it and decide whether they support it or not, but to keep bringing it back in the same form really doesn't -- it really doesn't help, you know? That's my take on this.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it has been deferred, and what has happened during those deferrals? Because I could tell you this: It seems like now, everyone from the public is somewhat either against it or doesn't want this to go forward. I could tell you right now, there's members of the Roads on their way over here. I received emails from previous possible supporters. I'm telling you there will be members from the Roads within a few minutes if we wait; and again, I went to their last meeting, and they specifically told me, "No one's come to us and spoken to us." So I think part of the deferrals in the past was so there'd be some interaction with the residents and the neighbors. It's quite clear to me that that has not occurred; so, therefore, that's why nothing has necessarily moved forward. And I could tell you, the way it is right now, there is not a consensus.
Commissioner Suarez: I agree, by the way; I agree with that. I think you're right, and I think -- but the problem is that the way it is right now does not reflect what we've talked about. You get what I'm saying? And so my point is, if -- you know, and I understand what the Planning director tried to do, and I respect him for trying to do it, because he did it in fairness, within the confines of the original attempt to expedite this; and he wanted to do something broader, because he thought it could benefit other areas of the City. My issue is there was significant push-back on that specific issue, and we then talked about narrowing it to what was originally discussed at the first meeting, which was essentially between 12th and 27th Avenue, and it obviously would have to be changed to T5 and T6. And what I'm saying is, it's hard for the public to opine on a piece of legislation they haven't seen. And so my suggestion is that we change it to something that reflects what we've talked about; then they can decide whether they support it or not support it. But, certainly, it would take out, in my view, the Roads. And every member of the Roads that I've talked to is happy about that and is concerned about this current draft impacting them, and I don't blame them. I think the Commissioner is right; this current draft, as it's currently drafted, does potentially impact them. So, you know, that's the rub. You
City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
know, I just don't -- I don't want this to be perpetually -- you know, this is the third time that we're here, and that's the concern. And I think that the -- you know, and we're under threat of lawsuit, which could, you know, bring about the worst case scenario, you know. So that's something that I -- that was what we were trying to avoid. What we were trying to avoid was a situation that the public did not like, which I deemed as the "square peg/round hole fit," which was the T4 with the covenant. Guess what? There's another applicant in the audience from my district that if we don't pass this legislation is going to try to rezone a property in my district, T4 and bring a covenant; same thing, because then that becomes the standard; that's how we get to this point. And I think the community who spoke at that meeting -- in fact, this was suggested by a member of the community from Silver Bluff to -- that came up and said, "Look, you know, we think the better way of doing it is to limit the envelope of that back lot so that you buffer it from the" -- "and protect the residents of the neighborhood." And there was broad consensus for that, and I just -- the frustration that I feel is just deferring it without making any legislative changes is not going to get us anywhere, in my opinion.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: And that member from Silver Bluff sent me an email requesting the deferral --
Commissioner Suarez: Oh, I --
Commissioner Carollo: -- which I sent. Now --
Commissioner Suarez: -- Okay, but I agree under this -- I don't disagree with what you're saying, Commissioner; don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I'm just saying that I don't want to defer this same piece of legislation. I want to defer -- if we're going to defer for two weeks, let's defer it, but with a piece of legislation that reflects what it is we're trying to accomplish; not the same legislation that everyone agrees that we don't accept. You get what I'm saying?
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. But what I want is for our City Administration, since it's a City -- since the City is the applicant -- go out to the community. Mr. Tachman [sic], I thought that's what was going to be happening with your firm, also, the last times that it was deferred; to make sure that we have some consensus, and then bring back the legislation, amend it so that we could take up. As it is right now, one way or another, we still have to defer this. I don't think that we could go as it is.
Mr. Tachmes: Commissioner --
Commissioner Carollo: And I'm not necessarily sure --
Commissioner Suarez: I agree with that, thought.
Commissioner Carollo: -- that right now, today, we say, "Do this change to this change or that change" --
Commissioner Suarez: I think --
Commissioner Carollo: -- "and then bring it back," you know?
Commissioner Suarez: -- and I'll tell you why we're not.
City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Because I think we need to take input from the residents. And in all fairness, like I'm telling you, the residents have not been spoken to.
Mr. Tachmes: Mr. -- sorry -- Commissioner Carollo, just to respond to that, we did reach out to the residents and that's why we redrafted the law, and we redrafted it to eliminate the Roads area. But what's in your agenda, for whatever reason, is the same thing as Commissioner Suarez says, for two months. So it's perfectly normal Silver Bluff looks at the agenda; it sees the same thing that was there two months ago, and they're opposing it.
Commissioner Suarez: Of course, they're going to oppose it.
Mr. Tachmes: Of course, they're going to oppose it. Unless they see the revised version that addresses their concerns, they're going to keep on opposing what's here. That's why --
Commissioner Suarez: I would do the same thing.
Mr. Tachmes: -- I've sent that twice to the Commission, a revised version of the law. I sent it to Maria Lievano-Cruz, as well, and she was going to review it for the Roads. But there's really no reason why the law can't go forward in its current form. It's really -- I mean, it affects 10 blocks on Coral Way; doesn't affect the Roads; it's exactly what was discussed in January. I think it's a pretty straightforward solution.
Commissioner Carollo: You have the president of the Roads Association here; you have Mr. Mann here that also lives in that area, so, I mean, have they been reached out to? Have -- you know. So if you could please put in the record, because that's the information that I'm receiving, you know. I represent all these areas. This is the information that they're telling me, face to face, no hearsay. And I'm not an attorney, but I get it. There is no hearsay; face to face, their telling me. So, realistically, once again, I'm seeing that either -- even people that possibly would have been in favor of this are not even in favor of it right now. So, listen, what I'm saying is --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah --
Commissioner Carollo: -- reach out to them and bring it back, you know.
Mr. Tachmes: Commissioner, I don't have the authority to continue to have my clients spend legal fees on this issue.
Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wait, wat.
Mr. Tachmes: I just don't.
Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wat.
Commissioner Carollo: The City is the applicant; the City could reach out to them, then.
Mr. Tachmes: I know Commissioner Suarez has met with Ms. Mann; I know she's met with a lot of folks.
Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wait. Mr. Chair, if I may? Look, here's the deal: Deferring this piece of legislation, to me, doesn't make sense, because our residents don't want it. I think it's clear that they do not want this legislation. I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The question is, is there another version of legislation that they may want? That's the question. And so, to defer this piece of legislation does nothing, because you're just going to get in the next Commission meeting this piece of legislation, which they oppose.
City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: You don't think --
Commissioner Suarez: So my thing is, residents have spoken on what is a preferred piece of legislation. Let's look at another draft of legislation, put that on our agenda; and if they oppose it then, we'll get their comments on that. And then, if they oppose it, that's great; we'll vote against it or we'll defer it, or we'll keep talking about it. But I just don't think putting this piece that nobody agrees with, nobody wants back on the next piece -- the next agenda is going solve anything.
Mr. Tachmes: That's what my --
Commissioner Suarez: Because we've done it twice already, by the way.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. I understand what you're saying. So the right thing would be to withdraw -- no -- yeah; to withdraw this legislation, and then bring back something new, totally new.
Mr. Min: Only for clarification, Commissioner, if this item's going to be withdrawn and a new item is brought back, it would have to go back to the land planning agency, which is PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board). So I do want to make that clarification, because I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Suarez: And you don't have to do that to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish here.
Mr. Min: -- comments on --
Commissioner Suarez: Go ahead, Mr. Planning Director.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia: Yes. I'll say briefly for purposes of clarification that your Planning & Zoning Department has tried in earnest over the last weeks -- and months probably now -- to meet with any and all stakeholders -- and there have been many -- who are interested in this piece of legislation. What I am here to tell you humbly is that we have not been able to garner any significant consensus to any version of this ordinance that I've been able to assess.
Commissioner Suarez: But can I --?
Mr. Garcia: That's one brief point, and I'll say another one briefly for your consideration that I'm happy to receive any and all feedback, because, clearly, there's an intent to make this work somehow if it's -- if it can be done. The other point I'll raise is that some of the alternatives to this legislation that I've heard mentioned or suggested by yourselves and others, as well, would certainly send it back to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, because it expands the scope of the legislation. In some instances, it is reduced, such as the geographical area; in some instances, it is expanded in the sense of including T5 as opposed to only T6. So depending on the variation that -- if you so wish -- you instruct us to proceed with, we will then have to retailor our plan to go forward.
Commissioner Suarez: My issue is -- and I'll use Ms. Mann as an example. I got emails from Ms. Mann requesting a draft; continual emails, "When is the draft coming?" And the answer was, "We'll get you a draft." The answer was, "We'll get you a draft," and the draft never came. The agenda was set with the same draft that was two weeks before, with the same draft that was two weeks before. So my point is, I don't see the purpose of just keeping -- to put this piece of legislation that nobody wants -- it's clear that nobody wants it -- on the next agenda. I think
City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
what's -- you've taken our comments. Try to draft something that incorporates what we're trying to accomplish. Put that out there, let people discuss it, debate it, and give us their ideas as to whether they approve it or not.
Commissioner Carollo: And with that said, I don't mind making a motion to withdraw PZ.10, with a direction to come back in the future with new legislation to see if we could address this; as long as you reach out to the public.
Commissioner Suarez: And I would only disagree with that because you would just go backwards when you don't necessarily have to do that. What I'm saying is all -- what we can do here is just present another draft that the community can vet that they can read that we can answer questions on, and agree with it, disagree with it at the next meeting, say we need to tweak it, whatever the case may be. But as far as I know, I'm sure you I'm sure you've had meetings with people -- I've had many meetings with people, many discussions, and I would love to have many more discussions. The problem is that I don't have a draft, so what am I discussing? That's the frustration. So if I had a draft, I could, for example, meet with the president of the Roads Association and say, "This is our draft. Do you support this or not?" "I don't support this because of 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z.'" "Okay, let's see if we can tweak it, let's see if we can" -- whatever the case may be.
Mr. Garcia: And I'm sorry, I certainly don't mean to speak at cross purposes, but the most agile way, at least I can think of, to address that issue is to meet live, face to face, with groups of stakeholders that can express their concerns, and we can then try to cobble together some sort of consensus.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Garcia: And I haven't, thus far, been able to find that. That's my --
Commissioner Suarez: And I think that a little bit of this is "What comes first, the chicken or the egg?" or "How are we designing this process?" I think you're trying to forge a -- and sometimes I try to get the Administration to focus. You're trying to forge a broad consensus and create legislation. What I'm saying is you're the Planning director. You're an expert, okay? We rely on you. So put out a draft based on what we've talked about; that is a draft, it's not going to be perfect; we know that legislation rarely is. But they can't analyze the quality of the draft until they see the draft; nor can I, so that's the issue. I'm not saying to adopt his draft; certainly not necessarily his draft. What I'm saying is take the components of all the different things that you think are good to accomplish the goal; put out a draft. Since you are our Planning director and you are, you know, the chief author, and let us digest it and debate it, and vote on it. But to simply just put out the -- you know, we've done this already. I mean, aside from all the time that this has taken, we've deferred this twice. It's just -- you know, plus we're under litigation, so.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Let me ask a question. Can you defer this and then a draft get created in between here and the next meeting? And they can get together with the people; and then the next meeting, they can come up with a new draft.
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely.
Commissioner Gort: Because they already been talking to the people, so.
Commissioner Suarez: We should have done that a month ago.
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. But nevertheless, I think it's clear that -- what I'm asking for our Planning director to do is to put together a draft proposal -- okay? -- that incorporates the comments that the residents have made, the comments that we've made, the reality that we want the Roads to be excluded -- okay? -- and that it's only going to be from 12th to 27th, and that's it.
Commissioner Carollo: At the same -- but with that said, I want to make sure that our City departments reaches out --
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Commissioner Carollo: -- to the different neighborhoods --
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and to the different neighbors prior to that draft or with that draft, but I want -- they have told me face to face that the City has not reached out to them, so I want to make sure that our Planning director reaches out to them.
Commissioner Gort: No, he'll set up the public hearings.
Mr. Garcia: I will redouble my efforts to do so.
Commissioner Carollo: As a matter of fact, he was there in front of us when one of the members of the Roads --
Katie Gant: Hi. I'm Katie Gant, the president of the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. Yes, we've met with Mr. Garcia. We're saying that we haven't been -- we haven't had a meeting with the developer, the attorney for the developer. I know Maria Cruz has corresponded through your office, Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Ms. Gant: But we haven't seen anything official.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Ms. Gant: All we've seen is what is in the agenda, and we disagree with it, and we're not the only ones. The Roads is not the only neighborhood opposed to this.
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Ms. Gant: We had a meeting with you and Elvis Cruz, Grace Solares --
Commissioner Suarez: I think what we all agree on --
Ms. Gant: -- and other neighbor -- and other neighborhood associations from up north in the City, so we are not the only ones. So we don't see how, you know, just taking us out is going to solve anything. We think, you know --
Commissioner Carollo: And by the way, Grace Solares asked for the previous deferral. So again, it seems like from all areas -- that's what you're saying, Ms. Gant -- you know, I'm getting hesitation. And in the last meeting, which Francisco Garcia was there, one of your members said, "I'm still waiting. I haven't heard anything." I don't know if between that meeting and now, Mr. --
City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Gant: So we met with you in that meeting. You came to our neighborhood association meeting at the end of last month; however, I did email you and you, Commissioner, last week and this week, trying to get some explanation of what's happening with this, and I haven't received a response from either of you.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? Mr. Chair.
Ms. Gant: So we need more information before we can --
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. And I think the key here is you guys need to see a draft.
Ms. Gant: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, how can you take a position on a piece of legislation --? We clearly don't agree with -- we clearly all agree that this one is no good --
Ms. Gant: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: -- for a million reasons that you articulated very well. But we need a draft of what we're trying to accomplish so you guys can say, "This makes sense, this doesn't make sense," as a homeowners association. And all the other home -- like you said -- all the other homeowners associations --
Ms. Gant: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: -- can chime in on it, too.
Ms. Gant: Exactly. Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, real quick.
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Commissioner Carollo: Question for our City Attorney: When we talk about a draft -- so I think we've established that as it is, it's not working. Would a draft be a new version; therefore --
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: -- do we present that draft to the -- at the Commission meeting, if it's continued? So how would that work?
Mr. Min: Not necessarily; it depends on how you're going to modify this legislation. If you're going to change it where it also includes T5 and T4s or other transect zones, that would be a substantial change which requires it go back to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. If you're simply going to modify the buffer -- the type of buffer that's going to be used or the type of setback that's going to be involved, or some of the modifications that are currently in the existing proposal that is not something that's substantial, that can come back to City Commission, whether in a month, two months; however long you think is necessary.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: Oh, sorry.
City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Please.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. This is a -- what we talked about originally when this application came before us was a significant limitation from what the Planning Department had initially proposed as a piece of legislation; in other words, it was going to be significantly limited to a very small area, because that area had analyzed the issue and had taken a position, those homeowners associations, which were Silver Bluff and Shenandoah, so that's it. And I think what -- the concern here is that, you know, for us to feel comfortable, we need to see what it looks like, and then we'll feel comfortable taking a position, "yea" or "nay." And then if we need to make modifications, we can also do that. And I think that's all I'm saying, is I don't want to just defer this, because once this comes back next Commission meeting, guess what? We're going to meet together in two weeks, and we're going to say the same exact thing; so rather than do that, let's put together a draft, let's send it out with plenty of time, so everyone can look at it, take a position, and we'll go from there.
Unidentified Speaker: That's good.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, what's the motion?
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion?
Commissioner Suarez: So here's the motion -- I'll make the motion. The motion is to defer PZ.9 -- I'm sorry -- PZ.10, with a direction to the City Administration that they redraft it; to only take into account 12th Avenue to 27th Avenue; and all the other comments that we've made in previous meetings, in term of the limiting factors; to please get a draft out well in advance of the next Commission meeting; a week before the next Commission meeting, at the very minimum, to all the stakeholders who have previously commented on this, who have expressed an interest -- Shenandoah, Silver Bluff; you know, the Roads, et cetera, everybody.
Commissioner Carollo: Roads, Vizcaya.
Commissioner Suarez: All of them -- Vizcaya, everybody. And get the draft to them so that they can make a comment on it. Thanks.
Mr. Min: And to July 29?
Commissioner Carollo: July 29. Second; discussion.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Chair, if we could include all the other items that were mentioned earlier by the Planning director.
Chair Hardemon: I just don't want to confuse everyone with adding more things to the motion, so if we could just deal with this one motion, that'd be great. Discussion on this one?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. City Attorney, would that be a material change?
Mr. Min: It depends on what's written. Unfortunately --
City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: You said what the draft is going to --
Mr. Min: -- so based on what I'm hearing, it sounds like it's going to be smaller --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, significantly.
Mr. Min: -- than what's already been drafted, so if it's smaller, that would be fine.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Min: If you're going to increase what was originally proposed, that would be a concern which would require further review by the PZAB. But if you already have something that's drafted at this size and you're going to decrease what's going to be covered, that is acceptable to come back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Mr. Garcia: And if I may, Commissioners, I certainly am working with the City Attorney's Office, but we certainly have a very good sense, a very clear sense on what would constitute a redrafting or simply an amendment that can come back to you right away. We understand, one, that it is important that we bring this back to you quickly, before the next meeting; and that the draft be published as soon as possible; and we also accept your directive to work within a constraint that renders it minimally changed, not majorly changed, so that it doesn't trigger a ruling by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. I want to verify it's coming for the next P&Z meeting.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. And to augment on that, the draft shall be ready early next week; certainly, no later than a week from today.
Chair Suarez: Good.
Commissioner Carollo: Say that again; I'm sorry?
Mr. Garcia: Simply to clarify that the draft, the new draft will be published and made available to all, including yourselves, of course, no later than a week from today.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Any further unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Mr. Tachmes: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Is there a motion to --?
Commissioner Gort: We need the motion for the other items.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion for items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 14, as indicated earlier?
City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Move it.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved.
Mr. Hannon: 6 was also -- I'm sorry, Chair; it was 5 and 6.
Vice Chair Russell: And 6.
Chair Hardemon: I didn't say that? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14.
Mr. Garcia: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any unreadiness about that motion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, great.
Later...
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair --
Chair Hardemon: Well, the first thing we can do is, City Clerk, you can swear anyone in that was added to the P&Z.
Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, if you will be speaking on any of tonight's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand?
The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair.
PZ.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00974lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.17 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF A PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 0.40 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
15-00974lu 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00974lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00974lu Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00974lu Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 Design West, LLC
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-00974zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0.
PURPOSE: This will change the Land Use Designation of the eastern portion of the above property from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial".
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.1 was continued to the July 29, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00974zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-L "URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4-L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" AND T4-L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00974zc 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00974zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00974zc Legislation (v3).pdf 15-00974zc Exhibit A.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 NW 2 Avenue, LLC
City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-00974lu. Item does not include a covenant. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval, with conditions, on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0.
PURPOSE: This will allow a Zoning Classification change from T3-L "Urban Transect Zone- Limited" to T4-L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" and T4-L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" to T4-O "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Open" for the above property.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.2 was continued to the July 29, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.3 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00969lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1.07± ACRES OF THE REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865 AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00969lu 06-23-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00969lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00969lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00969lu Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00969lu Exhibit A.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, and 3875 Day Avenue [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ethan Wasserman, Esquire, on behalf of Coconut Grove Gateway, LLC.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the parcels located at 3875, 3865, 3851 and 3841 Day Avenue and denial of the parcels located at 3860, 3850, 3840 and 3830 Day Avenue. See companion File ID 15-00969zc.
PURPOSE: This will change the land use designation for the above properties from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial".
City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.3 was deferred to the October 27, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.4 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00969zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-O "SUB-URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00969zc 06-23-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00969zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00969zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00969zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00969zc Exhibit A.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, and 3875 Day Avenue [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ethan Wasserman, Esquire, on behalf of Coconut Grove Gateway, LLC
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 (3841, 3851, 3865 and 3875 Day Avenue) and denial of Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 (3860, 3850, 3840 and 3830 Day Avenue). Item does not include a covenant. See companion File ID 15-00969lu. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 9-2.
PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change for the above properties from T3-O "Sub-urban Transect Zone - Open" with a NCD-3 Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District, to T4-O "General Urban Transect Zone - Open" with a NCD-3 Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.4 was deferred to the October 27, 2016 Planning and Zoning
City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commission Meeting.
PZ.5 ORDINANCE First Reading 09-00863lu1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF .75± ACRES, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 455 NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3801 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
09-00863lu1 06-23-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 09-00863lu1 Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 09-00863lu1 Supporting Docs.pdf 09-00863lu1 Legislation (v2).pdf 09-00863lu1 Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 3801 Biscayne Boulevard and 455 Northeast 38th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of 3801 Biscayne Ltd. and 3801 Biscayne Corp.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 09-00863zc1. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on February 17, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial".
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.5 was deferred to the September 22, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.6 ORDINANCE First Reading 09-00863zc1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO.
City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY .75± ACRES, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 455 NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3801 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM T4-R, "GENERAL URBAN ZONE - RESTRICTED", TO T5-O, "URBAN CENTER ZONE - OPEN"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 09-00863zc1 06-23-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 09-00863zc1 Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 09-00863zc1 Supporting Docs.pdf 09-00863zc1 Legislation (v2).pdf 09-00863zc1 Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 3801 Biscayne Boulevard and 455 Northeast 38th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of 3801 Biscayne Ltd. and 3801 Biscayne Corp.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the proposed zoning change as presented, but recommended approval of the proposed zoning change with the condition that the entire subject area be rezoned to T5-L. See companion File ID 09-00863lu1. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on February 17, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning for a portion of the above properties from "T4-R" General Urban Zone - Restricted to "T5-O" Urban Center Zone - Open.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.6 was deferred to the September 22, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.7 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00975zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T6-12-L "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T6-12-O "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3701 AND 3737 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 306 AND 316 NORTHEAST 38TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
15-00975zc 06-23-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00975zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00975zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00975zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00975zc Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 3701 and 3737 Biscayne Boulevard and 306 and 316 NE 38th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Melissa Tapanes Llahues, Esquire, on behalf of MacArthur Properties III, LLC
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on September 2, 2015, by a vote of 7-2.
PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change for the above properties from T6-12-L to T6-12-O.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.7 was deferred to the September 22, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.8 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00977ap AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 3 AND 7 OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ("MIAMI 21 CODE"), AS AMENDED, APPROVING THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PARCELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 23.46 ACRES (1,022,917 SQUARE FEET) FOR THE MANA WYNWOOD SPECIAL AREA PLAN ("MANA WYNWOOD SAP"), A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF SELECTED PARCELS, BOUNDED APPROXIMATELY BY NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH INCLUDING SPECIFIC PARCELS FRONTING NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST 22ND STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; THE MANA WYNWOOD SAP CONSISTS OF A PHASED PROJECT DIVIDED INTO SIX (6) PARTS WHICH INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 9,719,083 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: A) APPROXIMATELY 3,482 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; B) APPROXIMATELY 8,483 PARKING SPACES; C) APPROXIMATELY 51,146 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC SPACE; AND D) APPROXIMATELY 168,287 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE; THE MANA WYNWOOD SAP WILL MODIFY THE TRANSECT ZONE REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PARCELS, WHERE A SECTION IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED, THE REGULATION AND RESTRICTION
City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE SHALL APPLY; THE SQUARE FOOTAGES ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED 9,719,083 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00977ap 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00977ap Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00977ap Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00977ap Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00977ap Exhibit A.pdf 15-00977ap Exhibit B.pdf 15-00977ap Exhibit C.pdf 15-00977ap Exhibit D.pdf 15-00977ap-Submittal-Bernard Zyscovich-Mana Wynwood PowerPoint.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately Northwest 24th Street to the north, Northwest 6th Avenue to the west, Northwest 22nd Street to the south and Northwest 2nd Avenue to the east [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire on behalf of Manningan Holdings, LLC, Marcella Realty, LLC, Megan Holdings, LLC, Melanie Holding, LLC Mizrachi Holdings, LLC, Wynwood Holdings, LLC, 2294 NW 2 Avenue Property LLC, Mapton Holdings, LLC, Malux Realty LLC, Milana Holdings LLC and Millie Realty LLC
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions on March 2, 2016, by a vote of 11-0.
PURPOSE: This will allow the area to be Master Planned to allow a greater integration of public improvements and infrastructure and greater flexibility as part of the Mana Wynwood SAP.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, and was passed unanimously, to waive in this particular instance for Mr. Bernard Zyscovich, Article VI, Sec. 2-654 (a), Miami City Code, upon Mr. Zyscovich's oath that he will take the ethics course required for lobbyists in the near future.
Chair Hardemon: So let's just go through the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) item and then come back to that discussion. PZ.8.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.8 and PZ.9 are companion items. They are respectively the consideration of the Special Area Plan known as Mana Wynwood, and the development agreement that goes with that for the Mana Wynwood proposal. They are before you on first reading, and I'll tell you briefly by way of reference that they encompass property located roughly between Northwest 6th Avenue to the west; Northwest
City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
2nd Avenue to the east; Northwest 22nd Street to the south, and approximately Northwest 24th Street to the north; although there is a couple of parcels of land that exceed beyond that, encroach beyond that all the way to approximately Northwest 25th Street. So it is approximately 23 acres of land, and it is certainly a significant proposal and a visionary proposal to redevelop much of formerly industrial land to a new set of zoning designations and a new master plan for your consideration that include the following zoning categories: In part -- and I'll simply read the range, and I know the applicants are well prepared to provide the details, but the zoning designations will range from T5-O at the lowest, and those would tend to be towards the east of the parcels along Northwest 2nd Avenue, and to some extent, on the north; and they range all the way to T6-12 on the western reaches of the project, and it is also presented to you on a phased basis. This was reviewed and certainly recommended for approval by your Planning & Zoning Department; as well as the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, which recommended it for approval unanimously, by a vote of 11 to 0. With that, I'll yield to the applicant, and certainly happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Hardemon: Before we move any further, in an effort to comply with the Jennings Rule, I want to make a disclosure that I have met a number of times with the applicant, Mana Wynwood, for items PZ.8 and PZ.9. They met with me specifically to get input on what I believe would be beneficial to not only the Wynwood community, but the community of Overtown that immediately abuts Wynwood, and so those are things that we discussed. If you have an issue with that as someone who does not support this agreement, it's your time to speak so now, and so I'm just making this known as a Jennings disclosure. All right, PZ.8.
Iris Escarra: Good afternoon, everyone. Carlos Lago and Iris Escarra, with offices at 333 Southeast -- I'm sorry.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Escarra: Oh, okay. Sorry.
Chair Hardemon: She's going to make a presentation now. Is there something that you want to say in reference to meeting with --?
Unidentified Speaker: I want to say something in reference to PZ.8.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Well, this is not the time just to speak on PZ.8. I will raise that at the more appropriate time.
Ms. Escarra: Thank you. Carlos Lago and Iris Escarra, with offices at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. I'm joined today by Dylan Finger, the managing director of Mana Wynwood; Bernard Zyscovich, of Zyscovich Architects; Adrian Dubowsky, our traffic engineer. We have -- we're so excited to actually be here. This is a very exciting project for us. We feel like we've been working so hard with so many community input and so much effort that's been made to really make this presentation before you, so we're looking forward to any comments that you may have. I'll be making a presentation; shortly after, Architect Bernard Zyscovich will be introducing you to the Special Area Plan and its contents.
Bernard Zyscovich: Right. Hello. Bernard Zyscovich; office, 100 North Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, downtown. First of all, I'd like to start by saying that this has been quite a long process, which has involved very many people. We have had an amazing partner in this process with the City of Miami Planning Department, and I want to recognize David and the director, Francisco, because this is truly a transformational project. When people ask me about the project, I begin by saying that it's unusual, because, unlike most of the clients that walk into our office, this is not a project that is driven by residential development.
City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Before you move any further, I just want to make something known to the City Commission as we move forward, our vote. Mr. City Clerk.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir, Chair. Just for the record, Mr. Zyscovich was not able to register for tonight's item because he had not completed the ethics course with the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics. It's certainly the will of the Commission to be able to allow Mr. Zyscovich to speak tonight, with his assurance that he will complete the ethics course and fully register as soon as he's able to take the course.
Commissioner Suarez: Move to allow him.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Please continue.
Mr. Zyscovich: Well, thank you very much. It is scheduled and I didn't get to do it this year. As I was saying, what's unusual about this -- and I'm really proud to show this to you -- is the fact that this is based upon the vision of the client, Moishe Mana, and I want to just take one moment -- maybe you read the article this morning in the Herald. There have been people that have traveled up to Jersey City to see the type of facility that he has created up there in a neighborhood that was truly completely disinvested, abandoned, and very -- in very bad shape. We are not like that here in Wynwood at the moment, but as you probably know, most of the property within the SAP (Special Area Plan) that he owns is, in fact, vacant, and has been for many decades. And we really believe that this is a transformational project. His vision is, simply put: To create a project that is based primarily on the idea that Miami should become a place where we can generate significant new jobs, significant new arts opportunities, trade opportunities; and, in general, professional development. He is driven entirely by the idea of arts and education as being a major part of what the vision is. And when I show you the project, I would like for you to make a point of noting, if you could, that a lot of what we're showing you and a lot of what we're talking about is about commercial and job creation type of buildings. We have a zoning that does allow residential, but is not the primary motivation of the project, and I would love to take you through it now. So here we are, and if -- Can you all see? I'm sure you can. The property is really -- like I like to say -- "on the scene" -- between Wynwood and Overtown. We have really two neighbors. And what we've been very careful to do is try to make sure that we work -- and we have worked successfully -- with the Wynwood BID (Business Improvement District) in creating their recommendation and dealing with the issues that they have. But we also have been very focused on the idea of being a good neighbor to Overtown, in the sense that we're really anxious to have job opportunities, educational opportunities that would be immediately available to the neighborhood. We began with inheriting a lot of good work that's already been done with the Neighborhood Redevelopment District and the SAP. What we chose to do -- and these diagrams, I'll take you through them very quickly. If we were to simply be able to build as the Code would allow us, we would have a significant amount of new buildings that basically cover all of the available private property. So what we started out with was an eight-story maximum height; five stories as a base; three stories above. But what we wanted to do was, we wanted to provide something that doesn't exist in that neighborhood; and, in fact, not really in very many places in the entire City. So what we're doing is we're carving out a tremendous amount of open space that will represent 25 percent, more or less, of the available land area, so that we can create what we're calling the Mana Commons. It's really very much -- you can think of it as what Millennium Park did for Chicago, we're hoping, which is that it's a major urban space in what is turning out to be one of the most popular and desirable urban neighborhoods for arts and for entertainment. And what we will bring is the business
City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
opportunities and the education and the commercial development to the point where we can take the area that we're not building on, and very simply, we're just pushing it to the side and building it up. Our concept is to absolutely match the scale of Wynwood on 2nd Avenue by zoning requirement, and as we head toward 95, it gets taller. As you know, we abut I-95; we have no neighbor to the west; and in our opinion, it's the ideal location for the additional height. This map shows you in the light pink what we call the east zone, where we have the existing exhibition hall. This will be the location of the major new public space; and the area in the darker pink is where we want to create the other big vision element that Moishe's been dealing with, which is to try to create a location where the opportunities of Latin America and Miami, being its gateway, can converge with the opportunities of Asia and the business opportunities that they will then provide. So if you begin to think about -- and this is a little bit of a leap -- that if we do have an opportunity to create new business, what is the nature of that business? It's going to be about professional opportunities; it's going to be about trade. As Moishe likes to say, "Everybody goes shopping now virtually with our" -- you know -- "with our devices." But we don't really want to give up the opportunity to look at it, to feel it, to taste it, to be there. This is the location where we can draw talent, innovation and opportunity from both continents; from Central and South America; and also, with a very, very focused idea on drawing talent and business opportunities from the Asian continent. Now, if you want to live in South America and you need to go to Hong Kong, or you want to go to Korea, you'll be traveling for at least two days by air; there are no connections, there is no way to get there. Even, in fact, in Miami, I have to say it's really hard to get to Asia from Miami. That will change as this project develops, and what we're intending to do is to create a location here at the nexus between what we believe is the opportunity for trade domestically to the south, and also to the Far East; that is a very big part of the project. I can tell you I'm traveling with him on Monday to Korea to start more talks with more people. There have been other companies that have been interested in speaking with us. And we're very excited about the SAP, because we need this entitlement in order to be able to say to a large entity, "We have the entitlement to be able to produce this." On the bottom of the screen, you can see the diagram, which shows you the NRD (Neighborhood Revitalization District) compliant zoning on the right hand, where you have five stories plus three. And the angle shows you how the height is -- grows towards the west, where we have no neighbors and we have no one that we're interfering with. The idea of culture is paramount. We're looking at bringing in cultural activities. If you read the article in today's Herald, you'll see proof of the commitment that Mana has to culture and arts, and the ability to bring in the most important artistic venues that we can have available to us. We're looking, also, at technology and the opportunity not only for technology, but for the education and schools that go along with technology and training. We have worked out with the City in this SAP a very interesting and unique opportunity to create buildings that have flexibility, so that, regardless of who it is that could be the tenant -- within reason, of course -- we could have trade activities; we could have commercial retail activities; we could have education. We could have different uses, all occurring not only in mixed use, but mixed use within the same building. This is a departure from what would be normal, but if you go to the large cities where this type of activity is happening, like in New York, L.A. (Los Angeles), San Francisco, these users want to have very large footprints. They want to have buildings that have a lot of flexibility. And we worked very hard with the City to come up with a format where this will be allowable; and, in fact, very, very desirable. We're looking at an architectural character that's modern and progressive that kind of exhibits the opportunities of Latin America, China, Asia; and, of course, Miami. We all want it to look and feel very much like Miami. From the standpoint of the community, we have, as I mentioned, a total open space of 219,000 square feet. In the Mana Commons, we have 110,000 in aggregate, so that's like two and a half acres devoted solely to the Mana Commons open space; that's a very large open space. We have the civic space requirement of 5 percent. Everything we're doing complies with the latest thinking in terms of complete streets and pedestrian safety, and we have offered up and as part of our agreement, a new fire station as a community facility; and we also will be providing the Mana Contemporary, which is actually the subject of the article today, which is a 300,000 square foot arts facility in Jersey City. We're going to be bringing a lot of those same opportunities there. When you begin to look at the economic benefits, you have almost 15,000
City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
construction jobs. You have development that will create more than 22,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs worth a billion dollars. Now, I'd like to say that that is not only, obviously, within the SAP; that number has been done by our economist, and it includes jobs that are within Dade County. These are not construction jobs; this is what I'm getting at. The second line, where it says "22,000 direct and indirect full-time jobs," that's annually with jobs; $333 million in expenditures onsite and 36 million in annual and ad valorem taxes that will be generated by the development that we're proposing. We are also very anxious to really be leaders in sustainability through the use of rooftop gardens and all kinds of other new and green ideas. This is a diagram showing you how the green space starts at 2nd Avenue, on the right hand of your screen, and it extends all the way back through and into the higher density western region, where we imagine the Trade Center to be primarily located. In Miami 21, there's a 10 percent requirement for open green space. In SAPs, you typically require 10 plus 5 for civic space. We're providing 20 plus five for civic space, so we are providing significant increase beyond what would normally be required, and we're doing it for two reasons. One is it's important for us to do that, but we really believe that with the opportunity to have a great open space, we're going to have a better opportunity to attract the kind of tenants we want. If you think about the millennial users, like Facebook, Google, Campus, they generally have one thing in common: interesting flexible buildings that surround a common open space. And when you enter the open space, you have access to cafés, to breweries, to things that are already part of the culture of Wynwood; and we have, in fact, that compatibility. Here, you see images that have already been published. This is a rendering that we've done to indicate what the Mana Commons would look like with the buildings that would be facing it. And here, you have another view, looking back toward 2nd Avenue, which shows you the types of facilities that we're planning to have. If you look at the drawing carefully, you'll see a green roof over an exhibition hall in the center of the space. We think we could have events there; we could have cultural events, we could have films, we could have community events. And when you look at the buildings, you'll see that there are very broad and large amounts of glass with high ceilings. And the building -- the Zoning Code that we're dealing with in the SAP actually allows us to have a significant number of stories that allow us to have the higher ceilings. So we have a podium height that's all regulated. Somebody has asked, "Why don't we see more of what the project looks like?" and I'd like to address that question for a moment. Some of the SAPs that you've been reviewing are really architectural projects that have been designed, and the Zoning Code basically deconstructs the elements that the projects have, like Brickell City Centre. The concept and the design of Brickell City Centre was very advanced by virtue of the fact it's being by one -- being done by one entity, as we know, all at one time. So you have an opportunity to create and design the building. In this case, we're looking at almost 30 acres, we're looking at tenants that we don't yet know who they are. So what we've done is we've laid this out together with the City in a very classical way. This is a Zoning Code. It's just like reading your Zoning Code today. You don't necessarily know what every building looks like, but, believe me, there are many characteristics that are in this Code that define everything from size to height to setback to character to architectural treatments to -- you name it -- streetscape, landscape. And we had to do all of that work in order to make everyone feel comfortable that what we're going to end up with here is going to be of a very high quality. And with that, I conclude our presentation and thank you very much; and be very happy to take questions, if you have them.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I'll open up the floor for public hearing. You have something you want to add?
Ms. Escarra: Not at this time.
Chair Hardemon: I'll open up the floor for public hearing at this time. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak about the item?
Mr. Min: To be clear, it's for both PZ.8 and 9.
City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, and I want to be very clear. I'm opening up the public hearing for items PZ.8 and PZ.9, so if you want to be heard on item PZ.8 or PZ.9, this is your time to be heard.
David Polinsky: Thank you. My name is Dr. David Polinsky. I'm with the Wynwood BID Board of Directors; and also, chair of the Planning & Zoning Committee. The Wynwood BID has on -- has worked extensively with the Mana team basically over the past year to help them to evolve these documents that are before you today -- the concept book, the regulating plan, and the development agreement -- to bring them to a form that we hope will be compatible with the rest of the neighborhood; that will blend well with the recent NRD zoning; that will reflect our unique and evolving cultural environment. And we're very happy to say that after lots of very difficult negotiations, we've gotten to the point that, through successive board meetings, we've taken positions and passed resolutions in support of the Mana SAP, but subject to certain conditions. So in March, after extensive negotiations, we put together a four-page resolution, which basically reads like a settlement agreement that had 20 items of changes, significant changes that we asked for to be made inside the SAP Zoning Code. These have mostly -- these have all now been implemented; but in addition, there were six items at the bottom, which are very important to us, as well, which really laid -- were meant to lay the groundwork for collaboration -- continuing collaboration between the Mana team and the rest of the NRD District. At its most recent board meeting on May 18, however, when we were asked to look at the final draft of the development agreement that's before you today, we reviewed the progress since our first board meeting and found that there were certain conditions of our original resolution that we haven't really seen any progress on as yet, and so we've -- our resolution in support of the SAP is subject to three major conditions that we'd ask your assistance as the Commission to help us to ensure that these are dealt with appropriately. So one of the conditions was that the Mana team would support the expansion of the BID to include what basically amounts to the western zone in the SAP area that was just presented to you. Why is this important? Because we are one community, and the BID is an organization that assesses fees and tax -- in a tax-like manner for the purpose of sanitation, security, and marketing. And these are common problems that will become of greater and greater significance if and when the Mana team builds out an additional $10 million square feet -- I'm sorry -- 10 million square feet. So we've put before them the draft resolution, which will shortly come to Commission. We're asking for them to reaffirm their support for that BID expansion. The second item, which is very near and dear to our heart, is Northwest 2nd Avenue. Northwest 2nd Avenue is the cultural center of Wynwood. Anybody who's been there probably has the closest associations with the businesses and Wynwood walls that line that street. So one of our agreements was that the area of the Mana properties bordering Northwest 2nd Avenue would not only follow the NRD zoning, but would have restrictions against temporary uses for food and beverage activities along the first hundred feet; this is a problem. As of today, there's basically a flea market and picnic tables, and an asphalt parking lot. So we've talked to the Mana team and asked them to view that as the gateway to -- the Mana property as the gateway to Wynwood and to show special emphasis to preserve it. Northwest 2nd Avenue is Wynwood's Calle Ocho, and deserves considerable respect. The third condition has to do with ongoing discussions about temporary uses and special events. While we think the SAP is a wonderful document and we applaud the work of Bernard Zyscovich's office and of the Planning Department in putting these ideas together, there's no timeline associated with this SAP. It's possible that for the next 10 years, the same 25 acres will be in basically the same condition; and if -- there's very extensive rights embedded in their current temporary uses that sometimes lead to events that we feel are incompatible with the direction of the rest of the neighborhood. So we would simply ask that when and if this item comes back for second reading that you touch based with the Wynwood BID and see if the conditions have now been satisfied. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Allison Burgos: Hi. My name is Allison Burgos; born and raised here in Miami. I am the founder of Seed Food and Wine. We're a conscious and sustainable plant-based food and wine
City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
festival; first here in the country. We're now celebrating our third year this November. I believe we all have a responsibility to protect our planet. In a recent study assessing the environmental performance of 27 major cities in the United States and Canada, unfortunately, Miami sadly ranks 22nd. With sea level rise and climate change, an important issue in our City, taking action, I believe, is imperative. As an active member of the Wynwood community -- my offices are located there in the heart of Wynwood on -- I think I'm on 5th and 27th -- I was really intrigued by the proposal of the Mana Development over the past several months' articles and announcements. After having an opportunity to meet with them, and them sharing the vision of what they're trying to create, we had several conversations about what it means to be conscious and sustainable; what they could do to be at the forefront; not only here in our community, but to become a model and a beacon for the rest of the United States. And I'm really excited to say that they're going to have things that are going to focus on consciousness and sustainability , such as public green spaces, edible gardens, renewable energy resource programming, green practices, rooftop gardens that they mentioned, and it's really exciting for me, and I think that it should really be exciting for our community. So I am a proponent of the said SAP, and I hope that I can be a voice that can be heard in the planning and programming of the progress of the project for years to come so that we can become a city that is highly rated and highly ranked as a green city. I think all of our future generations depend on it. Thank you for your time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Reginald Munnings: My name is Reginald Munnings. I live in the Overtown area, 1000 Northwest 1st Avenue, the Beacon Apartments; I'm a long-time resident there. And I'd like to make a proposal to the ordinance, PZ.8, to change the diaspora in the district, and to add and to promote unity between communities for the improvement of both communities in District 5 by renaming the Special Area Plan to incorporate the name, "Overtown/Mana Wynwood Mixed Use Development." This area planning sits between the two communities within District 5. I'd like to recommend to the Commission that Overtown be recognized as part of this zoning and renaming a present signage from "Wynwood Art District" to the "Wynwood Overtown Art District." That's my recommendation.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Brunilda Mendez: Good evening. My name is Brunilda Mendez, and I'm representing the seniors at Hostos Senior Center; and I'm also a homeowner in Wynwood. We support the Mana Wynwood because we will have more recreation and public space, stores, et cetera; and we will have better roads and sidewalks for seniors to get around; more business to the area, which give seniors more things to do. Mana will connect senior citizens with various art expressions. Thank you for your time. We hope you will support Mana.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
America Medina: Hello. My name is America Medina.
Commissioner Gort: Speak in the mike, please, ma'am.
Ms. Medina: My name is America Medina, and I am the executive director of the Wynwood Historical Homeowners Association, which is located at 102 Northwest 33rd Street. I'm here more or less to piggyback on what she just finished saying. We support Mana. We support the increase in jobs. We believe that the project is inclusive of the community because of the plaza and the green space, and we just think it's a very good idea. It's going to change the face of the community. It's going to bring light into the community, and where there's light, you have less crime. Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Luis de Rosa: Chairman and members of the Commission, thank you for this opportunity. I am also going to echo what America just talked about. We -- my name is Luis de Rosa, with the Puerto Rican Chamber of Commerce at 3550 Biscayne Boulevard, and we support the Mana Wynwood Development Project, because we believe not only it is the future for this area -- and I do hope that some of the issues of concern that are under negotiation could be resolved, and I'm sure they will -- but we believe in the opportunities that it's going to present to the community in terms of jobs; and, of course, an increased tax base that would help the area known as Wynwood. But we would also like for the City to consider the Northwest 2nd Avenue above 29th Street, which leads into the community of Wynwood. And as you know, it's really comprised of homeowners, who've been there for 30 or 40 years, who have paid taxes throughout the years, who contribute to the community stabilization. But they need -- and that area needs an additional improvement, like a façade program to help the small businesses that have been there for many years, and we'd like for this project to consider that. We'd like for the City to consider this as a component of this initiative; and we support this 100 percent, and we thank you for this opportunity.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized.
Joseph Hawlik: Hi. Good evening. My name is Joe Hawlik. I'm a broker with a local full service real estate firm, with offices in the City of Miami. I'm here to speak in support of the Mana Wynwood Project, and I want to note that our firm has no professional connection with the Mana Group. We provide guidance to our clients with their investments in high growth, repurpose neighborhoods in Miami. Wynwood represents this type of opportunity for us. I believe a project in Wynwood, focused on fashion, Chinese trade, and an Overtown/Wynwood interface is good for Miami. The project's prevailing theme is Mana's intent to create a gathering place; a home, if you will, for these areas of interest, which certainly are unique to Miami; and, hopefully, perhaps, unique to the country. Miami is an event-driven town; we embrace it. We are really good at building venues. However, as a broker, it can be difficult to get past this identity with investors looking to establish roots here; hence, the Miami 21 road map you have established. We have visitors attending these world-class events, but leaving only days later. As the local broker, it is discouraging when they bypass altogether unique Miami neighborhoods with emerging entertainment districts, like Overtown and Little Havana; hence, what we believe are advocates, like Mana. Mana Wynwood seems to be a good development because it is not a venue, but, as they describe it, "a destination," where I, as a broker, can create a narrative for smart investment, because people stay at destinations and end up exploring the surrounding neighborhoods. It creates a home for things that fit the Miami brand, which don't seem to have a center today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Suarez: You're good at it.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Suarez: You're good.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Cooper Copetas: Hello. My name is Cooper Copetas. I am a recent graduate of the Architecture School at the University of Miami; also did second major in urban design and engineering, and I'm here to pledge my support to the motion that Mana is making. For students who have just graduated, and in the last five years, I've seen that most of my friends have been moving to cities such as New York, L.A., also; and bizarrely enough, to Europe. But this is the first year that I'm seeing students of my generation who are deciding to stay in Miami. And I ask them why, and it's because of projects like these, so I'm wishing that these projects can actually keep up and that's why I'm here for support. Cheers.
City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir.
Renita Holmes: Madam Holmes, on behalf of WAVE, of Women in Public Housing. I'm here to support those who are just one block across the street and experience this expansion. And I'm always grateful for smart growth and a few good jobs when men can bring home money to the women, but those right across the street from 24th Street that have just undergone the development and expansion of the BID, and my question about culture and respect for that thin line, and that's will there be any consideration and discussion about antipoverty monies, what would be the benefit, what would be the direct and continued impact of traffic increase, what would be the environmental report, or any other guidelines? Would you be able to obtain that for us under the Freedom of Information Act Statute 119 and the Comprehensive Act 163, without telling you the law, which you already know? It's my concern that as poor folks, we sit and we watch walls and big buildings and projects go on; and particularly, as women, we don't build, we don't do construction. It would be redundant to continue to talk about the things that I'm grateful for the BID and for Tom to talk about, but the poor women there. There's also a question of fact through the Clerk and -- I mean through the Chair to the Clerk and to the board to consider, Commissioners. What is the input of the resident counsel in the immediate area, since this is a comprehensive and a substantial change? And so that's enough right there. It's just we want to know some specific things, because we were told that we had some specific entitlement, and the already expansion that's being done has not provided that information under the Freedom of Information Act and under the rules -- Home Rule Charters of the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County. Thank you.
Melissa Frantz: My name is Melissa Frantz, and I produce the Wynwood Farmers' Market, and Mana Wynwood has enabled us to create the market on their property on -- actually, Northwest 2nd Avenue. As you know, most neighborhoods now have farmers' markets. It enables local people in the neighborhood to buy local and support small businesses, and it enables small businesses to -- it acts almost like an incubator. It enables mar -- farmers to bring their produce to market and small businesspeople to sell their wares. I believe that Mana truly is for supporting small businesses, and I think their project will definitely create an improvement in that neighborhood, for sure, bringing jobs, and also beautiful architecture.
Cecilia Stewart: Cecilia Stewart, 1899 Northwest 1st Court. I would like to bring to the attention of the Commissioners the minutes from September of 2015, when we were here concerning the Wynwood Neighborhood District issue, and I want you to take a look at the highlighted yellow area; to read that, and just to take a look at the photographs that I also did personally, so you can know what's going on. We, the Overtown Neighbors for Environmental Health and Safety, are concerned about the preservation and protection of the Overtown boundaries. We are requesting for signage in the context of the boundaries established in the Commission meeting on September 24, 2015. We would like to have permanent "Welcome to Historic Overtown" markers; signs installed so that the southernmost portion of Wynwood does not infringe on the traditional neighbor of Overtown. With that being said, Mr. Chair, we would like for this Commission to grant our petition by providing "Welcome to Historic Overtown" signs to honor the boundaries which this City Commission unanimously voted for on September 24, 2015. We believe that there is a willingness to do the right thing in good faith, and I'd like to just remember the barrier that was at the 5th Avenue and 22nd location. I did a photograph of that, and I know it was an intention to build a nice sign to welcome the people to Overtown; as well as to do efforts for unity between Overtown and Wynwood, so we would like to have some signs. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
David Estrada: Good evening. My name is David Estrada, and I'm a local business owner in Wynwood since 2012. I'm here to represent my group and my 25 employees in support of the
City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mana SAP Project because we believe it'll be -- it'll bring additional business, it will beautify the area where we reside, and we've been following the project for almost two years now, and so -- and we just -- we welcome it. Thank you for your time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir, please.
Adam Auriemma: Hi. My name is Adam Auriemma. I'm a writer based in Miami, and I'm here to support the Mana Project because I believe it'll positively impact our City's artistic community. I believe it'll be a space where artists can collaborate with businesses and entrepreneurs, and create jobs while also enriching our City's culture. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir.
Miguel Soliman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Miguel Soliman, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I think it's a great project. I think it's a great project for Miami, and I think it takes Miami into the direction of a world-class city. I just have a couple of concerns, one of which is this is such a huge project. How long is this project going to go for? I mean, 15 years down the line, 10 years down the line, are they still going to be trying to recruit businesses to come in here? Is there a limitation to how long this project is going to take to complete? That's my number one concern. My second concern is -- and this would be a good faith gesture from them -- they say -- they claim there's going to be 22,000 jobs, permanent jobs after construction that are going to be created. I'd like -- I think it would be fair to ask of them a commitment that a certain percentage of those 22,000 jobs be from -- let's say a radius of five miles around their project; that they be -- that those -- that that percentage be filled, whatever it may be, by -- within that radius from their project; that way, we can be assured that the residents of the area will have a job, and the jobs will stay in Miami, and we will benefit; the local residents will benefit, definitely, from that. And those are my only two -- my concern and my idea, my request. Thank you very much for your time.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Seeing no other persons for public comment, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time. Can you address the question about the timing -- or the length of time it will take to develop this project?
Ms. Escarra: Yes, sir. The project is proposed in phases; and attached to our development agreement, there is a phase plan that calls out for the different phases. The development agreement is a 30-year plan. At this point, we don't have an exact date of each particular phase, but we can tell you we're starting with the east phase first, and then the west phase. It's possible -- you know, that's the program right now, but we don't have necessarily a time limit as to like in the next two years, this. We do have, though, as part of our project, phase one is included in the package, which is the most northern piece on 5th Avenue, because we're addressing 5th Avenue first in our project; that one is included, but there's no specific timeline with regards to each particular phase, to answer your question. It's 23 and a half acres, so it's a huge area and a huge commitment that they've made.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. The last time they were here, I made a comment on the record that discussed some of the things that I thought would be necessary within this SAP for it to be more acceptable to that community and the community that borders it; and so, particularly speaking about Wynwood and Overtown. And I gave some direction to staff regarding some negotiations that should happen that would affect this development. So -- and I want to get more particular with these things, because I know that you had some initial conversations with me where you indicated that you were open to these ideas, and so I want to further emphasize that this should be included within a development agreement moving forward. And so although the development agreement is attached to PZ.9, I know this would probably be the best time before we vote on anything to let you know exactly what we're discussing. First, a requirement for job creation and employment, so CBE (community business enterprise), architecture, engineering, a minimum of
City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
7.5 percent of the contract should be awarded to those types of certified firms; SBE (small business enterprise) construction services, a minimum of 15 percent of construction-related services and goods contracts to be awarded to those certified firms; local workforce participation, a minimum of 50 percent residing from Miami-Dade County; responsible wage, so the Responsible Wage Ordinance applying for electrical journeymen, plumbers, and unskilled laborers, and that will refer to the County's Responsible Wage Ordinance; a training institute of some nature. I believe probably in this, a training institute for arts and fashion would probably be more appropriate. I know you had some initial thoughts about that that were positive. And I know that as far as affordable housing, affordable workforce housing goes, Mana owns a number of different parcels that are not included within the SAP; particularly, they're included within the Overtown area, so that would be just --
Commissioner Suarez: South.
Chair Hardemon: -- south of 22nd Street and between 22nd and 20th street; especially located on the western -- well, on the -- just east of I-95; so maybe to have some sort of agreement where you would construct affordable and workforce housing within the SAP, or at least within a thousand feet radius of the SAP. And the last thing: To create more of a benefit so that we see Mana in that community -- especially in that area -- as creating a benefit for the entire area, and not just the area of Wynwood. So everyone is concentrated in the Wynwood area because, as you know, within Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), we're trying to make big changes within the area so that people feel free to travel from Wynwood to Overtown and vice -versa, including the areas of -- moving further south into the downtown area of District 2; as well as further north into Little Haiti and Midtown, and also including the Design District. And so what I'd like to see is some sort of program where we create a value to include dollars that become available for creation of affordable housing within the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA area. And it could be used for affordable housing or economic development, those type of dollars, so maybe a contribution to that entity so they can help provide affordable housing within those boundaries. And the way that I think that we can accomplish that is by creating sort of a new category, and it will be SAP enhanced height so there will be additional height that's being permitted by the SAP where you would make a voluntary contribution of $1.50 per square foot for the height that is above the as-of-right that is allowed today. And so, for an example, above (UNINTELLIGIBLE) stories in the east and above eight stories in the west. And I just want to be clear that the Wynwood BID would still be able to receive the bonus that it negotiated for all bonus heights; and particularly, so that the enhanced height by negotiation with the City and with your entity, you'll be able to decipher exactly what that height would be, but as I understand it, the bonus height will probably lead you to about -- probably about -- I think it's -- on the west side, it could possibly extend it to -- from 24 to 30 stories. So it's a small increase, but it's on the western side near the expressway. And so that same image that you provided earlier that shows the gradual increase in the height will still apply. And so with this, I believe that you will have received a contribution to Overtown, local workforce hiring. You have local firms that would be able to participate within this Responsible Wage Ordinance so that we're paying people that work on the project a respectable wage, and I think that's something that I could stomach. Is that something that you could agree to, to further negotiate with the City?
Ms. Escarra: Yes; happy to.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Commissioner Suarez: Discussion.
City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded for discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Discussion. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, real quick, I need to make a Jennings disclosure.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, sure.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. I want to make a Jennings disclosure that yesterday, I met with Iris Escarra and Chip Iglesias to discuss in general the Mana Wynwood SAP. Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: I have a disclosure, as well.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Yeah, I think all your recommendations are good. I would add to that that -- some sort of a contribution to the Transportation Trust Fund be made, so whether it be through parking surcharge funds or public benefits. I think one of the issues that some of the neighbors -- particularly in the Biscayne area -- have talked about is sort of the spillover effect of this project; it's a big project. So I think what we're doing as a City is we're trying to advance a variety of rapid transit projects, and fund our rapid transit fund and mass transit fund. So I would respectfully request between the first and second reading that something to that effect be done.
Mr. Min: Mr. Chair, if I can -- I'm sorry -- if I can clarify the changes that you propose, as well as Commissioner Suarez, those are changes that will come up between first and second, or are those changes you want to the ordinance today, so it would be adopted as amended?
Commissioner Suarez: Matters not to me. I mean, as long as --
Chair Hardemon: Well, I expect it to be something that the people can read, so --
Commissioner Suarez: Then there --
Chair Hardemon: -- the changes I requested would be "as amended." And then during that time when you're trying to make the amendments, you could figure out the language --
Mr. Min: Because the development agreement has to be adopted as an ordinance so it comes back for two readings. So all I'm asking is either we can adopt it as it; and then between first and second reading, we can incorporate your changes; or if you want to adopt it as amended today, so that means we have to incorporate the changes now.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So then do it as is, with the instructions of it including the changes to be provided at the next meeting.
Mr. Min: Thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Commissioner Gort: Let me give you a suggestion. The -- we do a lot of the not-for-profits where we can have the affordable housing and workforce with rental rate, and it's working. We
City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
have a couple of buildings were built with that, and it's working fine.
Ms. Escarra: We will be incorporating affordable housing into the project overall.
Commissioner Gort: But mix it with the market rate, and it's working.
Ms. Escarra: Oh, yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, it stipulates that you would, but it doesn't have any specific terms of how much affordable housing or how much workforce housing; at least I didn't find it.
Ms. Escarra: We don't have thresholds, but we can work on that between first and second reading to create thresholds.
Commissioner Carollo: Sure, yeah, because my point is you're saying that you're going to do it, but we -- there's nothing saying how much or how many -- any threshold.
Ms. Escarra: Right. It's part of Mr. Mana's vision to incorporate it.
Chair Hardemon: One additional thing: There was a comment that was made earlier by one of our constituents regarding the -- especially business locations that are north of the area that is -- I guess, as you would put it -- more popular in the Wynwood area that people visit -- and this is the traditional Wynwood area that we find a lot of the businesses that align the avenue that haven't had the type of boom in visitors. If during the first and second reading, maybe you can discuss some way that you could have some possible façade -- help with contributions for façade improvements. What we've done within the City is that, for instance, within my district, we've given $100,000, $200,000 towards façade improvements to help with those businesses so they can attract more people into that area. So that's probably something that you can discuss, also.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Escarra: We'll do -- can I ask -- I wanted to add one thing. One of the constituents mentioned including identification signage for Overtown, and we're happy to include that in our master sign package.
Chair Hardemon: Great.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: I just want to -- I didn't hear this, and maybe we just glossed over it and I missed it, but the Wynwood BID spelled out three conditions that they want to make sure are being committed to that they couldn't identify specifically in the SAP, and I just want to make sure that you're committed to ensuring that those three objectives are reached.
Ms. Escarra: Correct. With regards to the three objectives, one of them being the BID expansion, we are supportive of the BID expansion. They just recently issued the new proposal, which actually had a 25 percent discount, which we appreciate. Thank you very much. We should go higher, but that's up for discussion. Our group is assessing the -- that impact, along with all the other financials of the program and the SAP that we're putting together, so we're just
City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
-- we need to do more homework on that. Secondly, with regards to some of the TUPs (temporary use permits) that are there, as part of the new SAP, we have regulated that area that's within the T5 zone, facing 2nd Avenue. I think some of the concerns that the BID is having is the current uses for which we have an existing TUP, and that's one of the things they want us to sit down, with regards to the existing uses. But I think, moving forward, the TUP, we have regulated that area, the T5 zone in that area.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman and then Commission Carollo.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I have a couple of Jennings disclosures to make. My staff and I had meetings with Dylan Fingers, as well as Iris Escarra, in person; and with Lucia Dougherty over the phone, all representing Mana Wynwood, and we also had meetings with Joe First and Tom Curitore from the Wynwood BID (Business Improvement District); and Andre (UNINTELLIGIBLE) by email, who is representing neighboring homeowners associations. I want to just understand a little bit about the power lines that run through what I understand would be right over where the Commons would be. I had originally thought that those were going to be buried. Is that no longer the case?
Ms. Escarra: There's still the goal. It's an excruciating -- it's very expensive. So there's a portion that's actually within our site, and they've had various meetings with FPL in order to bury, but we can't bury just that piece; it goes beyond our particular site in order to be able to do that. It actually has a loop around one of the sites all the way, I-95. One of the things that we are looking at is CDD (Community Development District) bond financing in order to do a big infrastructure. And the CDD bond, what that does is it -- the City's not paying for it, but it's a finance mechanism to be able to do a huge infrastructure that benefits not just our property, but it's actually many lengths extended beyond our property and around other neighbors' properties to be able to do that, because I think the last estimate was like 30-plus million dollars in order to be able to completely bury the line; because, ideally, we would want to go and bury our piece, but that's not the way that it functions; you have to extend that line beyond. So that's one of the things we are seeking to do is to finance that through a CDD infrastructure bond.
Vice Chair Russell: So, if you had to relocate them, where would they go?
Ms. Escarra: Well, most of them would go underground, probably along the --
Vice Chair Russell: I just -- in the -- and in the benefits list that it currently says, “Mana Wynwood will relocate certain height,” and I assume that means "instead of burying," or "in lieu of burying."
Ms. Escarra: Well, we have to move them from where they are, because one of the concepts that we have is underground parking.
Vice Chair Russell: Uh-huh.
Ms. Escarra: So we'd have to move it to the edge of the property in order to be able to create the subterranean parking garage, so --
Vice Chair Russell: So it'll be along the street.
Ms. Escarra: The edge of the property line on the north side, which would be 23/24th Street.
City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: And then my other question had to do with the physical benefits created the green space and all of the things. At what -- in what phase are they being created? Are they in the early parts or the later parts of the construction phases?
Ms. Escarra: Each particular phase -- the first two phases, which is in the development agreement -- it's one of the exhibits. I have a small version here, and I apologize -- the “E” zone is phase one and -- I'm sorry -- it's phase two and phase three. Phase one is the building by itself. It's included in your package as an appendix. I did this board to kind of put in perspective, because sometimes you may not be able to appreciate what two and a half acres of an open space is. Now, these are open spaces in the City. They're approximately two and a half acres. Now, ours is going to be an urban plaza, not green, so don't be dismayed by the color, but I just wanted to let you see the sizes. This is 2.18. This is 2.5. These are -- it's a huge space at the center of it, of the -- of our -- which is called Mana Commons, which is all here, and it extends throughout. So that's the open space that we keep talking about, and I showed these pictures just to give you a perspective of how big that could be.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: But that open space isn't necessarily green space (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Escarra: No, no, no. In ours, it's an urban plaza, like the --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Ms. Escarra: -- pictures that Bernard was showing, but I just -- I was trying to find an urban plaza. There's not another two and a half acre plaza in Miami, so these are the only things I could find so you can compare size, but not necessarily how it's going to be developed. It's going to be an urban plaza.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Separate point. I'm really glad to see the fire station there. I think it's an important piece. Additionally, something that has been mentioned in the past, and I think we need to really start looking at, and I haven't done any homework on there, but I'm hoping that you will and maybe even consider education. I don't know what's the educational need in that area, but that could be something also, similar to the fire station that I would like to know by -- you know, before we have second reading.
Ms. Escarra: Happy to. We have plenty of educational programs, and one of the things we're creating is an “arts and fashion” educational program that'll be a community program.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. So an educational component on it?
Ms. Escarra: Yep.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion, no further unreadiness, all in favor of the motion, say “aye.”
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): It's an ordinance.
Commissioner Suarez: Ordinance.
City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item PZ.8.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
Ms. Escarra: And both items are as amended, correct?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00977da AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, BETWEEN THE MANA WYNWOOD APPLICANT ENTITIES, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PARCELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 23.46 ± ACRES FOR THE MANA WYNWOOD SPECIAL AREA PLAN ("MANA WYNWOOD SAP"), COMPRISED OF SELECTED PARCELS, BOUND APPROXIMATELY BY NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH INCLUDING SPECIFIC PARCELS FRONTING NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST 22ND STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SELECT PARCELS FOR MIXED USES; AUTHORIZING THE FOLLOWING USES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, LODGING, CIVIC, EDUCATIONAL AND CIVIL SUPPORT, PARKING GARAGE AND ANY OTHER USES AUTHORIZED BY THE MANA WYNWOOD SAP, AND PERMITTED BY THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION AND THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; AUTHORIZING A DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 150 UNITS PER ACRE; AUTHORIZING A BUILDING HEIGHT OF BETWEEN 1 AND 24 STORIES BASED ON THE TRANSECT ZONE, INCLUSIVE OF AVAILABLE BONUSES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
15-00977da 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00977da Legislation (v1).pdf 15-00977da Exhibit A.pdf 15-00977da Exhibit B.pdf 15-00977da Exhibit Development Agreement.pdf 15-00977da-Submittal-Bernard Zyscovich-Mana Wynwood PowerPoint.pdf
City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
LOCATION: Approximately Northwest 24th Street to the north including specific parcels fronting Northwest 24th Street to the north, Northwest 6th Avenue to the west, Northwest 22nd Street to the south and Northwest 2nd Avenue to the east. [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Mana Wynwood SAP applicant entities as described in Exhibit "A" and the City of Miami.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PURPOSE: This will allow the area to be Master Planned to allow a greater integration of public improvements and infrastructure and greater flexibility as part of the Mana Wynwood SAP.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, and was passed unanimously, to waive in this particular instance for Mr. Bernard Zyscovich, Article VI, Sec. 2-654 (a), Miami City Code, upon Mr. Zyscovich's oath that he will take the ethics course required for lobbyists in the near future.
Commissioner Suarez: I was going to say -- I was going to move PZ.9, but is that -- has to be as amended, because that's the development agreement, right? That's the one that we're --
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): My understanding was the --
Chair Hardemon: With the instructions; not as amended.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry? Correct. You're right. Your apologies -- my apologies. With direction to bring back changes to second reading, so I move it that way.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): And if I may, the motion and the second include and incorporate the conditions set forth by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board as stated in the previous item; is that correct?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.9.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Escarra: Thank you very much, everyone. Have a nice evening.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading 16-00401zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 3.6, ENTITLED "OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS", TO ADD SUBSECTION 3.6.1(f); CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00401zt 07-29-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00401zt Proposed New Draft.pdf 16-00401zt PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00401zt Legislation (v3).pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Nora Tenny-Photo.pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Luis Herrera-Letter regarding T3 Parking Issue.pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Maria Lievano Cruz-Miami Roads Assoc. Reso No. R-16-01.pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Elvis Cruz-Presentation on T3 Commercial Parking.pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Grace Solares-Analysis on T3 Parking Issue.pdf 16-00401zt-Submittal-Maria Lievano Cruz-Miami Roads Assoc. Letters in Opposition.pdf
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval, with the condition the process employed be that of an Exception, on April 6, 2016, by a vote of 7-3.
PURPOSE: This will amend Article 3, adding Section 3.6.1 (f) to the Zoning Ordinance, in order to allow a property in a T3 Transect Zone to satisfy some of the parking requirements of a project on an abutting T6 Transect Zone, through the Warrant process, in accordance with certain criteria.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.10 was continued to the July 29, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
PZ.11 RESOLUTION 16-00729cm A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DATED JUNE 3, 1991, AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 15168, PAGES 4342-4356, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR THE
City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 592 NORTHEAST 60TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 16-00729cm CC Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00729cm Analysis & PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00729cm Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 16-00729cm Legislation (v1).pdf 16-00729cm Exhibit A.pdf 16-00729cm Exhibit B.pdf 16-00729cm Exhibit C - SUB.pdf 16-00729cm-Submittal-Bercow Radell & Fernandez-The Cushman School.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 592 Northeast 60th Street, Miami, Florida [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of The Cushman School
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions.
PURPOSE: This proposed modification will amend certain restrictions to the existing covenant.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0305
Chair Hardemon: We have item PZ.11. If you're here for item PZ.11, please step to this lectern to my left.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): If the Chair pleases, I'll briefly read item PZ.11 into the record. Item PZ.11 is before this Commission as a resolution, so it is before you for one reading, and it is the proposed modification of an existing covenant that dates back approximately 25 years for a property at 50 -- I'm sorry -- 592 -- so that's 592 Northeast 60th Street, also known as the Cushman School. And the covenant in question results from a rezoning application, and it deals with three items in particular: one, having to do with the enrollment capacity of the school; two, having to do with the number of minority scholarships granted by said school; and three, it deals with a performance bond that is also seeking to be modified. I'll say briefly by way of introduction -- because there are a number of variables that affect this particular covenant -- that we know today that the enrollment at Cushman School exceeds by a significant amount the original covenant number of 310. We understand then -- this is subject to verification by the applicant -- that the present enrollment hovers around 518 students. That's 5-1-8. And in the review of this particular proposal to revise the covenant, which I should also add parenthetically, is related to the applicant's request and submittal for an exception permit, which they need to obtain to enhance the campus and to provide additional construction. In a review of said proposal for the exception, we identified the covenant in question; and we, through our analysis and in consulting with Miami-Dade County, which also has jurisdiction to review and ultimately approve schools of any sort, including private schools, which this is, that analysis has yielded the number -- the recommended number for enrollment of up to 499 students. Now that happens to be so because the County was -- apparently submitted an application that specified that number of 499 students; and it is entirely feasible that if a higher number had been submitted, they might have been able to consider it. However, that was not
City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
done, which leaves us in the following position, and I'll close with this. At present, your Planning & Zoning Department only has competent and substantial evidence to proffer to you that the number of 499 students meets all applicable requirements. We understand through the applicant that they have every intent to submit additional documentation, both to the City and to the County, that will justify a higher number. I'll let them make that presentation. And I believe the approach will be to propose to you something along the lines of -- and here I will yield to the City Attorney's Office -- a conditional covenant which allows then for a higher number of enrollments, subject to complying with certain conditions. At present, again, our technical analysis at 499 students is warranted, and it's probably best to leave it at that. We'll certainly be happy to answer any questions. We do recommend the number of 499 at present.
Ben Fernandez: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Board. Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of the Cushman School. Cushman School is one of the oldest and most respected schools in the City. It was established in 1924, and it's been in continuous operation for over 92 years. I'm joined this evening by Arvi Balseiro, who's the head of school; Ms. Herta Holly is also with us, as are many parents and supporters of the school. If you could all stand up for a moment and be recognized. We have support from the MiMo (Miami Modern) Association that is in your package that we've distributed. We have support of Mr. Henry Patel, who is the property owner immediately abutting the school. And what we're requesting this evening is essentially an amendment to a covenant that is a vestige of the past. It was accepted in 1991 in conjunction with an application for a rezoning that was brought by the school in response to the City's rezoning of the boulevard to an office zoning district. So this is essentially a story of a school that is so old that it has had to respond and adapt to changes that were prompted by the City of Miami. Again, now under Miami 21, the school is being required to adapt because the Planning Department has rezoned the school campus under various transects instead of one unified CI (Civic Institutional) transect, which is essentially what most schools have, and that is a result of the fact that the school has grown organically over time, like many of the older schools have, like Ransom has, like Carrollton has; many of the schools in the urban core. We have been operating in excess of the 300 students that are described in the covenant, because the school has grown and purchased additional land since 1991. You can see that all of the lots that are identified by these arrows were purchased in 2012, 2013, 2001, 1996. The original school property is relegated to this triangle here. The hearing in 1991 involved the rezoning of this triangle, because there was an expansion coming in 1992 that was going to add students to the old school campus. And at that time, there were residents that lived on what is commonly referred to now as “Cushman Circle,” much thanks to Commissioner Hardemon, who approved the vacation of this right-of-way for the school a couple of years ago, and that has greatly improved the drop-off and pick-up of students in the area. So the covenant was meant to restrict the number of students within the triangle so that neighbors that used to live -- that previously lived in the '90s across from the school would not be impacted. Today that covenant, we believe, is entirely irrelevant. Why? Because the school has purchased the lion's share of those properties. There's only one property that isn't owned by the school today on this circle, and that neighbor is entirely supportive of our application. And then, of course, the school has acquired all these other parcels that you see on this map, and they now have multiple opportunities to provide drop-off and pickup of students; not only on Cushman Circle, but also at a parking lot that is off of 61st Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard; also on 5th Avenue where the Mill School is located, there's drop-off and pick-up of students so that the impacts to the surrounding area are greatly dispersed. We'd also like to point out that when we were here two years ago, we also identified that the student enrollment was operating at over 500 students, which you see in the quote in our transcript that's on the board there. Another point -- a legal point that I'd like to bring up, not to be entirely picky, we are here amending this covenant, but if you look at the legal description in the covenant, it only identifies the triangle, Lots 1 through 6 of block 4. This is lots 1 through 6 of block 4. This is --
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Fernandez, in order to be on the record, I suggest you use the microphone.
City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Fernandez: Thanks, Mr. Min. This is the first page of the covenant. This is the legal description of the covenant, lots 1 through 6, block 4, so that the covenant could not possibly apply to the remainder of the properties owned by the school. The property -- the covenant only applies to what was historically -- or is historically the original school. For that reason, we believe that the covenant really doesn't have to be amended. There are aspects of the covenant that involve minority scholarships, traffic circulation and a bond requirement and a regulation on nighttime activities, and we're happy to come before you and request an amendment of those terms, because we think it's appropriate to do so. However, from a legal standpoint, I don't believe that this covenant necessarily needs to be amended, because the school has continually operated inconsis -- consistently with that term. The school has never exceeded more than 300 students within the triangle, which is the legal description addressed in the covenant. With that said, I would like to request that the board amend the covenant to allow up to 535 students, which is the approved enrollment for the upcoming school year. The amendment to the covenant would require that we obtain a revised Transportation Operation Plan approval from Miami-Dade County, which is required for all schools. We have one today, but it is only for 499 students, so we would have to amend that. That can be amended. We have an email from Miami-Dade County in the exhibits that I've passed around that clearly confirms that we can amend our TOP (Transportation Operation Plan) to increase the number to 535, and we would also say that that amendment would be subject to all life-safety approvals from the Fire Department that are necessary. Now, we're certain that 535 students can readily be accepted under the current life-safety approvals, because we have 499 students approved on the campus, the historic campus. Recently, the school has acquired what was a liquor store at the intersection of 61st and Biscayne Boulevard, and converted that to what is called the "Innovation Center" or "Steam Lab Building." That has an occupancy -- maximum occupancy by itself of 41 persons for 41 students, so altogether, we exceed the 535 students that -- we have less than the maximum occupancy that would be permitted. We're also offering to increase the number of minority scholarships required by the original covenant, which was 10, to 15 minority scholarships. And we are continuing to limit nighttime events to no more than one nighttime extracurricular event per school quarter for a total of no more than four nighttime extracurricular events per school year. This is simply to follow along with the terms of the 1991 covenant. We don't believe it's as relevant, because there aren't as many residents around the school as there were in 1991, but nevertheless, the school will abide by that condition. And we are in agreement with the Planning Department's recommendation that we post a bond -- a $10,000 performance bond for a period of 36 months to ensure compliance with the terms of this covenant. And we don't believe we have any objectors here today, only supporters. And so I will cut my statements short and open it up for any questions, if you have any, from us or from any of the school members.
Chair Hardemon: Francisco, it seems to me that your department has said that you can only advise us to make approvals to 499 students; counselor is asking for 535 students. We just want to be able to do what we're allowed to do under the law, and that's what I will request. I want an opinion either from staff or from the City Attorney's Office about what we can do in this situation, because -- for instance, to me, what I'm hearing is that if they had a request for 700 students, that request would be taken the same, because you would make his proffers that these buildings, plus that building, you can meet the number of students. I just want to be able to do what is allowed under the law.
Mr. Garcia: And so -- thank you for the question, because I think that will frame the information nicely. I will say the following, just for clarity sake: We don't have any reason to dispute that they have presently the ability to accept additional students and that they've made the necessary modifications and improvements to the campus to accept those additional students. To some extent, our burden is to conduct a technical analysis and report back to you to what extent we can substantiate and support their enrollment, and that number happens to be today 499. Then I take a step back to 25 years ago when your predecessor Commission placed this covenant upon
City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Cushman School, precisely because this Commission at the time sought to maintain some control on the enrollment and the potential impact it might have on the area. Going back to that original intent, our proposal to you today -- our recommendation to you today is that 499 is the number that we can substantiate, controls that impact, and addresses all the attending circumstances. Going beyond that number should be considered perhaps -- they've certainly shown good faith and good operations -- but if it is the wish of this Commission to retain some ability to review their future expansions, then the covenant should reflect that, and the language of the covenant should then put in whatever restrictions or safeguards you choose to impose to ensure that the matter comes back before you for consideration. Today we can tell you 499 is a number we can support, and there is some path that they need to travel -- the applicant needs to travel to ensure both with the City and with the County that a higher number is also worthy of your support.
Chair Hardemon: So -- but my question is this: Any Commissioner sitting on this dais is going to find it hard-pressed to vote against an issue that is regarding Cushman School, and that's just a fact. And so, having the ability to discuss time and time again the number of students that they want to bring is seeming, to me, a waste of time. So what does -- besides the number of students, does this type of covenant need to be in place?
Mr. Garcia: I will reiterate that there are procedures in place, both with the County and with the City, that would safeguard any undue impact. One of them happens to be the exception process that they are embarking on; and if that is a satisfactory process through which this can be done, then that suffices. In that case, then I would defer back to the applicant to proffer to you what a reasonable number is and what their plans for future expansion are; and if that number is acceptable to this Commission, everyone understands, and the applicant does as well, that future expansions will have to go through the vetting process that goes both through the County and through the City; and if that technical review is satisfactory, then so be it; we're happy to accept that responsibility.
Chair Hardemon: So the number of 535 wouldn't be an issue, as they propose?
Mr. Garcia: We are certain that the number will be properly vetted and can be arrived at.
Chair Hardemon: And there's another thing, too. Because this is having an impact on that community that at one time immediately surrounded before you purchased all the land -- and, you know, it tends to happen quite a bit within the City -- so one of the things that I was looking at in your Section 3, where you talk about the owner agrees to provide a total of 15 full minority scholarships per year, I can probably imagine that most of the people that go to your school -- or if not most, a great number of them -- are minority students. That's just typically the way that the South Florida tend to melt down, as this is a cultural melting pot. What would be much more of an impact on the people who, I guess, you envision that need that type of support of a school like Cushman, that would love to attend a school like Cushman, but can't afford to attend a school like Cushman, if that language could be amended to be, "And owner agrees to provide a total of 15 full minority scholarships per year to residents in District 5" -- "to minority residents in District 5"; still not particular to a type of minority student, but at least one that lives within an area that has some, I guess -- as one speaker put it before, a district that has some depressed areas and a district that does not. That's totally up to you, which one you decide to give the scholarship to, but I'll let your moral compass lead you there. Is that something that you all could agree to?
Mr. Fernandez: Well, Commissioner, we have -- 42 percent of the student body is a minority student. We have a total of 12 scholarships awarded to Afro-American students. We have a total of 15 minority scholarships today, total, awarded. If we were to commit all of these scholarships to one particular district, that would necessarily mean that we would have to remove some scholarships from students in order to make that work today, because we would -- wouldn't be able to increase the number of scholarships in such a dramatic fashion.
City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So you would like to make, what, half of them available to people who reside in District 5?
Mr. Fernandez: Well, I think that, perhaps, we could say that there are 15; if we could make 5 of those specific to District 5 and the others to the other districts, is that not acceptable?
Chair Hardemon: Five is fine. And when you're saying "other districts," I'm assuming you mean all of the City of Miami?
Mr. Fernandez: Well, right. That way everybody else --
Chair Hardemon: But not beyond the City of Miami.
Mr. Fernandez: -- gets a chance. There are minorities throughout the City, and every other Commissioner would also get a chance to have a scholarship.
Chair Hardemon: And the reason why I say that is because -- I mean, there are certain areas within other districts -- for instance, Commissioner Gort's district, Commissioner -- well, the Vice Chairman's district -- where people would love to attend a school like this. It's just that this immediately affects District 5, because it is within District 5, so I can accept five.
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Chair Hardemon: And if we can have any language that is acceptable to move this in the fashion that they would like to move it in, I don't see an issue with it.
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner --
Chair Hardemon: I don't know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) right (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Fernandez: -- if I may, though, I think that your comments concerning the maximum enrollment are very well taken. I don't know of a school that has to come back to this Commission to take the time of the Commission -- we've been here all day. It takes money away from the school. It takes time away from you -- simply to increase the student enrollment. That should be a life-safety issue that is handled by the Fire Department, that is handled by the Planning Department through an administrative warrant process or through a -- an exception process that goes to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, but not something that has to come back before this Commission. The only reason that this was before the Commission in 1991 is because it was causing a traffic impact to these neighbors, and this quote from Mr. Fish that lived right across the street really says it all. He says, "The whole problem is not the number of students or whatever. I feel the school should be required to have children, or the parents load and unload the children on 5th Avenue and get them off of 5th Court, meaning, on the other parts of the school. Get them away from here." That is not an issue today. So I would submit to you that we're happy to commit to the minority scholarships and all of the other requirements of the covenant in terms of nightly activities, the bond requirement, but the enrollment should be governed by an administrative process; should be governed by whatever the buildings can accommodate and still comply with life-safety. That's the way every other school operates today.
Chair Hardemon: I'm not in objection to that.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Mr. Min: May I make a suggestion?
Commissioner Suarez: Move it as stated.
City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Min: If I can make a suggestion. Section 11 of the proposed modification --
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Mr. Min: -- states that future amendments or modifications require a public hearing. What we can do is modify that section to say, “It applies to the covenant other than Section 2 of the covenant, and any modification or amendment to Section 2 could be done administratively upon verifiable proof to the Planning director that whatever conditions have been satisfied.”
Mr. Fernandez: That would be entirely acceptable.
Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense.
Chair Hardemon: Fine by me.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Mr. Min: The other issue I would like to point out is that the covenant that's attached to the legislation states 530 students. I know there's been discussion about 535, and I believe there's been a handout, but if you're --
Mr. Fernandez: But that's irrelevant.
Mr. Min: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) 535, that needs to be amended as well, concerning the legislation. And then finally, I would suggest that in order to comply with Section 21 of the City Charter, the signature page needs to include a signature line for the City Attorney.
Mr. Fernandez: Of course.
Commissioner Suarez: I amend my motion to include those two things.
Chair Hardemon: All right, is there --
Commissioner Suarez: We don't want to leave her out of it.
Chair Hardemon: Is there --
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Chair Hardemon: -- and the Chair will (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Fernandez: Point --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) seconds it.
Mr. Fernandez: Sorry, Commissioner.
Chair Hardemon: I'll recognize the Vice Chairman to speak.
Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. During briefing, Francisco -- Mr. Garcia was pretty adamant about us sticking to the 499. I really want to understand, other than the covenant, are we in the business at all of regulating the maximum capacity of the schools in that sense?
City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Garcia: No, sir. And I will, for clarity sake, add simply that in so representing to all of the Commissioners, as I briefed each one of you, I was simply capturing the original intent of the action that the Commission -- that this Commission took 25 years ago. Again, at the time --
Vice Chair Russell: Understood.
Mr. Garcia: -- perhaps accurately, as Mr. Fernandez says, the major concern had to do with traffic to a significant extent. In fact, to almost an absolute extent that traffic concern has been ameliorated by the fact that they now have an internal driveway. If that ceases to be an issue of concern, then I would suggest, as Mr. Fernandez has, that we have the administrative tools to be able to govern their growth appropriately. That said -- and I just want to be clear about this, because it serves you well to do so -- you would be -- this Commission would be essentially yielding to the administrative process, which we're very capable of accepting the responsibility for, but it is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Commission (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I just wanted to put that through for your consideration.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And so it wouldn't matter if we allowed 800 within the covenant; they're still restricted by whatever the County and other capacity issues. So why don't we just take out the restrictive quantity of students from our purview if it's not really within our jurisdiction, so to speak? My other question was for Barnaby -- for Mr. Min: Do you agree with what Mr. Fernandez said about the covenant actually not applying to the remainder of the campus, and the covenant actually now being sort of obsolete, seeing that -- the changes that have happened over the years?
Mr. Min: I believe Mr. Fernandez's argument.
Chair Gort: Yeah.
Mr. Min: Mr. Fernandez is a very talented lawyer (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: You've been learning from Victoria.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Francisco.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you. I'd like to chime in on that. And I think it's safe to say that, ultimately, this school, as any other school in the City of Miami or anywhere else, for that matter, does, operates pursuant to a certificate of use, BTR (Business Tax Receipt), et cetera, et cetera. And I think it serves everyone well, including the applicant, to have the entire campus be approved and considered under one regulatory document. If that is the objective -- and I think it is -- then I think it serves us all well to have whatever covenant applies to the property apply to the property in its entirety. And in order to achieve that, the covenant that presently exists has to be amended, which is what brings this matter to you.
Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense. That makes sense.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And my final question was for Mr. Fernandez. The financial scholarships, I [sic] assuming they're not solely minority-based; that there's a financial threshold that they need to meet. There's a certain --
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: -- qualification. So these are going to students of need.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: That's all I had. Thank you.
Mr. Fernandez: Sure. I'm sorry; the Head of School would like to say something. Ms. Balseiro.
Arvi Balseiro: Good evening, and thank you very much for your consideration. I just want to reassure you that the Cushman School continues to put at the forefront the importance of ensuring that other students in our community can receive an education when they cannot afford it. And so, when we talk about the scholarships, I want you to know that we are also committed to providing scholarships -- of which we do now -- to those in District 5 to our Saturday classes now in our Innovation Center; and we have two students on full scholarship for our summer camp, and that scholarship not only covers the cost of the camp, but clothing and food and everything, all the materials that a student would need and to feel very much as part of that community. So our commitment remains true and steadfast to being part of this community as an integral member. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You know, I was under the assumption that the scholarship was for the school, not any of the -- like the programs, the Saturday program.
Ms. Balseiro: It is for the school, but I'm just adding our -- giving you information regarding our commitment, so it extends also into the summer months in certain cases as well and --
Chair Hardemon: So to be very clear with you, of the five scholarships that could be available to District 5 --
Ms. Balseiro: School. The school year tuition. I'm clear on that.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, got it.
Ms. Balseiro: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much.
Ms. Balseiro: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: I want to open up the floor for public hearing also, but I'll hear from the Vice Chairman first.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm just wondering if there is --
Chair Hardemon: Would you pull down the demonstratives so that I can see them?
Vice Chair Russell: -- interest from the Commission to amend -- that we simply remove the student quantity as something that we're regulating within the covenant, if it's something that -- unless I'm misunderstanding something, it doesn't seem to be something within our jurisdiction anyway, and they keep having to come back when they --
Commissioner Suarez: I think what they're saying is that they don't have to come back to the Commission. They're going to do some administrative process where if they go beyond the three -- the 535, he'll go through some administrative process that he agrees to, and it'll be handled administratively; it won't have to come to the Commission. Is that right? Does that make sense?
Mr. Garcia: If I may, that is correct. The administrative process already exists, and then the
City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
request would be -- and I think as suggested by Commissioner Russell -- to simply remove the cap on the enrollment number.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine.
Chair Hardemon: I'll open up the floor for public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item? Please step to this one.
Henry Patel: Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Commissioners. I have been on Biscayne Boulevard since 1989 and owner of hotel, along with my family members who own motels in the area. We have worked along many, many thick and thins with Cushman School under the last leadership of Dr. Lutton, who was the head master, and now Arvi Balseiro, but I recollect when -- I don't -- I can't speak much to the covenant of this particular property, but I recollect that as a hotel owner, we were asked to support SD-9 to basically shoot our own feet, not to allow any addition to the hotel room because at that time, we had a lot of felonies with the crime in the area. So I took a position, which is always good for the community when -- though it was not helping us in early '90s; and probably, it's the same time this covenant came into effect. But along the years, Cushman's acquired a lot of property around it, but it's a Class "A" facility. Before I speak anything, I'd like to read a message which I got from my son who attended Cushman School as a student, what he feels about his own school. “I attended Cush” -- and this is my son, Milan Patel -- "I attended Cushman school for more than a decade, and it shaped me into the person I am today. During my years at Cushman, the principles and academics have been vital to my success. Cushman is based on three pillars: courtesy, industry, and scholarship. These three pillars are installed into the students studying from very first day, ultimately shaping children into young adults that have open minds, respect for others, and good attitudes. Cushman has granted me the opportunity that I have” -- “help me to grow up. I took part of the Community Learning Partnership, a community service program; several athletic program in visual arts. The environment of the Cushman School allowed me to mature as a person, and the unity of school make me feel like I have never left home.” And this is my son. I personally, humbly request you that this particular covenant was probably at the school -- was in a small real estate. Today they have a lot of property. And to add to what we have seen, a growth. Boulevard 57 is coming up just around the corner from Cushman School. Now, just think about it: Wouldn't we like to have schools where all this development around us will have adequate school facilities? That'll help the kids from the surrounding buildings, which are going up, to attend the school, so please work with the school. I'll really appreciate that you -- that school will make -- Along my tenures of experience as a parent, not one incident I have felt that my child or any other child is unsafe on the property on basis of any safety or security reason. So they are always very prudent about the measures of safety and security. So thank you very much, and we will appreciate you working with Cushman School.
Commissioner Gort: In other words, you're in favor of it, right?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair; if I could just get the speaker's name.
Chair Hardemon: Can you also state your name into the microphone for the record?
Vice Chair Russell: It's Henry Patel.
Mr. Patel: My name is Hemant; also go as "Henry" -- Patel, and I'm owner of the King Motel, located at 7150 Biscayne Boulevard.
Commissioner Gort: You're doing a great job.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further comments for a public hearing, I'll close the public hearing. I'll also -- one more thing: For the scholarship that you all have agreed to providing, is there
City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
anything within this document that -- what happens, basically, if the school, for some reason, is not complying with this end of the deal, where they're not providing the scholarships the way they said they will?
Mr. Garcia: The covenant -- the language in the covenant, whatever the final language, is, obviously subject to enforcement by the City of Miami, and the City of Miami has the ability to pursue that.
Chair Hardemon: And how would the City of Miami pursue it?
Mr. Min: Section 12 of the proposed modification states that the City can take legal action and Code -- equity; or, of course, we could take Code Enforcement actions as well.
Mr. Garcia: If the question -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman -- if the question is addressed as to the mechanics, then I might suggest that we request a report be presented upon recertification of use, which occurs on an annual basis.
Mr. Min: Section 2 also states that on November 1 of every year, a CPA (Certified Public Account ant) must submit a report spelling out the minority scholarships.
Mr. Fernandez: That's right.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So does the -- and I guess the -- you would know better than me. If a CPA is providing information to the City Commission identifying the number of scholarships that have been provided, is that something that he can be held accountable for, his word?
Commissioner Carollo: I don't understand the question.
Chair Hardemon: So --
Commissioner Suarez: He's licensed.
Commissioner Carollo: I mean, I wouldn't be audited. It wouldn't be, you know --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Mr. Min: I'll read into the record to assist. Section 2 states, “The owner shall submit to the City Planning & Zoning director, by November 1 of each year, a letter from a certified public accountant certifying the number of students enrolled for the school year and the minority representation of the scholarship recipients.”
Chair Hardemon: So it's a certification?
Commissioner Carollo: I don't know if you would do an agreed-upon procedure. I mean, I don't know how that certification would be; it wouldn't be a regular audit. I mean, you know -- and again, some words have special meaning, but the bottom line is if you have an independent, you know, accountant, CPA provide some type of letter saying that they meet the requirements, I think -- you wanted something else? Do you want our internal auditor to also go out and do the investigation?
Chair Hardemon: No, I don't want to do too much.
Commissioner Carollo: I mean --
Chair Hardemon: I just want to be able to -- I want the community to know that, you know,
City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
you're providing what you said you will provide, you know. And when you're giving you word about something, I want it to be something that I can verify. There's a -- you already know -- trust but verify, right? So that's all. If you feel that -- if this school feel like it's fulfilled, we don't have any issues, then we don't have any issues. Is there any further unreadiness about the motion on the floor? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Mr. Hannon: As amended.
Chair Hardemon: Motion --
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're welcome.
PZ.12 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00051lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 220 AND 226 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET, 1514 AND 1540 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, 211, 217, 229, 230, AND 237 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, AND 1507 AND 1515 NORTHWEST 3RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AND "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00051lu 06-23-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00051lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00051lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 16-00051lu Legislation (v2).pdf 16-00051lu Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 220 and 226 Northwest 16th Street, 1514 and 1540 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 211, 217, 229, 230, and 237 Northwest 15th Street, and 1507 and 1515 Northwest 3rd Avenue. [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Vicky Leiva, Esquire, on behalf of the Lotus Endowment Fund
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 16-00051zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on March 2, 2016, by a vote of 11-0.
City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
PURPOSE: This will allow the land use designation of the properties identified to change from "Medium Density Restricted Commercial" and "Restricted Commercial" to "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities".
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13613
Chair Hardemon: So I'm going to do -- I'm going to call one item out of order, if I can. It's direct -- without objection -- direct our attention to PZ.12.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Happy to do so, sir. I'll read briefly into the record items PZ.12 and PZ.13, which are companion items. These are before you on second reading. They are a proposal for a land use change and zoning change for a property known as The Lotus Village, approximately at 220 Northwest 16th Street; although it encompasses the entire block, and part of another. Briefly, the nature of the pan is to change the zoning designation ultimately from T5-L and T5-O, which it is presently, to CI, which is civic institutional; and the land use from commercial and restricted commercial to major institutional public facilities, transportation and utilities. And I'll briefly add for your consideration that any development of said land, should the CI zoning designation be approved, will also be subject, as required, to the exception permit; which, once again, brings it back to public hearing. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. It's been properly moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept or pass item PZ.12. At this time, I'm going to open the floor for public hearing for items PZ.12 and 13. This is the time to speak for items PZ.12 and PZ.13. If you do not speak at this time for items PZ.12 or 13, you will not be allowed to speak on item 13 when that one is called; understand, okay? I'll open up the floor for public hearing at this time. Oh, well, that's -- right. Listen, before we go into public comment, I'd just like to make a disclosure that I have met with the team from Lotus House, who we advocated on their behalf, I believe once -- maybe twice -- at least yesterday.
Constance Collins: Once.
Chair Hardemon: Once? Okay, yesterday. So, as you can imagine, they advocated on behalf of passing this item the way that it is, and those are the discussions that we had in reference to this item, so if you are an opposing party and you wish to have an opportunity to speak with me on a personal level -- I'm sorry -- on a professional level, but privately regarding the issue; or would like to -- for me to disclose this stuff, at this time, you can make that request now. This is a Jennings disclosure. It does not preclude me from being able to render an opinion or vote on the item. Okay, there's my Jennings disclosure. Recognizing now Madam Holmes.
Renita Holmes: Thank you for the opportunity. Again, just on behalf of the members of the surrounding public, as well as a resident, I'd like to speak; not on behalf WAVE, of Women in Public Housing alone, but as myself as a neighboring resident of the proposed plan; and also, as someone who sat with PZ (Planning and Zoning). And I'd like to thank the Department of
City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Planning & Zoning and the Attorney's Office, because they made themselves readily available. There again, don't want to be profiled as someone in my neighborhood that's not a woman that understands fully what the benefit of, but I also have in my possession a tape of listening to -- if I may say -- Constance. We're on an informal notice; we were at the Homeless Trust. I just want to make some points out to you as a registered advocate and as an experienced woman and knowing some of the clients that were here, and the statements that were made. I need to clarify something for you, gentlemen. When I made the statement about "Bs" and "Ws" -- but I don't see any kids in here -- that was because I'm also a contractor. And we worked on building some of the local -- or attempted to work on some of the local projects in which we were not well received, and we were called those names. And so, the idea about what women really are and the references were made, some of the women here are working women. We're simply homeless for lack of affordability, just like PZ.1. You close down those affordable duplexes, where are these women going to go? And we're being confined. And Constance addressed this at the Homeless Trust. The issue of HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) taking away the money says, now that there are other agencies and organizations that will not be able to suffice, and those in between. But this is a full scope project that gives back gender-specific housing. It talks not exactly about workforce housing, but the -- some of us are workers. And it also says that when you look out here, although we're all in pink, some of them are just displaced homemakers. And I'm concerned, though, that the entire project will displace three things from what I learned from them: The tree that is historic in the area; and that it would also -- maybe we need to talk about having workforce housing put in that, because "affordable" will never be affordable at this rate. And the fact that this project is addressing something that the Homeless Trust has not been able to bring you right now, because all the other supportive service providers are trying to support their programs existing, this is the only program that has a full scope and serves a full scope of women; I know because I've referred and placed them there. I know because I'm falling there. I know because some of them lived in my living room. And it's because the type of housing that I'm living in right now -- and I like to put it on the map -- Lebrae -- kind of does that, but it only addresses one simple 20 percent of -- and then there's always a long line. So when we look at some of the things that could be changed and considered, I'd like to think that there is no money coming back into the affordable if the parking is waived, and that some of these women do have vehicles, but mostly that some of us are working, and they should be transitioned through this program, as provided, into some of the local projects that, although we worked on, we could not get into them.
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes.
Ms. Holmes: It talks about a deficiency and a projected situation right now, which HUD is not going to give the City or the County any money.
Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes.
Ms. Holmes: So -- that's that two-minute thing. You go through some --
Chair Hardemon: It's been more than two minutes. Your time has expired. I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.
Vicky Leiva: Very quickly, Vicky Leiva at 1450 Brickell Avenue, on behalf of Lotus House. Constance Collins, the president, is here with me. First, we'd like to thank you for meeting with us and for your guidance and your thoughts that you shared with us, and for the way you conveyed those to us. We really appreciate it. I would like to adopt all the prior presentations and testimony by reference. At this time, I will not be making a presentation for the sake of expediency, but we are here if you have any questions that you wish for me or if you wish Collin -- Constance to answer. We would just request that you approve this matter. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Seeing none, I'll close the public
City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
hearing at this time. Currently, the motion on the floor is to approve PZ.12.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.12.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
PZ.13 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00051zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.3 ACRES FROM T5-L "URBAN CENTER ZONE - LIMITED" AND T5-O "URBAN CENTER ZONE - OPEN" TO CI "CIVIC INSTITUTION", FOR THE REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 220 AND 226 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET, 1514 AND 1540 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, 211, 217, 229, 230, AND 237 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET, AND 1507 AND 1515 NORTHWEST 3RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00051zc 06-23-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00051zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00051zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 16-00051zc Legislation (v2).pdf 16-00051zc Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 220 and 226 Northwest 16th Street, 1514 and 1540 Northwest 2nd Avenue, 211, 217, 229, 230, and 237 Northwest 15th Street, and 1507 and 1515 Northwest 3rd Avenue. [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Vicky Leiva, Esquire, on behalf of the Lotus Endowment Fund
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 16-00051lu. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on March 2, 2016, by a vote of 11-0.
PURPOSE: This will allow for a zoning classification change of eleven (11) parcels from "T5-L" Urban Center Zone - Limited and "T5-O" Urban Center Zone - Open to "CI" Civic Institution.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
13614
City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Move it. Move PZ.13.
Applause
Chair Hardemon: See, it's not even the kids.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded; seeing no further discussion.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.13.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
Vicky Leiva: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Constance Collins: Just thank you so much. It's really life-saving, and we appreciate it.
PZ.14 ORDINANCE Second Reading 16-00315zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("MIAMI 21 CODE"), BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS", MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ADD SECTION 1.5 ENTITLED, "DEFINITIONS OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM"; AND ARTICLE 3, ENTITLED "GENERAL TO ALL ZONES", MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ADD SECTION 3.16 ENTITLED "PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS"; AND ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 11, ENTITLED "ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00315zt 07-14-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00315zt PZAB Reso & Letters of Support.pdf 16-00315zt Legislation (v3).pdf 16-00315zt-Submittal-Efren Nunez-Art In Public Places PowerPoint Presentation.pdf
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on March 16, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will amend the zoning ordinance by specifically adding language related to the Art in Public Places Program.
City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Item PZ.14 was deferred to the July 14, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting.
PZ.15 ORDINANCE First Reading 16-00052lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE APPROXIMATELY 5.2 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2501 AND 2507 NORTHWEST 16 STREET ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00052lu 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00052lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00052lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 16-00052lu Legislation (v2).pdf 16-00052lu Exhibit A.pdf 16-00052lu Exhibit B.pdf 16-00052lu Exhibit C.pdf 16-00052lu-Submittal-MRC-Letter in Support of PZ.7 and PZ.8.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 2501 and 2507 Northwest 16 Street Road [Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort - District 1]
APPLICANT(S): Simon Ferro, Esquire, on behalf of Miami Riverview Apartments, Inc.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 16-00052zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions on May 4, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "Medium Density Restricted Commercial" to "Restricted Commercial".
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Chair Hardemon: Moving on now to --
Commissioner Gort: PZ.15.
City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Do you all need any break, or are you okay? Do we keep moving?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah, I'm okay. Let's get it out of the way.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.15.
Vice Chair Russell: We got a lot more, don't we?
Commissioner Gort: You need a break?
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item --
Commissioner Gort: You guys need a break, let's take two.
Commissioner Suarez: I want to go home to my kid.
Chair Hardemon: I know, I know.
Vice Chair Russell: What do you think, guys?
Commissioner Gort: Real two.
Vice Chair Russell: We're all going to take five minutes.
Commissioner Gort: No.
Commissioner Suarez: What do we have left except PZ (Planning & Zoning) items? That's it.
Commissioner Gort: Let's go.
Commissioner Suarez: Hanging out.
Commissioner Gort: We got to speak in the restroom, so.
Chair Hardemon: Huh?
Commissioner Gort: You can't hear. 15.
Chair Hardemon: All right, PZ.15.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Items PZ.15 and PZ.16 are companion items. They are before you on first reading today, and they involve a land use amendment and rezoning amendment proposal for properties at 2501 to 2507 Northwest 16th Street Road. The proposed changes are as pertains to the land use change from multi-density -- I'm sorry -- medium-density restricted commercial to restricted commercial, and on the zoning side, from T5-L to T6-8L. The Planning Department's recommendation is for approval, as was the recommendation of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. And I will mention briefly by way of introduction that the character of the area is such that the property immediately to the west of the subject property already contains both the zoning and development along the lines of what the applicant is proposing to you today, and the subject site is outmoded in its -- in the way it has been developed, you know, to some years ago, where really the predominant occupation of the land is a surface parking lot, and we believe that the redevelopment of the land would really be attractive to the area and a welcomed renewal process. With that said, I will yield to the applicant, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, sir.
City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to clear a Jennings's meeting that I had with Mr. Simon Ferro and Mr. Cruz. And I also had a meeting with the gentleman by -- Jose Santos, who lives next door that was in opposition to it. I've had meeting with both parties, and that will not interfere with my decision.
Chair Hardemon: Noted for the record.
Commissioner Gort: For the record.
Chair Hardemon: Item PZ.15.
Simon Ferro: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Simon Ferro, with offices at 600 Brickell. I represent Miami Riverview Apartments. And if you would bear with me just one second, we're trying to set up here for a brief PowerPoint presentation, so please excuse the delay.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): And for the record, I believe it's PZ.15 and 16.
Commissioner Gort: It's 15 and 16; bring them both.
Chair Hardemon: Correct. They're companion items. When I do open up the floor for public hearing, I will be opening up the floor for public hearing for items PZ.15 and 16; not at this time, but when I do open it up, it will be for items 15 and 16. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ferro: Thank you for your patience. Mr. Chair, members of the Board, again, Simon Ferro. Here with me today is Mr. Luis Cruz and Mr. Jorge Luis Cruz, two of the principals of the owner of the property, which is Miami Riverview Apartments. Also here with me today is Mr. Karl Peterson, our traffic engineer. This is a very unique piece of property on the south side of the Miami River, right where we meet the south -- the south fork. The property -- the requests are two before you today. One is a change of the Comprehensive Neighborhood Development Plan designation from medium-density restricted commercial to restricted commercial, and also a change of zoning from T5-L to T6-8L. The proposed future use of the property is a new modern, six- to eight-story residential building, no more than 650 units, and a site plan to be submitted at a future date. If you were to rezone the property and approve the land use, the property would be able to accommodate up to almost 700 units. However, we have proffered a voluntary covenant limiting the number of units to no more than 650 residential units. The property is located -- if I may show you here on this aerial photograph -- on 2501 Northwest 16th Street Road. The property is five acres in size. It's a -- it's almost a rectangle, which is a very good form, if you're going to have a good design. So we have property within which to design a -- and present a good site plan when we come back after approval of this application. The property was owned and platted by Miami-Dade County in 1972. It has 558 feet on the north fork of the Miami River and 577 feet on Northwest 16th Street Road. There is the aerial photograph. Here is a higher photograph so you can see its relative location on the Miami River. It's immediately -- almost immediately east of Northwest 27th Avenue. This property was constructed in 1973 as a HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) project, public elderly housing by Miami-Dade County. It has 241 one-bedroom/one-bath apartments, each 600 square feet. It fell into disrepair in the 1990s, and tenants were relocated by Miami-Dade County. Miami-Dade County chose not to rehabilitate the property, but to put it up for sale to the highest bidder, and Mr. Cruz was the highest bidder for this property in the year 2000. Its current use is market rental apartments. I want to show you the property, and I was hoping to be able to use the clicker, but if I'm standing right in the front of the property on 16th Street, this is the entrance to
City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the property. You enter the property. If you -- here, I would be standing around here, and I'm going to basically go around the interior of the property so you can appreciate the number of units, the way the property is laid out. Here I am looking to the west, so this would be looking at an angle from here to here. This is the west. This is the east. And this is the property that abuts us immediately to our west. It is a -- it was built in 2014. It has eight stories, and it has a density -- build-up density of 150 units to the acre. That is the open parking lot that we face on the west side of the property. So now we're going again around the property on the interior. I'm standing in the interior parking area. I'm now going and looking to the east. So now I'm looking from here that way, and this is the east building; it's a six-story condominium building that was built about 10 years ago. And again, we continue looking at the property. This is the six-story condominium immediately to our east. That's the condominium. We are now looking from the parking area around here, directly north on the property, and that is a 10-story condominium across the river. This is looking at this angle from here to this side of the six-story condominium. This would be standing right at this corner of our parking lot, looking at the border -- boundary line between our line and the condominium to our east. This is looking directly north on the river. This is the rear of our property, this part here, and I'll give you a scan of that so you can appreciate how close we are to the other parts of the river. Here's the boats right across the river on the fork. And now we are looking west again, and now we're looking west again to the -- this building here, and that is -- that would be our -- the point where our property on the back here meets this property on our west. This would be the entrance. Now I'm looking at the front of our neighbors to the east, which is the condominium, and now these are our neighbors to our west. This is the eight-story rental apartment building immediately to our west. Immediately south of 16th Street Road, we have these developments. Some are already developed; others, like this piece of property, I believe is zoned by Miami-Dade County, and you can appreciate the mix and variety of housing on the south side of 16th Street Road. The current land use designation of our land is medium-density restricted commercial. This allows a residential density of 65 units to the acre. This is the current land use. It allows hotels, motels, offices, clinics, laboratories, convention sites, schools, retail, banks, restaurants and a number of other commercial uses. The property on the south side of 16th Street Road also has a density for medium-density multifamily residential, also allowing 65 units to the acre. What that means is that Miami -- that the City of Miami, through Miami 21, has determined that this strip of 16th Street Road is proper for basically higher density residential. It is a corridor that can accept and can accommodate higher density residential, and you see our property is up there in pink, in a square, and the shaded area on the south side of 16th Street Road -- as you can see, it's not a uniform line. It cuts in and out -- is -- does allow 65 units to the acre. Our current zoning designation is T5-L. It allows six stories; and by right, we're allowed all types of residential, hotels, motels, offices, restaurants, general commercial, place of assembly, recreational establishments; a wide variety of uses. And by warrant, we're allowed a number of entertainment establishments and other variety of uses. On the south side of 16th Street Road, the zoning is T5-R, and those are again 65 units per acre and six stories, a maximum. And as you can see, on the -- that brown color is what we have; and you can see that immediately south of 16th Street Road, you have that band of commercial -- of residential designation that again tells us that this strip is programmed to be a higher density development area, and that is the area south of us that has the 65 units to the acre residential density. From the very beginning, we had very extensive neighborhood outreach. We contacted the River Run Condominium the week of February 15, and that is -- those are our neighbors to our immediate east. We met with the president, Maria Rivero; and manager, Sharon Gastelbondo, on February 24. We have a package of outreach material that we presented -- I know today we presented it to the Planning & Zoning Board. We invited -- we had a neighborhood meeting, where we invited all of the properties that the City mails out to in the formal notices to this meeting, and that was a meeting on March 23, including River Run and all neighborhood associations provided by the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office, including some of the offices of these Commissioners. We mailed out an invitation in English and in Spanish, and this is the list of attendees that we got to the -- to our meeting. There were about six or seven people. We had one -- a couple of owners of property across the river. We had a couple of owners of properties south of 16th Street. We had no participation from River
City of Miami Page 134 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Run Condominium or from the rental office or rental building to our west. We met with the Miami River Commission on February 24 and appeared before the Urban Infill and Greenway Subcommittee. On March 7, we appeared before the full committee. We have had good -- very good conversations with the Miami River Commission. They sent us a letter making a number of requests. We have actually arrived at a consensus on those requests, which we have incorporated into a covenant that we have submitted and are submitting as part of this package to the Commission. We also submitted a working river covenant, as required by City statute or City ordinance. This is the letter that we received from the Miami River Commission. There's a number of issues that they wanted us to touch upon; and again, we have arrived at a consensus. Mr. Bret Bibeau, of the River Commission, is here, and I think he can speak to those when he does speak. So we have no issues relating to the Miami River Commission. Some of the issues that they raised will be addressed when we submit a formal site plan. There will be a formal site plan submitted sometime after this is approved. That site plan, it will more than likely come before you again at some point, because there may be adjustments that may be requested. Definitely, there will be some waivers that may be required. So the site plan that we submit is going to be vetted by staff and I'm sure by this Commission at some point in the near future. We -- I'm going to skip some of the issues that I was talking about before at the Planning & Zoning Board, which had been resolved. I would like to introduce to the board our traffic consultant, Mr. Karl Peterson, who can either make a presentation or can be -- or can answer questions, if you have them after our presentation.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like for him to make the presentation, because that's one of the major problems we have in that area, and the parking.
Karl Peterson: Good evening. Karl Peterson, with KPB (Karl B. Peterson) Consulting, 8400 North University Drive, 33321.
Chair Hardemon: If you need more space, you can use this lectern here.
Mr. Peterson: Might be better. Thank you. Good evening. As I said, Karl Peterson, with KPB Consulting. We're the traffic engineering consulting team for the project. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida, as well as several other states, and with about 27 years of experience in traffic engineering and transportation planning. We've actually conducted about three traffic studies for this particular project. Our initial analysis was just a localized study, because my initial question was, "What kind of impacts are we going to have on the local residential streets in the immediate area?" And so we did some initial analyses to evaluate that. Once we had prepared that and submitted that to the City staff, we met with them and agreed that we would expand the scope of our study and do a full detailed traffic impact study in accordance with the City's methodology. That was completed and reviewed by City staff, as well as the City's consultant. We addressed comments and received approval on that. Recently, we also received comment they would like to see a cuing study for a potential gated entrance to the community. Although, as Simon has mentioned, there is not a formal site plan at this time, it is possible that this community would have a gated entry to the community, to the garage, et cetera, and the concern was there to make sure that we did not spill into the adjacent street network. So I'll take a few moments just to touch on the highlights of some of the analysis that we conducted. As Simon mentioned, it's 245 existing dwelling units on the site. It's fully functioning and generating traffic today; proposed, as Simon mentioned, up to 650 units. Our study area for the traffic impacts were defined as to the north at Northwest 17th Street; to the south, Northwest 14th Street; to the west, Northwest 27th Avenue; and then, of course, Miami River to the east. And within that area, we were directed to evaluate seven intersections, as well as six key roadway segments. One of the things that is critical in this area and I think very important to note as it relates to traffic and transportation is the fact that it's well served by transit. Route 6 actually serves Northwest 16th Street Road. If you're familiar with that area, there's actually a stop right there on both sides of the road in front of the Miami Riverview Apartments, and so I think that's a definite plus. Right at the intersection of Northwest 16th Street Road and
City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Northwest 27th Avenue, there's also two bus stops there serving Route 27. Now, in spite of the fact that the area is well served by transit, we did not take any deductions with respect to our trip generation characteristics for the project. We didn't take any reductions for transit, which I think there certainly will be some, nor did we deduct for my other modes: bicycles, walking, paratransit, et cetera. We did a full inventory of the area during the peak season in January. We collected traffic data, both intersection counts as well as roadway counts, and also a full inventory of the roadway geometry throughout the whole study area. The foundation of a traffic study is, of course, the trip generation characteristics. We compared the existing use with the proposed. We -- the results of this indicate that in the morning, yes, we will have more traffic. We're going from 245 dwelling units to 650; there will be more traffic. In the morning we expect to see an additional 108 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour; and in the evening, an additional 113 trips per hour. That's a manageable number. The good part of this particular area is it is served by a grid network so that traffic does tend to disperse through the roadway network pretty quickly. I also always like to kind of get in my mind what kind of magnitude is a 108 and a 113 vehicles per hour. On average, that translates to about one and a half to two vehicles -- additional vehicles per minute. And so if you can kind of get your mind around that in terms of vehicles coming and going, that's the type of increase that we're talking about here; and in terms of the existing infrastructure and the existing traffic volumes in that area, those are considered to be very manageable numbers. In terms of the analysis, I'll cut to the chase here. The intersections -- all of the intersections were identified to work at an acceptable level of service and meet the standards. The roadway segments also meet the standards. One exception, north of 17th on 27th Avenue, it will be level of service "F" in the future, regardless of whether this project is built or not. And the amount of traffic that this project will contribute to that segment is about 28 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, which is less than -- it's about half a percent of its capacity, so it's considered a de minimis impact. So, in summary, yes, the project does add -- naturally, add more traffic to the network; however, the roadway network and intersections in the area can accommodate its impact. And so, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them; but if not, I'll turn it back over to Simon for his concluding remarks.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Ma'am, you'll have an opportunity to speak. You will.
Mr. Ferro: We do have a positive recommendation from staff. We were recommended unanimously by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. We have submitted and we are submitting for the record -- we've already sent it to staff, but we have two drafts of two covenants. One is a Declaration of Restrictions that I will submit. This Declaration of Restrictions addresses the issue of the limitation of the 650 dwelling units, which says we cannot build more than 650 dwelling units. We also address a number of issues relating to the Miami River Commission proposals, and that is that we will -- we recognize that there are waterfront standards that the City of Miami Code has, which require a river walk, and that we will provide a river walk. We do leave ourselves the right to come back at some point in time and seek an adjustment of the setbacks from the river and from the sides. That would be up to you, to this board, to determine if we would be allowed any kind of setback adjustments; but if there are within those adjustments, we will continue to have a river walk, and those river walks will be designed in a way that they can meet and connect to whatever river walks exist on the properties to our east and the properties to our west. So that is a commitment we've made in writing to the -- in addressing Miami River Commission concerns. They had also asked for a traffic study, and we've provided a traffic study, and this traffic study that we provided complies with that petition or that suggestion by the Miami River Commission. They had suggested that we may want to look at whether we have to build a new seawall; and of course, none of us are engineers at this point, and we said, that's going to be left to the permitting process, because when we come in with a new site plan, that's going to determine whether -- and staff will determine whether we need a new seawall, and that will be determined then. And that we would provide a working river covenant, which is the second covenant that we have signed and are presenting to the
City of Miami Page 136 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
board, and this is a draft of a -- the standard river-working covenant that's been reviewed by staff and by Legal, and we hope it meets their criteria; and if not, we'll work with them to make sure that it does. Beyond that, Mr. Chair and members of the Board, I close the presentation. I would like some time for rebuttal, if there are any objectors. And we hope that you consider approving the applications, pursuant to staff recommendation. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I want o -- I'm going to open up the floor for public hearing. So if there's anyone from the public that would like to speak on the items, PZ.15 and PZ.16, this is your time to do so right now.
Commissioner Gort: Put this down.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am.
Vianela Sanchez: I need the micro-- is that microphone okay?
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you can speak into that.
Ms. Sanchez: My name is Ms. Vianela Sanchez.
Chair Hardemon: Pull the --
Commissioner Gort: Speak into the mike.
Ms. Sanchez: Ms. Vianela Perdomo Sanchez. My address is 2550 Northwest 16th Street Road, right across from their project. Right now the street look like a parking slot -- parking place. I don't know if they let other tenants put their car inside. I know that I don't have a driveway. I know I don't have a gate to my own house, because their tenant park everywhere. It's supposed to be a two-way street; they have converted into a one-way street. When I'm making a left from my house, the car comes straight to me instead of two, because all other cars are parked over here and taking the place; illegally parked. Another thing is they don't have a green area for those people that have dogs in their houses, and they are tenants. And they use -- my property is called Musa Aisle. I have a little aisle in front of my property, which they use for their dogs to do their poop in my property. I cannot stand outside my patio because the fective [sic] odor from all those dogs and all those people that just leave everything in front of my house is incredible. They making my life miserable; dangering [sic] the pedestrian. There's no place in the sidewalk to walk, because they park in the sidewalk just like that. I used to call the police so they could get a ticket. I was now considered the “Wicked Witch of the West," because I will call the police on all those people that just park in the sidewalk and wouldn't let the pedestrian walk from their project, the project that they have now. I began in that house. I bought it in 1989. I've been living there since 1989, so I have seen the process that the gentleman explain of how that project has been going on. First, there were very senior citizens living there. They didn't have cars. So the beautiful transportation that they're talking about was useful to them. But now, even their tenant -- the bus stop that they are talking so much are covered with car, so the pedestrian have to take the bus in the middle of the streets, because the one bus stop on their side are all park there, and the bus rider have to go in the middle of the street. I don't have a beautiful thing to show, but I've been taking pictures for two days, and I'm going to develop and send it to you so you could see that our street is a hazard. You going one way, and the other car coming right at you. This didn't happen when those senior citizens were there. They didn't have the amount of cars that they now have. And somehow, they don't let other tenants, if they have more than one car, park inside. So if you have three car, you park one inside; and the other two, you put it on my sidewalk. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am.
City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Brenda Betancourt: Good evening. Brenda Betancourt. And this time, 2361 Northwest 14th Street. The traffic in the neighborhood is terrible after this right now. The studies that it's 28 cars passing by the street only, I think that you need to sit down in that car and get a little clicker and count them right now. My father lives there, three blocks away, and your study is not accurate. 17th Street, that's -- everybody takes that road from (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from LeJeune to 27th. That's the main road. Right now it's closed, and now people just drive around to see how can they do it. So I'm sorry for that, but you guys need to work in that, the studies, unless you sit down in that corners and you see how people drive 45, 50 miles an hour in the neighborhood; plus, counting the cars that park illegally is worst. So I'm sorry for the traffic studies. The paper doesn't work when the cars are driving in front of your yard at 45 miles per hour.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: You're recognized.
Carol Fenner: I own five lots directly across the north fork of --
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record for me, please?
Ms. Fenner: Yes. My name is Carol Fenner.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Ms. Fenner: -- the Miami River from this parcel. At the time of Camarioca, some of the refugees we welcomed were elderly people who had to abandon their lives accumulations where they -- when they were too old to start over at building fortunes. It was a great act of kindness when this City authorized hastily constructed public housing for these poor people, but contributing to the speed with which these apartments were constructed was the fact that the material from which they were constructed was plywood. Yes, three-story plywood buildings. Mr. Cruz has kept them beautifully maintained, but they are, nevertheless, a hazard to the whole neighborhood in case of a hurricane, and even more hazardous to the residents in case of fire. These are the buildings Mr. Cruz proposes to demolish. Both upstream and down, there are apartment buildings as tall or taller than those Mr. Cruz proposes to build, so he will not be altering the character of the neighborhood. His site is just a few steps past two existing buildings to access public transportation; and the portion of 27th Avenue that is only that far from his site is lined with strip malls, including a supermarket, so it should cut down on street traffic. Mr. Cruz's proposal is the very essence of your urban infill agenda, so I propose that you grant the zoning change he requests. Besides that, I feel that his redevelopment will enhance the value of my property.
Chair Hardemon: That's always a winner.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Public comment?
Bret Bibeau: Yes, please.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bibeau: Honorable City Commissioners, good evening. Bret Bibeau, managing director of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 1407 Northwest 7th Street. Mr. Simon Ferro, Gunster Yoakley, and Mr. Jorge Azzy, of Azzy Architecture, presented this item during the
City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Miami River Commission's March 7, 2016 public meeting. The Miami River Commission voted 6-3 to respectfully recommend approval of the zoning amendment from T5-L to T6-8L, and amend the land use from medium-density restricted commercial to restricted commercial, subject to adherence with the following five pending conditions: Number one, full compliance -- let me repeat that -- full compliance with the public river walk, waterfront building setbacks, et cetera, required in the City of Miami Zoning Code, Section 3.11 in Appendix "B"; connections to the existing public river walk sections immediately east at River Run South and immediately west at Miami Riverfront residences; number three, study transportation on Northwest 16th Street Road; number four, provide new seawall and consider sea level rise in determining the best elevation; and finally, number five, to provide a working river covenant as required by the City Comprehensive Plan. Your time and continued support for the Miami River district are appreciated. Thank you, gentlemen.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing there's no more additional persons here for public comment, I'll close the public comment at this time.
Mr. Ferro: And if I may have a couple of minutes for rebuttal?
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Ferro: Chair, first of all, this is the first time we've heard these neighbors speak. We've -- they've not attended any of our meetings. We have made overtures to the community. I want to make something very clear. We are not the ones who are causing the traffic or the parking issues on 16th Street. We have an open -- we're not a gated community. We have more than ample parking for 245 units. We have five acres of land, 245 units. We are not a gated community. We do -- we have more than ample parking. Look at all the parking we have back here.
Chair Hardemon: You should speak directly into the microphone, so use the portable microphone.
Mr. Ferro: Yes, sir. We're almost all parking. We do not contribute to the parking problem. There are other developments in the area. In fact, the developments to the east and to our west are gated. And it is my understanding -- and we don't charge additional rent for additional cars. There are other developments in the area that do that, but we do not. So I want to make very clear that the observation that this issue is being generated by our development is completely inaccurate.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ferro: The other issue is we have a no-pet policy on our development. We do not allow dogs or cats. So again, with all due respect, we are not generating the issues that this lady was -- this objector was addressing. We do not allow dogs in our development. So if somebody is walking their dogs and causing an issue, it's not coming from us. So again, I want to make very clear -- and I'm happy to have Mr. Cruz to the podium, if you need confirmation of this, but we have a no pet policy, and we have more than ample parking for 245 units. Just take a look at that parking.
Vice Chair Russell: How many spaces do you have?
Mr. Ferro: I don't -- I don't believe Mr. Cruz is -- has the exact number of parking spaces, but we can attest to the fact that we do not turn any cars away. We do not charge additional parking -- additional rent for parking. We have more -- there is never a full parking lot on our development, and we have a no pet policy. We do not have dogs.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm just making an estimate. I'm not really seeing 250 spaces there, or do
City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
you have -- how many spaces per unit are you required to have -- or was there at that time?
Mr. Ferro: Well, this was built in 1972 --
Commissioner Gort: They didn't have much.
Vice Chair Russell: They didn't have that back then.
Mr. Ferro: But we have -- again, we have 245 units. We can accommodate all our parking needs within our property. We have five full acres. We only have three stories. If you take a look at the densities on the other -- we are below the density that our current Zoning Code allows. Our current Zoning Code will allow us to have around 350 units in this development -- or the current Zoning Code; we only have 245 units. So again, we do not contribute to the parking issue on 16 --
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Ferro --
Mr. Ferro: -- Street.
Commissioner Gort: -- I agree with you at this time, and I'm going to put some conditions to make sure that your new development is going to have enough parking spaces for every one of (UNINTELLIGIBLE), because I've been in that area, and there is traffic problem in there, and it's lack of enforcement, too. One of the biggest problem that we have, that little circle in there is being ignored by the -- be many of the Administrations and so on, and I'm going to make sure -- we've been working on it. I've been working with Commissioner Barreiro so we can put -- place in the lot that he owns -- that the Miami-Dade County owns to create a surf [sic] parking in there, because most of the time -- and then nobody should be parking on the sidewalk, but that's not your -- that's enforcement that we have to provide in there and make sure that people get ticketed. And if anybody blocking said driveway, they should be towed away. And that's something when you come back, I know -- I read your whole application. I know you told me you're not going to have any final plans, but I'd like to see them, because that's the last really good land that is right next to -- it's not the actual river, but the fork of the river, so I want to make sure there's some improvement. We're giving you some privilege, but I want to make sure we do some improvement in landscaping, sidewalk; and when you come back, I want to you to come back with all those things. The condominium next to you is a condominium ownership that keep -- it's a good place; they gate it completely, but they also have people that rent. They put their cars inside, but some -- a lot of the people put their cars outside, too. So this is something that really have to deal with. So your project's got to comply with all the parking requirements and maybe additional requirement, because you got a lot of land in there. Okay?
Mr. Ferro: Commissioner, we know that, and we're completely ready to build a beautiful and very unique development here. Compliant, and we will accommodate all parking --
Commissioner Gort: I thought junior was going to work on that one.
Mr. Ferro: Well, junior is -- Mr. Cruz, Jr. is ready --
Commissioner Gort: I thought he was going to work on it.
Mr. Ferro: -- is sitting in back of his father, and he's ready to pick up the --
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Mr. Ferro: -- sword here. But again, I just want to make clear that we have done everything we can --
City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Look --
Mr. Ferro: -- with neighborhood outreach, and we are not contributing to these issues that I --
Commissioner Gort: I understand that.
Mr. Ferro: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I can't believe are --
Commissioner Gort: That's an issue that needs kind of enforcement from our side, and I'll be taking care of that. But at the same time, I want to make sure you come back. I want to see a lot of landscaping. I want to see some improvement in the public right-of-way in there, which it needs it, okay? And I'll move it on first reading, unless somebody else had any other questions.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve.
Commissioner Gort: But I want to make sure when you come back that we work with the Planning Department. You got to come up with some designs. We got to come up with some landscaping and -- a lot of landscaping, especially on the east, okay?
Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, all in favor --
Mr. Hannon: Chair --
Chair Hardemon: Well, this is an ordinance.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item PZ.15.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 4-0.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm hear. I say "yes," too.
Mr. Hannon: Oh, my apologies. The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
PZ.16 ORDINANCE First Reading 16-00052zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE APPROXIMATELY 5.2 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2501 AND 2507 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM T5-L, "URBAN CENTER - LIMITED", TO T6-8-L, "URBAN CORE - LIMITED"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
16-00052zc 07-29-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00052zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 16-00052zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 16-00052zc Legislation (v2).pdf 16-00052zc Exhibit A.pdf 16-00052zc Exhibit B-SUB.pdf 16-00052zc-Submittal-MRC-Letter in Support of PZ.7 and PZ.8.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 2501 and 2507 NW 16th Street Road [Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort - District 1]
APPLICANT(S): Simon Ferro, Esquire, on behalf of Miami Riverview Apartments, Inc.
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 16-00052lu. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions on May 4, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from T5-L "Urban Center-Limited" to T6-8-L "Urban Core-Limited".
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Note for the Record: Please see item PZ.15 for minutes pertaining to item PZ.16.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.16.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and second. Any further discussion? Seeing none.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.16.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 5-0.
Commissioner Gort: And I'm going to suggest --
Simon Ferro: Thank you all very much.
Commissioner Gort: -- you get together with the two -- person that were in opposition in here and discuss this -- some of the problems they have there.
Mr. Ferro: We will. Thank you very much.
City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Gort: Because I'm going to make sure they going to enforce -- lack of enforcement has been in that area, because I walk that whole area, and I'm going to make sure that enforcement takes place.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Ferro: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Gort: Okeydoke. Goodnight.
Mr. Ferro: Goodnight.
PZ.17 RESOLUTION 16-00741ha A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH, ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY BRIAN T. JAMES AND NATHALIE CADET JAMES, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH APPROVED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 184 NORTHEAST 45 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 16-00741ha 07-29-16 CC Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00741ha Appeal Letter.pdf 16-00741ha Analysis & HEPB Reso.pdf 16-00741ha Legislation (v5).pdf 16-00741ha Legislation (v6).pdf
LOCATION: Approximately - [Commissioner * - District *]
APPELLANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
APPLICANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended - of the appeal and - of the designation.
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: - the designation on - by a vote of -.
PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will exclude the property located at approximately - as part of the historic designation of the - Historic District.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Russell, Carollo and Suarez Noes: 2 - Commissioner(s) Gort and Hardemon ______
City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be RECONSIDERED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon Noes: 2 - Commissioner(s) Russell and Suarez ______
(PZ.17) RESOLUTION 16-00741ha A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY BRIAN T. JAMES AND NATHALIE CADET JAMES, AND AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH APPROVED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 184 NORTHEAST 45 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 16-00741ha 07-29-16 CC Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00741ha Appeal Letter.pdf 16-00741ha Analysis & HEPB Reso.pdf 16-00741ha Legislation (v5).pdf 16-00741ha Legislation (v6).pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 184 NE 45 Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPELLANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Brian T. James and Nathalie Cadet James
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the classification change. HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Recommended approval of the change in classification on May 3, 2016, by a vote of 5-0.
PURPOSE: Appeal of the decision by the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Russell Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.17 was continued to the July 29, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Chair Hardemon: We have three additional PZ (Planning & Zoning) items: Item PZ.17, an
City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
appeal of the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board decision. And, Madam City Attorney, just can you let us know what the process is for hearing a appeal of a HEP Board decision?
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): The -- at this time, PZ.17, which is the next item, you're going to be hearing an appeal by property owners, and the Commission will hear a presentation by the Planning HEP -- preservation officer, and then information by the owners. I don't know if they are -- counsel? Mr. Fernandez?
Benjamin Fernandez: Yes.
Ms. Méndez: You are council for?
Mr. Fernandez: I am for number 17, Madam Attorney. I would actually request -- my expert isn't here. I would request that if number 18 could go first. I know that they're -- they have an expert that will certainly set the tone for this. I'd be willing to follow that, if that would be acceptable to the Chair.
Ms. Méndez: It is up to the Chair.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.18, that's fine.
Mr. Fernandez: Okay.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: PZ.17.
Rafael Suarez-Rivas (Assistant City Attorney, Supervisor): PZ.17 is next.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.17 -- and I'll be very brief in my introduction of it, because it mirrors closely to the previous item. It is also an appeal of a HEP Board decision to determine this property or structure are contributing versus noncontributing, which they were previously. The subject address 184 Northeast 45th Street, and the HEP Board resolution dates back to the date of May 3, 2016, and it was passed by a vote of five to nothing. I'm sorry; our recommendation is that the HEP Board resolution be affirmed and the appeal denied.
Chair Hardemon: So I want to be very clear to the appellant that this body will give you the same consideration, not necessarily in time but in substance, because I know we spent a lot of time on the first item; however, we went through a lot of different things that applied to all of these different items, and so I'm sure every one of our Commissioners is going to take the same keen eye and give you the appropriate chance for a fair hearing today, so don't be alarmed if it's not as time-consuming as it was, because I think we've all learned something as we went through this process.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Once again, Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf of the property owners, Brian James and Nathalie Cadet James. This property -- I'm not going to bore you with the similarities. There may be some similarities in that, yes, it was passed up in 1987. It was -- it's a little bit different, and then this is a younger home. It was built in '47, which is at the very end of the age of significance, so it's
City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
borderline significant when you look at the designation report. It was passed up in 1987 when the district was created. It was passed up again in 1997 when it turned 50 years old and could have been designated for eligibility. And so, for 29 years, it has been noncontributing, and the owners have relied on that noncontributing status to date. But to point out a --
Vice Chair Russell: It was a mistake. Are we looking at the same --?
Commissioner Suarez: That's what the plat --
Vice Chair Russell: My house says "1930" here.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, this one says "'40."
Mr. Fernandez: That's a mistake, which -- I mean, I would like to play up, legally, that I don't understand how it could say 1930 --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Mr. Fernandez: -- but at the top, it says 1947.
Commissioner Suarez: I was (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Fernandez: So based on that, I have a motion to dismiss, but I can't do that.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: This is not a parking lot circuit court.
Vice Chair Russell: This is the property in question; it just has a wrong date --
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: -- at the bottom of the page.
Mr. Fernandez: That's correct.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: And this report was provided by the HEP Board?
Mr. Fernandez: By the HEP Board, correct.
Chair Hardemon: So there are no mistakes (UNINTELLIGIBLE) could be made.
Mr. Fernandez: There's no way that that picture could have been taken in 1930.
Vice Chair Russell: It does say “circa 1930," so.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, right; so only 17 years off.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Sorry.
Mr. Fernandez: But -- so, to my point, it is way past the era of significance; and it's, to Commissioner Gort's point, a house that -- I've been in 20 houses like this in Little Havana, Allapattah throughout the City of Miami. To me, it's not "exceptional," to quote Ms. Uguccioni's term; certainly isn't significant. But putting all that aside, what's really more important is that
City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the neighbors at the HEP Board expressed that they felt that the commercial district on 2nd Avenue didn't necessarily need to be included in the redistricting of the area. They felt that the commercial corridor was not as significant as the residential, particularly the single-family residential structures. And there was even a movement by the HEP Board, which Ms. Schmitt could attest to, to take those commercial properties aside and consider them separately. This property is within the commercial corridor, both under Ordinance 11000 since 1990; it was zoned for commercial use; and then again, under Miami 21, it was zoned T4-L. So the expectations, the reasonable investment-backed expectations of these owners is markedly different from the expectations of most other property owners in this district. Also, add to the fact that the corner of 2nd Avenue and 45th Street contains this structure, this non-attractive structure, which is clearly not contributing, not on anyone's list, but it's highly unlikely that this structure can redevelop as one individual lot because it's not -- it's only half of the depth of the commercial corridor. We're not talking about a rezoning or anything else, but what's happened along this corridor is a positive change. The HEP Board has approved projects along the corridor. This is a project that is approved directly across the street. There's no way that you could achieve compatibility under any sort of standard by keeping this sort of structure at the very corner, which is what's there now. In addition to that, I think that it's unfair to designate a property that was designed for duplex use within a commercial corridor. If you have a structure like this one, this big old, white historic building on 2nd Avenue -- many of you may see that; it's near the Buena Vista Deli -- that's different. That building was made, designed to be a commercial building, so if you're going to preserve it, okay, but it can continue to be used for commercial purposes. There's no way we can adaptively reuse this duplex structure that could be anywhere in the City along this important commercial corridor.
Chair Hardemon: Not a law firm or anything of that nature?
Mr. Fernandez: Well -- I mean, it's -- even a law firm. It doesn't have -- you can't park it, because you've got one -- That's a good question, Commissioner, but you've got one structure in front of another one, so there's -- the lot coverage is all taken up, and it's all carved up into little spaces. I think it's tough even for a law firm, and a law firm isn't really the character. I doubt that the neighbors would want that in the neighborhood. This is more of a café district, high-fashion district; that's the trend in the area. It's a very positive trend, but I think that when you weigh the benefits of preservation versus the detriment of really stagnating the development of this corridor, and then you look at the structure that we're considering for preservation, which I realize that the Historic District is important to consider, but you have to look at the structures individually as well, and you have to weigh the owner's investment-backed expectations into your analysis; and I think that, in this case, it doesn't make sense to designate this site.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes. And they own both properties, by the way. Of course, they own this one and the other one. Their intent has been to redevelop (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: They own the properties that abut each other?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes. They own the corner. They own this, which they would like to demolish.
Chair Hardemon: And that's directly adjacent to the subject property?
Mr. Fernandez: That is -- that's correct.
Vice Chair Russell: And it's within the district, but noncontributing.
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So, in fact, what you're saying is that if the subject property is -- well, this is the question, I guess, for Administration: You have the subject property that's in question right now. The property that is adjacent to it that is on the main avenue, is that considered to be a contributing structure?
Megan Schmitt (Planning, Preservation Officer): I'm just going to confirm, but no.
Mr. Fernandez: And Commissioner -- I'm sorry -- but my client has asked me to point out the fact that it was purchased under one deed, both properties, as well.
Chair Hardemon: One deed (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is within the City -- but it's two different parcels.
Mr. Fernandez: That's correct.
Chair Hardemon: There's no unity.
Mr. Fernandez: There's no unity, but there was -- it is one deed, and both within the commercial corridor.
Ms. Schmitt: 4422 Northeast 2nd Ave. is a noncontributing structure.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. And how many times has this subject property been considered for historical designation?
Ms. Schmitt: To my knowledge --
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Schmitt: -- it was designated in 1987, so it has been --
Chair Hardemon: As a noncontributing?
Ms. Schmitt: As a noncontributing. And to my knowledge, the only other time that it was reconsidered was just now when we did our survey.
Chair Hardemon: This is an interesting one, because now you have a parcel that abuts another parcel where you have the same owner that is in a commercial corridor, where that commercial corridor, those are typically -- you're saying that the ones on the commercial corridor aren't typically contributing structures? Because if I look at, say, this area -- and I'm just looking at the map as we see it -- many of the buildings that are on that 2nd Avenue are much larger, so they encompass what would be considered the two different parcels that abut each other in this. So why not allow this property owner that owns both abutting properties to redevelop in a way that is moving towards what has been previously approved for the area?
Ms. Schmitt: Redevelopment is possible, demolition is possible, including the existing contributing structure -- what is currently contributing. All of this is possible; it would just need to go to the HEP Board.
Chair Hardemon: So you're saying that this site could be demolished?
Vice Chair Russell: Which site?
Chair Hardemon: The one that we're considering -- could be demolished, along with the adjacent property, and they could build a structure on -- that would, I guess, cross both
City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
properties? I'm sure you'll have to do some type of unity and -- of the title of the land, or something of that nature, but you could actually do that with the current --
Ms. Schmitt: In full transparency to the property owners, if they were to come to the Preservation Office with an application and it involved the demolition of both of their properties, the staff's recommendation for the duplex, the one that we're discussing tonight, we would give a recommendation of denial for that demolition. The HEP Board can make the decision that they want to, but what I would also suggest to the property owners is, is there some way that we can incorporate the existing structure into a new design.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Vice Chair Russell: So in the Grove, I visited a historically designated home recently, where the owner had a very large lot, and they built onto and around and behind the historic home, and they actually put quite a modern flair to it, but it worked; it fit, and it's an amazing --
Commissioner Suarez: Combination.
Vice Chair Russell: -- story of then and now. And as you walk through the house, you feel as you go from the historic section to the modern section, and it doesn't look obscene. There is certainly ways to redevelop properties -- large properties and build onto historic, if I'm not mistaken, without violating the historic integrity of that property, right?
Ms. Schmitt: I totally agree. Sometimes probably to the distaste of some of the people in the room, but the Preservation Office believes very firmly that new design and historic properties can really harmonize.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Vice Chair Russell: What about the Chair's question about the commercial corridor? Should that be any less considered for historic designation because it has more of a commercial aspect to it and there's a expectation of development and commerce?
Ms. Schmitt: When the district was designated in 1987, if I'm not mistaken, there was only one property that was identified as being contributing, which is a very beautiful, art deco apartment building that most of you have probably seen at the corner of 45th. It's on the northwest corner. And if I'm not mistaken, that was the only one that, at that time, was identified as contributing. We have since done our survey, and we found that -- we thought that some of the commercial properties did, in fact, merit change of status; part of the reason being that, you know, even though the main thrust of the designation, in my opinion, was definitely to protect the single-family residences or the residential properties, I should say, in the streets, not the avenues, per se, but nonetheless, they're designated, and I think what's very important about the designation of Northeast 2nd Avenue and North Miami Avenue is to have a little bit of control over what kind of development does go there.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. This issue of the -- I think it's a -- is it Northeast 2nd Avenue?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. It's an issue that I have also in my district with -- actually, the neighborhood that I live in, because it's on 37th and 32nd, on both sides, and it's a tough issue,
City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
because we're seeing throughout the City, obviously, these commercial corridors being developed. It's more common. One of the things that I wanted to ask the -- because this question came up in the last one, and I want to ask it in this one, because I think this is different. Because of the commercial overlay, if it's -- if it is considered a historic structure, I think, under Miami 21, they would have transfer development rights, or they would have some TDR (Transfer Development Rights) capacity here.
Ms. Schmitt: Depending on the zoning, yes. And I believe that --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Ms. Schmitt: -- the zoning would allow.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. So there is a compensation for essentially having a contributing structure in a commercial corridor, because the zoning is higher. That's why I was saying that --
Vice Chair Russell: T4-L.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct, because it's a greater zoning, so they do have a TDR right that they could can cash in, if you will, and charge.
Chair Hardemon: I'll open up the floor for public hearing on PZ.17.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Thank you, thank you. Be sure to give to the Clerk (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank you.
Shiller Jerome: Shiller Jerome again. I'm president of Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association. My address is 24 Northeast 47th Street. Before I start in my presentation, I just want to respond to some of the comment that were made by the applicant's attorney. I just want to note for the record that from 1987 till two weeks -- two months ago, was the first time that this process ever took place. There was a discussion back in 1997, this property being -- going through the process. There has not been no process for this type of change since 1987; that's one thing. Also, we talk about development. I just want to clarify to the board that I'm also a developer and a property owner, and never has it been asked of me to ask the board to consider my return on my investment when it comes to a decision. So the idea that we're talking about somebody's profit potential in regards to a decision based on HEP Board, to me, it's kind of weird. Also, in regard to this property, too, we got to go back to context and block. This property is on 45th Street, not on Northeast 2nd Avenue. It looks like the other homes on 45th Street. So if you're -- so the idea of keeping it makes sense, but in the context in a block. Now, the next applicant coming up in regards to Northeast 2nd Avenue, we have a different approach for that, because of the context in a block. So again, if this board is going to take a position to go against the recommendation of the City and also the HEP Board, please be acceptance [sic] the decision. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Is there anyone else that wants to speak on public hearing?
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Nathalie Cadet James: Hi. My name is Nathalie Cadet James. I am the property owner. This is not a case about profit potential. This is a case about our property rights, and three of you asked that question at the beginning of this discussion. I understand that you're finding ways to make it profitable, but it's not the same, and we do have property rights. When we purchased this property, it was with the expectation of what it was. It was not designated as historic. It didn't pass up three times. The apple was bitten three times or not bitten three times, rather. And it's -- just doesn't even make sense. This this is a commercial corridor. How do you designate an
City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
apartment building in a commercial corridor? This completely limits our property rights. This is a taking, as far as I'm concerned; not only that, but the type of structure is a mishmash vernacular, no style, all over Miami, not significant. They have designated now 90 percent of the neighborhood as historical. This property will not add or take away from that. Furthermore, when this first started -- I don't remember when the first hearing was. It might have been in March. When the HEP Board came before them, they asked, "Well, how did 103 properties just end up on this list?" And the lady said, "Well, you know, 50 years old; we put it on the list." And the HEP Board was like, "We are not going to sign off on that. Give us a report." And that's when the studies came about. This is arbitrary. This is a sweep. And this is a violation of our property rights. And I earnestly ask you to look inside and think about that, as well. And think about, as well, as what you were saying earlier, who the preservation officers were, too. We are here; many people did not come and say anything. I would guess maybe 15, if that much, came to appeal their first list of 103, but we care and it is important. So I do urge you to consider to deny -- or to rule in our favor, and I'm sure my husband has something to share, as well.
Brian James: Thank. I'm Brian James, also co-owner of the property. The one thing I wanted to add is that -- something I think the Chair said earlier -- is that in 1987, when this was looked at completely, our property was concluded to be noncontributing. When we bought our property in 2004, I had just graduated law school; my wife was working nights. We lived with her mom for two years so we could save up money to purchase these two properties. We purchased them together as one deed. Since then, we've relied continuously on the representations of the City, of the County, that this property is exactly what we thought it was. It's a property that we can sell at some point, develop, and basically have a retirement for our two daughters, who are now eight and seven, and we've relied on that continuously from 2004. For now -- for the Preservation Board to come before you guys arbitrarily and say, "Well, just because this property's now 50 years old, all the stuff that we relied upon for the last" -- what? -- "12 years means nothing." For the homeowners association president to come before you and say, "Well, value in this, that shouldn't be considered." It should be considered. The whole point of owning property is to better your situation. That's the American dream. See, my wife and I -- she's from Haiti; I'm from St. Thomas. We come to Miami. We work our asses -- sorry -- we work our butts off so that our kids can have a future that we didn't have. And for a homeowner's association to get up here, for a Preservation Officer who says, "Well, we don't take into consideration what the individual homeowner say" -- They met with the homeowner's association at least two times. I never got a call to say, "Okay. Well, Brian James, you're the owner of this property. Can we talk to you about why we think your property could be contributing?" What they did, they went to the homeowner's association and said, "Tell us which ones you guys think should be contributing." Contributing all of them. They now have 90 percent of the neighborhood. They had 50 percent two months ago. And because the homeowner's association is against the development on the corridor, they practice -- plan to basically take over the entire neighborhood so they no longer have to be concerned with fighting the development that's happening on Northeast 2nd. We bought our property, and prayed and hoped that what's happening now would happen. Northeast 2nd, the corridor is happening like how we expected it to. And now that it's finally happening, we now want to see what returns we can get on our property that we sat on for 12 years. They're going to come in there and say, "Well, know what? Although you bought this property, although you struggled to keep these properties, although you bought these properties before you bought own home that your kids live in now, that doesn't matter, because we don't want development in our neighborhood." And that's not -- that should not be how this is done. We own property because we have rights in it, and those rights should be taken ahead of someone who has no interest in our property. He talked about, well, he's in his home, and he's happy. His value went up. It went up because of the development on Northeast 2nd, and now he's trying to stop anyone else who wants to get the benefit of that, because he already has. No one cared about Buena Vista before the development. Now that development's happening, everyone does. And what he say, "Well, my property went up and it's going to continue to go up, but you, Brian James and Nathalie Cadet-James, you own two properties you bought way before he bought his, you get nothing, because I want to control what you can do with your property." And that just
City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
can't be right. I'm a lawyer, too, and I basically base my career on fairness, on precedent, and not arbitrary rulings. In 1987, it was nothing in that report that said why this property should or should not be contributing -- noncontributing. What it did say is that it's not, and for the Commission [sic] officer to stand up here and suggest to you guys that she knows why it was not -- why it was made noncontributing, she does not. There's nothing in that file that says why or why not. So to rely on her opinion as to what happened in 1987 versus my opinion that it doesn't say left or right, you have to base it on what they said in 1987. Now, she could find the person that did it in 1987 to come in and say, "Well, this was noncontributing because 'XYZ' and that has changed,” that's completely different. But you don't get to come in on an evidentiary hearing that's de novo where you have to take the entire record as if you're hearing it for the first time and rely on her statement: “Well, in 1987, this was noncontributing because; and now in 2016, it should be changed because.” The property has not changed. It's the exact same property it was in 1987, where they say it was noncontributing, and that's exactly what it is today. And based on that, we think that the appeal should be granted, the ruling of the HEP Board should be overturned and -- I can't think of anything else now, but thank you for your time.
Chair Hardemon: You did a good job.
Commissioner Suarez: You're better than Ben.
Mr. Fernandez: I --
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, I just want you to be prepared to address the comments about the arbitrariness of the decision and meeting with the homeowner's association, and whether or not -- because I'm interested to know whether or not that affects your decision in making a decision about it being contributing; and also, whether or not this property, in 1987, what were the notes on it not being considered to be a contributing structure, so that we can consider that. Yes, ma'am.
Dolly MacIntyre: Dolly MacIntyre again, sorry. The Supreme Court has ruled that historic designation is not a taking of property. The other item is -- nothing has been said here that precludes the redevelopment of this property, even though it's designated as part of a historic district; redevelopment is still possible.
Mischel Ellern: Hi; back again. Mischel Ellern, at 169 Northeast 44th Street. Nathalie and James are my neighbor, and they're going to be my neighbor for a long time, and I believe they should have the right to develop their property; and I think it would also help the neighborhood, as it is on the commercial Northeast 2nd Avenue, which they are currently working on a development across the street from them, which is named “Buena Vista Flats,” using the trademark name, "Buena Vista." And if you look at the design that's been passed, it is completely modern. So it's a little inconsistent with the whole Buena Vista Historic District; it's completely inconsistent. And another thing I would like to add is that, as we know, 103 properties were added to the list to be considered contributing or noncontributing. Out of those 103 properties that were added to the list, five of them didn't even exist, because they were already demolished to create a museum. There were not even on -- they were on the list. They didn't -- they were already demolished. I don't know who even looked at that list.
Luis Gutierrez: Hi. My name is Luis Gutierrez. I live at 151 Northeast 46th Street. I've been living there for 16 years. My property was a noncontributing structure that was changed -- reclassified as a contributing structure, and I'm grateful that the HEP Board decided to do so. As a member of the neighborhood association, we're --I'd just like to clarify the fact that we're not against development, especially on the Northeast 2nd Avenue corridor. We're just against destroying the historic fabric of the neighborhood. That's why we want the properties in the neighborhood -- the residential properties to remain residential properties and for you to support the work that your Historic Preservation Board did, and, you know, uphold their decision to
City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
protect this property.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Sir, you previously spoke. Can you come back for a second? The statement you made, it was an odd statement, but it was a heavy statement, and so I just want some clarification on this. You stated that five properties that are on the list of what were considered to be historic were already demolished at the time that -- clarify your statement for me, please.
Mr. Ellern: I don't know exactly if it was five, but however many that were demolished, that were actual landmarks, which was probably the reason why they just started changing the percentage of landmark properties added to the list, was because they -- there was a big uproar within the community, within the neighborhood about those properties that were demolished to build the ICA (Institute of Contemporary Art) Museum. Now, I don't know exactly how many there were.
Chair Hardemon: So you're not saying that the ICA Museum properties are within what was considered in this document? Is that what he's saying?
Ms. Schmitt: So I can explain. When the --
Chair Hardemon: Before you explain, tell me whether or not you have the ICA properties in this document that we're looking at right now as homes that were considered and are -- opinionated -- or you've opined that they are contributing structures.
Ms. Schmitt: They are both identified as -- our suggestion would have been to have them be contributing, and they are also identified as demolished; that's correct.
Mr. Ellern: How are they identified as demolished? They're -- all the properties were listed by their address.
Chair Hardemon: So can you give me an example --
Ms. Schmitt: In the backup that you have.
Chair Hardemon: -- so I can follow you?
Ms. Schmitt: Sure.
Chair Hardemon: What I'm trying to make sure of is that you haven't identified -- I want to make sure that each individual property was really given an opportunity to -- for it to decide to have been a contributing or noncontributing structure, and so if -- because what I thought I heard was that there was not a property there, and you identified it as contributing when it would have been just land.
Ms. Schmitt: So one of the practices with historic preservation is that documentation is very important, so we did a complete list of all of the properties within the district. The properties that were demolished at the corner of 45th Street, across the street from the subject property -- and I want to -- I need to back up in order to explain. There were two properties at the corner of 45th and Northeast 2nd Avenue that, when I started, were considered noncontributing. The construction project that's, I believe -- Is this Harry's? The construction project that Mr. Fernandez is referring to is the result of two noncontributing properties getting approval for demolition. Part of the important practice of what we did in this exercise is, can you imagine if staff came before the HEP Board and said, "These are identified as noncontributing, but we don't think that they should come down”? How would that work? How would that make the -- how would the HEP give us permission? Our official designation says that something is noncontributing; yet, your staff is going to say, "Well, we actually think that it should be
City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
contributing." That's -- and the same thing happened with the property on 42nd Street with the ICA project. There were three properties that came down: the one in the middle -- and I'll get you the address -- the one in the middle; and if we had done this evaluation, we would have said that it should be contributing, but we knew that that wasn't the right thing. That's not how you do this job. You can't -- as we're being accused of, you can't change something in the eleventh hour without a due process, so we decided to go through with our survey.
Chair Hardemon: You want to say something?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I just -- I don't understand -- and to their point, you know, in terms of their expectation, I don't understand why, when we created Miami 21, would we overlay that then with a T4-L if we had no expectation -- or if we had an expectation that they -- that is -- go ahead. No, go ahead, you.
Mr. Garcia: I apologize, but I can address that simply. T4-L simply happens to be a direct translation of the previously existing zoning designation; so in that particular sense, we were meticulous in ensuring that no property rights were taken by assigning a new zoning category that responded exactly to what the previous zoning category allowed for.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, then I would go a step further and say that why was it -- under the previous Zoning Code, why was it designated commercial? Because if it's a single-family residential lot or a duplex -- right? This one is also a duplex, right?
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. -- then why was it overlaid as a commercial? I mean, was there an expectation at some point it was going to be commercial?
Mr. Garcia: Precisely. The entire corridor -- at least, the eastern part -- rather, the western part of the corridor was designated commercial at the time, and that probably dated back a significant amount of time. The reality of development in the area did not match the zoning designation to the properties, and so there was a calibration then at that point and time to readjust that somewhat. That said, the recalibration still allowed for commercial uses, which still -- which, in some instances, have manifested themselves, but in some instances have not.
Commissioner Suarez: But I guess my frustration in this process is that you have two sets of individuals that I think both have good objectives, you know? And I can see both sides of the argument here, because I think the community expects there to be an integrity in the process of designating properties historic, but the City has -- from two Zoning Codes -- has already sort of manifested an intent that it be developed in a different way, and so I think it's almost like the City is being somewhat inconsistent in how they -- what they decide they want to do.
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner -- Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Mr. Fernandez: In addition to that, reliance, I would point out that this, which I think we might all agree is a more significant architectural statement, is immediately across the street and was approved not more than a year and a half ago for demolition as a noncontributing structure within the commercial corridor. This is the house that predated the project that you see before you that Megan is discussing. So my client sees the HEP Board approve a project like this and approve a demolition of a noncontributing structure for that house that you see there; and then turns around and, all of a sudden, designates their less significant, architectural duplex and ruins their investment-backed expectation that they've relied on since Ordinance 11000 was in place.
City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: But to be clear, you couldn't build that structure in the property next door under the current zoning, correct?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, you could.
Commissioner Suarez: T4-L?
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely. That's a T4-L project. Of course, you're seeing the frontage. It transitions. You're not seeing the side. It comes down significantly.
Chair Hardemon: Madam -- Ms. Schmitt, when this property was originally considered in 1987, what was the opinion -- besides it being noncontributing, what was the opinion -- or what other facts were laid out about this property that we should consider?
Ms. Schmitt: The building was 40 years old at the time, so if they were only looking at buildings that were 50 years and older.
Chair Hardemon: So you're saying that this was not then considered to be -- so let me -- let's question -- I want clear something up then. So if you are within a historic district and your property is not 50 years old, are you automatically then just deemed noncontributing?
Ms. Schmitt: I can't tell you exactly if that's how it happened at the time. As everyone has pointed out, I wasn't there; but in 1987, the property was not 50 years old, and especially -- what I would say is back in -- I think that people now are a little bit more comfortable talking about designating things underneath being 50. There's a little bit more patience for it and there's a little bit more comfort with it; but at the time, if we look, then it was not 50 years old; it was 40 years old. It wasn't on the threshold either. It wasn't 49 years old; it was 40 years old. So I think that it's very fair to say that the property was not given contributing status for both the reason that I just mentioned about the age, but perhaps, also, for the same reason that some of the other buildings of same style were, which is that there wasn't enough distance, there wasn't enough time.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm a little -- in this case, I'm a little bit more torn. I'm going to be honest with you, because -- for example, St. Jude, which is the case that we talk about for the TDRs, it's clear to me that there's a significant amount of value loss in terms of the incongruity between what's actually there and what could be built there based on what's around it. Right? Because what's around it is 50-story buildings. So, I mean, that's a huge discrepancy. What I think is frustrating, probably for both sides, to be completely frank with you, for the residents and also for them, because it's clearly -- just like the prior case, it's a duplex, so, you know, in the prior case, it's zoned to be a duplex, so there's no expectation that you're going to get anything other than it being a duplex. It could be fancier duplex or it could be -- you know, and then we could get into the arguments about it's actually more valuable to make it historic, which is what we sort of argued in the last case, and all that. In this case, it's different because you have a T4 zone. Now, maybe it shouldn't have been a T4 zone. Maybe it shouldn't have been that commercial zoning in 11000, and I think that's what frustrates the neighbors, because the neighbors see an -- what they consider to be an intrusion of commercial development into the neighborhood, and they're frustrated by that, because that's what they've told me, you know. And --
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez --
Mr. Fernandez: But Commissioner --
Chair Hardemon: -- before you move forward, that distinction that you just articulated is part of
City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the reason that I'm having some trouble with this also.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Chair Hardemon: And I think about certain areas within communities that were -- if you're in this property, and you're directly across the street from this other development, you are, in fact, in the commercial corridor; you are, in fact, a T4-L; you are not a --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- residential structure under the past two Zoning Codes, and I think that has a lot to do with how that area will be --
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. No, you're going in the direction that I was going. My neighborhood -- again, I use it as a classic example, because that's a neighborhood -- and we've talked about this a hundred times -- where the 37th Avenue and 32nd Avenue corridors are single-family residential homes, but they're commercial corridors. In fact, on the opposite side in Coral Gables, there's, you know, eight-story, 10-story buildings just on the other side of the same street where there's a single-family residential home on 37th Avenue; on 32nd Avenue, it's the same phenomenon. And the neighborhood today would resist -- you know, maybe in the planning world -- in the abstract planning world -- Francisco and I always have these debates -- you know, the neighborhood would resist and has resisted commercial development on that corridor, even though it might make sense, okay? The -- this case is different, because the zoning is there, and it's been there for how many years? How long has that zoning been in place for? How many years has it been in place?
Mr. Fernandez: Since 1990, at least, under 11000. I'm sorry, Francisco.
Mr. Garcia: No. I think that's a valid assessment. Easily, since 1990.
Commissioner Suarez: And so there is an incongruity between what the neighbors would want potentially to see in that property and what it's zoned for.
Chair Hardemon: I'm not seeing an expansion of the commercial corridor, either. I'm not seeing where the line is being moved more into that -- into the residential area, besides it being a structure that is there that resembles -- for instance, the structures that we saw in PZ.18, the major difference is that this structure is actually included within the area that I'm looking at is in a commercial corridor, where other properties along that corridor are being redeveloped not consistent with what we're considering in PZ.17 that -- this structure.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, it's a hard case, because the front lot is noncontributing. I mean, we all agree on that. It's not a nice lot. The back lot is being requested to be contributing.
Vice Chair Russell: It's the opposite.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: No, no, it's the opposite.
Commissioner Suarez: No, I think it's --
Mr. Fernandez: No, he's correct.
Chair Hardemon: He's --
City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: I think I'm right, yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: I thought the front lot is the one where -- in question. The blue mark on your map is --
Unidentified Speaker: No, no, no.
Commissioner Suarez: No, no. The front lot is like --
Mr. Fernandez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) correct.
Commissioner Suarez: -- is in terrible condition. It's very ugly.
Mr. Fernandez: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Sorry, guys.
Mr. Fernandez: But I would ask --
Commissioner Suarez: You would admit that it's not in good condition, right? Okay, thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Could I get a map clarification? Because I'm mistaken then.
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: It's clearly not contributing, how 'bout that? Let's not go there, right?
Vice Chair Russell: Show the map again.
Mr. Fernandez: This map --
Chair Hardemon: Make sure you speak into the microphone.
Mr. Fernandez: This house is at the corner in pink, and the blue house -- it's not on.
Chair Hardemon: Can you just speak more clearly about -- the house that we're considering right now for historic designation is which property?
Mr. Fernandez: Is the blue.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Mr. Fernandez: Immediately behind this house. But I wanted to add, if I may, that everything you said is true; but in addition, a certificate of appropriateness is required for any development, whether it's contributing or noncontributing, even if it's a vacant lot. So there are controls in place that don't exist. It's not like you can develop a T4-L to its maximum extent; quite the opposite. This project itself went through an appeal, and went through various design iterations before it came to something that was acceptable to the association, and not even to all the association. So there are controls in place. I think what you're really talking about is, does it makes sense to preserve a marginal duplex and make the redevelopment of the site very difficult? I mean, it's one thing to adaptively reuse a structure that was designed for the corridor and to take a project -- a type of building that wasn't designed for the corridor and try to make it work. I don't think that makes sense.
Chair Hardemon: I find that to be pretty moving. I mean, I'm willing to hear a motion to settle
City of Miami Page 157 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
this issue --
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: -- if there's no further discussion.
Vice Chair Russell: -- just a little further discussion.
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Mr. Hannon: And, Chair, would you like to close your public hearing?
Chair Hardemon: And I'll close the public hearing at this time.
Vice Chair Russell: Especially now recognizing that this -- the property in question is not on Northeast 2nd Avenue, but it's on 45th Street, as was mentioned earlier, it is a part of the neighborhood, and even if it is within the -- if it were directly on the commercial corridor and it was between two sky-rises, if it's a historically designatable property that we feel should be contributing, we should protect it. And if it falls in -- if it falls within the same category as PZ.18, which we just contributed, I feel that we're compelled to do this one, as well; and their frustration and their passion and their pain makes it all the more difficult, and it's what I was referring to in the last situation, that we're making a decision not taking into account that emotion but that the property could be gone, that it could be demolished, and it's worth saving. And from my perspective, looking at the photos of what it was in the '40s and what it is now, and trusting the recommendation of the Board and staff, I do feel it's worth protecting, as difficult as a decision as that is.
Chair Hardemon: I agree with you that the properties look similar, but I think there were some very important distinctions that were made on the record by Commissioner Suarez that warrant strong consideration. I mean, at the end of the day, if that corner lot that is noncontributing develops, then -- to its maximum capacity -- then this building would literally be in the shadows of the development that's happening on that avenue, and I -- Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I was going to say -- make two sort of observations. One is that the City reviewed this in '87; decided that it was not contributing in '87, right? The City, at some point in -- and we kind of established it had not met the 50-year threshold, so maybe that's why it didn't -- wasn't contributing at that time. The City, at some near point subsequent to that, decided to zone the property commercial. I mean, that's -- go ahead.
Mr. Garcia: Many thoughts, but I'll be very brief. Certainly, in 1987, it was not eligible.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Garcia: We've established that. The commercial zoning predates that time.
Chair Hardemon: So does that make it noncontributing if it's not eligible, or is it just not eligible?
Mr. Garcia: Right. So two steps. First, the district was created, Buena Vista East Historic districts, and the district boundaries were created, and any property or any structure that fell within the boundaries was part of the historic district. That, in and of itself, as has been established, has certain protections, certain guidelines; and then within those structures, some are considered contributing and some noncontributing. Any which are under the age of 50, roughly, with some exceptions near the borderline, are considered ineligible, and therefore not even promoted to that contributing level.
City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So what does the record say that this property was considered? Was it considered ineligible or noncontributing?
Mr. Garcia: Not considered to be contributing. Not considered for contributing status by virtue of its young age, comparatively young age at the time. But there is one additional element that has not been set forth that I want to make you aware of. And you've heard me say in many instances, and I think it is an essential truth of what we do anyway in Planning & Zoning, that there is always a balance between development and preservation, and this happens to be a case. The case of Buena Vista East happens to be a very compelling case where things fell on the side of preservation. Here's why: Back in 1980, before Buena Vista East was even considered historic -- and probably, no one would have come up with the idea of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) court, except experts on the subject matter. Buena Vista East was considered by the City of Miami, my predecessors, your predecessors, to be an area prime for redevelopment, so much so that not only the properties along Northeast 2nd Avenue were considered to be C-1 commercial, meaning they could go up to 10, 12 stories, but the next year of flaws, all of them populated by single-family residential structures, were zoned as R-3, which is the modern-day equivalent of T5-R; five stories, residential. The intent there is to say, “Tear it all out; build it anew.” At some point in time in the mid '80s -- right? -- There was an awareness, a consciousness that there was something very special here, which turned into Buena Vista East, and we know the rest of the story, but that, too, has to be taken into consideration. There is a rightful place for the City to intervene to deem that an area is worth preserving, and the City has done so here. And so what we're arguing for now is that we should be consistent with ourselves and hold these properties and these structures to a higher standard.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I -- whoosh; that was a mouthful. I still -- my issue still is that at some point, the City took an objective step -- and I still haven't been able to figure out when it was, because it -- I thought -- you know, you said it predates Miami 21, so -- right. So at some point the City said, by and through its Zoning Code, this should be commercial. And if it's a preservable duplex or -- you know, that's where I think this case is a little bit different. That's why I'm struggling. Because the -- all we can do is infer intent from what the City does, and so the -- that's my reservation here, which is the City -- if -- you don't rezone properties that you don't expect to be demolished, that you want to be preserved; you just don't do that. I mean, I think that's a pretty fair statement.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) consider.
Mr. Garcia: And I'm sorry; I missed one step, and I'll say it very quickly. Whatever rezoning actions have taken place after the designation of Buena Vista East have always been towards reinforcing that designation and --
Commissioner Suarez: As well it should be. Mr. Garcia: Exactly right. And so the zoning capacity and the intensity has been consequently decreased.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. But why wouldn't you decrease it all the way down --
Mr. Fernandez: Exactly.
Commissioner Suarez: -- to -- in conformity with it being a historic structure that should be preserved?
Mr. Garcia: To provide -- and fair question. To provide for the ability and the zoning (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: So that somebody doesn't buy it thinking that they can build something else on it.
Mr. Garcia: And they can, and they can, because there is a property -- right -- which is not contributing, which is fronting 2nd Avenue, the major commercial corridor, presently zoned T4-L. Now, what "L" does is, as you know, it limits the amount of commercial you can have. It has to be certainly neighborhood scaled, and it has to have a predominant character of residential. So they can still do that, is the point that we've tried to make --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Garcia: -- except that that belongs properly on the property -- the part of the property fronting the commercial corridor and less so in the part of the property that fronts the residential area.
Commissioner Suarez: Now, let me see if -- this might -- the answer to this question might actually influence my final decision. It seems to me that under both -- whether -- regardless of whether they're contributing or noncontributing, they have to go for a certificate of appropriateness if they wanted to demolish, so what exactly are we doing here in terms of the hardship to them if we were to make it contributing versus not contributing? In other words, if we --
Mr. Fernandez: May speak to that?
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, it's up to the Chair.
Mr. Fernandez: You know, to quote Commissioner Russell and Commissioner Gort, "If you have the same duplex that exists in Little Havana, you have to look at it differently here because of the context of the historic districts," correct? I think that was a statement that was said. So we're preserving it because of the context. I'm asking you to take that one step further and recognize that that same duplex is in a commercial corridor, so you need to look at it differently than as if it were in the residential area. And to your point, Commissioner Suarez, it should be redeveloped, and to add contributing status to it makes it that much more difficult to redevelop.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm not sure that it should be redeveloped. My issue is that I can understand why they have the expectation that it would have been redeveloped --
Mr. Fernandez: Well --
Commissioner Suarez: -- because they bought it --
Mr. Fernandez: They had -- yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: -- with a zoning that made it seem like it would be redeveloped.
Mr. Fernandez: They had the expectation that it would be C-1, and that was --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: -- changed to T4.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: And now it's going to change again.
City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Fernandez: And that doesn't make sense in a commercial corridor.
Commissioner Suarez: And that's a tremendous unfairness to someone who buys --
Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: -- a property with that expectation.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I believe, though, that historic designation supersedes commercial designation; that the historic importance is much more important than commercial importance, so -- of whether or not it's in a commercial district or not. If we do not designate this property, I imagine Mr. Jernigan might have some issues from PZ.18, seeing that they're very similar properties, but this one actually has even some more stylistic characteristics of the time; and even though it was a little bit later, you know, we might be a little inconsistent here.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't --
Vice Chair Russell: And I just don't see how a commercial area should take away from the historical importance.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, there's a -- there was an argument made that there was some arbitrariness in the decision-making with this property. Can you provide any facts to show that there was not?
Ms. Schmitt: That's exactly what I wanted to state on the record. I actually think it would be completely arbitrary if I was to have suggested that this building be noncontributing and the one previous be contributing. They're very similar in style. So when I'm looking at an evaluation of these properties, I am not looking at the zoning, I'm not looking at who owns the property, I'm not looking at what their future plans are for the property; I'm looking at them side by side. So I would actually suggest that, had we looked at this property differently, that would have been arbitrary.
Mr. Fernandez: Megan, may I just point out that the property that's immediately next to this was found to be noncontributing by the board during this very same sweep, based on the fact that it was previously used as a commercial use? A portion of the structure was commercial. So there is some relevance to the commercial component, and that's an immediately abutting structure.
Ms. Schmitt: For the HEP Board, that's correct, not for our analysis.
Commissioner Suarez: What's -- and I agree with that, that you really shouldn't -- for historical purposes, that's really irrelevant. What I'm saying is for fairness purposes.
Ms. Schmitt: I understand.
Commissioner Suarez: You understand? For fairness purposes, if you're being told that something is commercial -- right? -- if you're looking at it -- and then that a process was done several years ago to determine whether or not it's historic, I don't think the expectation is that that might change, but -- I mean, you know, you make a good point, too.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there a motion to --?
Mr. Jerome: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Buena Vista East, can I have one more minute, please? I just want to -- just on a response to what Director Garcia said. Director Garcia, thank you
City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
very much for that explanation, because I didn't know that much history as far as how that happened. I also want to clarify something that some of us can understand. I commend the owners for buying this property. I commend the owners on having the know-how to invest, because I respect that. I'm also Haitian. I know how it is to make nothing out of something [sic]. But I also want to say that this property is four units. Compared to other properties in Buena Vista East, under certain guidelines, four units or more is considered commercial. So one of the reasons that most likely this property was considered T4-L was because there's four units; there's two duplexes. Unlike a property which is a triplex or a duplex, it's still considered part of the residential fabric. So that may have been the reason why even though this property is within 45th Street, it was still deemed T4-L, so I just want to go back to the context on the block. No one is saying this property can't be developed. What we're saying is the context on the block. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Yeah, sure.
Mr. James: I'm going to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my time.
Chair Hardemon: You're the property owner; I'll let you.
Mr. James: And again, I'm going to point to the same thing. It's -- we relied on the zoning of this property. If this property was zoned residential back in 2004, we would not have bought it, plain and simple. To fast-forward 12 years later and be told that the decision we made, a well, thoughtful, educated learning decision. We took our time to decide if this is the right property that's going to set us up for the future. And we said, "Yes." So we took everything into consideration that existed at the time. I think what's most important is that everything that we looked at existed after 1987. So for me to come back now 14 years later and be told that everything I relied upon doesn't make a difference, I find that a little bit not just unfair, but -- you know, when we talk about -- I mentioned earlier that, you know, as a lawyer, I look at notice, I look at fairness, I look at, you know, due process; I also look at the ability to distinguish cases. And the two difference between number 18 -- no offense -- and number 17 is that ours is commercial, and it's always been commercial. It was super commercial C-1 and now it's still commercial. So I have never seen any indication from anyone, the City of Miami, the County, the Preservation Board, to tell me that, at some point in time, this property would not be able to do what we thought it. If it did, I would have developed it 10 years ago. I wouldn't have wait around until they actually started to now be told that I can't. So again, I think -- I understand, and I -- everyone has interest in this neighborhood; we do too, and I think our interest should be given the same consideration everyone else is. And again, I appreciate the efforts of the Preservation Board. I don't want to -- you guys to think that my comments earlier suggested I did not. But again, if you're going to rely upon what happened in 1987, other than the report and the person that did that in 1987, I don't think you can rely on anything else, whether it's the head of the homeowner's association or even the Preservation Officer, because they were not there. And they had the opportunity; they went back twice to do this report, and at no point did they go back and look to see why these properties were felt to be noncontributing; and we already were told many times today and last two months, age alone is not enough.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Garcia.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: What happens if you have -- could there possibly be -- if one is designated noncontributing and one is designated contributing, could there possibly be a unity of title for them to develop the entire one site? And if it is, what would the designation be at that point?
Mr. Garcia: The designation in this particular case pertains to the structures; to the site, as well, but in particular, to the structures. So other than the presumption that the structures
City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
themselves, because of their significance, will be preserved or rehabilitated in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines of the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board, they certainly, as property owners, have the ability to redevelop the site. In fact, they could even go so far as to propose demolition should they wish to do that, and the HEP Board would consider it. That being said, it certainly goes against the grain of the guidelines, but they have that possibility; all of which is to say, they have two properties: One has structures that are contributing; the other one does not. A scenario where the two properties, through unity of title, can be redeveloped as a whole is an entire possibility that would then be presented to the HEP Board, and we would work with them gladly to accomplish that. There are certainly many successful examples of the same kind of proposal.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Mr. Fernandez: I think Megan just said she wouldn't recommend demolition on the record.
Chair Hardemon: Right, she did, but Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: I guess my question is, what year -- I know I sound like a broken record -- was this -- was it zoned commercial? Do we know the first time that it was zoned commercial?
Commissioner Gort: 1990.
Mr. Garcia: These two properties are presently, technically speaking -- I'm sorry; did I speak too loudly? -- these two properties are, presently speaking, still zoned commercial, albeit, in the limited capacity. Prior to that --
Commissioner Suarez: But when were they first --?
Mr. Garcia: -- under Zoning Ordinance 11000, which dates back to the early '90s, 1994, thereabouts --
Mr. Fernandez: '89.
Mr. Garcia: -- it was zoned C-1, we know that, which did allow for straightforward commercial.
Chair Hardemon: All right, let's take a break.
Commissioner Suarez: Do -- wait, wait.
Chair Hardemon: Let's take a break so we can -- it is now 12 o'clock; have to --
Commissioner Suarez: All right.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Do we know if it was commercial before then?
Mr. Garcia: It is safe to expect so, although I do not know for a fact.
Commissioner Suarez: Because my point is this: If in '87 this was analyzed, and it was getting close to the 50-year mark -- right? -- at some point, you would think that the City would, in order to protect against a situation like we have today, would have downzoned or would have zoned it in conformity with the potential of it being historic to protect it.
City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Garcia: I understand the question, but I will suggest that there are -- the way to look at it -- the way that we look at it is that there are two different instruments, and there is the designation as historic as part of a historic district, an assemblage of properties and structures that are deemed to be of historic value.
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Mr. Garcia: That's one consideration. Then there's the zoning consideration, and the two have to be offset at some point in time.
Commissioner Suarez: Why do they have to be offset? Wouldn't you --
Mr. Garcia: Well --
Commissioner Suarez: -- think that they would be onset? I mean --
Mr. Garcia: There's a balance in the sense that if you have a very high development capacity but also a structure that is designated historic, that then becomes a matter in the institution of a redevelopment proposal that is subject to the criteria of the HEP Board to be considered and determined by the HEP Board with our advice and analysis.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, let's take a break. One second.
Vice Chair Russell: How long do we need?
Chair Hardemon: How long do you need?
Mr. Hannon: 60 seconds.
Chair Hardemon: 60 --
Commissioner Gort: I'll tell my wife I have to leave by 3 o'clock. I have to be home by 3 a.m.
Chair Hardemon: I'm going to call the meeting back into order.
Commissioner Gort: Put on the record that I was here at 1 in the morning.
Chair Hardemon: All right. I want to be able to continue discussion. Mr. Garcia, I know you had some comments that you were making on the record.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, thank you. There was one, and I think in response to Commissioner Suarez's question. There is then a balance to be achieved between -- in the case of your scenario, between height, development capacity, or high intensity assigned to a particular property; and then the historic consideration, which is what the designation is attached to. The examples that come readily to mind, I guess, are two in terms of a district: The MiMo (Miami Modern) District comes to mind, where there was once zoning that allowed for much higher development capacity, and then there was a -- sort of an cap put on to try to preserve the character of the district, but perhaps a better example -- and I'll close with this and yield --
Commissioner Suarez: But the MiMo one was based on a negotiation of -- they have very tense, sort of, 35-foot height restriction versus other owners that wanted development capacity, so they -- that was sort of like a hodge -- that was done specifically to sort of achieve an end.
Mr. Garcia: No, of course. And I'm using it only as an example of a zoning amended to respond
City of Miami Page 164 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
to the historic character of a district, and then I'll use another example perhaps to go more directly to your point, which is the example of the remaining -- the few remaining mansions along the Brickell Avenue corridor, where you have, in principal, very high development capacity, very high intensity; and yet, the historic designation requires that those structures remain at one or two stories, because that's the historic character of them. As a single element, they merit that sort of suppression of development capacity.
Commissioner Suarez: But even for a sophisticated buyer -- and they're sophisticated, because he's a lawyer, you know -- he's sophisticated guy. You know, even someone like that, how do they recapture the value that they lose with the difference between the zoning and -- you know, I mean, I know that -- we talked about the TDR, but they're not satisfied that that's going to help them recapture that value.
Mr. Garcia: I understand. And my best answer to that -- and I'm sure there are many -- but our best answer to that is that there is an interest on the part of the City to preserve the historic value of that structure; and there's an interest on their part, which argues for the highest and best use of the property, and I'm sure they're going to make their case. What I would tell you is the ideal scenario, the compromise situation is for them to come up with a redevelopment scenario that both preserves the existing historic structure and derives better use of the property, and that can be done.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sure it can, and maybe that's what they will end up doing, you know. I just think we need to be consistent to the extent that we can be, so we don't tell the public one thing by virtue of a Zoning Code, and then have something else by virtue of a historic designation, which I think is very important, and I think we established how important that was. But I just -- to me, what bothers me is the incongruity, and that's what bothers me. And it would bother me if I was a resident too, because of the fact that -- you know, again, I talked about the example of my neighborhood. I know how my neighbors feel about, you know, commercial development on 37th Avenue, even in an area where there's single-family residential homes, and there's other commercial development in that same street.
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, and your example is totally different from what the Planning director is saying. He's pointing to the Santamaria on Brickell, where the homes are preserved intact. Nobody is going to apply to modify that to make it work in a commercial district, because it's a beautiful mansion that is kept and preserved as the spa, or something like that. What he's saying at the same time is, “Okay, why don't you come back with a development proposal to modify this duplex to make it work in a commercial context that's never going to match the context of the rest of the street." They're not analogous situations. What -- these stand-alone preservations that have taken place on Brickell are because the structure was inherently exceptional and merited preservation; not because it was a duplex that happens to be in a historic district on a commercial corridor. To bring those two examples together is entirely ridiculous.
Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask another question. Mr. Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: So if -- let's assume, for argument sake, that it's noncontributing, that structure, just for argument sake, and they wanted to develop that property -- right? -- in conformity with the zoning. Would the public have an opportunity to express its concern about that site? Because I think the concern for the public is -- and I want to be honest with your client. You know, this is still a public process, any way you look at it. You know what I'm saying? Like any time you go do a development, you have to potentially come before -- and you might get denied, and that's a risk that you take, you know, when you buy a property. That doesn't -- you don't automatically get --
City of Miami Page 165 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner, it could be noncontributing, and they may still deny portions of the demolition. It's not a guarantee that you can demolish a structure just because it's noncontributing. This house was noncontributing. We had to go to the board, and it wasn't an easy --
Commissioner Suarez: But what they're saying is that the reverse is also true.
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: It could also be contributing and it can also --
Mr. Fernandez: But highly unlikely, because you heard the -- what the recommendation would be; that they would recommend that it not be --
Commissioner Suarez: But that can be appealed.
Mr. Fernandez: Well, it can be.
Commissioner Suarez: Right, just like if it were noncontributing --
Vice Chair Russell: Are you ready to make a motion?
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion?
Vice Chair Russell: I move that we deny the appeal.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we deny the appeal. All in favor, indicate so by saying "aye."
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Vice Chair Russell: Aye.
Commissioner Gort: No.
Chair Hardemon: Two “nos.” Motion passes.
Later...
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman?
Commissioner Gort: You have two items.
Commissioner Carollo: You know it's coming, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gort: You have the pocket items.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chair Russell: Congratulations.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized.
City of Miami Page 166 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: I will be remised if I don't make a motion -- I may not get a second, and I understand that, but I will be remised if I do not make a motion to reconsider PZ.17.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. I was going to request that motion from the Chair.
Unidentified Speaker: Of what?
Unidentified Speaker: Of 18.
Chair Hardemon: I'm not sure. Does the -- do our procedures allow us to reconsider a -- an appeal -- to reconsider an appeal? I understand motions, but this is an appeal --
Unidentified Speaker: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- that was denied. Do our procedures --?
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Yes, because you have procedures in the Code that let the Commission reconsider matters within a certain period of time, and you could do so if it was your wish to do so, as long as you --
Chair Hardemon: Well, could you look particularly into whether or not an appeal is something that you can do? I could understand a motion, and I understand we made a motion, but an appeal seems to be a hearing, and so I just want to be clear about that.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: City Attorney, have you found any information yet?
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Mason's does have a rule for reconsideration. The City Code lets you reconsider. Of course, the Commission considers each appeal separately, based on the evidence and the facts made. The historic section on the appeal says that it's a de novo hearing, and the City Commission may consider new evidence or materials. If the Commission feels that it heard new evidence or materials which is pertinent, I believe that the Commission could consider a reconsideration.
Chair Hardemon: So I'll just tell you how I feel. The motion to reconsider is a motion that we generally use, but when I think we start talking about the hearings and we talk about de novo evidence -- we've heard all the de novo evidence at that particular hearing, and so we made our decision on that de novo evidence. However, if -- I'm sure, if this isn't the way that it's supposed to be, someone will make an appeal of this decision to reconsider the actual appeal, the -- that was given. So there is a motion. Was there a second? Was -- is it a motion to --
Unidentified Speaker: Reconsider.
Chair Hardemon: -- reconsider?
Vice Chair Russell: Did we learn something new?
Commissioner Carollo: Reconsider PZ.17.
Chair Hardemon: I don't know if we learned anything new yet.
Unidentified Speaker: Failed.
City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: The motion is to reconsider --
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry. Yes, reconsider PZ.17. We did PZ.17 first, and then we'll see where this goes, and then we'll see about PZ.18.
Vice Chair Russell: We did 18 first.
Chair Hardemon: No, we did 18 first.
Commissioner Gort: We did 18.
Commissioner Carollo: Right, so the last one was PZ.17, so let's reconsider PZ.17. There was, I think, a 3-2 vote there.
Mr. Fernandez: That's correct.
Commissioner Carollo: If I would have known that, my vote may have been different. And again, in light of fairness --
Vice Chair Russell: If you had known what?
Commissioner Carollo: The same information that we just learned; that Ms. Schmitt presented several items specifically identifying what was the --
Vice Chair Russell: That it was a broad designation.
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: Not a house-by-house designation.
Commissioner Carollo: -- not necessarily specific per house; and then, at the same time, learning that, yes, this was done right after the ICM issue, which, in essence, they did a blanket, you know, after that issue with ICM, and we took a vote, and it was fair. But then, all of a sudden, they've gone to that neighborhood, and it seems like they just did a blanket policy instead of going house by house and specifically identifying what were the reasons for this designation, which is the reason why I think we voted the way we did in PZ.19.
Vice Chair Russell: I can see how it would look that way, but I can also see that the knee-jerk reaction to -- of the historic -- of the Preservation Board and -- to seeing what happened with the museum and the houses that were taken down was to step up their vigilance. And in a historic district, they can do sweeping designation, as long as they consider each house separately; and to do so, they did so with the same criteria on each one, which resulted in the same verbiage for like-themed houses. So it may look arbitrary and capricious because the same text was used for each house, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't consider each one, one by one, and I think we can see from the photos that they did. I'm pretty comfortable with my vote.
Mr. Fernandez: But it doesn't take degree into consideration.
Vice Chair Russell: What?
Mr. Fernandez: It doesn't take any degree into consideration, degree of relevance. I mean, it's a "Yes, you are," and "Yes, you are." You could be vastly different. There are degrees of relevance.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: But the Commission hasn't decided to reconsider.
City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Real quick, just to follow up to Commissioner Russell. I understand your point, Commissioner Russell, but you, yourself, even said, "Listen, if we vote one way on one and now you start voting a different way on another, aren't we necessarily," you know, "not being consistent or fair?" And I believe that's what we've done.
Vice Chair Russell: But our -- I think our votes were made on different, you know -- I was consistent with all three, even though I was out-voted on the third one.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood.
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: But you -- because you were out-voted on the third one.
Vice Chair Russell: True.
Commissioner Carollo: And I was consistent, too, until that new information arose. I mean --
Vice Chair Russell: I understand.
Commissioner Carollo: -- it's not like I'm against preservation. Like I said, I was consistent also, until that new information arose, which, in my opinion, changed the -- my reasoning for my prior votes.
Vice Chair Russell: I understand where you're coming from.
Chair Hardemon: And part of what I'm saying about this is that, so we --
Commissioner Carollo: Which is part of the process, too. You know, I understand that maybe they did -- maybe the Administration were a little bit more aggressive and maybe rightly so, but at the same time, they need to follow the process.
Vice Chair Russell: You wanted to see more specific designation criteria and response --
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- per property?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: So -- this is the way that I see it: When you open up this again, you're basically giving everyone another opportunity to put on the record additional facts that were not considered in the first hearing, and so Ms. Schmitt could add on additional facts, and then counselor could add additional arguments; and so to me, if there wasn't some huge -- I guess there -- I don't want to make rules. I mean, I don't want to say, unless there was some error, but it just -- it really does seem like we're opening up the case once again, and there was not anything that we should have necessarily considered that's being alleged that we -- should have been considered by the rules, so if you were -- if this was a criminal case, there would be some factors that you would have to weigh it against to see if there deserves to be a new trial, in a sense. Besides that, you know, common error, it doesn't equate to a new trial. Yes, sir.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: The Commission was considering appeals; they're de novo appeals. They're based on the facts, arguments and evidence presented about each property and the reports about each property and the professional testimony and other testimony about each property, and, you know, the Commission made its decision, you know, based on each individual case, because even
City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
though there -- it is a district, there's different characteristics and different properties, as you heard, and different reasons on the district. That being said, you know, it's a prerogative of the Commission.
Chair Hardemon: Right. Well, right now there's a motion.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. And Mr. Chairman, listen, I made the motion. Listen, it was previously said, you know, "Vote your conscience." And like I said, I will be remised if I don't, you know, make this motion. And I very clearly stated, I may not get a second; I understand that, but I'm voting my conscience. That's why I'm making my motion.
Chair Hardemon: Motion dies for lack of second.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: I want to make -- clarify something for the record, and I apologize for this. I did not hear -- there was a second. Commissioner Carollo moved to reconsider PZ.17.
Commissioner Suarez: Who seconded it?
Chair Hardemon: That was PZ.17, correct?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: And there was a second. The second was by Commissioner Gort. So we at least have to consider the vote --
Commissioner Gort: I did.
Chair Hardemon: -- on the reconsideration. So all in -- so it's not necessarily debatable, but all in favor, if there's no debate about it, of reconsidering item PZ.17, indicate so by saying “aye.”
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against?
Commissioner Suarez: No.
Vice Chair Russell: No.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.17 -- that was a 3-2 vote, correct?
Commissioner Carollo: 3-2.
Chair Hardemon: The motion for reconsideration will then pass. All right.
Commissioner Suarez: Does not pass.
Commissioner Carollo: Does not pass.
Chair Hardemon: No, I will vote with it. I will vote with it.
Commissioner Carollo: But that -- then it does pass.
City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Because -- right, the motion for reconsideration does pass, and I'll tell you why I would vote to reconsider it. In that motion, I did vote in the minority, because I didn't think there was enough that was made. So there's no additional argument that will sway my vote, because my vote in PZ.17 was against the motion that was on the floor.
Commissioner Gort: So was mine.
Chair Hardemon: So I know that since we are now reconsidering the appeal of the property on 184 Northeast 45th Street, if there was some additional argument that Ms. Schmitt wanted to add onto the record -- Yes.
Mr. Garcia: I would certainly --
Ms. Méndez: Chairman, I know that a motion to reconsider has passed, but, unfortunately, there were other people who were here speaking against or for, and had all, you know, interested parties --
Commissioner Suarez: The residents.
Ms. Méndez: -- other than the -- so if this is something that's going to pass, to at least reconsider, then you may need to have, you know, the remainder of the hearing at the next scheduled --
Chair Hardemon: Well, let me ask you a question. Is it -- why? Are you saying because there's no public comment? Because there was --
Ms. Méndez: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: -- already --
Ms. Méndez: There won't be public comment, based on the decision that you're going to reach now.
Chair Hardemon: The reason I'm saying this -- and this can be a dialogue -- we had public comment before it was reconsidered.
Commissioner Suarez: A bait and switch.
Chair Hardemon: The public made their -- Yeah, I can hear you, but you know, they say, “You should never leave a meeting before the meeting ends,” because you can always move to reconsider. As a matter of fact, I can go back right now and say, "I move to reconsider item RE.1."
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So I could --
Commissioner Suarez: You think that's right?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: I'm not saying that it's not right. I'm saying that it can happen. That's all I'm saying; it can happen.
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, if you can do it (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: So what I'm --
Vice Chair Russell: It ain't over till the fat lady sings.
Chair Hardemon: -- saying to you is that -- and, for instance, if we open up public hearing now, we gave the public an opportunity to be heard “XYZ.” Is anyone here? Only the interested parties are here. So I would -- I think -- and I think the parties will probably agree to this: In an abundance of the caution, we can reset this for another hearing date, if you want to hear it again.
Commissioner Suarez: That's the right thing to do.
Ms. Ugucconi: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for clarification? Are we talking about items 17 and 18 or --?
Chair Hardemon: No. The motion was PZ.17.
Commissioner Carollo: I've asked for 17 first, and we'll see where we go there; and then, most likely, I will ask for 18, but I didn't even get a second, and now I did have a second, and it seems like now we have three votes to reconsider, so.
Ms. Ugucconi: But we would just say that we also didn't have a chance to --
Commissioner Carollo: I understand, I understand.
Ms. Ugucconi: -- put in evidence.
Commissioner Carollo: We'll get there --
Ms. Ugucconi: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and see where it goes.
Vice Chair Russell: So I'll leave us with this thought: That the -- you know, we have the rights of the owners, and we have the rights in this case with the historic preservation of the house, and then in -- the idea of double jeopardy that you had mentioned, we found this house, which was on death row, we have considered innocent and it will not go for demolition. Now we're going to bring it back, and we may change our minds.
Chair Hardemon: Well, that's why I was asking for the opinion of the City Attorney's Office to see whether or not you can actually go back into this as an appeal. I was of the opinion that you couldn't go back into it as an appeal because it was closed. I mean, it was not just a matter of reconsideration. But now we've allowed our self, because we didn't get an opinion from our City Attorney that was substantive enough to say, "No, you can't do that." I gave them some time, I read another thing into the record, and then we had a motion, we had a second to reconsider, and it was a prevailing vote, so (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Méndez: Chair, it's --
Chair Hardemon: So maybe at this time --
Ms. Méndez: -- this is very similar to a motion for rehearing after a judge has ruled. It's allowed. I'm just saying that if it's going to be based on new evidence --
City of Miami Page 172 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: I haven't seen it.
Chair Hardemon: I know that a motion to -- for rehearing could be allowed if -- because it's stipulated in the rules. I haven't seen a rule that allows you to reconsider a motion to appeal. I mean, I haven't --
Ms. Méndez: Mason's.
Mr. Fernandez: Right.
Chair Hardemon: No, I've seen a motion -- just a typical motion, but this is an appeal. Would you not say that an appeal is a process that you have to go through that's much like -- let's say, for instance --
Ms. Méndez: It's no different than a motion for rehearing on Bonk before the Third DCA. I mean, you could do it. It could be done.
Chair Hardemon: Well, then if they allow you to do that by procedure. What I'm saying is that if -- I'm trying to think of a -- what type of item do we typically hear --? A Planning & Zoning item, right? A PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) item. A PZAB item comes to us, ultimately, for us to decide where it's going to go, and we make a decision. So we say, for instance, "No, Walmart, you can't build there. That's the final decision of the City of Miami Commission." If Walmart knew that it could appeal to one of us for reconsideration, I'm sure they would do it. The reason they don't do it, I'm assuming, is because there's nothing within our --
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner --
Chair Hardemon: No? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
Mr. Fernandez: Specifically, if it's within the next hearing, I believe that you can request a reconsideration of a rezoning. Certainly in Ordinance 11000 --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Fernandez: -- that was the case, because I've done it myself.
Chair Hardemon: I know you (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Fernandez: And we've brought cases back, rezoning decisions.
Chair Hardemon: I know you can do it. So that's what I'm saying, like -- if you're talking about reconsiderations in general, I know you can do it.
Mr. Fernandez: No, on a -- but on a zoning matter. And I've seen zoning decisions be reversed on reconsideration at a subsequent hearing.
Chair Hardemon: Is there something that's written that way within our process that allow that, or are you depending on Mason's --
Mr. Fernandez: I would --
Chair Hardemon: -- which is a collegial --
Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, I would --
City of Miami Page 173 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: -- thing that can be suspended if you want to, et cetera?
Mr. Fernandez: Now that you have a second --
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Mr. Fernandez: -- and it's reopened, I would just like Commissioner Carollo's statements that he would have voted differently based on the information he heard to be part of the record, because that was in the transcript, and I would just like to reconfirm that it's part of our record now, because I think that that's very important to our case.
Chair Hardemon: So I'll allow -- I think, what's the best thing to do -- it's already been moved to reconsider. That motion has passed, so -- which means that this matter is open once again, and so I think the best thing we'll do is to reset this to another hearing date. During that time, I'm sure our City Attorney will come up with an opinion that you can address and that all of us can consider; right, Mr. Garcia?
Ms. Méndez: Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Then, in fairness, since there's another party here, I'm going to make a motion to reconsider.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Sorry. Chair, we still need to address PZ.17. So if you were going to reset it --
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we have to deal with PZ.17.
Mr. Hannon: Did you want to --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) going to reset it, we have to --
Mr. Hannon: -- continue the item to July 29 or defer it to July 14, Mr. Planning Director?
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Garcia, yes.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. While we are in the motion to reconsider, I have listened attentively and, I believe, understood your concerns, and I'd like to provide a statement that may help clarify --
Chair Hardemon: The motion to reconsider passed, so we don't have a motion on the floor right now.
Mr. Garcia: My apologies?
Chair Hardemon: The motion to reconsider passed. It was voted upon and it passed.
Mr. Garcia: Fair enough.
Chair Hardemon: So the question right now is about the reset date, so let's reset it to the next Planning & Zoning hearing date.
City of Miami Page 174 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Hannon: So then PZ.17 will be continued to July 29. Is there a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, move it.
Chair Hardemon: The Chair will second.
Commissioner Carollo: I move it for --
Chair Hardemon: Is it July 29, you say?
Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: July 29, 2017. Okay, that's PZ.17.
Commissioner Carollo: So do we take a vote on July 29?
Mr. Hannon: Is there a second?
Chair Hardemon: It was a second by the Chair. All in favor, indicate so by saying “aye.”
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against?
Vice Chair Russell: No.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, again, I don't know if --
Mr. Hannon: It's 3-1, for the record.
Later...
Commissioner Suarez: Secondly, I just want to make clear that my decision on the third case was based on a lack of substantial and competent evidence. The decision on the other two cases, however, has to be based on substantial and competent evidence, and I think that was provided in the record. So now, if we want to reconsider that because, for some reason, people who voted on it do not believe that substantial and competent evidence was provided, that's fine. I mean, we have that right. And we'll have a third de novo hearing, because they had one --
Ms. Méndez: You don't necessarily have to have a third de novo hearing --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) new ordinance.
Ms. Méndez: -- but we'll deal with -- it depends --
Commissioner Suarez: We're reconsidering --
Ms. Méndez: -- what is going to be presented.
Commissioner Suarez: We had a de novo hearing, and we made a decision based on substantial and competent evidence, okay? The third lawyer brought up that standard, which, presumably, was -- should have been what we were deciding on, but the third lawyer brought it up, just the
City of Miami Page 175 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
standard itself; and we made a decision that there wasn't substantial and competent evidence in that case, which I stand by. So the question is whether now we're going to reopen these other cases to see if -- I don't know. Because we were supposed to be voting on the basis of having received substantial and competent evidence; so if someone here voted on the basis of not having received substantial competent evidence, then they voted in error. Okay?
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Garcia?
Commissioner Suarez: So it should be a time certain.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir, for the opportunity, and I hope this clarifies it; if not today, then certainly going forward to the next meeting where these might -- where these matters may be heard. Again, let me just put on the record that the way -- and I'll be very brief about it -- these studies are done, as was done recently for the Buena Vista East District, is to create the criteria. That's the tough part of the job. That is the part of the job that takes three months. Once the criteria are created for the district as a whole, the district styles within the district, then each property is checked against the criteria. And so what we're here today telling you is that these particular structures, these particular properties, when checked against a criteria which have been thoroughly vetted, checked positive, which is why when you see these reports and when you study them again for rehearing, you will see the same language used for many properties, because they all have met those criteria. Thank you for the opportunity.
Vice Chair Russell: So it wasn't arbitrary or capricious.
Commissioner Suarez: And it's our job to make sure that in each hearing, we receive substantial and competent evidence to justify our decision.
Mr. Garcia: Agreed.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay?
Ms. Méndez: If that --
Commissioner Suarez: So by reconsidering it --
Ms. Méndez: -- that a Court, when they review this hearing, finds that there was substantial competent evidence for you to base your decision on. But with that said, we'll give you a memo and all that before the next meeting so that you could decide.
Mr. Hannon: Chair?
Chair Hardemon: I just want it to be known -- I know we need time certain. I set a time certain of 6 o'clock without any objection. Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't have any objection.
Chair Hardemon: And then additionally, you know, I'm not proclaiming that I know the procedure about how this is -- how this occurs, which is why I asked for some guidance, and so --
Commissioner Suarez: I think you were right (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: -- without guidance, this is the decision that we came to. And so we've now set a date; we now have a time certain for that date, and just -- we look forward to hearing the facts that you have.
City of Miami Page 176 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Awesome.
Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, if we're not introducing new evidence and we're simply reconsidering a matter because a Commissioner --
Chair Hardemon: Don't push it.
Mr. Fernandez: -- feels that he voted incorrectly --
Chair Hardemon: Don't push it.
Mr. Fernandez: I'm just saying.
Chair Hardemon: Don't push it.
Mr. Fernandez: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: All right
Mr. Hannon: And Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Suarez: Don't push it; you're doing good.
PZ.18 RESOLUTION 16-00738ha A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY JEFFERY JERNIGAN, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH APPROVED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 15-17 NORTHEAST 42 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 16-00738ha CC Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00738ha Analysis.pdf 16-00738ha HEPB Reso.pdf 16-00738ha Appeal Letter.pdf 16-00738ha Legislation (v2).pdf 16-00738ha Legislation (v3).pdf 16-00738ha-Submittal-Schiller Jerome-Opposition to Appeal.pdf 16-00738ha-Submittal-Jeffrey Jernigan-Photos-Original Property vs. Current Structure.pdf 16-00738ha-Scrivener's Error Memo.pdf 16-00738ha-Legislation-SUB.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 15-17 NE 42 Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPELLANT(S): Jeffery Jernigan, property owner
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S):
City of Miami Page 177 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended - of the appeal and - of the designation.
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: - the designation on - by a vote of -.
PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will exclude the property located at approximately - as part of the historic designation of the - Historic District.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0306
Chair Hardemon: Item PZ.18.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): If I may, Mr. Chair, by way of brief introduction; and again, probably to restate, in part, what the City Attorney has just said, the next three items are alike in the sense that the three of them are appeals of HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board decisions, HEP Board resolutions determining that the subject structures, the structures subject to these cases, were worthy of being changed in designation from noncontributing structures, which they were prior to the HEP Board decision, to contributing structures. All of these three are actually within the Buena Vista East Historic District. And so these were all heard at the Planning -- I'm sorry -- at the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board hearing of June 20 -- I'm sorry, not June 23; that's today -- May 3, and testimony was provided at that point and time by the Preservation Officer and her staff. She's here today; however, because these are appeals, we would defer to the appellants before you today to state their case as to why these structures and properties should not be re-designated as contributing, and then we will certainly present to you the reason we think they should be as the HEP Board determined. Now, our recommendation, simply put, is to uphold the HEP Board's determination, and we'll be happy to stand by and answer any questions you may have.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Chairman, also, these are appeals de novo, so you will hear the evidence presented again before you that was placed on the record in the HEP hearing, and I don't know if the persons that are here for item 18 -- are you -- okay. If you could approach.
Mr. Garcia: Item PZ.18 -- and I neglected to say this; my apologies -- pertains to the property at 15 and 17 Northeast 42nd Street. I yield to the appellants.
Jeffrey Jernigan: By the records, it's only 17 property records -- tax record card, but --
Ms. Méndez: I'm sorry, sir. If you can bring the microphone a little closer and just project into there. Thank you.
Mr. Jernigan: Good evening, Mr. Commissioners and Chair and members. My name's Jeffrey Jernigan, and I own 17 Northeast 42nd Street. I brought with me plenty of information or historic -- history of the property, but I'll keep to the point. In 1976, I came to Buena Vista East, and I worked as a handyman for the owners. In 1988, I purchased the property from the owners, and served in a neighborhood security patrol for the neighborhood association. I sat many times in the office of Sarah Eaton, which was the officer of the Historical Board at that time in 1988 -- '89 and '90 right on, several times -- many times whenever the offices at 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue. Who would think that I'd stand before you -- the Commissioners to plead on something that was decided many years ago as a non-historical designation? It was declared then. I'd like
City of Miami Page 178 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
to say that it's somewhat comforting to stand before you professionals, and you'll take part or participation in righting a wrong here. And by the words of the Preservation Board, I'd like to say that the -- they were asked -- and I want to say her name is Ms. Lynn Lewis, but I can't be for sure -- that she presented the question to them: “If we do nothing, vote for or against it being designated or noncontributing resource, will it change anything that” -- “or take any power away from your decision of what'll be done with the property in the future?” And by Ms. Megan's admission, she said, "No." So I ask that you please exercise in your decision by using something that is not so common anymore, and I'd like to present to you right now Ms. Ellen Uguccioni, who is a historian for Miami, as well as Coral Gables, who's made great contributions in preservation work.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, can you do me a favor? Can you take this lectern so that you can remain at the lectern there? And then properly identify yourself so we know who you are; and let us know what your professional experience is, education; and let us know in what capacity we're expected to hear you in, because I'm assuming you're trying to present yourself as an expert in something, so I want to know exactly what that "something" is so that --
Ellen Uguccioni: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: -- we can properly follow your opinion.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Just want to make a Jennings's disclosure that on Friday, at 11 a.m., I met with members of the Buena Vista East community regarding these structures, and I actually went and saw what they looked like.
Ms. Méndez: Chairman, and the City would stipulate, I believe that she is an expert in her field. She used to be our historic preservation officer many years ago; I'm sure she can state it quickly for the record, but there wouldn't really be an objection.
Chair Hardemon: I'll take that into consideration as far as your statement for the record, but just inform us --
Ms. Uguccioni: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: -- who you are and just a brief synopsis of your experience so we understand where you're coming from.
Ms. Uguccioni: Yes, sir. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Some of you I knew, and congratulations to you that I don't know. I've spent 35 years of my life defending buildings, and so my bent is towards the historic. I came to Coral Gables to become the director of historic preservation, and I've been here for some 25 years after that. My degree is in historic preservation; historic architecture, particularly. I am the gubernatorial appointee to the Florida Historical Commission. I am the Florida Architectural Historian at this moment. I think you should know that Buena Vista East is an exceptional area, which you already know, but it was designated as an historic district back in 1987. That's really important that you know. It was revisited -- we don't know why, because there's certainly a lot of areas -- and certainly, I have great respect for Megan and her staff, but it's not -- I don't understand why they went back and looked at Buena Vista East again, because it had already been designated almost 30 years ago. As a consequence of looking at it again, buildings became older, and some people think that all you need to have for an historic building is 50 years old and voila; there it is. That's not the case, and the ordinance speaks directly to this, Chapter 23 of your City Code. And it says
City of Miami Page 179 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
that a building must -- “is generally 50 years old” -- "generally"; that's the word -- “and it must also have either architectural significance, it must be associated with certain events, or it must be archaeologically significant.” So it's not just "How old is it?" What's important in this case that before we even talk about significance, we have to talk about integrity, and I'm not talking about the integrity you have in your jobs; I'm talking about physical integrity. What did the building look like originally, and what does it look like now? We handed to you a handout which showed the original property; and following that, there's a color photo which shows it today. Now, if you look at both photos -- we don't -- we're not arguing that this isn't an historic district; certainly it is, and many of the buildings indeed. There are single-family residences, many of them. But we're arguing that in 1937, which is a time when Art Deco was in its full-blown glory, that this property is not one of the 1920s properties, and it is -- has lost its physical integrity. If you look at both pictures, you'll see that the flying staircase-- we call it that because it's disassociated with any supporting piers -- has been filled in. That's a major alteration. We'll notice that the windows have been changed. That happens all the time. We're used to seeing that. So we're not basing our case solely on the windows. There are awnings that have been placed -- one of the piers that does support the landing of the staircase is no longer there. So our position is rather than a contributing structure, we believe this to be a noncontributing structure. In 1987, when this designation occurred first, it was noted in the file that this building was noncontributing, and I'll quote exactly what it says. "It has been thoroughly modernized." It looked like the color photo at that time, in '87. It was listed as noncontributing; so we don't really understand why, in 2016, it now became contributing; rather, it should have stayed noncontributing. That's our contention. So Mr. Jernigan, the owner, will still remain in Buena Vista East. He is not asking to be taken out of the district. He will just be a noncontributing structure. What does that mean? It means he doesn't have to go to the Historic Preservation Board if he decides to take that concrete out. He doesn't have to go to the Historic Preservation Board. He has to go through the permitting process through all of those things that any normal person would have to go through, but his -- the scope of his permitting process would be just normal, regular process. So if you see these pictures, they really speak for themselves. And we would ask your favorable consideration of our request. Thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I'm assuming there's someone who's going to speak on behalf of the City or the HEP Board?
Mr. Garcia: Yes, please. I'd like to ask my colleague, Megan Schmitt, Preservation Officer, to state her credentials for the record, and she will speak to you as a preservation officer of the City of Miami.
Meagan Schmitt: Good evening. Megan Schmitt. I'm the preservation officer with the City of Miami. There's just a couple comments I'd like to make in response to Ms. Uguccioni's presentation. In 1987, the Buena Vista East Historic District was established. It was designated officially at that point by the City Commission. There were approximately 288 buildings that were included in the designation; and at the time, 155 approximately were considered to be contributing to the district, leaving about 133 to be noncontributing. And there could be a variety of different reasons why buildings would have been considered noncontributing at the time. So if they had been highly altered, if they were close or not yet 50 years old or maybe close to 50, or if the style just was not something that sort of grows the way that some of the earlier buildings would have. So Miami's a young city. I don't have to tell any of you that. We all know that we have sort of a small stock of buildings from the '20s and the '30s. So in the designation of the Buena Vista East Historic District, the concentration was really on Mediterranean revival, mission style, bungalow. So the reason -- and I can answer Ellen's question -- the reason that we decided to resurvey Buena Vista East this year is because there's a lot of development pressure happening in Buena Vista East. As you all know, the Design District is causing a lot of people to discover the neighborhood again, but also, too, it's because this is -- the practice of historic preservation is that when time elapses, significance changes. And so we felt compelled to take a look at some of our earlier districts. I think this is the third district to be designated in the City.
City of Miami Page 180 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
And so we decided to reevaluate and regroup to see if any could become contributing. I want to clarify something that was just said on the record. All alterations have to get certificates of appropriateness, so whether that's from the staff issuing them or whether that's the HEP Board. So whether you're contributing or noncontributing, you are regulated by my office. So the statement about the alterations, for example, if you're going to be doing work to your exterior, contributing or noncontributing, you need to get a certificate of appropriateness. So in terms also of just establishing what my office considers to be major alterations to a property, we'd -- actually would disagree with Ms. Uguccioni's characterization, and maybe what we can all do is look at the pictures together. So this is sort of part of the work that we do in the office, is we take a look at the earliest documentation that we have of a structure, and then we compare it to what it looks like now, and that's one of the things that I think you'll probably hear if there are any residents and property owners from Buena Vista East to talk about today is what did their house look like when they bought it and when it was first designated. So people who like preservation and old properties tend to see past certain alterations, because they see that there's a potential there. So my comment would be that, for example, this is actually not a particularly altered structure. Certainly, the windows are different, but windows can change. The blocking up of this flying staircase, that can be removed. What I would characterize as a significant alteration would be if, for example, the fenestration had changed, so if windows were blocked up or if new windows were popped into a wall. I would say, if the staircase had been removed, that would be a pretty significant alteration. But what we try to do is we try to say, “What's the integrity of the property in terms of what is replaceable?” People replace their roofs all the time. People replace their windows all the time. So that's something that we can remedy, should we have that alteration being -- you know, occurring now. When, for example, someone comes to my office and wants to get a new roof, we compare the roof that we see in the earliest documentation; we tell them that that's what we can approve at staff level. If they want something different, then they go to the HEP Board. So I just want to give you some context in terms of the reason that we decided to do this resurvey in the first place; the reason that it's important to actually resurvey, which is that, you know, the next level or the next group of landmarks is 50 -- is being built now; and in 50 years, we'll be evaluating them. So there wasn't any reason to not evaluate our Historic District. So I can answer questions, or I'm not sure if there's --
Chair Hardemon: I have a question for you. In the staff report and recommendation that you wrote to the members of the Commission, you state in -- where it says, “The district” -- in the second paragraph, “By the time of the historic designation in 1987, there were” -- you have 103 stricken -- but you have “101 buildings that were considered noncontributing to the character of the district for not being 50 years old at the time and others by mistake. Since they met the criteria in 1987 were left out for undetermined reasons.” That's part of where I'm troubled with. And so, when I move on further, as I'm reading through this -- give me one second. So, basically, you go along and you start identifying different sites that you believe to be going from noncontributing to contributing. So my first question is, can you identify that this site was -- I want to know if this site was not considered contributing because it was less than 50 years old at the time?
Ms. Schmitt: No. This building was determined -- and this is the reference that the property owner made. We have a file for each of the properties in our districts.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Schmitt: And we almost have like a -- almost like, if you will, as a patient would have, a little criteria, a little form. And this building was identified at the time of the survey. And as Ms. Uguccioni read, this building is now completely modernized; it is not contributing. So it was an intentional classification of this building at the time in 1987 to not see it as contributing.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. It was exactly 50 years old at the time --
City of Miami Page 181 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Jernigan: That's correct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- of --
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- the designation, so it was within the 50, right?
Chair Hardemon: That's what it was considered to be. So what you're saying by that then is that this home or this structure was considered in 1987, at the time where historic preservation was being identified for this area; so at that time someone thought it not robbery to say, “Maybe we should look at these homes in this area”; and of the homes that they looked at in that area, they identified this one. And the person who sat possibly in your shoes then said that this home does not -- is not a contributing structure; not because it's too young of a structure, but because it's been modernized at that time.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: And so part of the issue in the presentation that I'm seeing is that why should I take your word for it that it is a contributing structure now versus the word of someone who did it in 1987, at a time when you were closer to the years of the age when that building was probably built? Now, I understand that the way -- I could understand that you could probably take a second look at contributing structures, but to me, it really does come to look at like a second bite of the apple. So when I think about -- I just came from Savannah. Savannah has a huge number of structures that have a historic preservation, and it was a wonder to be there to see these different structures. I don't know how often they go back and consider structures that they've already considered. I know that many times they look at new structures that they have yet to consider before. And so I would think that if my structure had been identified as one that was noncontributing, unless there is some great change in architecture from 1930, '40, '50s, I couldn't possibly understand why you would then go from noncontributing to contributing; moreover, you couldn't identify a reason within the -- in the memo why it went from -- or why they were not identified as contributing at that time.
Ms. Schmitt: I think I can answer some of your questions. So for a city like Savannah, it's so much older than Miami is. So, for example, if you were designating a historic district in Savannah in 1987, you're probably dealing with properties from the '17/1800s. We are looking at a district that in 1987, the properties that were most significant at the time were from the '20s and the '30s, and some of them even a little bit -- well, probably the '20s is the earliest. So the reason that we are compelled to look at the district again is precisely because time has gone by. So it's not a second bite at the apple, in my opinion; it's that these buildings that were most significant at the time of the designation in 1987 were the oldest. And so the need to -- and again, because we're talking about such a -- we're not talking about very long ago. The 1920s and the '30s and 1987, you know, might -- I guess my point is that we are compelled to do the resurvey.
Chair Hardemon: But what I'm saying is that in this particular case, this is not a home that was excluded because it did not meet the age threshold, so it was considered. And even though it was considered at that time, at the time before it was blocked in or stuccoed in or -- beneath the stairwell, at that time they said, “Well, no, it's not a contributing structure.”
Ms. Schmitt: So my answer to that is -- and to speak specifically about this one. So as time passes, the significance of styles changes. And so the further you get away from a style, the more significant it can become. So, for example, let's take bungalows, for example. Bungalows in 1950, were they considered to be particularly important? Most likely not, because there wasn't enough time and distance, and that's the part of historic preservation that I think can be kind of
City of Miami Page 182 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
confusing to people and also can make people uncomfortable, is that we have to continue to evaluate change over time. And so in 1987, the fact that this was determined to be not contributing, this wasn't a mistake. We have it in the file. But the fact is that in 19 -- in 2016, with more distance from what the style is, the masonry vernacular style has become more relevant and more important in terms of a preservation effort.
Mr. Jernigan: May I make one observation and interject here? No one seems to pay attention, but in the designation -- and I read it for the National Registry, which doesn't apply here. I just read it for my own information -- that the historical society was going after homes, houses, family homes. This is a duplex, a two-bedroom/one bath upstairs; two-bedroom/one bath downstairs. This is -- I knew the owners personally. He built it. I have the contract, the original contract from the bank. It's not that he was trying to -- he was building something for his wife and his wife's mother.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Mr. Jernigan: Not a house. It was a duplex.
Commissioner Suarez: I understand that. And I think in Little Havana, for example, there's a lot of like small buildings that I think people would -- I think everybody agrees are historic, so I don't think the fact that it's a duplex versus a house, necessarily, is dispositive of the issue, personally. What I find interesting is -- I think what you're saying -- correct me if I'm wrong -- this could have been designated historic in 1987; is that not right?
Ms. Schmitt: I think it could have been, but I think that it makes sense that it takes place today, because more time has elapsed.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. I mean, to me the house looks nearly identical to what it did in 1930. Obviously, like you said, the windows are different, but other than that and the little AC (air conditioner) unit, which they probably didn't have AC in 1930s, it looks like an identical home to that home. And I'm sure what you're going to say is the mere fact that it looks identical doesn't necessarily make it historic, I presume. But I think -- I can see why it's a lot easier over time to designate a noncontributing structure a contributing structure versus the other way around. I would be surprised if we had designated it historic in 1987 and now we're making it a noncontributing structure in 2017, so that, to me, seems logical.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct. And in fact, that would be us not doing our job, because if something is designated --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Ms. Schmitt: -- then we're supposed to be approving only appropriate changes.
Commissioner Suarez: And you also said -- another thing I find interesting is you said that regardless of whether it's a contributing or noncontributing structure, you said they still have to go to get a certificate of appropriateness, so what is the real -- like, what's the real burden here?
Ms. Schmitt: I -- well --
Ms. Uguccioni: I was going to ask (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Please, please, come. Step to the lectern.
Ms. Schmitt: There -- it's not an additional burden, but what I do think is important is that it establishes more integrity for the overall district. So to have 55 percent of the buildings in the
City of Miami Page 183 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
district contributing versus 85 percent is pretty significant. And I think the designation report itself from 1987, the original one, it states, “The neighborhood has retained its distinct character with the majority of post-war buildings being small, single-family residences designed to conform with rather than to detract from the historic and cohesive architectural fabric. The few intrusions within the district are restricted to small-scale apartment buildings and modest single-family dwellings.” It goes on to say that “The Buena Vista East Historic District reflects the diverse and eclectic architectural styles prevalent in America in the early Twentieth Century.” So I think that that's a really important point, is that part of the reason that we had so many noncontributing structures at the time of the initial designation was because they were doing no harm. They weren't considered to be contributing, but they were doing no harm, which is why there was the integrity of the district. So now, you know, 30 years after the establishment of the original district in 1987, it -- again, it only makes sense to go back and evaluate those -- what we now have as to be earlier. So if it was from 1947 or 1937 and it wasn't rising to the -- there wasn't enough distance from the architectural style, that's what we have today.
Chair Hardemon: So -- I have a question for you, because I'm still -- to me, there has to be something more than just the time that has passed that would lead this -- go from noncontributing to contributing, so -- unless this style of homes were not considered contributing at that time. So either one of you, do you have evidence that this style of homes that you have presented in this case were being considered contributing or were not being considered contributing? Because if they were being -- considered to be contributing, this style, and this one was not, then I'm less moved.
Ms. Uguccioni: May I? Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. Uguccioni: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, there are great many changes, Mr. Carollo, and -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry --
Commissioner Suarez: That's okay.
Ms. Uguccioni: -- Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner --
Commissioner Carollo: We have the same first name and middle initial -- and middle name, so we're good.
Ms. Uguccioni: You're both wearing the same color.
Commissioner Suarez: And we're wearing the same --
Ms. Uguccioni: If you notice the negative and positive --
Commissioner Suarez: He's more handsome than I am.
Ms. Uguccioni: -- spaces in the staircase, and I'll call that out as -- specifically. There are --
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry?
Ms. Uguccioni: May I approach, sir?
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't -- yeah, I don't have that picture; I'm sorry. Do you have an extra one? Oh, I have it, I have it, I have it. I see it here. I'm sorry. I was writing on the back of it.
City of Miami Page 184 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
My apologies.
Ms. Uguccioni: When we talk about style, we're talking about different features of a building, obviously. So when we talk about Art Deco, and if you go over to the Beach, you'll see scrolls, and you'll see all kinds of different ornament -- different than, say, Mediterranean revival, which has tile roofs and round arches and exposed staircases and courtyards. It is that detail that makes the style. When you take away, and in this case, add to -- and there is a permit for an addition to this property as well -- when you start taking away or add to the features that originally define the property, you are, in fact, destroying its integrity. So Mr. Chair, I would agree with you that nothing has changed from 1987. And I'd also point out something which is ludicrous, which is, if you let time go by, everything in Miami is going to be 50 years old, so I don't necessarily buy that argument. Mr. Jernigan, again, understands he's in the district, but -- And I misspoke -- I did, and I apologize -- about the certificate of appropriateness. That is the review by the Historic Board when you do something to the property. If Mr. Jernigan's property is contributing, he has a more stringent review. Why? Because we don't want him to take away from the property or add to the property. That's why we do the review by the Historic Board. If it's already messed up, then there isn't that scrutiny that occurs with a contributing building, and I -- not that it's relevant, but I'm friends with the original preservation officer, Sarah Eaton, who wrote this report, and I would say that her judgment at that time was indeed a good judgment, and I personally would not want to see things that I had done change without a reason that I considered relevant. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo, you have something also?
Commissioner Suarez: I just --
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, just real quick. I mean, look, we have -- historically speaking, the City is a 119 years old. This structure has been around essentially in its identical form for 87 of those 119 years. I mean, the fact that they filled in the thing to make like a little shed, I don't think goes to the integrity of the structure, at all. I mean, I think it's sort of a superficial thing that could be easily undone with a couple of my staff members and a hammer. I'm not even sure it was done legally, so -- Look, I may be in the minority. I think it's important for us to protect and preserve the integrity of our historic districts.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. I think all of us agree that it's important to protect the historic -- the integrity of our historic districts, but this is something that's particular to a certain property within a district, and so I don't want anyone to walk away from here thinking that -- this is what this is for, first of all. You appeal a decision like this so that you have an opportunity to be heard to say why you don't believe that a property has -- is properly being declared historic -- contributing or not, and in -- this is not -- for instance, this is not 1987 when the property first was being declared, so what I'm looking at is a second review of the exact same property, where I would -- where there isn't a significant change that I see besides the stairwell; and with that minor change, if you will, I would agree that it's not a big change. But I'm just not getting across the hurdle and I haven't heard enough information as to why it was not designated that back then, besides time being passed, considering that it was a structure that was identified at the time. Commissioner Russell.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I understand, in this recent sweep to relook at the district of Buena Vista East, you picked 100 homes that would go from noncontributing to now
City of Miami Page 185 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
contributing.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: Were they mostly within this style?
Ms. Schmitt: No. It actually was a breadth of style. It's all -- it should have been included in your backup, but I can go through.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Ms. Schmitt: This particular property we've classified as masonry vernacular. We also looked at updating some bungalows, minimal traditional style, and then sort of a group of other modern styles. So it was not -- we didn't single out -- first of all, we didn't single out this property; second of all, we didn't single out this style.
Vice Chair Russell: So of the 100, how many of them are appealing?
Ms. Schmitt: Of the 100, there were 8 that the HEP Board disagreed with us. So we brought 100 to the HEP Board, and they went through -- any that were objected by the property owners at the time, they went through them one by one, and they disagreed with us on eight.
Vice Chair Russell: So there were eight residents that were against being designated? Is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Ms. Schmitt: There were eight property owners who came before the board, made an argument as to why they should not be contributing, and the Board agreed with them.
Vice Chair Russell: The board agreed with them.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. In this particular case, however, the board agreed with you.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: They are appealing that decision.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: How many are in his situation?
Ms. Schmitt: There's one other who is here, who has a building that is in the same architectural style category; and then there's a third appellant who is here, and they have a commercial property on Northeast 2nd Avenue.
Vice Chair Russell: So for me, this is a very delicate issue, because you have property owners' rights involved here, and for us to make a decision like this affects their future ability to sell the property; have it redeveloped. That's the biggest potential loss to them; and, of course, that adds a burden to us to be very careful in making this decision, because we're saying it's more important that we protect this property from that potential redevelopment than it is to allow that person to have those rights. And so a recent forum that you and I were in a workshop together was the Grove 2030 Historical Preservation Committee in which we were talking about what financial remedies do property owners have when this happens? And there's actually very little; in some cases what -- they can sell their transfer development rights where they're in an area of a
City of Miami Page 186 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
lot of height, but this is not one of those, and so there's very little available to them. The Art in Public Places ordinance, which we're trying to put through, would set aside, I believe, 10 percent of all of those monies generated of over possibly $10 million total; 10 percent of that every year could be set aside to help with renovation of historic properties and maintenance of historic properties. That could be up to a million dollars a year, which, you know, one of the recommendations I was giving was that the HEP Board actually help with determining how that money is allocated throughout, so that's a comfort to me; that property owners will have potential funds available to them to help with the maintenance. For me, I certainly don't see a significant change within the, you know, the structure itself. It looks much as it did. I don't recognize a particular style, but I'm certainly not a specialist in it, and I do have to trust our staff in saying something that is worth protecting is worth protecting.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: Let me ask a question, and I think architecture's got a lot to do with the designs. I remember Southwest 1st Street, between 8th Avenue, going all the way to downtown Miami, or to the river, and you have some that had been kept right next to the river. There was a lot of the constructions where you had the bungalows. You still one that was just reconstructed on Northwest 16th Avenue and 1st Street. To me, that's your typical. It happens. And I looking at this architecture, and this neighborhood we just discussed a little while ago on Northwest -- between 22nd Avenue and 27th Avenue, you have a lot of property just like this; just like it.
Ms. Schmitt: Understood.
Commissioner Gort: So are these -- those properties going to be declared --?
Ms. Schmitt: No. That's something -- if I could put it into some context.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Ms. Schmitt: So one thing that I want to start out by saying is that historic preservation has -- I've always been critical of it and people in general have been critical of it for not being inclusive enough. And there is a stereotype that in order to be historic and important and designated, you have to look like Vizcaya. And so what we're trying to do is we're trying to -- when I say "we," preservationists today are trying to tell a more complete story. Not everybody got to live in a fancy house from, you know, 1923, that was a high-style, you know, from Morningside or some of the beautiful buildings that you see today in Buena Vista East that were originally designated. So I think that it's important. And we have approximately 1,659 properties that we -- that are designated. That's it. That's all we got. And so -- out of the whole City. Now, that's only talking about our historic districts. We have about 120 that are individually designated; but I think that part of the reason for doing a district, particularly one like Buena Vista, is that you get a nice diverse range of housing. Spring Garden was another example. We had a very small little wood-frame vernacular house next to high-style houses, so it's not about needing to save every single property that looks like the one that we're talking about now.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Ms. Schmitt: But it's to say that if it's within a historic district, it tells a story; it tells a part of Miami's story.
City of Miami Page 187 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Schmitt: You don't have to worry about us going after a bunch of neighbors.
Commissioner Gort: No, no. I just want to make sure, because it's the same structure. I mean, a lot of times, I know what -- you declare historical according to architecture of it. Whatever events took place within that facility, and that's what makes it very historical.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: And I would just say a couple of other -- add a couple other things. Number one, I think the fact that it's contributing -- or if it becomes contributing, it makes it virtually impossible to demolish, correct?
Ms. Schmitt: Any demolition proposition, whether it is contributing or noncontributing, can only be decided by the board, by the HEP Board.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And so I think that's a significant benefit to designating it, as well. I think when you look at the -- you know, the private property aspect of it that you're discussing, I have -- you know, I know a little bit about property as well, and most historic -- unless you change the zoning of the property, there's no more -- you're not going to add any more -- I mean, you could still build the same -- essentially the same thing. If it's a duplex, you can build a duplex. So, I mean, unless you change the zoning, you're not affecting the value. Now, I would argue that historic properties have a higher value if they're maintained well and they're -- to me, I -- you can -- there's studies that show that historic neighborhoods and historic properties have a higher property value than non-historic properties. So to me -- actually, I would think the economic incentive is, unless this is going to be rezoned, the economic incentive is to, you know, upkeep the property, keep it looking historic and beautiful, you know, undo the couple of things that they've done there to take away from its historical look, and I think you would increase the value of the property that way. Unless you're going to demolish it and build -- what are you going to do?
Commissioner Gort: You can't demolish it.
Commissioner Suarez: That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean, so -- yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Under his current rights, though, without historical designation, someone could demolish it and build a super-modern duplex there and be --
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Vice Chair Russell: -- the increase in value would be significant.
Commissioner Suarez: I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.
Chair Hardemon: I mean, I would -- tell me if I'm wrong. There may be some parts right or some parts wrong. I visited -- when I was, for instance, in -- I'll go back to Savannah. When I was in Savannah, there are areas that were more depressed that were much less likely to have their homes identified as contributing structures compared to areas that were -- that were not that had older homes there, but that typically the people who lived there, they had more means, I guess, to take care of their properties, and does that -- having means to take care of your property and, in fact, taking care of your properties lead to the value in the homes being higher, or is it just simply because it was declared historic? Because I could imagine if I have a historic
City of Miami Page 188 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
home that is a pile of nothingness, and a historic home that is well taken care of that the values would be significantly different.
Ms. Schmitt: So that's part of the strength that historic districts -- and this is true across the country -- that the very fact that you are regulated actually ends up increasing your property rights -- your property values; excuse me. And the reason is because if you live in a historic district, you have to come to my office in order to get a sign-off for your windows; and my office is going to tell you, you need to put in these encasement windows again, and it is -- there can be a change in terms of the price. That's absolutely -- I mean, you mentioned it. It comes up all the time. We don't have enough incentives. But absolutely, what happens -- and this is why -- I'm sorry, because it doesn't sound like I'm being effective with you, particularly, Commissioner. Change over time is critical to our field. And so from 1987 to now, all of the buildings that have come in to get windows, they've had to get appropriate windows, and that always leads to an increase in property values. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens, because the reason is that you can't tear out your beautiful architectural features. You can't put in purple tinted windows in your Mediterranean revival-style house. You have to do things so that they do -- overall add to the property value.
Chair Hardemon: Another question I have for you. So for areas like this area that may have been identified differently, say, 30 years ago; the inhabitants of those areas may have been different. And say over that time period, the people that live within that area, if they had to choose between, say, any other place in Miami they could buy a window -- say the window cost them $450, and when they came to see you -- first of all, they have to lawyer up. They have to expert up, because they need to know how to manipulate your organization. And so they must spend dollars to pick up lawyers, someone to represent them, and then also go from $450 windows to the, say, $1,500 windows so that they can keep in the same look. This may be a tangent, but do you think that that process, having to do that, leads to individuals moving out of the area or not being able to afford to upkeep those homes and have to sell and move elsewhere?
Ms. Schmitt: I don't think so. We have an economic hardship provision in the Code, so staff always tries to do as much as we can to work with the applicants, but there are certain things that we can't sign off on. So if someone has an economic hardship, then we will take them to the board, and the board can absolutely choose to say, “You know what? Even though historically appropriate would be a barrel-tile roof, in this case you want shingles; that's all you can afford.” The most important thing is the -- obviously, is the structure; is keeping somebody dry and safe. But the other thing, too --
Chair Hardemon: How often does that happen?
Ms. Schmitt: We don't -- I haven't -- in the two years that I've been at the City, I don't think we've taken an economic hardship to the board.
Chair Hardemon: Do you think it's because there's individuals who -- from the -- I mean, you visited these homes and met with the people. And out of 100 homes, if only, say, 8 were -- if only 8; appealed, 5 being successful; 3 ending up before us, do you think it's because they agree with you? Or do you think it's because it's just the natural lack of civic participation that many people have in government and its ability to regulate the things that happen?
Ms. Schmitt: Honestly, I think that it has a lot to do with just not understanding how historic districts operate. There's a lot of misinformation. If you're desig -- excuse me. Well, all of them are designated. Let's start with the vocabulary. Every building that's within a historic district is designated. You are either assigned contributing or you are assigned noncontributing. If you want to change your windows in your noncontributing house, you still have to come to me. You don't have to lawyer up. You may have to go to the board. So there are things that we can do at staff level. There are things that we always have to take to the board, whether they're
City of Miami Page 189 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
contributing or noncontributing.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before this sweep, you were at 50 percent contributing and 50 percent noncontributing; is that correct?
Ms. Schmitt: About 53 -- 54 percent contributing.
Commissioner Gort: 46-9.
Vice Chair Russell: So out of the 300, 150, more or less, were contributing. And not including the appeals and the denials by the HEP Board, you're at about only 10 percent noncontributing now to where you've got almost 90 percent contributing within this district, which is a tremendous win for protection against overdevelopment. At some point, are we to consider the will of the property owner, or are we always to be blind to that with regard to historic designation? Is it always just without the will of the owner to consider “yea” or “nay,” or is it when something is on the edge or could go either way that we consider the will of the owner?
Ms. Schmitt: I would absolutely say that that's precisely the role of the HEP Board and that's precisely the role of the Commission. So staff, when we do an analysis, if I judge this property differently than the one that's going to come next, because someone's personal circumstances are one way versus the other, then I'm not doing my job. I have to look at the architecture. I have to look at the history. I have to look at -- that's my world and my context. But that's exactly the reason why property owners can go to the HEP Board, and they can bring in other factors that I don't think is appropriate for staff to necessarily consider.
Vice Chair Russell: The human factors.
Ms. Schmitt: Well, having said that, we also work with our property owners to, you know -- for example, if you have a roof leak, and your tax card says that it's a barrel-tile roof, but you've already -- you know, there's a section of your roof that can't be seen, and you already bought shingles. We understand that proper owners -- it would be holding that property hostage for me to deny someone a roof because they're not putting on the right tiles. So we do work with our property owners, but we also have a limit to what we can do, and that's why they can go to the HEP, and that's why they're here.
Chair Hardemon: Under --
Ms. Uguccioni: Mr. Chair --
Chair Hardemon: Let me ask one question.
Ms. Uguccioni: Certainly.
Chair Hardemon: On the HEP Board, I'm generally -- so, let's talk about the structure of the HEP Board. We make appointments to the HEP Board; that's correct, right?
Ms. Schmitt: The HEP Board meets once a month at the first --
Chair Hardemon: No, I'm sorry. We make appointments to the board, right --
Ms. Schmitt: Oh, you do. Excuse me, yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- as Commissioners?
Ms. Schmitt: Yes, absolutely.
City of Miami Page 190 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: And you're not an appointment; you're staff.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: And you are the preservationist, right?
Ms. Schmitt: Preservation officer.
Chair Hardemon: Preservation officer. So what you do is you go out and you make recommendations to the HEP Board, and the HEP Board makes these decisions?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: Of the entire HEP Board today, would you consider any of those people who are on the HEP Board to be preservationists?
Ms. Schmitt: They have designated titles. They have roles that they have to fill. So we have two slots for lawyers, we have three slots for architects -- architectural historian; I think there's two slots for citizens, and they all feel very passionately about historic preservation.
Chair Hardemon: And the reason I ask that, because it sounds to be that sometimes the deck may be stacked against you. So I like to consider, if I'm going to hear facts about something that I want to be unbiased in that. Because you, as a preservation officer, want to go and you want to say, “Hey, I want to designate this as a contributing structure or historic,” right? Designate this contributing structure. And so if I were someone -- for instance, a property owner, and I were going before the HEP Board, I would want to have confidence that I have an ability to at least present my position about it, and the City presents their position from the preservation officer, and that body, being unbiased, makes its conclusion. What I'm worried about is that if we have -- I mean, this is all because of our appointments -- but if we have a HEP Board that necessarily fits all the categories -- and that's fine -- but if they all are passionate, if you will --
Vice Chair Russell: Pro preservation.
Chair Hardemon: -- if that's the way to put it --
Vice Chair Russell: Pro preservation.
Chair Hardemon: -- pro preservation, then it seems like the deck may be stacked against people when they're hearing these facts. So, for instance, if you were going before a jury, and that jury were -- everyone who are a part of the jury were all former prosecutors and you were a defendant, you would feel somewhat uncomfortable about that situation, and that's, you know, what I'm thinking about. And the only thing that I can do is change, for instance, my appointments or make new appointments, because I believe one of mine had stepped down, but -- because I want everyone to be able to look at the facts and look at them in a very objective type of way, the way that I'm looking at them now. I want to give her an opportunity to respond; then I'll call you, Commissioner Suarez.
Ms. Uguccioni: Thank you, sir. First of all, I want to say that I'm delighted to hear all of you champion historic preservation, and the worst thing I can tell you that I've ever been called is a non-preservationist. And some of my colleagues would say, "What are you doing up there defending this guy, when you're really against historic preservation?" Not at all. Not at all. And I would care to say that I've poured a lot of sweat into my business over time. I was a preservation officer in the City of Coral Gables, and I'm very proud of the progress we made there. What we're arguing here is not whether preservation is important. It is super important to our identity, to our marketing, to the City of Miami. What we're arguing is whether or not this
City of Miami Page 191 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
particular building is an acceptable historic building. Is it different in some way? Commissioner Gort, you mentioned that there are others like it. Well, I'm not going to say that we quantify this when we say, “Well, there's 17,000 masonry vernacular buildings, whereas there's only 10,000 Mediterranean, so we'll be concentrating on the Mediterranean today.” We don't do that. What we do look at -- because it affects property owners' rights, we do look at how important is this building? And one of the major ways we discern -- and the "D" word is really important to us -- we discern whether a property is important or not is has it been changed? What was it like before it was changed? Was it an exceptional building? The Buena Vista East report speaks to the development of Buena Vista East, and it talks about residences built in the '20s and '30s. There is a main focus, but as Ms. Megan said earlier -- and I don't remember your last name; forgive me -- she talks about the evolution. Absolutely. That's part of what we do. I will not at all say that that's not true. But is this property --? this is what you need to ask yourselves, and if you would kindly think back in your districts to properties like this that are masonry construction and have an exterior staircase. Are they that significant, and are they that endangered? And they don't have to be super endangered -- don't take my words wrong, please -- but in this context within Buena Vista East, after the changes that have been made, which I believe are pretty substantial -- and we spoke to the windows and the staircase, and there is a window in that infill staircase. It really, in my mind, has been changed considerably. That's what we're asking. We don't want to be out of the district. We want to be discerning about what we do put on the register. Why do we have Chapter 23 of the City Code? Why have we developed a whole ordinance, which is, what, 30 pages long, to regulate those things that are important to our past? And I think that we're speaking to keeping the quality of those things that we designate. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: I just want to say that to the point that you talked about, about the HEP Board itself, there was a very well-known case -- not that long ago -- where the Dade Heritage Trust tried to designate the Miami Herald building historic, and the HEP Board denied that designation; and to the Dade Heritage Trust's credit, they did not appeal that decision. They respected the decision of the HEP Board very, very much. And so the HEP Board in that case, even though they may be -- they may have a -- I guess you could say a pro preservation bent, did not decide -- you know, because they were acting, I think, you know, in good faith -- that it was properly historic; and that Dade Heritage Trust, to their credit as well, that was the proponent of the historic designation, decided to respect their decision. So I think their decision has a lot of -- carries a lot of weight in the historic preservation community, and I think that's why -- so it's not every case where they're going to be designating historic. That was a very, very publicized media, publicized case. And so --
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: -- I think if -- you know, if there were other similar structures like this that were designated in this designation -- and simply because a property owner doesn't want it, unfortunately, that's not -- you know, just like we would then also hear the community, and the community might say they want it historic, you know, and then you could get into that sort of debate, if you will. So, look, I respect everyone's decision on this. I'm going to vote my conscience on it and, you know, everyone can vote theirs.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm with you.
Chair Hardemon: I'm going to open up the floor for public hearing at this time.
Dolly MacIntyre: I'm Dolly MacIntyre, 409 Vizcaya Avenue, with Dade Heritage Trust. We've been here together all day, and I've been waiting to speak on these last three items. Because I am speaking to three items, I hope you'll give me just a tiny bit more than my two minutes, Chair,
City of Miami Page 192 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Master Chairman. As you know, I'm usually pretty brief and quick.
Chair Hardemon: We're only -- but we're only discussing this one item.
Ms. MacIntyre: I know, but I only have to say this once. I can get up and say it for each of the others.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, okay. I understand.
Ms. MacIntyre: At the June meeting of the Historic Preservation Board, I made the following statement; now, I'm speaking to the HEP Board: “At the last meeting, I observed the handling of an effort on the part of staff to update the Buena Vista Historic District, one of Miami's first and a successful model for the good that a historic district can do, such as improvements to the neighborhood, retention and enhancement of the ambience, increased property values” -- And Ellen, I would ask you if you know of any historic district where property values have gone down? -- “pride in place and freedom from the fear of inappropriate building in the district.” Then I observed the board undermine the efforts of staff and possibly undermine the future of historic districts in general. Based on very sketchy information and poor photos, the HEP Board allowed properties to opt out simply because their owners asked to be exempt. I fear you have opened a Pandora's Box, and that you will have a succession of people asking to opt out. Unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation out there whereby people think historic designation is a bad thing; that it will put undue burdens on the owners and deprive them of their property rights. Reality is quite different. Their property rights and values are protected because of standards created by designation. And, yes, sometimes you have to lead them kicking and screaming to do the right thing for their neighborhood, but you must also do the right thing for our historic districts. If you're going to negate your staff's recommendations, you need to have very good reasons for doing so, such as site visits where you could clearly see the buildings in question, observe their relationship to their neighbors, and ask yourself: “If they are demolished and something new built, will it enhance or detract from the historic district in scale, massing, and materials?” The residents of Buena Vista have made the district such a success story, and they deserve your support. The HEP Board is responsible for the protection and care of Miami's historic buildings. Sometimes that involves making decisions that don't seem popular at first. However, I really can't think of a site or district that regrets its status as historically designated or has suffered because of it. The next time someone says, “I want to opt out,” just say, “no.” What you have heard today here is the first one out of Pandora's Box. It's open, just like I predicted. The HEP Board made a grievous error in allowing some properties to opt out. These exceptions threaten the whole concept of historic districts and all the good they do. Please, put the lid back on Pandora's Box and say “no” to these appeals.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. MacIntyre, I have a question for you.
Ms. MacIntyre: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Not related to this item. The Dade Heritage Trust, are you also looking into the Liberty Square property?
Ms. MacIntyre: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: And when do you expect these will be complete with your findings in that one?
Ms. MacIntyre: I'm sorry; I don't know that information. I know that we're working on it.
Chair Hardemon: Do you know if they're looking at the entire site or just the main --?
City of Miami Page 193 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. MacIntyre: No, just the community center. I believe that's just the community center. And this has been instigated by residents, not by us.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, I remember some of the residents bringing up the issue. The same thing happened in Yamacraw Village --
Ms. MacIntyre: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- and -- which is the second -- I believe the second "New Deal" development that was built, and I had a chance to visit that in Savannah, and so they designated the main building historically significant, but there are some people that believe that it should have been the whole entire village. And like maybe 20 years ago, they made some improvements into the area, but kept the integrity of the building, so that's why I was asking about it.
Ms. MacIntyre: In this case, with Liberty Square, it's a cultural history that they're concerned with, and it manifested by the community center there. And they've asked our help in doing the work to see if it can be designated. We don't make that decision; we simply help with the research, and that's what we're doing.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Ms. MacIntyre: Could I ask you a question? You visit Savannah.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Ms. MacIntyre: Have you been in their Victorian District?
Chair Hardemon: I saw a lot of different places. I drove around quite some -- quite a (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so I'm not sure which one is the Victorian District. You have to have (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. MacIntyre: Well, Savannah has a wonderful Victorian District that about 20 years ago -- maybe 25 -- was in terrible condition. It was a minority neighborhood, lovely Victorian houses that had fallen into considerable disrepair; values were declining. The Savannah Foundation moved in to help those people restore their own homes, and now it's a very desirable neighborhood; values have gone up, and the people who lived there still live there. And that's the value of historic districts. So please don't do anything to undermine our Miami historic districts. We're struggling so hard to save what little history we have. Please help us.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? How you doing, sir?
Shiller Jerome: Goodnight, Commissioners. Shiller Jerome, president of the Buena Vista East Historic Neighborhood Association. I'm going to ask for additional -- one more minute just to elaborate on some stuff that I have. I do have a printout here that I just want to -- in regards to this property. But before I start on my presentation, I do want to talk about some of the discussions I heard. I want to talk about the idea of context of block; and that to really know historic district, no matter what historic district you look at, you have to look at each property within its context of block. That's very important. And then again to go -- to basically reiterate to what this young lady just said, one change to one property can affect the whole context of block within a historic district. That's very important. Number two, we're talking about values. I can assure you, Commissioners -- I moved into Buena Vista East when I was 24 years old. I bought the ugliest house on the block. You couldn't pay me to move right now. You couldn't offer me enough money to move out of my house.
City of Miami Page 194 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: What are you, 26 now?
Mr. Jerome: Yeah, I'm 27 now, exactly. So I can tell you that in issue of value, it enhances your value. Our values have not been -- I mean, it enhances your value. It enhances your quality of life; people want to move in there. When a house goes on the market, it sells within one day. We don't have a need of -- we don't have a sense of -- we have a shortage of inventory. So when some people said that being in a historic district, it creates a burden, no; it creates enhanced value, it creates protection. I do also want to talk about time and change. Twenty years ago, there wasn't five historic districts in City of Miami. Palm Grove, you got -- everyone here knows who Bob Power is. Some of the properties in Palm Grove right now are in our area, but somehow and some way, the City felt entitled to make Palm Grove Historic District. Again, an historic district that basically was enacted 20 -- 11, 20 years ago. So timing changes stuff does -- is very important when we talk about historic district. And the idea that Buena Vista East is stuck in 1987, that's not correct. Things change over time. And same way this Commission -- I've seen a lot of properties come here in front of this Commission when this Commission have deemed historic, similar to the church on Brickell, not too long ago because timing -- time -- over time things change. But I just want to go back to my presentation, as it relates to that property here. Again, you have a T3 property located on 42nd Street within an interior of a street. When you look at the context of the block, that property fits within our neighborhood. We talk about additional burden. Originally -- as of today, originally, when the district was created, almost a hundred properties were deemed contributing structures; now we add another hundred or so. So again, we talk about the burdens and some type of hardship. There is no hardship. There is nothing that is being asked by any of these property owners which is not being asked of myself. I will not come in front of this Commission and ask you guys to impose any type of burden on anyone in which I, myself, my property is deemed contributing would not have to deal with also. And again, the process is very clear. There is -- the process is very clear. The idea that you can actually -- let me just -- you know what? I'll wrap it up. You have a Historic Preservation Department that went through, did a months -- three-months-long research; came up with a report. Then you have the HEP Board, which are architects, engineers, lawyers, who looked at it and looked at each property on a case-by-case basis and made a decision. So I say to this Commission, if you're going to revert that decision, please think about the action you're doing. Is there enough evidence or is there enough substance here for this board to feel comfortable to revert a decision by a board of professional architects, engineers, and so forth; and by the decision made by the HEP Board, which is entitled and charged with the mission of preserving our districts? Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Seeing no other persons for public comment, I'm going to close the public hearing. You want to speak on this issue, on PZ.18?
Mischel Ellern: Yeah, if you don't mind?
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Mr. Ellern: Well, I didn't really come prepared to speak today.
Chair Hardemon: State your name --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Name and address, please.
Mr. Ellern: My name is Mischel Ellern, and my mom owns the property 169 Northeast 44th. To what the gentleman just said, I disagree. Our house was actually listed on the market for almost a year; it did not sell. I convinced my parents to take it off the market, because I believe it's a beautiful home, and I believe that the district is going to become a very beautiful area. And if you were to walk on my street, you would see that there are some homes that are beautiful and there's some that aren't. My mom's home is a very beautiful home, but there are some that were
City of Miami Page 195 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
built little bit later, and I don't think they warrant preserving for many reasons. They're weighing beautiful properties down like my mother's. They're weighing them down. They're diluting -- the original reason why we started preserving them and -- this property right here, you wouldn't break your neck to even look at it. You wouldn't even look at it twice. Not to mention --
Vice Chair Russell: No offense.
Mr. Ellern: No offense taken. You know, there's a -- property across the street from me that is painted pink, okay? I don't know what district, where in any preservationist's book or anywhere that would warrant a pink home, and it's not well kept at all. So if -- I disagree with what Megan said; they're not very involved in the neighborhood. I was born in 1987. You're looking at the future of Buena Vista. I'm going to be living there a lot longer than some of the people who believe in preservation. I do believe in preservation, but I'm -- you know, there's a lot of developments coming up, and I think they're going to help bring up the property value. And not to -- only to mention, but his house used to have a chimney. I mean, it's 2016. Like Global Warming has changed the history so immensely, houses don't even have chimneys anymore, and neither does his because it was altered, you know. My house has a chimney, and it's beautiful. And I spend every dollar in my pocket to maintain my mother's home, because both of my parents are elder, and there are some properties that are just going to weigh it down. It's -- I'm going to be there to precede a lot of the property owners that are there now, and they're not even maintaining, and I don't even think the Preservation Board is as involved as they'd like to think they are. So I don't really want to point too many fingers, but in this case, either the Preservation Board today made a mistake or the Preservation Board made a mistake in 1987 when they said that this property should not be contributing. And I don't think they were just looking at 1987 and to the past. As a preservationist board, I'm more than sure that they were looking towards the future as well.
Chair Hardemon: I have a question. Do we know what changes were made in 1987 when they stated that this property was modernized? Because the argument about the chimney, I'm wondering was that one of the changes that was made?
Mr. Ellern: And I have to add, all those changes were permitted.
Chair Hardemon: I understand. Thank you.
Ms. Schmitt: It looks like there were changes -- there was an addition. It looks like -- I think they did some interior work. There's a reference to a work referred to as a “barbeque,” and then it says that it added a new roof.
Chair Hardemon: And so that -- you're reading from the 1987?
Ms. Schmitt: This is the 1980 -- I can pass if you want to look at it. It's a 1987 form that the -- "research form" it's called that the Preservation Office used when they were doing their research.
Chair Hardemon: And, sir, you said you had experience with this home since what year?
Mr. Jernigan: Since --
Commissioner Gort: Can I see that?
Mr. Jernigan: I came in the neighborhood in '80 -- '76, but I started working for the Murphys about '85.
Chair Hardemon: So do you know of any changes that were made to the structure that (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
City of Miami Page 196 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Jernigan: Oh, I know everything about the -- I have all the pictures. I have -- before there was even a building on the grounds. Mr. Murphy --
Chair Hardemon: Before (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Jernigan: -- he built it.
Chair Hardemon: For this particular property?
Mr. Jernigan: I have the contract, the original contract.
Chair Hardemon: So what I'm --
Mr. Jernigan: 10 pages from the bank.
Chair Hardemon: What I'm asking you for is before 1987. Do you have pictures of this structure before 1987 and then after 1987?
Mr. Jernigan: Yes, before 1987.
Chair Hardemon: Can you pass that to the Clerk so I --? Well, to me, through the Clerk, so I can take a look at that?
Mr. Jernigan: I'd like to make a statement as far as Mr. Shiller said. He's saying nobody can remove him from his home or couldn't pay him to leave, but everybody's talking about homes. Who wants to live in a duplex? Am I going to sell it for the price I'm collecting for rent? Because everybody calls to buy the duplex, but, you know, they're not giving me historical prices. They're trying to take it for nothing.
Chair Hardemon: I know some people that's lived in duplexes for almost their entire lives, but -- and you can make a lot more money on a duplex, too, if you're renting it out. But I would love to see some of those pictures, because I'll tell you what my thoughts are. I haven't heard anything that was particularly moving about why it went from not being contributing to being contributing from 1987 to now. The argument about preserving -- well, the house in context to other homes is particularly moving. If you're thinking about a historic district, then if the home is about the same as it was then than it is now and it is in this historic district, I could understand why you would not -- why you would want to make it contributing, because you want to keep the integrity of the homes that are there. That makes good sense. You know, just the reason -- the only thing I'm struggling with is that there's a change, and I haven't heard much evidence about why that change is coming about, besides there's been a passage of time; and that passage of time, to me, if you haven't shown me that there are other homes that are made just like this that you weren't being considered historical at that time that now you are being considered, then you haven't given me any real context for why this home is special.
Ms. Schmitt: I can give you a map and show you, and then if I could just -- the whole concept of historic districts is to capture the sense of place, so the words that we use in preservation are going to be what's the massing of the properties, what's the -- what are the setbacks of the properties, what are the materials of the properties. And so when you have a tremendous amount of new construction, it can definitely disrupt the sense of place. So I think that Mr. Shiller's comments are -- I would absolutely echo them. And just one note in terms of alterations. Any of the upgrades that are reflected in the permit history that are interior, we would not have any opinion on them. We don't regulate the interior of any of these properties. So, if these upgrades involved plumbing, electrical wiring, you know, reconfiguration of kitchens and space, that would have no bearing on our determination of contributing versus noncontributing.
City of Miami Page 197 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, can we see as well?
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Please. Someone -- you want to speak, right?
Vice Chair Russell: I'd love to.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, okay, go ahead.
Vice Chair Russell: Should I come down or --?
Chair Hardemon: No, no. You --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: No, no.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, okay.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Actually, you should put that in the record, if at all possible.
Chair Hardemon: We will. I'm just trying to --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Yes. Thank you. And --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Yeah, we should put that in the record.
Chair Hardemon: We're trying to find the photos.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: No, I under -- I -- yes.
Chair Hardemon: So they're not a part of the record yet. There's not a photo being considered in evidence just yet.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Okay. All right.
Chair Hardemon: It appears that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: All right. I thought you were going to rely on -- or you were going to take that into account, then it should have gone in. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: It appears that he doesn't have a photo of the building, particularly. His photos are of homes that are near the structure, and so it doesn't clearly show what would have been considered at that time. Sir, I want to recognize you for public hearing. You also are going to speak on this item on public hearing; and after you two, I will close the public hearing, because I'm sure we'll come to the decision. You're recognized, sir.
Joshua Ellern: I'm Joshua Ellern, also from 169 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Mischel my son. I want to make a very short comment. I'm sure that the staff make tremendous amount of work in preparation for the May 3 public hearing. However, I beg to disagree. I don't think they did the research about this particular building, because somebody said here -- I think it was a Commissioner -- and he asked the staff the same question as you: “Why is it that this building that was built in 1937 was deemed to be noncontributing and now you reverse it?” And her
City of Miami Page 198 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
assistant, Marina, she said, “Because I didn't have information about the property.” They didn't have the tax card, which we now have; and they didn't have the Internet, which we now have. That was her answer; it's on the record. The next day, I went and I met Ms. Megan Schmitt, and I asked for the file of 1987. And Marina came back and handed it over to me and said, "You see, there's nothing here." I said, “Please, just give me the copies.” She gave me the copies; and then I found two pages, which I'm sure they didn't read before they came here on May 3.
Vice Chair Russell: That said what?
Mr. J. Ellern: That the building had three building permits, and there was a listing of them, and now the building is totally modernized, and thus deemed noncontributing. I don't think they read it before they came here.
Chair Hardemon: That's just a -- and just in the record, that's a -- that is a -- if you will, if you were talking in law, I mean, that's like the smoking gun.
Vice Chair Russell: I knew you were going to say that.
Chair Hardemon: That's like the smoking gun. It's that one line when you're looking at the evidence that says, "This building has been totally modernized," and they said that then. And so unless you're -- that's why I said, unless you're telling me that that building, which had been totally modernized in 1987, is now a sort of building that is being declared contributing structures -- and I'm still asking for -- give me a building like this that you've declared historic and for some reasons -- because the only thing that we have on the record is that -- it's not that, “Oh, it was declared noncontributing,” but that it -- it was declared noncontributing because it was totally modernized, which, to me, would means that it's been altered significantly, because I've seen older homes -- my grandmother lives in a older home, and I didn't have -- I've been in more modern homes, and there's a big difference. So when you use the term "modernized," you know, it's a strong meaning to me.
Ms. Schmitt: Can I approach?
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Ms. Schmitt: I have a map that shows -- this is the map that I'm going to show you. It has the masonry vernacular properties that had already been determined to be contributing in 1987.
Chair Hardemon: That's this? I'm sorry, that's this type of property?
Ms. Schmitt: That type, correct. It has another legend that shows the ones that we suggested to the board to change back in May, and then it has three properties that are also classified as masonry vernacular that we didn't think rose to the level. And now I'm going to also hand out -- I have pictures that I can show you.
Chair Hardemon: Those two that you didn't think rose to the level?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, yeah, I would love to see that, and then I'll pass it along to the Clerk so that he can make a record of it.
Ms. Schmitt: The purple are the properties that were already considered; the blue are the -- all of the ones that we just took to the board, so there's quite a few.
Vice Chair Russell: So the purple were considered?
City of Miami Page 199 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Schmitt: Correct, in 1987.
Chair Hardemon: Then you're going to show us properties that you looked at most recently that are of this style that you did not determine were contributing structures?
Ms. Schmitt: This little packet here is the masonry vernacular style.
Chair Hardemon: So -- and I just want some direction, because I'm looking at the first photo, which is of the property that's in question. This one was determined to be contributing. Can you show me --?
Vice Chair Russell: Two is also considered contributing, isn't it? (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Uguccioni: Now.
Chair Hardemon: Show me the ones that are not considered to be contributing --
Ms. Schmitt: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: -- of this.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Please use the microphone; everything has to be audible, and we --
Ms. Uguccioni: Mr. Chairman, may I?
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: -- have to speak into the mike. Everybody has to speak into the mike, please. Thank you.
Ms. Uguccioni: Commissioners, I'm not trying to give you a lesson on style, at all, and please don't think that I'm highfalutin, at all; that was my studies. You know that there's classical architecture, gothic architecture, new classical; all this stuff. When you use the term "vernacular" -- and if you look in a dictionary, it's a mishmash of things we can't classify. If you look at any style book -- and I would challenge you, but I don't need to challenge you, because you can see that it doesn't epitomize the style -- it's a non-style. So when we don't know what to say and we don't have enough details -- and again, the details are so important to a style; to art deco, to classical, with its columns and it's pediments and that kind of thing,
Chair Hardemon: So --
Ms. Uguccioni: So I would argue that that's really not high style, or I shouldn't say "high style," but something that we could really hang our hats on.
Chair Hardemon: So before we move forward, also -- I mean, what has been presented to me is what is already in evidence is what -- inserts actually from the --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Your agenda --
Chair Hardemon: -- from our agenda.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: -- materials.
Chair Hardemon: Right, correct. And I just want to reference where it does says, "masonry vernacular," which is the type of structure we're discussing today. "'Vernacular' refers to common buildings that do not display a formal or distinctive style. These buildings do, however,
City of Miami Page 200 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
generally display at least some of the design elements and features commonly used in style buildings constructed during the same era.” And then it further reads: "These buildings dominate the streetscape, establish the scaled neighborhoods, create a sense of place, and record the change of construction, technology, and materials over time. Vernacular buildings represent the history, influence the culture of the middle and lower classes." But I will say that this was prepared by one -- by the Historic Preservation Board. So have you presented something that is similar, but that was denied?
Ms. Schmitt: So this property, number 4.
Chair Hardemon: Do you have the --? Right, but do you have the --
Vice Chair Russell: "Before" picture.
Chair Hardemon: -- older -- the "before" picture?
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Property number 4.
Ms. Schmitt: No.
Chair Hardemon: No. Okay, that's not going to help you.
Ms. Schmitt: This, for example -- if I could show you number 25. You have a tax photo, and then you have a contemporary photo. We consider that to be a noncontributing structure.
Vice Chair Russell: Why?
Ms. Schmitt: If you look at the -- so you can see -- if it's even the same structure, that it's been stripped --
Vice Chair Russell: Looks pretty identical to what it was back in the day. Or is there another reason, other than change, that it was --? This has the same "L" shape, the same ranch style. No style, but it is the same as it was.
Ms. Schmitt: That's exactly it: no style, so vernacular -- and that's where I'm going to disagree with Ms. Uguccioni. Vernacular architecture is an important piece of our history. If it's not -- doesn't have high style, if it's not highly ornamented, it doesn't mean that it's not particular -- of a particular style that could be particularly significant.
Chair Hardemon: I think, moreover, what the Vice Chairman was saying is that -- when I look at this building on page 725 -- so this is 171 through 173 Northeast 42nd Street -- this property does appear to be in the same --
Vice Chair Russell: Condition.
Chair Hardemon: -- condition or significant style or -- there is less change that I see here than I see in the property in question.
Ms. Schmitt: But this is an example of preservation saying, “Just because it's old doesn't mean that it needs to be contributing.”
Chair Hardemon: Understood.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
City of Miami Page 201 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Vice Chair Russell: So I have to say this was a very tough decision for me, but I have been moved by this, and I see what the Preservation Office has done. And I believe that one difference we're seeing is that the criteria we look at within a historic district is different than a historic criteria we look at outside a historic district. And if this house were anywhere else in the City, we might not consider it historic, but by the fact that it's within the Historic District and 100 properties are being in a sweeping motion historically designated or adding it to the contributing list of the Historic District, they're making a very strong move to eliminate the possibility that they will be destroyed, and this entire neighborhood will be changed. And if you've already looked at the backup documentation for other items that we'll be considering, including PZ.17, you're going to see a very similar structure with a little more style -- barrel tile, a little bit of changes -- but it has the same diagonal staircase and the same corner windows and the same basic -- you can see a theme here, and the loss of these would be a loss. If that sweeping 100 homes were lost, it would be a loss.
Chair Hardemon: So the Chair will be willing to accept any motion that the body finds appropriate.
Commissioner Suarez: I would move to -- I would move that we deny the appeal.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Vice Chair Russell: I would second that.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to deny the appeal regarding item PZ.18. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, is this a --? I can just (UNINTELLIGIBLE), right?
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: This would be a resolution of the Commission, and that was the will of the Commission --
Chair Hardemon: Right. All in favor --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: -- denying the appeal.
Chair Hardemon: -- indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: And affirms the decision of the HEP Board.
Later...
Commissioner Carollo: Again, I don't know if I will get a second, but in fairness, I make a motion to reconsider PZ.18.
Chair Hardemon: Motion dies for lack of second.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia has a --
Ms. Méndez: And, Chairman, just so that you know, for reconsiderations of zoning and comprehensive plans, that's in Chapter 62-2 of the City Code. But we will get you -- with regard to the reconsideration of appeals, we will get you a memo and case law before the next meeting
City of Miami Page 202 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
with the reset for the motion for reconsideration to be heard.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Just two things. One, I think we should have a time certain for their benefit, so they don't have to stay here all day long and for the benefit of the public that's going to certainly want to opine on this issue.
PZ.19 RESOLUTION 16-00736ha A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY GEORGES WILLIAM, AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, WHICH APPROVED THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4600 NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM A NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, WITHIN THE BUENA VISTA EAST HISTORIC DISTRICT. 16-00736ha CC Fact Sheet.pdf 16-00736ha HEPB Reso.pdf 16-00736ha Appeal Letter.pdf 16-00736ha (Version 2).pdf 16-00736ha (Version 3).pdf 16-00736ha-Submittal-BVEHNA does not oppse or support the appeal of the HEP Board decision.pdf 16-00736ha-Scrivener's Error Memo.pdf 16-00736ha-Legislation-SUB.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately - [Commissioner * - District *]
APPELLANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
APPLICANT(S): -, Esquire, on behalf of -
FINDING(S): PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended - of the appeal and - of the designation.
HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: - the designation on - by a vote of -.
PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will exclude the property located at approximately - as part of the historic designation of the - Historic District.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Russell
R-16-0307
Chair Hardemon: PZ.19.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.19 is a case -- the
City of Miami Page 203 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
last case we have on the Planning & Zoning agenda. Along the same lines, it is also an appeal of the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board decision for a property at 4600 Northeast 2nd Avenue. In this particular case, the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board heard the matter on May 3. Their vote was also 5-0. And it is before you as a de novo hearing on the appeal of the change of designation from noncontributing to contributing.
Regene Monestime: Good evening. Oh, no; good morning.
Commissioner Suarez: Good morning.
Ms. Monestime: Regene Monestime, on behalf of 3G Investment Group, and the owner, George [sic] Williams. The property address is 4600 Northeast 2nd Avenue. In your packet, this is number 257. I believe it's page 81. It's the property that is -- the last property on that page, number 257. So I'd like to turn your attention to a couple of sections in your Code, and I'm going read it for the record. Section 23-2; that's the section that defines "contributing resource landscape feature." "A building landscape feature, site, structure, or object that adds to the historical, architectural qualities, historic associations, or archaeological values for which a district is significant because" -- semicolon -- "it was present during the period of significance of the district and possesses historic integrity, reflecting its character at that time, or it is capable of providing important information about the period, or it is” -- “or it independently meets the National Register of Historic Places criteria for evaluations set forth in 36 CFR, Part 60.4, incorporated by reference.” The other section that I'd like for us to focus on is 23-4, which outlines the process by which the board makes its designation. "And the designation report shall contain a statement of the historic, architectural, and/or archaeological significance of the proposed historic resource, historic district, or archaeological site or zone, the criteria upon which the designation is based, a physical description of the property, an identification of contributing structures and/or landscape features, present trends and conditions, and incentives to encourage preservation, rehabilitation, or adaptive use." And then the board is required to conduct a hearing, and then make a determination based on the criteria. On the procedural grounds, the board failed to go through the Code and outline specifically the criteria that it must take. As a de novo review, it is your obligation now to go through the criteria, and there must be competent substantial evidence to support your ruling, or it is arbitrary and capricious. And then my client -- based on what happened below, there was a lack of due process, and we -- and I plead to you that we do not make the same mistake here. So what was in the record before the board? Well, the board came with a block of properties, approximately 100, and did not analyze each property. They took them in total and said, "These are all contributing." That's not the way you do it. You have to go through and ensure that each property meets the criteria. My client's property was not analyzed according to the Code. Now, on the merits, let's talk about what this particular designation is. It's a building, right? So it's a commercial property, unlike the previous properties that we looked at. This is a commercial property, regular façade; there are awnings; it's two-story. There's nothing particularly significant about this property that speaks to the time that it was built in 1925; that suggests that it should be contributing versus not. There's nothing that is important that speaks to the relevancy of the historic nature, and so -- and I will point out that talking about the area and putting it in context, there is a development that this City has approved called “Buena Vista Villas” -- and I'm going to pass the pictures around -- that speak to the modernization and design of what the Northeast 2nd Avenue Corridor is going to look like; nothing like the property that's sandwiched between them. And so when you look at everything in context, there is no question that this property does not meet the criteria under Chapter 23, and we ask that you reverse the board's determination below. I'd like to save my time for rebuttal, and Mr. Georges Williams would like to address this body, as well.
Georges William: Basically, I own this property since 1984. There was nothing in there to say it exactly was a commercial C-1. And in 1987, there was nothing -- it was not a contributing. And then now, 2015 -- '16, then they say, Well, it's contributing," with any -- evidence of anything. Now, you have on my left, there's -- this property been licensed to demolish to be built. In my
City of Miami Page 204 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
right, another property same way by the same company, to be built on parcel they already have the permits to build. Now, I'm asking where the uniform? Where the standard? Even for the City of Miami, which is a beautiful city, there's Northeast 2nd Avenue, the beautiful corridor that we're going to try to create. Where this uniform? There's nothing we can -- extend that uniform that we can say, “Well, if this property deserve to be not as like the ones going build next to it.” In addition to that, as a business person, like Commissioner -- I forget -- Ken says that when you bought your property for so many years, you kept it, try to save it; hopefully, you could get the benefits out of it. And the project like that coming and the -- mind you, it's not a good idea, because like I think the board said -- not the board -- I think the lawyer for the City Attorney said that you could demolish the property, which is not easy to go in front of the board to demolish the property. In this particular property, if you have to demolish to do construction in it, that mean you have to keep hundred-foot façade, and that's very expensive. And now the market of the property is not the same as it used to be when I bought it for 30 years ago, so I'm asking if you could reverse it, the decision. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, counsel brought up some very important points, because the last question that I asked you in the last hearing was about arbitrariness, and what she noted was how you come to the conclusion of what is arbitrary. So not just a simple definition, but in fact, a way that you can decide whether or not there was arbitrariness in making a decision, and that's important. So now we have some factors to consider. And considering that this is a de novo hearing, can you go through the guidelines where we would have to make a determination so that we know that the decision was not arbitrary in nature? So every -- so not just on whether it was arbitrary, but moreover, the things that you had to consider and each factor. And if you could, counselor, can you repeat those points?
Mr. Monestime: Sure. So with Section 23-2 --
Chair Hardemon: And this is of our --?
Mr. Monestime: This is of your Code, correct.
Chair Hardemon: Right. Let me pull the Code. That's --
Mr. Monestime: So, "A building, landscape feature, site, structure, object that adds" -- so that's the first step. It has to "add to the historical and architectural quality, historic associations, or architectural values for which a district is significant because" -- the second point -- "it was present during the period of significance of the district"” Third point, "and possess historic integrity." Fourth point, "reflecting its character at that time, or it is capable of providing important information about the period, or independently meets the National Register of Historic Places."
Chair Hardemon: So what you're reading is the definition --
Mr. Monestime: Of "contributing resource," under 23-2, correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: And if I may, and you went a step further. You said that for each property, the City or the preservation officer needs to stipulate which one of those it meets?
Mr. Monestime: Right, because I don't think the idea is that they were going to take -- when this Code is drafted, right, the idea is not -- you're not going to take 10 properties, 15 properties, 100 properties together; it's looking at each particular -- a building, feature, site, structure, object;
City of Miami Page 205 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
not a dozen, not 100, correct? So each property, each building, each site, each structure has a criteria.
Commissioner Carollo: And should have --
Mr. Monestime: So you got to go through the steps.
Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt.
Ms. Schmitt: Okay, so a couple of things. The packet that the board received for the analysis separates all of the -- first of all, sorry -- to begin, why was this not arbitrary? Because we evaluated all of the properties that were not contributing; that's number one. Number two, we produced a report that set --
Commissioner Carollo: Quick question. When you say, "all the properties," all the properties within that neighborhood, and it happened to be 100 that you felt --?
Ms. Schmitt: Within the Buena Vista East Historic District
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Ms. Schmitt: -- to be clear, so only within the boundaries of our designated historic district.
Chair Hardemon: How long did it take you to do this analysis?
Ms. Schmitt: It took us -- well, we started the documentation, but it took about three months, four months. We actually have been working for a lot longer; but to do the documentation, I'd say the whole process was about six months, and then the analysis that we put forward was about three.
Commissioner Carollo: So this happened right about -- your analysis started right about the time of the ICM?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct, because we were confronted with a noncontributing structure that the staff didn't feel should have come down, so that's absolutely correct. So to continue, the board received a packet -- a report. It identified the features of the various styles that we had identified within the properties that we thought should be contributing. I just want to put something on the record, which I'm going to slightly disagree. We, in fact, of course, looked at a geographic area. We weren't just looking at one or two buildings. That's not the nature of a historic district. So "historic district," as defined by our Code, says, "It's a geographically defined area, possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites or structures united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development." That's why this is a historic district and not 250 individually designated properties.
Chair Hardemon: No, I understand what the district is, but you're labeling this as a contributing structure or contributing resource, correct?
Ms. Schmitt: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: And so that's what we want to get into. Because I'll be clear with you: I'm looking at the analysis that you have from PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- I haven't even gone back to PZ.17, but I'm looking at PZ.18, and I have not found one difference in your analysis that you provided us for PZ.17 --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
City of Miami Page 206 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: -- for PZ.18 that you have in PZ.19 --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- which leads me to believe that counsel's argument may have merit. Now, I'm sure that you have some thoughts as to why, but this would be the time to put on the record why this meets the definition of "a contributing structure."
Ms. Schmitt: Okay. So the way that the report is divided, that we produced for the board, is it's divided by style, so you're correct; it was the same report that analyzed all of the properties that we've suggested should come from noncontributing to contributing, but it was divided according to architectural style. So what we did was we -- for example, this particular property is within the commercial neighborhood buildings, and so all of the information that we have about that particular style of architecture, what that building -- what that technology looks like, we therefore followed that description and that information with all of the buildings that we think fit that style.
Chair Hardemon: So you didn't individually look -- you haven't -- there's no analysis in the documentation that you've given me about this particular building; only that it is in the style of a particular building that you were analyzing at a time.
Ms. Schmitt: Correct. And if I could explain why. When you're doing a historic district, the level of research can vary. Because, first of all, if you're looking at 200 buildings, it doesn't mean that 200 very important people lived in all of those buildings. So Buena Vista does have a couple of stories of individual residences where we can get more information in terms of significant people who lived there, but the purpose of doing a district is really to focus on the architecture. So the threshold in terms of establishing districts and how it fits criteria is very different than establishing an individual landmark.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I think what she's articulating is a very specific criteria --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- and I think we should just take it point by point, and to see if you've justified under the legal criteria whether or not your decision was not taken in an arbitrary capricious manner, and I think that's what she's requesting as a de novo review.
Mr. Monestime: That is absolutely correct. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Suarez: And what -- so that's got to be specific to the property.
Ms. Schmitt: So when we're looking at the commercial properties on Northeast 2nd Avenue, you have this corner property that we're talking about currently. Obviously, you have the storefronts in the bottom. You have -- it's a modest building, but most of the buildings -- most of the commercial properties in Buena Vista in the commercial areas, they were modest; they were mostly two stories. To point to the -- or to speak to the point of counselor, the building was built in 1925, which is specifically within the period of significance for this historic district. So that's one of the criteria that it definitely fits. Does it tell of the time and the place of what commercial properties looked like when the -- when it was built? Absolutely. So I think that it does fit the criteria. Is it a high-style like we've been talking about? No. Is it representative of the rest of
City of Miami Page 207 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the district? No, because as we discussed, Northeast 2nd Avenue and North Miami Avenue are the commercial district -- or the commercial corridors, and the substance of the district is really the residences.
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, are we going to take more testimony or no, at this point?
Chair Hardemon: We do need to open up for public hearing about this item.
Rafael Suarez-Rivas (Senior Assistant City Attorney): Yes.
Chair Hardemon: So public hearing is now open on PZ.19.
Neil Hall: Neil Hall, 4040 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida. While I support the neighborhood and support the residents seeking to preserve the historic nature of Buena Vista, I think the Department made an error. I think they made an error with respect to this particular property. I think to designate or to put this in the category where it is a contributing factor is wrong. 50 years does not designate a structure as historical or significant. This is a nondescript building. As an architect and who have been spending more than 25 years looking at historic structures and looking at historic neighborhoods, I believe that when looking at the commercial corridor of 2nd Avenue, one can see that this designation as a structure that needs to be included in this area is totally incorrect and wrong. In order for one to preserve or to construct or put in a new building on this property, one would have to keep the façade and put up structures to hold this building up. I think it's not in keeping with the sole purpose of being able to take your property and develop it. Most of the buildings on 2nd Avenue have been used or responded to the work that is happening in the Design District. And I think -- and I'm going to make this comment very, very strongly. The decision that the board made is incorrect, and I urge that this board seriously reject the findings of the Historic Preservation Board.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Shiller Jerome: Shiller Jerome, with Buena Vista East. I just want to elaborate on some things right quick to this Commission. We -- as a board member, as a resident of this community, we understand the difference between our residential homes and the block in context of our streets as it relates to Northeast 2nd Avenue. We know the commercial needs and the frontage of Northeast 2nd Avenue is different than that of our interior streets, which is why when I came up here -- every single time I come up here, I talk about block in context, which is why we have worked with every commercial property owner on Northeast 2nd Avenue to come to a compromise when it comes to new design and so forth. I've been here several times on behalf of other projects on Northeast 2nd Avenue saying, "You know what? We've met with the developer. We've met with the owner. We came up with a concept, a guideline that makes sense, even when that concept and guideline required a demolition." Because I am not -- I understand that there's a difference between my residential homes, my interior streets, whether it be 47, 44, 45th Street and Northeast 2nd Avenue, which is a total commercial corridor. So as it relates to this particular project, because of the fact that it faces Northeast 2nd Avenue -- and again, let me be very specific. This property, the whole frontage is on Northeast 2nd Avenue. No part of this property is on the interior streets. Because of that position, the board does not oppose or supports the HEP Board decision. So we -- I'm not coming here to oppose; I'm not coming to support it. So whatever this Commission decides, we don't have a position as it relates to this property, because it faces -- the frontage is on Northeast 2nd Avenue. Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: I have a question.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: Sir, so in your opinion, if it's on a commercial corridor, it doesn't necessar
City of Miami Page 208 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
-- its historic value would not be as relevant. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Jerome: No. If it's on -- first of all, Ms. Schmitt said it correctly. Every single property, whether contributing or noncontributing, has to go in front of the Historic Preservation for a COA (Certificate of Acceptance).. Every single property, as a board and association, we look at it, will discuss it with the developers, and we try to come to a compromise. My stand is as it relates to Northeast 2nd Avenue -- again, that fronts Northeast 2nd Avenue. The important thing is frontage, front; not just commercial. It fronts Northeast 2nd Avenue. The whole entire front of the property is on Northeast 2nd Avenue; we treat it a little differently than a property that is on the interior streets.
Vice Chair Russell: But why?
Mr. Jerome: We treat it differently than the properties that are on the interior streets. I mean, interior streets mean that on 45th Street, on 46th Street. This property is on Northeast 2nd Avenue. It's on Northeast 2nd Avenue.
Vice Chair Russell: But why would that affect its ability to be --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: -- historic versus non-historic?
Mr. Jerome: That's not what I said.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, I'm misunderstanding then.
Mr. Jerome: It's difference to the historic. No, no. Our position is when it comes to the aesthetics of the property -- any alterations when it comes to the aesthetic of property is treated differently when it's on the interior street than it's Northeast 2nd Street, because of the fact that we understand that there has to be changes in -- because it fronts Northeast 2nd Avenue, because of the fact that it faces Northeast 2nd Avenue, and Northeast 2nd Avenue serves a different need than the streets that are interior streets; meaning that, for example, the property earlier, it's across from a residential home, so there is a difference there.
Vice Chair Russell: I understand your position.
Mr. Jerome: So -- yeah. Listen, we -- we're not naive. We live in a very changing time and neighborhood. We understand we're historic, but we also understand where we're at. So we always try to work out a compromise when we can. When we can, we do. When we can't, we can't.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Jerome: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez, then Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Well, Commissioner Gort first.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Chair Gort: Let me ask you a question. How do you go about designating a neighborhood? Is
City of Miami Page 209 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
that by the City doing it or the neighbors ask for it?
Mr. Garcia: There are a number of manners to achieve it. Certainly, the City, of its own accord, can initiate it; whether it's the Commission, whether it's the Preservation Office, and any other agencies. Certainly, there can be, as I think was the case originally in Buena Vista East, there can be an application filed by the neighborhood association; individuals can also pursue that action.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Gort: Because -- by looking at the difference architecture you had selected, the whole City of Miami can be designated historic. I mean, that's --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair -
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: -- if I may?
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: I'd like to move to accept the appeal based on a lack of substantial and competent evidence in the record.
Chair Hardemon: The Chair would second that motion. So seeing no further persons here for public comment, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time, and discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Wouldn't that same argument hold for the other two cases, though?
Chair Hardemon: That --
Commissioner Carollo: Well --
Chair Hardemon: No.
Mr. Garcia: May I?
Chair Hardemon: No.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: No.
Chair Hardemon: Let me finish.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: No.
Chair Hardemon: Let me finish. No, because that point was not argued. We're talking about the facts that apply to this case. If -- so speaking specifically about this, the argument that was put forth that the City had an opportunity to rebut, and they did not put on, the way that I see it, substantial competent evidence to make its --
City of Miami Page 210 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Determination.
Chair Hardemon: -- determination, yeah, correct.
Commissioner Carollo: True, true. So they didn't argue that point, but it's still a valid point and probably still affected those other two cases, so we could always take a motion to reconsider. We did that earlier today.
Chair Hardemon: So let me explain. Like, for instance, if I -- if you take it in a police stop context --
Commissioner Carollo: You're saying a double jeopardy.
Chair Hardemon: You're a police officer. Well -- no, before I even get into that. If -- have these facts: Police officer stops someone driving a vehicle; it was an illegal stop. He had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to --
Commissioner Carollo: Understood.
Chair Hardemon: -- stop that car and then -- and when he stops this car, he finds marijuana in that car, right? Two cases just like that. If one case argues that it was a bad stop and gets the case -- and gets the evidence suppressed and the case goes away. If the other one does not argue that bad stop, then it's going to go all the way through, and you're going to be prosecuted because you (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: And by the way, just because we're making a determination that, in this particular case, the record lacks competent substantial evidence doesn't mean that that's the case in the other two cases, by the way.
Chair Hardemon: Right. I mean, it was -- could have been evidence that --
Commissioner Suarez: It's a different record.
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: This is a de novo record --
Mr. Suarez-Rivas: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: -- of this case, and there is just not, in my opinion, competent substantial evidence to support the criterias [sic] articulated here on this case. That's why I'm making my motion.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. For me, I believe that Megan Schmitt did articulate quite well. And the fact that this is a 1925, 89-year-old building, tip-top dinettes -- if you were to take the awnings off of it and put two coats of paint on it, this would be a perfect time machine of what that corridor looked like in 1925; and for lack of our preservation, it will not look like that. For sure, it will be one of the modern developments that are coming up and down the corridor there. For me, that's all the more reason that if this does qualify that it should be protected. And regardless of whatever happened at the HEP Board or earlier, if we were looking at this de novo, it was put before Ms. Schmitt to satisfy the criteria that were put forth, and I feel that it does. I feel that it's a treasure. It doesn't have to be high style necessarily, but within that district, it is
City of Miami Page 211 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
perfectly characteristic of the buildings of that time on that corridor, and it will disappear if we don't take our action.
Chair Hardemon: So I'm looking at page 78, 79, 80 of the information that was passed to us in our books that was prepared by Ms. Schmitt and -- I mean, I see some -- for instance, I look at -- on page 80, the 4400 Northeast 2nd Avenue, in the middle. I'm looking at that architecture, that style; that Miami-Modern with Art Deco influence, and I can see why that would be contributing. I look at some of the commercial -- let's look at -- I look at the noncontributing structure on page 79 in the middle; and that structure, built in 19 -- it appears in 1939 -- that one has a very significant design. I can see that it's contributing. The structure that is just above it, built in 1957, is determined to be noncontributing, it's a short building -- like -- I'm looking style -- at that building. So when I look at this thing, I'm trying to balance that with what Ms. Schmitt said in the definition, and there just hasn't been anything that I've seen that show that -- for which -- that made what she described as significant, and it was present during the period of its significance of the district and truly reflects the character at that time, because there's no other buildings that are look -- like -- that are like this indescript building that I'm seeing that's been argued today. And additionally, I would agree with Commissioner Suarez; not enough has been laid on the record to support its designation.
Vice Chair Russell: Somehow, this building was lucky enough to survive waves and waves of development, and I just think it would be a shame to see it go.
Chair Hardemon: I understand.
Mr. Garcia: Very briefly, sir, with your indulgence, I feel that, to some extent, the testimony that was put forth by our team was maybe put forth so matter of factly that its relevance may have been missed, and I just want to restate for the record -- should it have been missed -- that we did go through a thorough listing of all the criteria that had been met by this particular structure and thus qualifies it, in our opinion at least, as meriting the contributing designation, and I'll do so very quickly for the record. It'll take me no more than half a minute. In keeping with the definition of the City Code 23-2 of the Historic Preservation chapter, the criteria are as follows: "It must be found"-- as our report shows -- "that the structure adds to the historic and architectural qualities of the district" -- of the district -- "and that it was present during the period of significance of the district and that its character at that time is reflecting of the character of the district, and it does not" -- and I emphasize this because I think much was made about this by your counsel -- "it does not have to meet, independently, the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places." There is an "or" separating those two clauses. The first does meet; which, by definition, qualifies it as a contributing structure. Just wanted to put that in for the record. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Is there any further unreadiness, discussion?
Vice Chair Russell: I have a question.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: What is the zone of this -- the zoning for this?
Mr. Garcia: The zoning designation for the property is -- if you'll give me just a moment, I'll verify that.
Mr. Monestime: C-1, T4.
Mr. Williams: T4-L.
City of Miami Page 212 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Monestime: T4-L, yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: So in this case, as well, there is a certain capacity there available within the TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) program.
Mr. Garcia: The zoning des -- my apologies -- The zoning designation is T4-L, as was the immediately prior property.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motions passes.
Mr. Monestime: Thank you very much.
END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS CITYWIDE
HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS DISTRICT 1
COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT
END OF DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2
VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL
END OF DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO
END OF DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
END OF DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5
CHAIR KEON HARDEMON
City of Miami Page 213 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
END OF DISTRICT 5
NON-AGENDA ITEM(S)
NA.1 RESOLUTION 16-00518b A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 11, 2016, AT 10:00 A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING IS TO ADDRESS ALL ISSUES AND TAKE ANY ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VIRGINIA KEY MARINA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 12-14-077. 16-00518b-Submittal-Bilzin Sumberg-Virginia Key Marina RFP No. 12-14-077.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
R-16-0300
A motion was made by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, which passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner(s) Suarez, Carollo, Russell and Gort; NOES: Commissioner Hardemon; directing the City Manager to wait to negotiate with the first ranked bidder for RFP No. 12-14-077 until after the July 11, 2016 Special City Commission Meeting. ______
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be RECONSIDERED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
______
(NA.1) RESOLUTION 16-00518b A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 20, 2016, AT 9:00 A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING ALL ISSUES AND TAKING ANY AND ALL ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VIRGINIA KEY MARINA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 12-14-077. 16-00518b-Submittal-Bilzin Sumberg-Virginia Key Marina RFP No. 12-14-077.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
R-16-0300
A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, which passed by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner(s) Suarez, Carollo, Russell and Gort; NOES: Commissioner Hardemon; directing the City Manager to wait to negotiate with the first ranked City of Miami Page 214 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
bidder for RFP No. 12-14-077 until after the July 20, 2016 Special City Commission Meeting.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Again, I'm bringing back the topic from yesterday. I think -- I was very moved by -- I don't want to make a quick decision on something that's a 75-year lease, so I was very moved by that statement; so, therefore, I want to see -- if we're adding additional Commission meetings, shouldn't we discuss when we're going to have a Commission meeting to continue the discussion regarding the 75-year lease and all the different issues that were mentioned -- the oil spill and so on and so on and so on?
Chair Hardemon: When does the item naturally come back on the agenda to be heard, Mr. City Manager? Or when do you expect it to be back? Because, as I understand, you probably have some work to do.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Well, Mr. Chairman, we resolved the bid protest yesterday, and did not decide to throw out the RFP (Request for Proposals), so at some point in the very near future, I -- we're intending to then negotiate with the proposed bidder so that we can come to something that we can bring to the Commission. Ultimately, we have to get to this Commission by July 28 with a recommendation to either put the item on the ballot or not; to either throw it out or not. That's something that has to come to this Commission.
Chair Hardemon: So my thought behind that is, why not have the discussion on that day whenever -- when you have a recommendation from the City Manager to do one thing or another? I recognize the Vice Chairman and then Commissioner Suarez.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we did several hours of discussion, and we covered a lot of ground. I think we did a lot to where I bet we could put this into -- my intent was to take the motion -- which I had to withdraw because we adjourned -- and bring it back as a resolution on July 14, and that would continue the discussion. And I don't think there's so much left -- and I know there's a lot still to go through, but not enough that we perhaps need a full special day, so I was -- My intent was to bring it back on the regular agenda as a resolution; the motion that I had.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Suarez: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: First, can we vote on July 13 at 9 a.m.? Because that's what we were discussing.
Chair Hardemon: This is a (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Suarez: I know. And then, we could discuss another -- a non-agenda item, which is fine, but can we first --?
Chair Hardemon: No, I'm guessing what he wants to do is add this to --
Commissioner Suarez: I don't think he wants to add this to the -- to July 13 meeting.
Commissioner Carollo: No, I want to have a resolution on something before we start adding
City of Miami Page 215 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
additional Commission meetings. And we didn't have a resolution yesterday, even though we spent eight hours here, so I want to make sure, hey, let's have a resolution on one before we continue. I don't mind having an additional Commission meeting or two, as mentioned, but let's have a resolution on one before we start adding; and have some clarity on where we're going to go from yesterday's meeting.
Vice Chair Russell: July 13, we do -- we could combine them and do that --
Commissioner Suarez: I'm fine with that. I don't know if everybody else is, but, I mean, that's --
Vice Chair Russell: If we're here on Wednesday all together anyway, and you all feel that there's enough to discuss that we shouldn't take it in the regular agenda, I'd be open to adding it as -- after the Charter Review workshop.
Chair Hardemon: So the one thing that comes to my mind is that if the Manager has the ability to negotiate with the highest bidder and he has the ability to pull from the RFP the slips in the basin that that should be something we should consider if we're talking about getting rid of the RFP in totality, because the other arguments that are about getting rid of the RFP in totality deal with two things that are not necessarily things that dealt with -- well, there are some questions --
Ms. Méndez: Chairman, Chairman, if I may? The parties aren't here --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Ms. Méndez: -- so if we could just get a --
Commissioner Suarez: Why are we talking about this?
Ms. Méndez: -- date to talk about --
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Ms. Méndez: -- his item and your item --
Commissioner Suarez: That's totally out of procedure to schedule it in July.
Ms. Méndez: -- it would be --
Vice Chair Russell: We'll just schedule --
Chair Hardemon: We'll just --
Commissioner Carollo: And that's --
Ms. Méndez: -- schedule, if we could just schedule --
Commissioner Carollo: -- that's what I -- that's my intention; that's what I'm trying to do.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, very good.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Let's -- look, let -- we have a motion on the floor. We got on conversation that was not related to the motion. Can we vote on the motion? And then, if somebody wants to bring a non-agenda item -- This is a published item on the agenda, and we have members of the committee that are here, waiting. Can we have a vote, please, on -- and then -- I'm not calling the question, by the way, because I understand that you can't do it quite
City of Miami Page 216 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
like that. So I would like to ask the Chair if -- I mean, if -- unless there's more discussion on this issue on whether we have a meeting on the 13th?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: I think it's within the purview of this Commission that, if we're requesting additional Commission meetings that -- that is not what the agenda item says. Yes, it relates to it, and I don't have a problem within this agenda item asking for additional Commission meeting; but at the same time, I'm saying, well, if we're doing additional Commission meeting, there was one from yesterday that still wasn't resolved, so how are we going to --
Chair Hardemon: It was resolved. Look, the meeting is -- it was resolved. We had a bid protest and we had a discussion item. The bid protest was resolved. The discussion item was concluded.
Vice Chair Russell: I disagree. I only withdrew it because we lost our five, and I wanted to continue that discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Look, and if there was a mistake, at least by my part, is that I was in agreement with a recess; not necessarily an adjournment. But you adjourned the meeting, so I understand that; however, the intent was -- and at least from the majority of the members here -- that we needed additional conversation, because it's a 75-year lease, and we don't want to rush into anything --
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- because we were going to take a vote.
Chair Hardemon: Right. So -- but understand this: No one -- there still will be a discussion on this. But you're trying to force it into a July 13 meeting; which, what I'm asking, as Chairman, is that we have the additional time for the Manager to do his negotiations, so we have a full picture when we make this decision. I understand where you want to go, and, you know, I guarantee you that if you put this on for, say, for instance, the 13th, there's going to be unreadiness about making the vote.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Please.
Commissioner Carollo: As a follow-up to your argument, the only difference is that I don't necessarily feel that the Manager should be negotiating until we come to a conclusion on whether we should throw them all out or not.
Vice Chair Russell: I agree.
Ms. Méndez: That's a very valid point, because I don't want ever -- if this Commission decides to do anything, we don't want any vested rights type arguments to start hitting, so --
Chair Hardemon: Let me ask you a question, Madam City Attorney. So if today I said that, "You know, there's an R" -- what's -- name an RFP out that's -- an RFP that's out right now or that's come back for award. Name some RFP.
City of Miami Page 217 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Alfonso: The Royal Rent-A-Car.
Chair Hardemon: Royal Rent-A-Car. So there's a Royal Rent-A-Car RFP that the Manager has been negotiating, right? Say right now, say, "You know, I want to throw the Royal Rent-A-Car agreement out" -- or "the RFP out." How long is it that you're going to not negotiate from Administration because we've expressed some interest to throw it out? Haven't come to a decision about it, but how long is it that you think that the Manager should not go about operating the business of negotiating the contract before you decide to or not to throw it out?
Ms. Méndez: Is that question to me?
Chair Hardemon: I mean, you -- because what you're telling me is that you -- it seems to be that you're of the opinion that the Manager should not negotiate with the highest RFP bidder just because the Commission has had a discussion about whether or not that RFP should be thrown out.
Ms. Méndez: Well, my point is that, because it is a contentious item, we don't want to give anyone any idea of any vested right or anything like that. And they might even appeal the bid protest decision, et cetera. So I think we just need further clarification, so the idea of placing the Vice Chairman's motion on a agenda and the Manager's motion on an agenda for direction, I think, would be the --
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Ms. Méndez: -- appropriate way to go.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. So we're 0 for 3 on getting this -- that process done. I don't think it's a good idea. We tried to twice to do it during a Commission meeting. And it's not about not being able to do it at that moment or in that -- it's really more about everybody else who's here waiting and how long it takes, and all that. I have no problem. I understand how busy we are and I understand how much work we have. I don't have a problem coming to another special meeting, absent and apart from the ones that we're setting for the Charter Review; sunshine meetings -- you know, that's part of what we do. It's -- we have a lot of work, you know; it is what it is. And we have to be available to deal with the work that we have to do. So I don't have a problem coming to another special meeting; none, whatsoever. So maybe the way to do it is have the Clerk's Office circulate a date; or we can do it right now, pick a date right now. I have no problem picking a date, as well, if you want to pick a date.
Vice Chair Russell: I would say the 13th, right after the Charter Review meeting.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Commissioner Suarez: There you go.
Vice Chair Russell: That's an amendment to your motion.
Commissioner Suarez: I accept the amendment.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion on the item?
City of Miami Page 218 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: No -- oh. Sorry.
Vice Chair Russell: Sorry. I'm in agreement with Commissioner Carollo, as well as the City Attorney; that I believe it wasn't simply a discussion of what we might do. There was a very specific motion to throw out the RFP. I believe there was some support amongst -- on the dais for that. And on such a big issue, really, we're responsible to the public, who is trusting us with transparency; that they see that this motion has been put in place; even though it was withdrawn, in my opinion for convenience of last night's adjournment, but it will be brought back, whether at that meeting or whether on an agenda that the Manager not continue with the momentum of negotiation that would imply that the current first place bidder is in full acceptance in going forward.
Chair Hardemon: They're not even awarded. They're not even awarded. This is a very clear motion. The motion is to have an item -- well, a special meeting on the 13th.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: That's the motion. Is there any unreadiness about that motion?
Vice Chair Russell: No.
Commissioner Carollo: I think we need to specifically say what is the meeting going to encompass. So it's going to encompass a workshop on the Charter Review Committee, and it's going to encompass item 2 that was discussed in yesterday's special Commission meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I -- that's not my preference of way to do it, but if you guys want to do it that way, I will --
Vice Chair Russell: Would you rather adjourn the Charter Review meeting and start a next meeting immediately after with regard to this and --?
Commissioner Suarez: No. I just think it's -- the Charter Review meeting is going to take time.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: And so my thing is, you know, we have a tendency to, you know, get it -- you know, we're talking about 12 different Charter items; it's going to take time. So let's say -- we don't know how long it's going to take. I could take an hour; it could take two hours; it could take six hours; it could take -- and then, we're going to start after that another very, very big matter for discussion? I'm fine with that if that's what you guys want. I don't -- that's not what I prefer. I prefer to have a separate meeting; just like we had a separate meeting to discuss it. By the way, yesterday, we had a separate meeting for discussion and we were there for -- what? -- six and a half hours?
Vice Chair Russell: That's true.
Commissioner Suarez: So, I mean, that's my issue. My issue is -- and for purposes of the people who may want to come and speak on the item, they're going to have to -- unless we do maybe -- the thing is that we can't even say, "Do one at 9 and the other one at 2," because we don't know we'll be done at 2.
Commissioner Gort: It'll be at 4.
City of Miami Page 219 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: So just pick another date. Just pick another date. I mean, I'll come another day.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll be placing my motion on the following day's agenda, then, just to make sure, because I don't know when in July -- if we need to get this done by our second meeting in July -- and we don't know that we can wrap it up in one day. We may hit a wall again.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, can I ask for a respectful clarification on your -- what your reso can be on that day?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: Why don't you bring a reso on that day, on the 14th --
Vice Chair Russell: Yep.
Commissioner Suarez: -- with a date to have --
Chair Hardemon: Why not just move to throw out the RFP now and have the vote; forget all possible --
Vice Chair Russell: Well, we haven't noticed it on this agenda.
Ms. Méndez: And that --
Vice Chair Russell: None of the parties are here.
Ms. Méndez: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Ms. Méndez: It's not on the agenda today.
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Ms. Méndez: I would ask -- and maybe as a suggestion, can you place your motion, Vice Chairman, and the Manager's motion, whatever it may be, could those two items come on the 13th and also be placed on the 14th? If they don't get addressed on the 13th, they could be addressed on the 14th.
Commissioner Suarez: No.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Manager, I know you got a response to that.
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, we need to negotiate with the bidder that is currently in first place, having resolved the bid protest issue, because we're definitely going to be asking for more rent, et cetera, so we can't wait until the 13th or the 14th to start that negotiation to put something on the agenda, because the agenda deadline is like three days later, so --
Ms. Méndez: There's still a 30-day appeal provision.
Mr. Alfonso: I understand. So, more importantly, why we cannot wait until that time to put something on the agenda, because, ultimately, in order to get to the ballot in November, this item
City of Miami Page 220 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
has to be approved or denied by this Commission no later than our meeting on the 28th.
Commissioner Suarez: Not necessarily.
Mr. Alfonso: So we need to negotiate --
Commissioner Suarez: Not necessarily.
Mr. Alfonso: -- and then, if this Commission decides to throw it out, we throw it out, and that's it; we end the negotiations. But I think that we need to be given the authority to negotiate something.
Chair Hardemon: Well, you have that authority. Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I brought this forward; not necessarily to have the meeting at the same time that we have the special Commission meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't think that's a good idea.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. I brought this forward because we were talking about additional Commission meetings; and we still, in my opinion, have not resolved yesterday's special commission meeting. So I wanted to get clarity on when we were going to have a Commission meeting or take up the item again, so we could discuss it; that's number one. And number two, I am in disagreement with regards to the Manager beginning negotiations before we reconvene on that same item and take up the vote that we wanted to take up; and did not take up, solely because I -- in my opinion, one Commissioner left; and possibly because we wanted a lot more time to discuss a lot more issues. Therefore, if we wanted a lot more time to discuss a lot more issues, I think that there was an expectation that we were going to have a follow-up meeting. And I just want to know, when will that follow-up meeting be --
Commissioner Suarez: That's a legitimate question.
Commissioner Carollo: -- so we can address it?
Chair Hardemon: Well, let's -- but there's a motion and a second --
Commissioner Suarez: That's a legitimate question.
Chair Hardemon: -- that says the follow-up meeting is July 13; that's the motion that's on the floor.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't think that's a good idea.
Chair Hardemon: I -- but there's a motion and a second, so, I mean, can we take a vote on that?
Commissioner Suarez: I would respectfully request that we bifurcate -- that we bifurcate.
Vice Chair Russell: Two separate meetings?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: Two separate meetings.
Vice Chair Russell: But not on the same day, either.
City of Miami Page 221 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And I'm okay with that; we just have to come. He's right, we -- this is a big deal. There are two big deals. You don't mix up big deals, because we don't want to have, you know, a bunch of people from the public sit for four or eight or 10 hours, and then, all of a sudden, not be heard, you know; or something happen or a Commissioner leave, which has happened three times.
Commissioner Carollo: I am in agreement with that, Commissioner Russell. I think it should be two separate meetings; and again, I just want dates, so we could know exactly, you know, what day we're addressing what; but I don't want to start new or additional Commission meetings --
Commissioner Suarez: I understand what you're saying.
Commissioner Carollo: -- to address an important issue --
Commissioner Suarez: I understand that.
Commissioner Carollo: -- which the Charter Review is --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- without having some type of resolution on yesterday's meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: We're going to have to work a lot in July, okay? And --
Chair Hardemon: So the current motion on the floor --
Commissioner Suarez: -- let me just say one last thing.
Chair Hardemon: -- Motion -- let me just --
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: -- the current motion on the floor is for us to have the special meeting for the Charter Review, as well as the -- putting up the question about throwing out the RFP; that's the motion on the floor. Is there -- does anyone want to amend that motion?
Vice Chair Russell: I'll withdraw my amendment if we'd like to --
Commissioner Suarez: And I will amend it to be the first motion that I first stated --
Chair Hardemon: Okay, which is --
Commissioner Suarez: -- which is to have --
Chair Hardemon: -- the meeting on the 13th.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any unreadiness to having a special Commission meeting on the 13th about the Charter Review Committee?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, just confirmation; meeting on the 13th --
Commissioner Suarez: 9 a.m.
City of Miami Page 222 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: -- at what time?
Commissioner Suarez: 9 a.m.
Commissioner Carollo: 9 a.m.?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: No, I don't have any objection.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Mayor Tomás Regalado: Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir.
Mayor Regalado: I just wanted to understand the special Commission meeting about the Charter Review. What you all are going to do is hear the report that you have in the background material, right? And decide how many questions, if any; and then, direct the City Attorney to write the questions and come back, right?
Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And I would just add one additional thing. Everything you said, I agree with, with one additional thing; is they have to -- you know, all Commissioners are going to look through -- We had, I think four drafts or five drafts of every reform that came before us. That doesn't mean that Commissioners may not have issues with some of the drafting. So we are obviously trying to present the most comprehensive product to the Commissioners, but they have the right to debate that, as well.
Mayor Regalado: No, I understand. I just want to understand if this is an advertised public hearing --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mayor Regalado: -- where people will be able to --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, yes.
Mayor Regalado: -- participate.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mayor Regalado: And the second question that I have is that I think I have heard some members of the Commission saying that the Administration -- and specifically, the Manager -- should not start any kind of negotiations with the one bidder, the one that was recommended. I heard from the Chairman that he should; so, just to make sure, because the Manager is getting mixed signals. Could there be a vote? And, I mean, I don't know when you guys are going to deal with --
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Let us take this -- let us have the vote on the meeting date first.
Mayor Regalado: No, right. But I just want to mention something that the Manager has said already, and I think it's important for -- just for your calendar. The Elections Department has said August 9 as the deadline for any questions in the ballot in November. There is no more extension other than August 9, because the overseas ballots, absentees, have to go out like in two months in advance, and all that. If this project doesn't get into the ballot in November, it will
City of Miami Page 223 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
have to wait until November of '17, because there is no more cycle of election; not State; none local; none countywide elections in '17 until we get to the cycle of November of '17. That will push back about two years the project. So I just want to -- so the people would know that if you don't make the deadline, the question -- unless somebody wants to pay for a special election that I think the City Clerk will tell you that it's about $2 million citywide.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roughly; yes, sir.
Mayor Regalado: So that's my thing. I think Commissioner Carollo is correct when he says, you know, we have to -- or you have to make a decision in the next few days --
Commissioner Suarez: We'll be here all day.
Mayor Regalado: -- because he's going to take time negotiating. And I don't -- and I understand that you need to set first the motion to do the special meeting on Charter Review, but the Manager needs some direction whether or not he should or he should wait and drop everything and wait until you guys make a decision on the other issue of Virginia Key. I think it's fair to him, because then, if he start and the City Attorney says that, oh, they were given some vested privilege; and the City Commission --
Ms. Méndez: No, no; no vested privilege; I'm not saying that at all. I just don't want them to have any type of argument, whatsoever; depending on what the Commission is going to do, that's all.
Mayor Regalado: So what you are saying is that you are recommending that the Manager doesn't talk to this --
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman --
Ms. Méndez: I'm recommending respectfully, just some direction from the Commission to see, you know, when he should start.
Mayor Regalado: That's what I'm asking.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Mayor Regalado: I mean, it's only fair, because then, we get in this legal situation; however, however, going back to Commissioner Carollo; however, if he cannot negotiate and that's fine for him or his team, it would take longer, and you're running against the clock. That --
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort, you're recognized.
Commissioner Gort: I think I been saying this for quite a while: We going to go to court, anyway, because that's the way it is here in Miami. Now, I don't think we should be hearing this at all today. I think we should set a date and discuss all that when everyone is here; at the same time, a lot of the complaints that I heard about, it was the basin, number one. Number two, we going to do away with the historic museum, and we going to do something to destroy the -- what do you call them? -- the Marine Stadium. And that has never been the goal. It never has been there; it doesn't comply with the master plan. I want to show where -- I want people to show me where it does not comply with the master plan, because according to the master plan that we approved and all that, it's right -- the basin, I agree with it, I don't have any problem with it. But I think the Manager should have the opportunity to meet with them and see if this is something they can improve; or if not, fine, we'll take it as history. But I think we should discuss this when people are here; not now.
City of Miami Page 224 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Méndez: Like with the -- so a date --
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gort: Let's get the date and let's go, people.
Ms. Méndez: -- a date would be great.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Gort: We've spent five hours on this.
Commissioner Suarez: Just propose a date.
Vice Chair Russell: Let's vote on this motion.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, there's no reason that we have to have this meeting in July. We could have this meeting tomorrow; we could have this meeting Monday; we could have this meeting -- as long as it's properly advertised.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I'm willing to do --
Commissioner Carollo: We could have it Monday. We don't have to wait till July 13.
(UNINTELLIGIBLE; MULTIPLE PARTIES SPEAKING IN UNISON)
Chair Hardemon: But we do realize that the motion --
Commissioner Gort: You tell me when you want it. I'm willing, I'm ready.
Chair Hardemon: -- you do realize the motion on the floor is not regarding anything with the sea basin, slips; anything of that nature. The motion on the floor -- I just want to get through a vote.
Commissioner Carollo: I --
Chair Hardemon: Can we get through the first vote --
Commissioner Suarez: Guys, can we please --
Chair Hardemon: -- the July 13 vote?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: Under --
Chair Hardemon: This is the July 13 vote.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood. I didn't mention "basin"; I didn't mention "historic preservation." I didn't mention any of that. All I mentioned from the very beginning is, listen, we still have an issue from yesterday that we have not resolved. Now, we are talking about special
City of Miami Page 225 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commission meetings, and all I've been asking is let's pick a day to resolve yesterday's issue.
Chair Hardemon: But Commissioner Carollo, you asked -- okay. And then, there was a motion placed on the floor that said that, "We want to add this issue to the July 13 motion"; we talked about that. Then, we took that away; and now, we still have -- just this motion. If you want, if you want --
Commissioner Carollo: So we're discussing it, yes; that's --
Chair Hardemon: No, but this is not -- this is --
Commissioner Carollo: That's part of the discussion.
Chair Hardemon: I'll put it this way: Unless you're going to add the discussion back to July 13, then all of this is irrelevant to the July 13 motion that's on the table right now; all of it.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, so let me add something that is relevant. We'll take a vote; and then as soon as we take a vote, I'm going to respectfully request that you give me back the floor so I can make a motion on a special Commission meeting for the issue that I keep mentioning.
Later... Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Now, can we discuss if maybe Monday, Tuesday, we could have a special Commission meeting so we could discuss item 2 from yesterday's special Commission meeting?
Chair Hardemon: Just place your motion on the floor, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: What would be a date that most of you --
Commissioner Suarez: Can I --
Commissioner Carollo: Would Monday work for -- would Wednesday of next week work --
Commissioner Suarez: -- can I -- can I --
Commissioner Carollo: -- since we're doing Wednesdays?
Commissioner Suarez: -- interject for a second?
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: So I think what Commissioner Gort was trying to say is that we dealt with the protest. We dealt with some aspects of what I call the macro issues -- right? -- which are basically three macro issues. And we left some of those items open; we didn't discuss some of them in depth; we didn't decide on some of them in depth. And my point is -- and we also said that this is a 75-year lease, and we don't feel -- I don't feel rushed to do it. So I think there's two questions here. One is: "How much time do we need for the Administration to digest what was said, and for the community to digest what was said at the last meeting, to the extent that anyone wants to deal with that?" And then, the second part is: "Should the Manager negotiate in the interim?" which I think are two separate questions. I personally agree with the City Attorney that I don't think the Manager should negotiate in the interim. I wasn't prepared to make that
City of Miami Page 226 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
decision today, because we were dealing with this yesterday. I really came in thinking about today's Commission meeting; wasn't really thinking about that, to be completely frank with you. If we have to make a decision on that, that would be my inclination, because I just don't think we put the cart before the horse, you know.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: If that's the case, that's why I prefer an earlier date than a July date.
Commissioner Suarez: I get it. I just think, also, you know, we have to respect the fact that there's a lot of open questions and part of it is getting answers, and so that takes time, so.
Commissioner Carollo: I don't know if I --
Ms. Méndez: I just -- I know that -- I just wanted to let you know that I will not be here the next two weeks; not that I'm necessary for this at all, because there's plenty of capable attorneys in my office that'll handle that; but I just wanted to tell you that, because I don't want to surprise you if I'm not here.
Commissioner Suarez: Here's -- I mean, here's what I -- We could do it the first week of July. You're not going to be here, Madam City Attorney? You're not going to be here the first week of July?
Ms. Méndez: I am not going to be here next week and the week after.
Commissioner Suarez: But what about the --
Ms. Méndez: I'm available to you, but I won't be here.
Commissioner Suarez: Wait, wait, what about the week of the 15th; the 11through the 15th?
Vice Chair Russell: What date we'll be back?
Ms. Méndez: The 11th, I'll be here on the --
Commissioner Suarez: What about the 11th through the 15th; are you available?
Ms. Méndez: Yes, yes, I'm here.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so why don't we do it on the 11th?
Ms. Méndez: That's fine.
Commissioner Suarez: It's fine, the 11th.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, I'll make a motion --
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that we have a special Commission meeting on July 11, Monday, 9 a.m.
Commissioner Suarez: And the Manager's not to negotiate during that period --
City of Miami Page 227 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: -- with -- okay. Second.
Chair Hardemon: So to clarify what the motion is, the motion on the floor is to have a special meeting on July 11; and to direct the Manager not to negotiate with the first place bidder until the July 11 meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion about that?
Commissioner Suarez: That's it.
Chair Hardemon: I have discussion. I don't think that that is what this body should be doing. I believe that if there is some progress that can be made on deciding what can be taken away from the RFP, such as removing the slips from the basin that the Manager should be allowed to go ahead and negotiate those terms, because, ultimately, that's what we're going to be talking about, because someone's going to say, "Well, we want" -- "we don't want the boat" -- "the slips in the basin." And the Manager can positively say, possibly at that time, "We won't have the slips in the basin." Someone's going to say that it's a material change; and the Manager may have his position, and the City Attorney may or may not have a position, but all those things are relevant to the whole discussion. So by saying, "We're going to throw it out," I particularly want to know what's going to change. If you say, "We throw it out," you tell me that, "Oh, there's not going to be any slips in the basin." Well, the Manager already negotiated that, so why is there a need to throw it out? So the only two things that I've heard about throwing it out that -- now, if the slips aren't in the basin -- are that: One, there's some collusion with the DREAM director and the first place bidder; or two -- there was another issue. There was collusion and --
Commissioner Suarez: Environmental, environmental.
Chair Hardemon: -- environmental. And there's an environmental concern that of the past, say, decade or so that we should be worried about occurring again within the City of Miami.
Commissioner Suarez: I think there's a third --
Ms. Méndez: But, Vice Chairman, motion was --
Chair Hardemon: And so to that, I think that then you're effectively saying, "We don't want RCI, whatsoever." So you're saying that --
Vice Chair Russell: That's different, that's different; that's not --
Chair Hardemon: No, no, I think it's the very same, because if we're having a discussion about environmental concerns that there was a spill and it affects their RFP, then effectively, you're going to say -- because I'm assuming you're not going to allow them to rebid; knowing now that there was a spill. You're going to say that, "That person can't bid, whatsoever."
Vice Chair Russell: They simply need to disclose.
Chair Hardemon: You're going to eliminate them from the whole RFP.
Commissioner Carollo: No. That's why we need a Commission meeting, so we can discuss all this.
City of Miami Page 228 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: Right, right.
Ms. Méndez: I think that --
Commissioner Suarez: And I think there's a third issue. I think there's a third issue, which is sort of the macro issue that Commissioner Russell articulated, which is whether this is a good idea in its current form. And I think that's an issue that he brought up, and I think that's a fair issue to discuss.
Ms. Méndez: Well, Vice Chairman Russell actually gave a litany of reasons --
Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Ms. Méndez: -- I -- but we could call it the macro --
Commissioner Suarez: That's what I'm saying. That's what I mean.
Ms. Méndez: -- miscellaneous (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I mean that --
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Commissioner Suarez: You're right. I mean that as a macro -- should we be doing this?
Commissioner Carollo: But I don't think we need to articulate all the issues. I think there's obviously issues that we --
Commissioner Suarez: I would agree with that.
Commissioner Carollo: -- need to discuss, and that's why we need this Commission meeting, so we could --
Ms. Méndez: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: -- continue the discussion.
Ms. Méndez: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: All right.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Suarez: Vote it.
Commissioner Gort: Move.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
City of Miami Page 229 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Against? Against.
Commissioner Carollo: By the way, do we have the time?
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: 9 a.m.
Commissioner Carollo: 9 a.m.
Commissioner Suarez: And I would just say that even though we've prohibited the Manager from negotiating in that time period, he can bring us his suggested terms, parameters. You could. You could bring them to the meeting. You could say, "The Administration is not going to negotiate boats in basin," for example. "We've listened to what the Virginia Key Oversight Board recommends."
Mr. Alfonso: Wait. This Commission -- didn't this Commission just approve not to negotiate?
Commissioner Gort: Yeah, that's right.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, not to negotiate.
Commissioner Suarez: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is you could come with recommendations as to what you would put in the bid -- I mean in the lease -- okay? -- based on what you're heard. I mean, is this not a reflective process? Are we not reflecting on what people --?
Commissioner Gort: You make a decision.
Mr. Alfonso: I got another day, that's it. I got that message loud and clear yesterday.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Alfonso: I mean, I could have started negotiating with that understanding.
Commissioner Suarez: Understood. But there's obviously a -- I want to call it like a crisis of confidence that we're dealing with here, and I think that that's part of what we're dealing with; that this is not just about -- you know, there's been an impact on what people feel that this process is about, so I think you need to reflect on those things.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Dotson's ears were burning; he showed up.
Chair Hardemon: The bottom line is that any time you have a negotiation that is --
Commissioner Suarez: He's sweating; he was running over here.
Chair Hardemon: -- a negotiation shows that there is a willingness from both parties to agree to something. So the Manager could put anything. He could put that we're going to receive a $10 million yearly rent, and that's what he would negotiate for, and it means absolutely nothing, because that's not something that the other person that's negotiating would agree to.
City of Miami Page 230 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Chair Hardemon: So the -- right now, what we've decided to do, we've instructed the Manager that he has no -- to not negotiate, whatsoever, until after we've decided whether or not we're going to throw away the RFP; that's what I understand.
Ms. Méndez: Okay. And procedurally, we were just talking procedural: when, the date; when to be there; what we were going to discuss. So I -- you know, it's up to you, but --
Commissioner Carollo: July 11, 9 a.m.
Chair Hardemon: But there was a substantive -- but I think there was a substantive motion, I mean, the substantive motion --
Ms. Méndez: No, no, I know. But for purposes of -- I mean, all this at the end of the day was all procedural, to get a date and figure out what we were doing and --
Chair Hardemon: I wouldn't agree to that, because --
Al Dotson: Madam Chair --
Chair Hardemon: -- we decided that --
Mr. Dotson: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: -- we've taken away the Manager's ability to negotiate.
Ms. Méndez: Well, yes, that's -- but that's just in the status quo of procedure, because there's still a possibility of any appeals and all those things, so I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And the other thing --
Chair Hardemon: But I will say we negotiate during the time that there are appeals that could be made all the time; that's what we do; procedurally, that's what we do. Mr. Dotson, you want to be recognized?
Mr. Dotson: Al Dotson, Bilzin Sumberg; 1450 Brickell Avenue; representing the recommended proposer. I believe your Code expressly provides that a person can file a bid protest; negotiations are put on hold. If you lose the bid protest, you move forward with negotiations. That's exactly what happens every time your Code is implemented in connection with a bid protest. To now go outside of that process and say, "No negotiations now; notwithstanding what our Code provides," makes absolutely no sense; more importantly, you're missing an opportunity to have before you real facts as opposed to supposition as it relates to what the contract might provide.
Commissioner Suarez: That's a good argument.
Mr. Dotson: You are now --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Ms. Méndez: They are not mandated to do anything right now, and --
Mr. Dotson: And they're also not prohibited.
Ms. Méndez: Correct.
City of Miami Page 231 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Dotson: Okay?
Ms. Méndez: But they are not mandated. And since there's still a 30-day appeal period, I mean, if everybody wants to --
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to Mr. Dotson, the other side's attorneys aren't here either.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: I mean, if we're going to hear --
Chair Hardemon: We're not taking -- they're not -- but the other side is -- they had their day -- in a sense, they had their day before this Commission --
Vice Chair Russell: They're on their way.
Chair Hardemon: -- which was the bid protest.
Commissioner Carollo: Right, but this is something different. This is --
Chair Hardemon: No, this -- right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- actually setting a date to reconvene --
Chair Hardemon: No, no, this is more than that.
Commissioner Carollo: -- or listen --
Chair Hardemon: This is more than that.
Commissioner Carollo: -- to --
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner --
Commissioner Carollo: -- complete or continue or finish yesterday's --
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner, I have more than that.
Commissioner Carollo: -- but I do --
Chair Hardemon: I'm going to tell you this: Look, if you think that this was just setting a date, then maybe I misunderstood the vote. Did anyone -- let's recon --
Vice Chair Russell: Oh, no, no, it was substantive.
Chair Hardemon: -- may I move to reconsider the vote? I believe I can, because I voted in -- well, I can do it either way because --
Mr. Hannon: As long as you pass the gavel, sir, yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- I just want to have a clear understanding of what we're voting on, right? So I'm -- I can spare you all that. But if we're going to have a discussion about something, let's speak truthfully about it. What we voted on was we -- come to a date that we can have a
City of Miami Page 232 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
discussion; but then also take away the ability for that man, the City Manager, to negotiate with that firm, who was the winning bidder.
Vice Chair Russell: That was clear.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: That was clear in the vote --
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and the vote was clear.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, so that's what it is. And so --
Commissioner Carollo: Only until that date.
Chair Hardemon: -- what I'm saying to you is this: You have the person that's representing the firm that has an objection to that, and he wants to express his objection on the record. It doesn't require any other attorney from any other party to be here, because you're taking away his right to negotiate with that man.
Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask you a question. And I don't mean to muddy up this argument, but I think I'm going to, inadvertently. So the question I have is, we heard testimony from a lot of residents -- right? -- that were very concerned about this project, and the -- it's hard for us as a body -- and part of the reason why I thought we needed time was because that was the first real opportunity we had to listen to the residents, which are our bosses, and to reflect on what they said; and potentially, for the Administration to reflect on what they said, and take those actions. That may result in something that is accepted or rejected by this Commission. And so my question is: Let's assume the Manager listened to everything that the community said -- right? -- and based their lease negotiations on all those factors; including what a Virginia Key Oversight Board may say -- said or may say in the future, because I think there's one coming up, if I'm not mistaken; which I presume you're going to want to discuss this issue at.
Mr. Dotson: That's correct.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. So, to me, I still think there's plenty of time to -- I do, because I think you can call another special meeting, but I -- what I'm concerned about is this -- and I guess it goes to the vested argument issue a little bit, but how are we supposed to know if the lease that's going to be potentially before us is one that addresses the residents' concerns or doesn't address the residents' concerns?
Mr. Alfonso: If I may answer that question?
Commissioner Suarez: And whether that, by the way, is a material change or not a material change from the bid, the RFP, et cetera.
Mr. Alfonso: I think that the only way we know that is if we're allowed to negotiate and we come back with something that both sides have agreed to, and that's the only way you would know. If you have a meeting on the 11th and we haven't had an opportunity to have that discussion, then you're going to be voting on something that's opposed to something; or just throw out the whole thing, without, really, full knowledge of what would have been the lease.
Chair Hardemon: Which is precisely my point that the City Manager just made is that in order for you to move forward to see if you are -- you can address the community's concern, which
City of Miami Page 233 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
were boats in the basin or the slips in the basin, you have to give them an opportunity to negotiate regarding that.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So my question to City Attorney -- I'll reiterate sort of the question that was before, which is: A negotiated document that is not approved -- City Commission has not approved the document -- you're taking the position that that creates a vested right?
Ms. Méndez: I'm not taking that position at all. I'm just saying I don't want to move any further into that realm. I mean, if they are willing to sign a waiver saying that there is no absolute position that you will ever take in a court of law or otherwise that negotiating thing gives you any right, then everybody have at it; but otherwise, honestly, I just don't recommend it right now.
Mr. Dotson: My client is not here, but your rules are very clear that it does not create a vested right. And we can't change your rules; I'm not looking to change your rules; we're not going to do that.
Chair Hardemon: We all know that it does not create a vested right, because we know that the right is not given until this Commission says, "We approve that contract."
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Madam City Attorney, we set a date, we set parameters, we took a vote. Did we do anything improper?
Ms. Méndez: When? Today? Yesterday?
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Ms. Méndez: No. Everything's done fine.
Commissioner Carollo: No, I mean, right now, when we took that vote for July the 11 at 9 a.m. and we set whatever parameters, have we done anything improper?
Ms. Méndez: No.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. I think we settled the issue. Can we just move forward with the agenda?
Ms. Méndez: The only thing is I don't know if you set a 9 a.m. time --
Vice Chair Russell: We did.
Ms. Méndez: -- and I was asking if it could be 10 a.m.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: I did -- oh. Well, yes, we did set 9 a.m. --
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: -- because it was stated, but --
Ms. Méndez: All right.
City of Miami Page 234 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Suarez: 10 is fine. 10 is fine.
Commissioner Carollo: But -- it doesn't matter, but the bottom line is, can we just then move on with the agenda? I think we settled the issue.
Mr. Dotson: I thought it was reconsidered.
Chair Hardemon: No, I didn't move to reconsider it.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, if we're --
Commissioner Suarez: What I would recommend, Mr. Manager, is you continue to do the work that you would be doing insofar as what -- you have parameters; a lease has parameters, has -- for example, it could have or not have -- and I would present that proposed document --
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner --
Chair Hardemon: No.
Mr. Alfonso: -- I understand that I have parameters, but I cannot negotiate with the firm.
Commissioner Suarez: I get it.
Mr. Alfonso: For example, there's a perfect opportunity next week to have the firm present to the Advisory Committee what we may or may not agree to on a lease. But if we don't have the ability to talk to them about it, they're going to go blind and have a conversation with the Advisory Board --
Commissioner Suarez: Listen, you were at the meeting, they were at the meeting. They have every right to propose what they think is in conformity with what the public wants. You have --
Chair Hardemon: But why not -- so why not give the Manager the right to just negotiate with -- to be able to sit down with them and make -- have this discussion?
Commissioner Suarez: Because we already voted on it, so it's --
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we did already -- we already voted on it.
Commissioner Suarez: You know --
Chair Hardemon: But that's the point, you -- but now, you're trying to tell the Manager to do something that you've already told him that he couldn't do.
Commissioner Suarez: No. I'm trying to move on from this in a civilized way, okay? We voted on it. You know, I don't think it creates a vested right if the Manager would have brought back a lease with parameters that we could have decided to accept or reject, okay? We just -- we decided not to do it that way. I think --
Chair Hardemon: All right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- you know, that's the end of it, you know?
City of Miami Page 235 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: PA.1.
Mr. Hannon: And Chair --
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Mr. Hannon: -- just so we're clear, July 9 [sic] at 9 a.m.? Or --
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Mr. Hannon: -- you don't have to reconsider if you want to move it to 10.
Ms. Méndez: July 11.
Commissioner Suarez: 11.
Mr. Hannon: Yeah. I'm sorry, July 11.
Commissioner Suarez: At 9.
Mr. Hannon: My apologies. But if you do want to move it to 10 a.m., you don't have to reconsider.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Hannon: It can just be done through unanimous consent.
Commissioner Suarez: Fine.
Mr. Hannon: It's just a technical change.
Ms. Méndez: Thank you so much.
Mr. Dotson: I just want to get instructions from my -- for my client. Are you saying that the City Commission has voted that the Manager cannot negotiate a lease with the number-one ranked proposer now that the bid protest --
Commissioner Suarez: In this time frame, no.
Mr. Dotson: -- has been disposed of?
Commissioner Carollo: I think it's on the record.
Vice Chair Russell: That was clear.
Commissioner Carollo: I think it was on -- I think it's on the record.
Mr. Dotson: I just want to make sure I understand that. Is that correct?
Commissioner Suarez: In this time frame, by the way; that doesn't necessarily mean he won't be able to in the future.
Commissioner Carollo: I think it's on the record; we voted on it.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
City of Miami Page 236 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Commissioner Carollo: The motion was made and seconded, and voted on.
Mr. Dotson: Okay, thank you very much.
Later... Chair Hardemon: I'd like to open up the Planning & Zoning -- oh, I'm sorry. Before I open up Planning & Zoning, Commissioner -- there's an issue? I believe that we set --
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Sir, this is a letter from Bilzin Sumberg.
Chair Hardemon: I believe that we set a hearing date for the issue regarding the RFP (Request for Proposals) on July -- what date was it? July --?
Mr. Hannon: 11.
Chair Hardemon: -- 11. So what you received now is a letter from Bilzin Sumberg that says that Mr. McDowell will be out of the country on July 11 and -- as well as Mr. Dotson will not be in town on July 11. So the lawyers that will be representing this issue will not be available on that date. They proposed another date, and that other date that they proposed was June 30. So the meeting -- the reason that we're meeting about, we need the attorneys there. So is there another date that we all wish to go with, or do you wish to acquiesce to June 30?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Why don't you switch with the Charter Review?
Commissioner Suarez: Hmm?
Mr. Min: Why don't you switch with the Charter and we could do the Charter on Monday and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on Wednesday?
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine with me. Well, I don't know if they're here.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
Commissioner Suarez: What about the 19th? What about July 19?
Chair Hardemon: I guess part of the issue that we have is you need the counselors there present, as well, and that was the problem that we had in the first place. They proposed the date of June 30. It may be wise to find a date that all of them are available besides June 30 that all of us can meet regarding the issue. Is there something you want to say, sir?
Carter McDowell: Good morning -- or good afternoon. My name's Carter McDowell. I represent RCI and Virginia Key. We've looked at our schedules. Our problem is travel schedules, it being summer. In all honesty, I leave July 1, and I'm back on the 18th. I'm going to be in Europe, and it's my 40th anniversary trip with my wife. I'd like to have a 41st, so I -- you know, could I come back? Yes, I could, but it would be very difficult to do. And Mr. Dotson's going to be in California on the 11th through the 14th. We would prefer to do it sooner than later, just because I think it's only going to be beneficial to everybody to have time to work through the document and the lease, or whatever it may end up being. We understand your concerns. We're committed to appearing before the Virginia Key Advisory Board, and working through any of the community concerns. We understand there's a meeting Wednesday night for what it's worth, which would be the day before the 30th; on the 29th. We would appreciate your consideration since we didn't have a chance to respond this morning.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
City of Miami Page 237 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Is our City Attorney going to be here for June 30?
Ms. Méndez: I am not going to be here. Like I said before, that I have Assistant City Attorneys who are very capable of handling this matter if it is your choosing to have it on June 30, but I will not be here.
Commissioner Carollo: Would those Assistant City Attorneys be able to answer the question of materiality?
Ms. Méndez: The question of materiality, I think, is going to be one of those gray areas, unfortunately.
Mr. McDowell: I would submit to you, not matter what any of us think, it may get challenged, anyway, and we're very comfortable defending that position. We'll work through it with you, but we're very comfortable defending that position.
Chair Hardemon: Are you proposing a date?
Commissioner Suarez: July 19. Everybody's going to be here on July 19.
Chair Hardemon: It's been moved that we go with July 19. Is there a second?
Mr. Hannon: Excuse me, Chair. Do we want to do a motion to reconsider?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, move to reconsider.
Chair Hardemon: So the motion is to reconsider; seconded by the Chair; reconsidering the motion to set the special hearing date, which is on July 11.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: And so the motion to reconsider -- Are we going to technically --? Okay, we're going to do it technically. Then all in favor of the motion to reconsider, say so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Now, is there a motion for July 19?
Commissioner Suarez: Move to July 19.
Commissioner Carollo: I --
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. The seconder --
Commissioner Carollo: -- July 19, I'm not available in the morning.
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Carollo: Can we try July 20?
Commissioner Suarez: July 20. July 20.
City of Miami Page 238 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: On July 20, I'm not available. I mean, I have one, two, three, four, five, six other meetings scheduled on July 20. Typically, I just move my meetings that I have with the Manager, but I have a lot more constituents that I'm meeting on that date.
Mr. McDowell: This is important.
Vice Chair Russell: Thursday, the 21st?
Chair Hardemon: It's important, but I know people have been trying to get on my schedule -- Ms. Holmes, your meeting is on July -- You know what? Maybe I am a --
Vice Chair Russell: How about the 21st?
Commissioner Suarez: Everybody will be here on July 20; that's fine.
Mr. McDowell: Might I ask --
Chair Hardemon: No, no.
Mr. McDowell: -- if we do this on the 19th or 20th, is there an opportunity, if it is so desired, to get on the July 28 agenda with an item -- to get onto the --?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, if we do a meeting on July 19, the deadline to get onto the July 28 agenda is either the 19th or the 20th; I'm not sure. But it's physically impossible to negotiate a deal --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Mr. Alfonso: -- of this magnitude in a day and get it onto the agenda.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: I think -- you know, obviously, July -- what? -- 19 or 20 or whatever day it is -- if we decide to move forward with this process, at that date, we will have to select another special Commission meeting before August 9 to vote on the lease.
Chair Hardemon: You don't have to.
Unidentified Speaker: No.
Chair Hardemon: It's what you're choosing to do, but --
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry?
Chair Hardemon: You don't have to choose another special Commission meeting. You can do it on the day that the City Manager comes back with his recommendation. We don't have to; I mean, that's what we're choosing to do.
Mr. McDowell: Another --
Commissioner Suarez: Right. I see what you're saying. I understand what you're saying.
City of Miami Page 239 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. McDowell: One other alternative, if you would consider it, would be to allow us to go ahead and negotiate with the Manager in the interim, and that would solve some of the timing issues for the Manager; and for us, we would have more time to see if we can bring an agreement to you that's acceptable.
Ms. Méndez: I believe that Mr. Dotson had placed on the record, without your client present, that you would not make any type of argument as to any type of vested right. If you send this Commission and place in writing that that will be the case, I don't have an objection; and that you waive any type of right in court with regard to that. So if that's the case, sure; negotiate to your heart's content.
Mr. McDowell: I don't believe that there's any vested right that occurs until an award is made in any circumstance; I think that's the law in your Code.
Ms. Méndez: I understand but --
Mr. McDowell: I don't think we have a problem with that.
Ms. Méndez: -- able people like to sue, anyway, so I just want to make sure that that's perfectly crystal clear for the record; and that your client agrees to that, as well; and that this Commission can stand by that. And then everybody -- if it's so, the desire of the Commission, you could start negotiating away; other than that --
Chair Hardemon: I believe that was made clear during the last vote and the Commission still voted --
Mr. McDowell: We don't have a problem with that.
Chair Hardemon: -- not to allow them to negotiate, so.
Mr. McDowell: We certainly will not make a claim that the negotiation of the lease in the pendency of this timeframe gives us any right, specific right in that process.
Chair Hardemon: Unless there's a motion to reconsider the motion that was made before --
Commissioner Suarez: But we did, because we had -- we moved to reconsider the prior vote; isn't that correct? And we voted -- we --
Chair Hardemon: Was that included in the prior vote?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yes.
Mr. Hannon: Correct; yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: So they were hand in hand in the same vote?
Mr. Hannon: Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: So I'll move to set the special meeting date for July 20 that we finally --?
Vice Chair Russell: July 20.
Commissioner Suarez: -- July 20. That's my motion.
Chair Hardemon: 9 a.m.?
City of Miami Page 240 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Earlier the better for me.
Commissioner Suarez: 9, 9.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to set the special meeting of the City Commission on July 20. Is there any unreadiness about that? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Mr. Hannon: One second, Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: Discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: I think the City Clerk needs --
Commissioner Suarez: I'll clarify my motion.
Commissioner Carollo: -- clarification.
Commissioner Suarez: So I've heard the City Attorney say that she's comfortable with the parties negotiating, so long as they waive any and all potential rights to state that there is a vested right prior to the Commission deciding, which was the major issue, correct?
Mr. McDowell: Based on those negotiations, we have no problem with that at all.
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine.
Ms. Méndez: I would like something in writing, though.
Mr. McDowell: We'll confirm it.
Ms. Méndez: Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm not in favor of that, because that's not how we passed it the last time, so I wanted to pass it the same way as last time. The only thing we're doing is showing courtesy to the dates and -- but if we're going to change that, then I won't be supportive of it. And by the way, why can't we hear it tomorrow or Monday or Tuesday? When do you leave out of town, Madam City Attorney? And that's not to say that the other attorneys and the other firms won't come here now and say that they won't be here or so forth. But anyways, can it be done Monday or Tuesday of next week?
Ms. Méndez: I'm leaving tomorrow.
Vice Chair Russell: Just to remind -- my original intent was to put a motion reintroducing my motion on the July 14 agenda, which would bring discussion about it at that point, during our regular Commission meeting. I believe we were very clear on our vote this morning, and it wasn't simply for reasons of vested rights that I felt that we should halt the negotiation at this point until we decide as a Commission, with community input, whether or not the RFP as a whole should be moving forward. And I made many reasons for that, far beyond boats in the basin and such, and I was satisfied with the vote this morning. If anyone feels their vote was unclear with the reason why they were voting, we could bring it back, but for -- Their attorney came this morning and spoke, and we voted. Now, they're coming back again this afternoon, and we're reconsidering our vote.
City of Miami Page 241 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. McDowell: Commissioner, you've heard your City Manager say if we do this on the 20th that we will not make your City Commission meeting, and that would mean we would not make the November ballot.
Commissioner Suarez: Look --
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: Then it's real simple. Why don't we just keep it as it, and --
Vice Chair Russell: They're not available on the 11th.
Commissioner Suarez: Look, I think what Commissioner Carollo is saying is that we're extending them a courtesy because you guys are out of town, the City Attorney is out of town, and so we're changing the date. The -- I'm fine with the Manager negotiating, because ultimately, I understand that whatever you negotiate is going to come before us and we have to vote on it.
Unidentified Speaker: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: And I'm also fine, by the way, with setting another Commission meeting if we have to; another special meeting, and moving on at that point, as well. So -- and then that can be done before August 9; that's not a particular problem.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm in favor of another special Commission meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: Fine.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm not in favor of allowing the Manager to engage in negotiation.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so let's just do it that way. That was the way we were going to proceed. Let's just do it that way.
Vice Chair Russell: Which way?
Mr. McDowell: But you now move the date back an entire week. You're putting us in an almost impossible situation.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't agree.
Commissioner Carollo: No, we're not putting you. We were set. You guys came before us --
Mr. McDowell: But you didn't give us notice of the hearing this morning. We didn't have a chance to address it. We left here last night with an understanding of where we were, and you changed that this morning, without our presence and without notice. That's not fair to us. That really is not fair to us.
Vice Chair Russell: We left last night without a date being set, unfortunately, for the follow-up.
Mr. McDowell: But --
Commissioner Carollo: Understood.
City of Miami Page 242 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. McDowell: -- under your Code, as of last night, when we walked out of the room, there were no bid protests pending, and there still aren't. And under your Code, the Manager is authorized, as they do on every single procurement, to move forward, to negotiate the agreement and bring it to you for your approval or denial. There's nothing that's --
Ms. Méndez: It's authorized, not mandated.
Mr. McDowell: I didn't say they were mandated; I said "authorized."
Ms. Méndez: I just want to be clear.
Mr. McDowell: But the typical process is that on every procurement, the agreement gets negotiated after there is a selected party, and that agreement is then brought to Commission for approval or denial or modification. It's still within your discretion when it comes to you.
Chair Hardemon: So a new date has been selected, right? I don't believe there's any other action that's been taken, so -- you got something else?
Vice Chair Russell: If July 20 is too late, I'm open to an earlier date. I mean, as -- you know, if -- I don't know if we've exhausted the calendar to see if there is an earlier date when all parties are available, but if we're saying July 20 causes impossibility for them, you know, I'm open to an earlier date.
Commissioner Gort: Didn't we have the 11th originally?
Mr. McDowell: Yes, we did. Unfortunately, both Mr. Dotson and I are out of the -- well, Mr. Dotson, California; I'm in Ireland on that date. Could I change that? Yes, obviously, I could.
Chair Hardemon: We wouldn't want you to do that.
Mr. McDowell: I risk divorce; but, yes, I could.
Chair Hardemon: We wouldn't want you to do that.
Vice Chair Russell: In that case, the 20th it is?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. We're making it harder on ourselves than we have to.
Chair Hardemon: Well, I mean, we've already selected the date, so the date is selected.
Mr. McDowell: The only issue is whether we're allowed to negotiate an agreement.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: If -- when you say -- I will disagree. The motion on the floor previously was to set a date and to not allow the Manager to negotiate with RCI.
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Chair Hardemon: That motion was reconsidered. The new motion that was placed on the floor is to have the special meeting of the Commission on July the 20; that was the motion on the floor that was passed. It did not include an instruction to the Manager to not negotiate --
Vice Chair Russell: No, I believe all we did --
City of Miami Page 243 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Hannon: It wasn't passed, because we needed clarification before -- or actually -- we actually wanted to stop you before taking the vote --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Mr. Hannon: -- because Commissioner Carollo still had questions about the motion.
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly, because that was not passed. And if that's the motion and we do not add the second part of the language, as we did in the motion that we reconsidered, then I'll withdraw my second, because, again --
Chair Hardemon: Why not just request it to be amended?
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Then I request it be amended and add the same language as --
Unidentified Speaker: So be it, so be it.
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: -- which we said the Manager will not be negotiating with RCI until we have our special Commission meeting, and be able to flush this whole thing out.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Clerk.
Commissioner Suarez: So here's the way I see it -- wait a second. May I, please? Because I made the motion. So we have -- we were going to have the meeting -- six plus 11 -- 17 days from now, okay? -- which would have left approximately -- 20 plus nine -- 29 days, okay? So now, if we have it on the 19th or the 20th -- I'm sorry, it's 26 days away from now, and there's still 18 days left until the deadline. That's plenty of time to negotiate if that's the will of this Commission; plenty of time to have a meeting to put it on the ballot. I don't understand why this is so complicated.
Vice Chair Russell: Well, why aren't we just amending the original vote this morning, changing the date; leaving everything else in place --
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: -- rather than rescinding and making a new motion?
Commissioner Suarez: You know what? That's fine.
Vice Chair Russell: Why can't we just amend?
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly, yes.
Commissioner Suarez: If that's what it's going to take to move this forward, that's fine.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, that's fine.
Mr. Hannon: You do have to reconsider the previous vote, because it's something that was acted upon.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. We already did that.
City of Miami Page 244 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Hannon: Yes, and we did.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. Hannon: I'm just explaining to the Vice Chair.
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine.
Mr. Hannon: So Commissioner Suarez now has a motion on the floor. Does that motion also include directions --?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, yes.
Mr. Hannon: So it's the same --
Commissioner Suarez: Same motion, different date.
Mr. Hannon: -- motion, including the direction to the Manager --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, yes.
Mr. Hannon: -- just with a different date --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: -- with a 9 a.m. start time; is that correct?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, yes. Seconder accepts.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I want you to know I'm requesting a lot of information from the Manager.
Commissioner Suarez: Of course; so am I.
Commissioner Gort: A lot of stuff that doesn't have to be negotiated, but I'm asking a lot of questions. These statements that were made here, I want to make sure I get the right answers from the Manager's office.
Commissioner Suarez: And to be fair, that's precisely why I don't think this whole notion of "Let's do it tomorrow or the day after" makes any sense. We just struggled with this thing for eight hours. We brought up a lot of issues. We agreed that to do a 75-year commitment was a big deal, and we had questions. So I don't understand how we're going to resolve those questions overnight, and I think we have to -- we actually have to listen and absorb what happened. We haven't even had a chance to absorb what happened yesterday, because guess what? At 9 o'clock in the morning, we're in a Commission meeting today, and we're still talking about it.
Chair Hardemon: So I just wanted to reflect, even if it's on deaf ears, that I believe that the Manager should be allowed to continue to negotiate with the number one bidder. His negotiation does not give any vested right; just like it hasn't in all of the hundreds of RFPs that we've had in the past. All it does is move us closer to having more answers so that we can address the public with what we believe is factual information that should be considered instead of theories about how this project could move forward. And I believe that we are wasting our time by not allowing the Manager to negotiate. The Manager does not have the authority to accept the RFP; that's what we have. And so, no matter if the Manager negotiates or not, his
City of Miami Page 245 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
ability to -- this ability for RFI [sic] to win this contract is dependent upon the actions of the Commission. And so what we're doing, what I believe, is just giving a true unfair advantage; not to RFI [sic], not to Suntek, not to any of the other parties, but to the person that's operating in the area right now, because the operator there right now, who is not giving us the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that we necessarily want in the future continues to operate, he's operating under a contract that is older, that doesn't give us the most benefit, and all we're doing is dragging our heels, because some may think that it can be thrown out, and some may not; or some think that it won't be thrown out. So at the end of the day, the act of throwing an RFP out has to be done up here on the Commission, and I don't see how a negotiation should affect whether or not we're going to throw it out if that negotiation has nothing to do with -- the terms with that negotiation have nothing to do with the reasons that you want to throw them out .
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Commissioner Suarez: I said this -- I think I said this before, but if I didn't, I'll say it now. I think you heard members of the public coming out and talking about the project. We have time now to actually impart the Administration -- which I think people expressed great concerns -- they have time to review what they're doing, to explain, to talk about it with -- I think you just said that you wanted to go before the Virginia Key Oversight Board, which you've already once been before, another time on the 29th. You have time to do these things and to find out whether this project is project that's acceptable to the public or not. He can come to us on that date -- he doesn't have to negotiate a lease, but he can come to us with a proposed lease; doesn't have to be a negotiated lease with them, but it could be a proposed lease. And he says, "Look, based on what we've seen, what we've heard, what we've discovered in this time, the questions the Commissioners have had, this is what we think is acceptable, and we're going to be basing our negotiations on this document." And that -- those document -- that document either has or does not have material variances or whatever you want to call it from the RFP, and those are issues that we can talk about, and we can also deal with on that date, because I think that's -- that goes to the crux of some of these issues.
Chair Hardemon: So let me ask you a question, then, since we're talking about proposed leases: Could the Manager, without negotiation, provide RCI and this Commission and all the other people who bid on the project a proposed lease tomorrow, the next day, within a week; and they not negotiate, whatsoever, but they have an opportunity to review that proposed lease?
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Vice Chair Russell: The public doesn't --?
Mr. McDowell: There is a proposed lease that -- it's attached to the RFP.
Vice Chair Russell: As a bid.
Mr. McDowell: We've made comments on it.
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Mr. McDowell: There are a few comments. It's not a lot of changes. There are a few comments on it. It's --
Vice Chair Russell: But --
Mr. McDowell: -- honestly, other than incorporating the economic terms in the bid, there's not a
City of Miami Page 246 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
lot of change to the lease.
Chair Hardemon: I just really encourage the Manager -- I know you understand what the definition of "negotiation" is, but then you also have the flexibility, as I'm saying -- and the way that Commissioner Suarez described it -- to propose a lease that may or may not be acceptable to RCI, and -- without negotiating -- and maybe you all can come to one accord.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, whatever he does is a public record. So if he creates a proposed lease, it's a public record. Anybody can have access to it. Any member of the Commission -- and we should, in fact, have access to it, so we can take a look at it, as well. And I'll give you a perfect example. I think at some point in the hearing yesterday of the several hours, your firm gave us a memo, which I have not read, because, with all due respect, it was in the middle of a hearing. Today, we had a Commission meeting, so I haven't even had a chance to read a legal memo on materiality --
Mr. McDowell: I understood.
Commissioner Suarez: -- and material changes, right?
Mr. McDowell: I understand completely.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. So that's what I'm talking about, okay? So, you know, again, we just had this hearing yesterday. We're in a Commission meeting today. There's a variety of people waiting again on a variety of important issues, and that's why I keep pushing for a special meeting for these things, because we're just belaboring an issue that -- it makes it harder for people who are here in the audience and are waiting to deal with things on the agenda.
Mr. McDowell: Didn't intend to take this long. I apologize.
Commissioner Suarez: No, it's not your fault, as a matter of fact. It's not your fault at all.
Iris Escarra: I'm sorry, I do apologize. My name is Iris Escarra, with offices at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. My firm represents Suntek, which is the number two bidder, and on the 30th, one of our principals is out. I don't mean to complicate your schedules in all of this, but I happen to be here on other items, and they asked me to please express --
Chair Hardemon: I don't even know if you were invited to the party.
Ms. Escarra: I -- honestly, I was just here on another item, and my group just said, "Please, since nobody is here on behalf of the team, we wanted to express that the 30th is a conflict for us."
Vice Chair Russell: We're talking the 20th, right?
Commissioner Carollo: July 20.
Mr. McDowell: But the motion is for the 20th.
Ms. Escarra: Oh; I apologize.
Chair Hardemon: And July 20, it was a hearing for --
Ms. Méndez: July 20 is the date on the table right now.
Chair Hardemon: For RFI [sic].
City of Miami Page 247 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Ms. Escarra: I apologize. That works. I apologize. It was a different date.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Go back to your original --
Ms. Escarra: I was on another -- you know, I'm trying to keep up with all the dates.
Commissioner Gort: Go back to your original.
Ms. Escarra: I'm sorry.
Chair Hardemon: You may let them know that it's the 20th.
Ms. Escarra: July 20.
Chair Hardemon: Let them know. They may have an objection to that, also. Mr. Manager, you had something you wanted to say?
Mr. Alfonso: Just that we keep talking about the August 9 deadline. The August 9 deadline is the date by which we have to submit our documentation to the Elections Department; that is, with a question that is legally approved by this Commission, with a worked out lease and everything all ready. So we don't really have until August 9 to sit and have discussion. I just want to make that clear.
Commissioner Suarez: Fine. Understood. So we have till August 8.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, anyone want to clarify the motion on the floor?
Commissioner Suarez: No.
Chair Hardemon: The motion on the floor is to have the meeting on July 20 at 9 a.m., and to limit our City Manager in his ability to negotiate with the first-ranked bidder, negotiated. Any further unreadiness about that? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Vice Chair Russell: Aye.
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Mark me "against." Motion passes.
Mr. McDowell: Thank you for the courtesy of moving the date.
NA.2 RESOLUTION 16-00933 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESCHEDULING THE PLANNING AND ZONING CITY COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2016 TO FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2016 at 9:00 A.M.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
City of Miami Page 248 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0301
Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman, you're recognized.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Gentlemen, I know we shuffled the calendar a little bit this morning, but I'd ask for your indulgence in one other thing. Our last Commission meeting of July is currently scheduled on Thursday, July 28. I will be traveling; coming back -- I set my flight to come back at 29th, first thing in the morning, and I was going to ask if we could hold our Commission meeting on the 29th. I wouldn't ask --
Commissioner Suarez: Ready?
Vice Chair Russell: -- other than the fact that we're deciding the millage that day, and it's a very important Commission meeting that I want to be at.
Commissioner Suarez: I would say so. I just want mine. I know you got yours one -- you got one, he got one, I want one --
Commissioner Gort: You would have to be here to vote.
Commissioner Suarez: -- at some point this year.
Chair Hardemon: Why are you bringing up old stuff?
Commissioner Suarez: I was messing around, man. Come on.
Vice Chair Russell: Commissioner Gort has said "no" on Friday.
Commissioner Gort: Not in the morning. I can make it after 12.
Commissioner Suarez: To the Commission meeting? Because he's talking about a whole Commission meeting.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: He's saying he would miss the proclamations, basically.
Commissioner Gort: I just want to make you aware I will not be able to be here in the morning.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there a motion? Second?
Vice Chair Russell: I move that we change the date of our July 28 Commission meeting to July 29.
Commissioner Suarez: I second it, because I really enjoy spending Fridays with you guys.
Chair Hardemon: Try Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah. Right?
Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion about this? Seeing none, all in favor, indicate so by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
City of Miami Page 249 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, gentlemen.
NA.3 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00942 A MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 13 , 2016, AT THE CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI , FLORIDA 33133 . A PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286. 011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA AND MICHAEL BOUDREAUX, CASE NO. 13-CV-22600 , PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO “WILLY” GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO ; THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MÉNDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN; SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS HENRY J. HUNNEFELD AND ROBIN JONES JACKSON; THOMAS SCOTT, ESQ. ; AND SCOTT COLE, ESQ. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION. DISCUSSED
Commissioner Suarez: What's left?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, while we wait for the chambers to clear out, there's two shade meetings I need to announce for July 14. Do you mind if I do that now?
Chair Hardemon: I don't know if we need to have a shade meeting; especially two of them.
Commissioner Gort: How many shade meetings are we going to have?
Chair Hardemon: I don't know. I mean --
Mr. Min: These were actually at the request of the City Commission when we originally had them. They're for the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) matter and the FPL (Florida
City of Miami Page 250 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Power & Light) matter.
Chair Hardemon: And both of them -- do we have to have both of them on the same day?
Commissioner Gort: No.
Mr. Min: Yes, sir. The SEC -- there's a trial coming up in August.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Min: And FPL, there's been a --
Chair Hardemon: Just recent updates?
Mr. Min: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and there's also been a request for a settlement by FPL to either take it or leave it.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Well, you -- yes.
Vice Chair Russell: We have a few other meetings going on that week. Would it be possible maybe to move one of the shade meetings in conjunction with one of those special Commission meetings so that we free up our 14th?
Chair Hardemon: That's a good idea.
Unidentified Speaker: Sorry, sir.
Chair Hardemon: No, go ahead. Yeah, I guess, because we have -- special meetings aren't -- as the City Clerk just informed me, special meetings are meetings which the City Commission has decided to meet about a particular issue, so if we want to have a --
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- if we want to add this to it, we would need to go back to our original motion to --
Vice Chair Russell: Not to add to that meeting, but have a separate meeting on that day which would start right after we convene [sic] the special meeting.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Calling another special Commission meeting.
Vice Chair Russell: For the shade, yes.
Chair Hardemon: Can -- do you have --
Vice Chair Russell: We could knock out both the shade meetings.
Chair Hardemon: -- to have --
Vice Chair Russell: No, you --
Chair Hardemon: -- a Commission meeting to have a shade meeting?
City of Miami Page 251 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Hannon: You have to --
Mr. Min: The requirement is that it has to be at a meeting of the Commissioners; it has to be noticed with reasonable publication, and it has to be announced at the previous meeting -- at a previous meeting. Those are the requirements, pursuant to State Statute.
Chair Hardemon: So then it should fit; it should fit within the requirement.
Mr. Hannon: If you wanted to call a special meeting for that attorney-client session, you could do so, with a particular date and a time and for that specific purpose; yes, you could. Yes, sir, you're absolutely right.
Chair Hardemon: So you can't just schedule a shade meeting?
Vice Chair Russell: You could.
Chair Hardemon: You have to schedule a special meeting and make it for a shade meeting; is that what I'm hearing?
Mr. Hannon: Well, Mr. City Attorney would have to state the meeting that this attorney-client session's going to be held, so you would probably want to table the scheduling of the attorney-client session until you schedule the special City Commission meeting so that the City Attorney could then state the meeting that the attorney-client session was going to be held.
Chair Hardemon: So if we already have a special Miami City Commission meeting scheduled, can he not make reference that the attorney-client privilege [sic] will be held on the same date as that special Miami City Commission meeting?
Mr. Hannon: But remember, the special City Commission meeting means that you've already scheduled or for a specific purpose.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Mr. Hannon: So you want to make sure that you have the Commission's approval to schedule a new special City Commission meeting on that day, at a particular time, so you could have the attorney-client session.
Mr. Min: To assist the City Clerk, the special meetings that were scheduled earlier today a number of times, it's pursuant to a resolution, and that resolution has specific language saying, "We are scheduling this meeting on this day, at this time, for this purpose." So you kind of need to stick within the four corners of that, unless you're going to change that resolution or you're going to do a new resolution for a new special meeting, which would include this; or you put it on the regularly scheduled Commission meetings, which has already been scheduled, pursuant to Chapter 2 of the City Ordinance.
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: Did we lose quorum?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we lost quorum.
Mr. Min: But if the two of you would be willing to allow me to have it on July 14, I could read the statements to save time.
Later...
City of Miami Page 252 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Mr. Min: And Mr. Chair, before you adjourn, I just need to read the speeches for the shade meeting.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, go ahead. Sure.
Mr. Min: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the City Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011 (8) Florida Statutes, City Attorney's requesting at the City Commission meeting of July 13, 2016 an attorney-client session, closed to the public, be held for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the matter of Securities & Exchange Commission versus City of Miami, Florida, Michael Boudreaux, Case Number 13-CV-22600, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy discussions. This private meeting will begin at approximately 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session would be attended by the members of the City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell, Commissioner Wifredo “Willy” Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso; City Attorney Victoria Méndez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief for General Litigation Christopher Green; Senior Assistant City Attorneys, Henry Hunnefeld and Robin Jones-Jackson; Thomas Scott, Esquire, and Scott Cole, Esquire. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney-client session.
Chair Hardemon: All right.
NA.4 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00940 DISCUSSION BY CHAIR HARDEMON REGARDING THE MAY 4, 2016, COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY MANAGER. DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: And while you're looking at that, I know that there was -- and everyone, don't think I'm doing anything interesting here, but there was a pocket item that I had on that does not require any vote, whatsoever, from this Commission, but it was, in fact, just created so that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee had a vote, and they created a resolution, and I had the responsibility as Chairman of presenting that resolution to our City Manager, and so I wanted to take the time to just read that motion into the record -- or that resolution into the record. And so that this will be passed on to our City Manager. So this is a resolution of the Commercial Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee, urging the Miami City Commission and City Manager to uphold and enforce Chapter 22, Article 2, of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, entitled “Regulation of Persons Engaged in Commercial Waste Collection"; urging the Department of Solid Waste to enforce Charter 22 of the City Code; urging the City Manager to direct the Department to provide immediate cease and desist notice to any entities engaged in the business of commercial solid waste hauling services within the City of Miami without the required nonexclusive commercial solid waste franchise and non -- I'm sorry -- and necessary permits; further recommending that the Manager's inclusion of one additional commercial solid waste hauler to the City's commercial solid waste hauling services request for qualifications, contract number 495344, subject to the successful qualification for a City franchise. As I stated, this is not something that requires any action by this Commission. In fact, it's signed by the secretary to the Commercial Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and then signed by myself as Chairman. So I'm presenting it -- I'm having this so that it's presented properly from the dais to
City of Miami Page 253 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
the City Manager, with public knowledge that it was done at our most opportune time, so that's what I'm doing here. Understood? Okay, thank you.
NA.5 RESOLUTION 16-00941 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SCHEDULING A SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 13, 2016, AT 11:00 A.M., AT MIAMI CITY HALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING TWO (2) PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS CONDUCTED UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, IN ADDITION TO TAKING ANY AND ALL ACTIONS RESULTING FROM THE PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSIONS.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0304
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chair, before we conclude for the evening, I need to read two scripts for shade meetings -- I'm sorry -- for July 14. May I? I don't need a quorum, so if people want to start packing up --
Vice Chair Russell: We were considering changing the date of the shade meetings while a couple of the Commissioners were off the dais. And one suggestion I had made was that when we have multiple Special Commission meetings that -- if we can take the shade meetings from actual Commission day and combine them with one of those special meetings, we will actually make our Commission day much more efficient by not having two shade meetings on the 14th. If we could put them on -- what was the date of the other Special Commission meeting now, the --?
Mr. Min: I think one was on July 13.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, on the 13th. Could we call a shade meeting on the 13th and --? I don't know if there's support for that, but I think our day would be much more efficient on the 14th.
Mr. Min: Mr. Chairman, if the desire is to have a shade meeting on July 13, I would need two motion -- a motion to schedule a special meeting on July 13 for the purposes of a shade meeting, and then I would read the script --
Vice Chair Russell: Because we're already here on the 13th and we will be -- have less time.
Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner Russell, I don't have a problem with that; just let's not have another Special Commission meeting just for a shade meeting, but I don't have a problem with, on the 13th, including it. At least, I'm one vote. I don't have a problem with it.
Chair Hardemon: So then the motion would be to reconsider the Special Meeting. No?
Mr. Min: It could be a brand-new motion.
Commissioner Carollo: No.
Mr. Min: A motion for a Special Meeting on July 13 for the purposes of a shade meeting. Is the desire of the Board -- the Commission to have one shade meeting on the 13th and one shade meeting on the 14th? Because there's two shade meetings we need to have.
City of Miami Page 254 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: Put them together --
Commissioner Carollo: No, that's not what he's saying.
Vice Chair Russell: -- on the 13th. Put them together on the 13th.
Commissioner Carollo: What he's saying is we're having a Special Commission meeting on the 13th. Can we include the shade meetings on the 13th also?
Mr. Min: Yes, but I will need a motion from the body --
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I move --
Mr. Min: -- for a special meet --
Vice Chair Russell: -- that we have our shade meetings, both of them, on the 13th, right after the Special Commission meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Vice Chair Russell: Did I say it right?
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): No.
Vice Chair Russell: I did not. Victoria is going to help me.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): No.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, I take back my second.
Vice Chair Russell: To have a special meeting on the 13th for the purposes of the two shade meetings. Do I have a second?
Mr. Hannon: What time?
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry. What was the motion?
Vice Chair Russell: Victoria clarified that -- to say it correctly, that I move that we have a special meeting on the 13th to consider the two shade meetings.
Mr. Hannon: And what time would you like that to occur?
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: It is almost 1 o'clock in the morning.
Commissioner Carollo: Second, but --
Chair Hardemon: So it's been --
Commissioner Carollo: -- let me make sure. We're --
City of Miami Page 255 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
Vice Chair Russell: The reason was --
Commissioner Carollo: -- having a Special Commission --
Vice Chair Russell: -- we couldn't add the shade to our existing Special Commission meeting on the 13th.
Commissioner Carollo: Got you.
Vice Chair Russell: So we have two --
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- Special Commission meetings on the 13th.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there --
Mr. Hannon: And what time did you want the meeting to begin?
Vice Chair Russell: Right after the other one ends.
Mr. Hannon: A time.
Mr. Min: Mr. Clerk, I was going to read into the script 11 a.m. --
Vice Chair Russell: Perfect.
Mr. Min: -- if that's acceptable --
Commissioner Carollo: Sure.
Mr. Min: -- to the body?
Commissioner Carollo: Sure, 11 a.m.
Vice Chair Russell: 11 a.m.
Mr. Hannon: And so we have a motion and a second.
Chair Hardemon: There is a motion and a second. Is there any unreadiness? Seeing none, all in favor, say “aye.”
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
NA.6 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00943 A MEETING OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 13 , 2016, AT THE CITY OF MIAMI CITY HALL, 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE, MIAMI , FLORIDA 33133 . A PRIVATE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286. 011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL
City of Miami Page 256 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF: MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, ET AL. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL., CASE NO. 3D14-1467, BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL; CITY OF MIAMI V. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-747 , BEFORE THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS; IN THE MATTER OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT, UNITS 6 & 7 , DOCKET NOS. 52- 040 AND 52-041, BEFORE THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND IN RE: NUCLEAR COST RECOVERY CLAUSE, DOCKET NO. 160009 , PENDING BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 11:00 A.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO “WILLY” GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO ; THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MÉNDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; LITIGATION DIVISION CHIEF CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN ; AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY AND XAVIER E. ALBAN. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION. DISCUSSED
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Additionally, pursuant to the provisions of Section 286.011 (8), Florida Statutes, the City Attorney is requesting at the City Commission meeting of July 13, 2016, an attorney-client session, closed to the public, for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the following cases: Miami-Dade County, et al. versus Florida Power & Light Company, et al., Case Number 3D14-1467, before the Third District Court of Appeal; City of Miami versus State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Power & Light Company, Case Number 15-747, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, in the matter of Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Points -- Turkey Point Units 6 & 7, Docket Numbers 52-040 and 52-041, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in re Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause, Docket Number 160009, before the Florida Public Service Commission. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. This private meeting will begin at approximately 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the City Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell, Commissioners Wifredo “Willy” Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City Manager, Daniel Alfonso; City Attorney Victoria Méndez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief for General Litigation, Christopher Green; and Assistant City Attorneys Kerri McNulty and Xavier Alban. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney-client session. Thank you, sir.
City of Miami Page 257 Printed on 8/18/2016 City Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2016
NA.7 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00939 MIAMI CITY COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE IN CHAMBERS SANG "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" TO VICE CHAIR RUSSELL IN CELEBRATION OF HIS BIRTHDAY. DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: And there -- the meeting is concluded; however, if everyone can take one opportunity to wish this gentleman a happy birthday: Ken Russell.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Happy birthday.
Chair Hardemon: Happy birthday.
Mr. Hannon: Happy birthday to you.
Chair Hardemon: Happy birthday, Dear Ken Russell -- do you say "Commissioner" or do you say --? happy birthday to you.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, everyone. Thank you.
END OF NON-AGENDA ITEM(S)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned on Friday, June 24, 2016, at 1:10 a.m.
City of Miami Page 258 Printed on 8/18/2016