Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2003-01-23 MinutesMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 23rd day of January 2003, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at the Manuel Artime Center, 900 Southwest 1st Street, Miami, Florida in regular session. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by Chairman Johnny Winton with the following members of the Commission found to be present: Commissioner Angel Gonzalez (District 1) Chairman Johnny L. Winton (District 2) Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3) Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4) Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5) ALSO PRESENT: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Sylvia Scheider, Assistant City Clerk 1 January 23, 2003 1. WITHDRAW PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-922 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION, BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, DIVISION 3" TO MORE CLEARLY STATE PURPOSE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BOARD (ITB); AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION REJECTING REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 01-02-153 ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT STUDY OF RISK MANAGEMENT. Chairman Winton: We're going to postpone the calling of this meeting to order for ten seconds while I get some Cuban coffee. Commissioner Sanchez: Try to stay in your seat after that. Chairman Winton: OK, if y'all don't mind, we'll start. Commissioner Regalado or Commissioner Sanchez, would either of you like to do the invocation, and Commissioner Gonzalez the pledge of allegiance? Commissioner Sanchez: I'll do the invocation. All rise. An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Sanchez, after which Commissioner Angel Gonzalez led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Chairman Winton: We have a -- I guess first of all Mr. Manager are there any items you want to pull from the agenda? Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): We'd like to withdraw item number 22. Chairman Winton: And I'd like to withdraw item 12. Any other items on the regular agenda? So, we need a motion on withdrawing 12 and 22. Commissioner Gonzalez: We can do zoning in the afternoon right? Chairman Winton: Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: Zoning in the afternoon, OK. Chairman Winton: We still need a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on withdrawing 12 and 22. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 2 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-78 A MOTION TO WITHDRAW: ■ PROPOSED EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 2-922 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION, BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, DIVISION 3" TO MORE CLEARLY STATE AND ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PURPOSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE BOARD (THE "ITB"); AND ■ PROPOSED RESOLUTION REJECTING REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 01-02-153 ISSUED FOR AN ASSESSMENT STUDY OF RISK MANAGEMENT, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 02-1048, IN ITS ENTIRETY, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE NEGOTIATIONS AND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MARSH USA, INC., THE TOP- RANKED FIRM FOR SAID STUDY. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: I guess I got ahead of myself a little bit. We have a presentation. Commissioner Regalado, you have a presentation, Dr. Paul Plasky. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Plasky cannot be here today so he asked if we can do it on the February 13th. As you know he's the resident that donated a JAP (phonetic) to the Parks Department. He's out of town, so he will be here on the 13th Chairman Winton: Great, OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, Chairman Winton: Yes sir. 3 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: I would ask that Item 9 be placed as a time certain with the other two items for 3:30. That's an item regarding F schools, schools that are F schools in the City of Miami. Chairman Winton: Now, you want 9 to do what now, I'm sorry? Vice Chairman Teele: A time certain for 3:30. Chairman Winton: At what time? Vice Chairman Teele: 3:30. Chairman Winton: Do we need a motion on that? OK, fine. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Sanchez: On the consent agenda if there's no further discussion, I would like to move the consent agenda. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Before you -- Chairman Winton: Yes ma'am. Ms. Chiaro: On the consent agenda items 5-10, we will be providing revised resolutions, the projects and the amounts as described and the items are consistent. We just need to change the language in the resolutions that are in that packet, we'll be providing. Chairman Winton: So, do we -- Ms. Chiaro: You can pass the item. The legislation with the item needs a change in language, but the numbers, the allocation and what the items are doing are the same as in your packet. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. So move. Chairman Winton: OK we have a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: And a second on consent agenda. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. 4 January 23, 2003 Note for the Record: CODE SEC. 2-33 (J) STIPULATES THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION CONSIDERATION SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE SCHEDULED AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION. THEREUPON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER SANCHEZ AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WERE PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 2.1 AUTHORIZE RENTAL OF VEHICLES FROM ENTERPRISE RENT -A -CAR AND ROYAL RENT -A -CAR FOR DEPARTMENT OF POLICE JUVENILE INVESTIGATIONS UNIT; UTILIZING EXISTING BID NO. 01-02-217, $18,360; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM GRANT ENTITLED "STOP ACTIVE VANDALISM EVERYWHERE". RESOLUTION NO. 03-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE RENTAL OF VEHICLES FROM ENTERPRISE RENT -A -CAR, (NON- MINORITY/MIAMI-DADE VENDOR, 11440 N. KENDALL DRIVE, SUITE 405, MIAMI, FLORIDA) AND ROYAL RENT -A -CAR, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE JUVENILE INVESTIGATIONS UNIT; UTILIZING EXISTING BID NO. 01-02-217, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $18,360; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE GRANT ENTITLED "STOP ACTIVE VANDALISM EVERYWHERE," ACCOUNT CODE NO. 142027.290542.6.610. 5 January 23, 2003 2.2 APPROVE RENTAL OF OFFICE TRAILERS FROM WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC. AND TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL POOL, INC., D/B/A G.E. CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE FOR DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, FOR USE CITYWIDE, AWARDED UNDER EXISTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 3123 -3/07 -OTR -LS; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. RESOLUTION NO. 03-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE RENTAL OF OFFICE TRAILERS FROM WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC. AND TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL POOL, INC., D/B/A G.E. CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, FOR USE CITYWIDE, AWARDED UNDER EXISTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 3123 -3/07 -OTR -LS, ON AN AS -NEEDED, SPOT MARKET CONTRACT BASIS, EFFECTIVE UNTIL JULY 31, 2004, SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXTENSIONS BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. 2.3 APPROVE SUBMISSION OF JOINT GRANT APPLICATION WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (DERM) TO FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT (FIND) TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF SPRING GARDEN POINT PARK, LOCATED AT 601 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET ON MIAMI RIVER. RESOLUTION NO. 03-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A JOINT GRANT APPLICATION WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ("DERM") TO THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT ("FIND") TO RECEIVE STATE FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF SPRING GARDEN POINT PARK, LOCATED AT 601 NORTHWEST 7TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON THE MIAMI RIVER; COMPLYING WITH FIND RULES 66B-2.004(4) AND (6), ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, PERTAINING TO PUBLIC ACCESS AND PARK MAINTENANCE FOR A TWENTY -FIVE-YEAR PERIOD; AUTHORIZING DERM TO ACT AS THE CITY'S AGENT FOR THE JOINT GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 6 January 23, 2003 2.4 GRANT REQUEST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO USE PORTION OF MIAMI MARINE STADIUM PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 3601 RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PARKING FOR NASDAQ 100 OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR COUNTY'S CLEAN-UP OF PARKING LOT INCLUDING ADJACENT CITY -OWNED LAND AND GRANT OF CITY'S CONTINUED USE OF STABLES AT TROPICAL PARK. RESOLUTION NO. 03-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING THE REQUEST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("COUNTY") TO USE A PORTION OF THE MIAMI MARINE STADIUM PARKING LOT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3601 RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DEPICTED IN "EXHIBITS A & B," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PARKING FOR THE NASDAQ 100 OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT, TO BE HELD AT CRANDON PARK ON KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, FROM MARCH 19, 2003 TO MARCH 31, 2003, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE COUNTY'S CLEAN-UP OF THE PARKING LOT INCLUDING ADJACENT CITY -OWNED LAND AND THE GRANT OF THE CITY'S CONTINUED USE OF THE STABLES AT TROPICAL PARK; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE. 7 January 23, 2003 2.5 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR GRAND AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, $140,000, ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "GRAND AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS". RESOLUTION NO. 03-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS, FOR THE GRAND AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT, TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $140,000, FOR SERVICES AND RELATED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "GRAND AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS," PROJECT NO. 341208. 2.6 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FALCON & BUENO FOR CUBAN MEMORIAL LINEAR PARK PROJECT, TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION; $205,500; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM "DISTRICT 3 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE,". RESOLUTION NO. 03-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH FALCON & BUENO, SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS, FOR THE CUBAN MEMORIAL LINEAR PARK PROJECT, TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION; IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $205,500, FOR SERVICES AND INCURRED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM "DISTRICT 3 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE," CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 311713. 8 January 23, 2003 2.7 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WALLACE, ROBERTS & TODD, LLC, TO ACQUIRE SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECT BRICKELL STREETSCAPE, $150,000; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED `BUSINESS DISTRICT STREET IMPROVEMENTS". RESOLUTION NO. 03-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH WALLACE, ROBERTS & TODD, LLC, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS ON THE PRE -APPROVED LIST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACQUIRE SUCH SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT BRICKELL STREETSCAPE, INCLUDING THE PHASES OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000 FOR ALL CONSULTANTS, SERVICES AND RELATED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 341184 ENTITLED `BUSINESS DISTRICT STREET IMPROVEMENTS" FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH CONSULTANTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR REQUIRED SERVICES. 9 January 23, 2003 2.8 AUTHORIZE Street TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NOVA CONSULTING, INC. TO ACQUIRE SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECT FLAGLER Street MARKETPLACE, $300,000; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "FLAGLER Street MARKETPLACE." RESOLUTION NO. 03-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH NOVA CONSULTING, INC., PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS ON THE PRE -APPROVED LIST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACQUIRE SUCH SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT FLAGLER STREET MARKETPLACE, INCLUDING THE PHASES OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000 FOR ALL CONSULTANTS, SERVICES AND RELATED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 341140 ENTITLED "FLAGLER STREET MARKETPLACE." 10 January 23, 2003 2.9 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MARLIN ENGINEERING, INC. FOR NORTHWEST 14TH STREET PROJECT, TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, $134,600; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FY 2001-2005". RESOLUTION NO. 03-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH MARLIN ENGINEERING, INC., SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED ENGINEERING FIRMS, FOR THE NORTHWEST 14TH STREET PROJECT, TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $134,600, FOR SERVICES AND INCURRED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FY2001-2005," PROJECT NO. 341183; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. 11 January 23, 2003 2.10 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH H.J. ROSS, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS TO ACQUIRE SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PROJECT BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, $200,000; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "DISTRICT 5 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE". RESOLUTION NO. 03-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH H.J. ROSS, PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS ON THE PRE -APPROVED LIST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ACQUIRE SUCH SERVICES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF A PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, INCLUDING THE PHASES OF DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 FOR ALL CONSULTANTS, SERVICES AND RELATED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 311715 ENTITLED "DISTRICT 5 NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY OF LIFE" FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS WITH CONSULTANTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID SERVICES. 12 January 23, 2003 2.11 AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ZYSCOVICH, INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, FOR CULTURE COMPONENT AT OR ADJACENT TO CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE AND MASTER PLAN FOR BLACK BOX THEATER IN DISTRICT 5, $300,000; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 03-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH ZYSCOVICH, INC., AS SELECTED FROM THE LIST OF PRE -APPROVED ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS, TO PROVIDE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, FOR THE CULTURE COMPONENT AT (OR ADJACENT TO) THE CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE AND A MASTER PLAN FOR THE BLACK BOX THEATER IN DISTRICT 5, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000, FOR FEES AND INCURRED EXPENSES; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 331412. 2.12 CODESIGNATE SOUTHWEST 3RD STREET FROM SOUTHWEST 17TH TO 19TH AVENUES AS "CALLE MIGUEL A. GONZALEZ". RESOLUTION NO. 03-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CODESIGNATING SOUTHWEST 3RD STREET FROM SOUTHWEST 17TH TO 19TH AVENUES AS "CALLE MIGUEL A. GONZALEZ;" FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICES. 13 January 23, 2003 2.13 CODESIGNATE NORTHEAST 3RD AVENUE FROM EAST FLAGLER STREET TO NORTHEAST 3RD STREET AS "AVENIDA EVA PERON". RESOLUTION NO. 03-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CODESIGNATING NORTHEAST 3RD AVENUE FROM EAST FLAGLER STREET TO NORTHEAST 3RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS "AVENIDA EVA PERON"; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICES 2.14 AUTHORIZE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY DENISE GALVEZ $90,000, IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST CITY FOR CASE OF DENISE GALVEZ VS. CITY; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND. RESOLUTION NO. 03-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY DENISE GALVEZ THE SUM OF $90,000, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR THE CASE OF DENISE GALVEZ VS. CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 01-22400 CA (09), UPON EXECUTING A RELEASE FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, INDEX CODE NO. 515 001.624401.6.6 51. 3. COMMENTS REGARDING SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS COMING BEFORE COMMISSION. Chairman Winton: There are no mayoral vetoes and that's the end of this. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: May I inquire of the Manager on one procedure issue? Why do the selection of consultants that have been already gone through the selection process continue to come back here? I mean, as an information item I think it's fine, but didn't we change your limits of authority? Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Janet. 14 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Let me ask this the procurement — is the Chief Procurement officer here? I just need to know not about this case, I need to know about the limits of the authority of the Manager on selection process, I thought we had changed that. Janet Palecino (Director, Capital Improvement Projects): We're coming back to change that. Chairman Winton: Your name please for the record. Ms. Palecino: Janet Palecino, director of CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) for the City of Miami. Commissioner Teele, we are coming back to change the limitation of professional services. The purchasing ordinance changed limitations up to $50,000 for professional services, $100,000 for construction services. We are coming back with additional legislation to increase those limits for professional services. Vice Chairman Teele: I'll be very supportive of that. I think once we select a panel of consultants -- that's what we should approve. Chairman Winton: I agree. Vice Chairman Teele: But we should not necessarily have to approve because that's just a formality and that takes eight weeks off a construction cycle. Chairman Winton: That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And I'm very interested in moving these construction projects through Mr. Manager. I'm trying to give you more power, I guess, thank you. Ms. Palecino: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Expedite these projects. 4. TABLED: REQUEST FROM MIAMI COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN CONCERNING: GIRLS ADVOCACY PROJECT (GAP) AND RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMMUNITY FORUM ON FEBRUARY 20, 2003 (See #10). Chairman Winton: OK, we have personal appearances, Ms. Anita McGruder. Is she here? I can't see anybody out there? Good morning. Anita McGruder: Good morning, I'm going to ask if my presentation can be deferred until the end of the personal appearance items because our guests have not arrived yet. Chairman Winton: Fine, no problem. Just let me know when y'all are ready and we'll weave you in. Mr. Leroy Jones, is Leroy here? Commissioner Sanchez: He's not here, Mr. Chairman. 15 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: He's not here. 5. (a) AUTHORIZE WAIVER OF ALL FEES AND PERMITS FOR USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY AND PROVISION OF IN-KIND SERVICES FROM DEPARTMENTS OF POLICE, FIRE -RESCUE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES, SOLID WASTE, AND PARKS & RECREATION, $20,000, FOR MARCH OF DIMES WALKAMERICA TO BE HELD AT PEACOCK PARK, ON APRIL 5,2003; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM SPECIAL EVENTS FESTIVAL ACCOUNT; CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATIONS UPON ORGANIZER. (B) TABLED: DISCUSSION CONCERNING SOUTHWEST 7TH AND 8TH STREETS ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY BEING CONDUCTED BY LAMBERT ADVISORY. (See #7, 9) Chairman Winton: Julie Salas, March of Dimes, is she here? Is that you all standing up? Good morning. Julie Salas: Good morning. We are here on behalf of the March of Dimes. Chairman Winton: I'm sorry I need your name and address for the record please. Ms. Salas: My name is Julie Salas, I'm the Executive Director for the March of Dimes in Miami Dade. Our address is 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 208, Miami, Florida 33126. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. Salas: Good morning. We are here to respectfully request from this Commission the waiver of the fees and costs as well as street closures that we are requesting for our walk that is going to take place on April the 5th in Coconut Grove. I believe that you all have a budget with you. If you don't, I have a copy here with me. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, what is the total amount that they are asking for? Chairman Winton: I was going to ... Ms. Salas: The grand total budget is $18,685. Commissioner Sanchez: What have we done in the past, Mr. City Manager? Christina Abrams (Director of Public Facilities): Christine Abrams, Director of Public Facilities. In the past the city has recommended approval for an amount not to exceed $20,000. 16 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second on the approval of $20,000 waiver of fees. Commissioner Sanchez: Not to exceed $20,000. Chairman Winton: Not to exceed $20,000, any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Ms. Salas: Thank you. Chairman Winton: Thank you very much. Good luck. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03- 93 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RELATED TO THE MARCH OF DIMES WALKAMERICA TO BE HELD AT PEACOCK PARK, IN COCONUT GROVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ON APRIL 5, 2003; AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF ALL FEES AND PERMITS PERMISSIBLE BY LAW FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AND THE PROVISION OF IN-KIND SERVICES FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF POLICE, FIRE -RESCUE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES, SOLID WASTE, AND PARKS & RECREATION, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO. 001000921054.6.289, ENTITLED "SPECIAL EVENTS FESTIVAL ACCOUNT"; CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATIONS UPON THE ORGANIZER: (1) OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED BY LAW; (2) PAYING FOR ALL OTHER NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY SERVICES AND APPLICABLE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID EVENT; (3) OBTAINING INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER; AND (4) COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER. 17 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: I'd like to take -- Is that item 28 Commissioner Sanchez? Commissioner Sanchez: No sir, I believe it's 24, and that's the economic impact analysis summary. The consultants are here and they're getting paid by the hour and we want to get them out of here as quickly as possible. Chairman Winton: And for that reason the Chairman is more than enthusiastic about moving them up first. Commissioner Sanchez: 24. I guess they're not here yet. Chairman Winton: OK, let me know when they get here Joe, and we'll -- Vice Chairman Teele: They'll charge you from 7 o'clock. Commissioner Sanchez: No, they will not. Chairman Winton: They've been charging you. They've got breakfast and travel time already clicking away -- Commissioner Sanchez: No they won't. Chairman Winton: -- at time and a half. 6. APPROVE PHASE I OF MAYOR'S CITYWIDE POVERTY INITIATIVE PLAN AND LOCAL OUTREACH CAMPAIGN TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT (EIC) AND CHILD TAX CREDIT (CTC), $150,000. Chairman Winton: I guess we can go to the blue pages. Did the Mayor have something that he wanted -- are they here? Javier, are you prepared to address the Mayor's issues? Javier Fernandez: Yes, I am, Mr. Chair. 18 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Your name and address please. Mr. Fernandez: Not a problem. Javier Fernandez on behalf of the office of the Mayor. Good morning members of the Commission. First, I want to start by apologizing. I tried to get this item distributed in advance and did not get to make the supplemental printing for the agenda, but we have what will complement I believe an amendment to the budget ordinance that will introduced later today with regards to the poverty initiative. You recall in September you authorized $2,000,000 for the creation of the citywide poverty initiative. At that time, the Commission asked that the Mayor's office with the management backup plan regarding how those dollars would be spent. At this time we've identified two priority activities that we'd like to begin work on in the coming months. The first phase of which would be an earned income tax credit and childcare tax credit outreach campaign for which you see allocation for you in the cover memo, and the second action would be a micro lending initiative in partnership with a couple of private entities and ACCION International which would be the operator of that initiative locally. At this point I will just keep my presentation short and open the floor for any questions you might have or request any further explanation that you might have of the cover memo that was presented to you regarding this particular item. With regard to the balance of funding available for the initiate, the 165,000,000 that would remain would be set aside for budget reserve and any the other action that would be considered for implementation would be brought back to the Commission for further authorization. Chairman Winton: Comments? Commissioner Sanchez: Just a question. The $350,000, is this one of the 1.65? Mr. Fernandez: $2,000,000 that we're authorized for this year's budget. Chairman Winton: So, if there are no further questions or -- Commissioner Gonzalez: I commend the initiative, but one thing that I'm concerned with is, I was just handed a corporation registry and this plan is going to be administered by a company from Massachusetts and they're not even established in Florida? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. They have actually just really filed for their corporate documents locally. They are a 501 C-3. They do have federal status at this time. They have headquarters out of Austin; they have about ten other program offices located throughout the United States that are listed on the memo. They are in the process of filing those documents and I believe they will not start any lending activity locally until the beginning of March. Commissioner Gonzalez: But at this point they are not a corporation in the... Mr. Fernandez: I would have to confirm -- I have nothing registered to Florida corporation correct. I think they had registered at some point in the past. I did speak to Frank about the issue earlier today, and I believe that they are updating their current corporate documents in the state of Florida. 19 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Javier, if I may -- Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't know, one thing that I don't really like and I don't care where it comes from, is, and I have said it before in meetings of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Association) and I have said it in other meetings the Sports Exhibition Authority. I don't like items brought to me five minutes before we have to make a decision. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Gonzalez: On the Commission floor, I don't appreciate that. I like to be able to have the time to study the issue, discuss it and decide what the merits of the issue are, and then decide if I'm going to vote in favor or against it. But Javier, I'm sorry but you know I don't -- once again, I don't appreciate this. You said that you just handed this to Frank. It's 9:20 in the morning. Commission meeting started at 9 o'clock so we getting this 20 minutes after we started the Commission meeting. I don't know how my fellow colleagues feel here, but that's my position. Mr. Fernandez: Sir, I understand that and to be quite honest with you, there's no pressing need to move on, that micro lending item until we can clarify those other issues that Frank raised to me this morning. That initiative can wait. The only pressing item that I would articulate and you can modify, take any action that the Commission chooses at this time would be, we are (UNINTELLIGIBLE). As we're moving to the tax season we have been working actively on the earned income tax credit fraud and the childcare tax credit fraud, and there are opportunities there to put significant amounts of resources in the pockets of our residents, so if it's your pleasure to postpone action on the second part of that second phase that was suggested in the memo, I'd be happy to do so until we clarify some of those other questions. Commissioner Gonzalez: One thing that really concerns me is that we don't have a corporation registered in the state of Florida and we talk about awarding this corporation X amount of dollars. Chairman Winton: He's suggesting we not take up the issue over that, if we would just address the first half -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah Johnny, I understand that, but the fact is, you know, now, this company knows that they're going to make so many thousands of dollars from the City of Miami, they decide to come down and register in the state of Florida to become a corporation in order to do business in the City of Miami. I mean, we are not fools here. Chairman Winton: I understand, but that's his point. He said don't take that part of this issue up today. Everybody would have to deal with that very question you are asking right now so... Mr. Fernandez: And Commissioner Gonzalez, I'm sorry Mr. Chair, if I may, Commissioner Gonzalez, regarding that issue, just to give you a sense of the background I don't know if I did a very good job of explaining it in the memo where you had ... 20 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Javier, as it relates to that particular point of this initiative my suggestion is that after this meeting you get around and visit with each of the Commissioners on this particular piece of this initiative and get everybody comfortable with where you are or at least get their points of view so that y'all can agree to agree or to agree to disagree Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: And then come back with this piece of it. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make a motion that I think would be accepted by all of us and that is to move the first portion because of the time frame. They need to get going as quickly as possible because of the tax season and they are really looking to assist a lot of low-income and people that are close to that poverty level to try and get some taxes back on the childcare tax credit, so what I'm preparing to do now is move the first portion and defer until you get around and talk to all of the commissioners on the second portion. So moved. Chairman Winton: We have a motion to accept the citywide outreach campaign to increase the awareness for the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit in the amount of $150,000. Do we have a second? Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it. Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Vice Chairman Teele: Discussion. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Excuse me, thank you Mr. Chairman. Javier, who do you work for? Mr. Fernandez: Sir, currently I am working for the City Manager on assignment as his acting chief of staff. I'm only presenting this item because I have been working on this particular project during income tax credit outreach piece for the Mayor from the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of my term there. Vice Chairman Teele: Are you aware of the genesis of this poverty proposal fund? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, I am, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: What's your understanding? Mr. Fernandez: My understanding is that it stems from a number of conversations between the Mayor and yourself regarding the budget itself. Vice Chairman Teele: And are you aware that I specifically moved money around on a recommendation to the Mayor and his budget staff and created this fund? 21 January 23, 2003 Mr. Fernandez: No, I am not aware of that particular point, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: All right then you should speak with Linda Haskins and the Mayor. Mr. Fernandez: Will do, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: I think what Commissioner Gonzalez is saying is what I want to echo. I have a tremendous admiration, respect and almost love, in a guy sense, for the Mayor, but we as a Commission cannot afford to allow this institution to become a potted plant. We have a great Mayor now, I think there's five people here now want to work with the Mayor. I can speak for one. I want to work with the Mayor. I want to work with the Mayor's staff, but this is not the way to present legislation on dollars that are this significant. This is also I think an outstanding expenditure, the motion that Commissioner Sanchez has made, and I defer to Commissioner Sanchez because he's in that business, he's with a major accounting firm, so he understand the importance, and I think there's been numerous articles and foundations indicating that one of the tragedies of our system is that the people to whom congress is creating these benefits never get the word and so I think it doesn't cost us anything to help our citizens, other than the kind of leveraging dollars that we're putting up here, so no one can quarrel with what you're doing and what the Mayor is proposing or the amount of the expenditure, and also I think the timing of this makes it essential that we move forward today, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, Commissioner Gonzalez, in that, we cannot afford to let the Mayor's staff make us potted plants here. We cannot afford to given document -- I was upset somewhat but I at least I got mine about 10 o'clock last nigh. Mr. Fernandez: I apologize, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: So, Angel, I'm ahead of you by a few hours, but the fact of the matter is we're all trying to do the same thing. We're all trying to make this a better city. I commend you and the Mayor's office on this initiative. It's going to help my District, disproportionate to any other district because it's going to help those, potentially, because it's going to help those persons that are in this financial status, so I'm going to vote for this with a clear understanding that we need to have dialogue and consultation. The things that are in my mind and the reason why I wanted to do this, we're not even dealing with. We've got organizations that we'll hear about today that need general fund support just to continue to do the job they're doing. There is no place to get it if we're going to have that and so I'd like to give you another perspective on how we'd like to see some of these dollars used. Finally, the legislation is not written very well. Mr. Fernandez: That's my fault again, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: And this is why, we need to state clearly on the record that statistically, based upon the 2000 census, as a whereas, that Miami has been deemed to be a city of poverty. Statistically what it is, the poorest in the city. We need a whereas that, the Mayor and the Commission have resolved to use our best efforts to assist our citizens while appealing to the state and federal government and foundations and others to leverage and use these dollars and go right through it, and that gives us the latitude when the Mayor and when Commissioner Sanchez 22 January 23, 2003 are up in Tallahassee saying we need some additional support in certain areas. The question is going to be, what have you done. Well it all ought to tie back to the fact that we're doing out part and we need more state and federal dollars in this. Joe, I hope you understand, appreciate the fact that I'm simply saying that the whereases should say that this we're dealing with this -- not just as a great program, but in direct response to the statistical imperative that we are the poorest city in the nation. Chairman Winton: Vice Chairman Teele, are you offering that as an amendment to the motion? Vice Chairman Teele: I would offer that as an amendment to the -- a text amendment, if it's acceptable to the maker of the motion. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Chairman Winton: And who seconded the motion? Commissioner Regalado: I did. Chairman Winton: Does the second accept the modifications as well? Commissioner Regalado: Sure, I did. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, just to add, it's very important that the message gets out to the people that will benefit from this so, I'm not going to make a motion to direct the administration or anyone to put together any—you will be putting up public service announcements on the campaign referencing earned income tax child tax credit through NET 9 both in Spanish, English and Creole, correct? Mr. Fernandez: Most definitely. I think that our communication staff will be contacting you to set up PSA's with both the Mayor and yourselves. As you're aware, we also going to be doing a number of direct mailing pieces as part of the campaign. I think each of you was a part of a photograph that will be used as part of the piece to households directly with the City of Miami. We'll be doing direct mailing based on some polling we did around people's behaviors in terms of how they prepare their taxes currently. We'll be mailing directly to small businesses that are involved in this kind of activity as well as notaries in the City of Miami a mail piece about the tax credit so they can offer this benefit to their clients as part of their services in the community, so that will be on 8,000 -piece mailing that will go out regarding tax professionals and then we are targeting zip codes that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has identified for us, where there is a significant number of unclaimed dollars of EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) available that we can target for mailing and they are scattered throughout the city. I think Allapattah was even one area that struck me as one of the areas that they were a lot of EITC dollars available. 23 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: And of course time is of an essence because you know April 15th it's you know... Mr. Fernandez: Exactly, that's the only time sensitive piece. If I could just make some personal comments regarding both Commissioner Teele and Commissioner Gonzalez comments, and offer my apologizes personally. Given the schizophrenic nature of my assignment currently, I've lagged in a bit of my duties with regard to this and it's my full intention to vet this thoroughly with each of you. Unfortunately, that's been a bit problematic for me, so I want to offer my apologies. It's not meant to in any way usurp your ability to make an informed decision on these issues. Chairman Winton: OK, do we have any further -- thank you very much, Javier. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Javier, who runs the Metropolitan Center at the Florida International University? Mr. Fernandez: The new director, I think, is professor Dario Moreno at FIU (Florida International University) and a local nonprofit we've been working with as part of a broader community outreach campaign called the Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign, commissioned the poll through the Metropolitan Center which has been the basis of our proposed EITC outreach for the city itself. Commissioner Regalado: And this phone bank, where is it going to be located? Mr. Fernandez: I believe we're going to be setting up shop on 20th Street and Flagler, so they'll be a storefront presence. The idea behind that is to give people a direct number where they can have their calls personally answered, as opposed to it being offered by some of the other folk we were working with on this regionwide initiative, so that they can have some basic answers about eligibility and screening Commissioner Regalado: Trilingual? Mr. Fernandez: -- answer correctly. I'm sorry? Commissioner Regalado: Trilingual? Mr. Fernandez: It will be a trilingual service was my understanding. Commissioner Regalado: And on the local media outreach, well, Commissioner Sanchez mentioned NET 9 of course, but you're talking reaching the mainstream media. Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely, sir. 24 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: Asking for public service or paying? Mr. Fernandez: Asking for public service, not paying in this regard. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Winton: Any other comments? Being none, we have a motion and a second on this issue. All in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Thank you, Javier. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE MAYOR'S CITYWIDE POVERTY INITIATIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FROM THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED "POVERTY INITIATIVE," TO UNDERWRITE EXPENSES FOR PHASE I OF THE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES THE (EARNED INCOME CREDIT (EIC) AND CHILD TAX CREDIT (CTC) OUTREACH CAMPAIGN; FURTHER, DIRECTING THAT BUDGET RESERVES OF $1.85 MILLION BE SET- ASIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REMAINING PHASE(S) OF THE PLAN, WITH ALL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES FROM THE BUDGET RESERVES TO BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVALS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT(S), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT PHASE I OF THE PLAN. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 25 January 23, 2003 7. TABLED: DISCUSSION CONCERNING SOUTHWEST 7TH AND 8TH STREETS ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY BEING CONDUCTED BY LAMBERT ADVISORY. (See #5, 9) Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, you said your people are here on item 24? Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, the consultants are here on item 24 and that is an economic impact analysis that was done on the transferring or changing the traffic flow on Stn Street. Of course we've had previous discussion since 1992 that has been discussed here this Commission. I'm glad to see that we've taken the appropriate actions. First, we did a traffic study and then we had to complete an economic impact study which was completed. Now they're going to be making recommendations as to the benefits of changing the traffic on Stn Street instead of going eastbound, going westbound, and then of course changing 7th and Stn Street instead of going westbound going eastbound, and of course they'll give us their recommendation on this study, so at this time I'd like to turn it over to the consultants for their presentation. Paul Lambert: Thank you very much. My name is Paul Lambert with the firm of Lambert Advisory, 2601 South Bayshore Drive in Miami. We've completed a draft report of the economic impact analysis related to actually 4 traffic alternatives for Southwest 8th and Southwest 7th Street. The draft report was issued in late December and a final report will be available by the middle of February, but wanted to take a couple of moments today and just give you an update of our findings and where we believe that the greatest benefit occurs when you change traffic and deal with other issues associated with business development and homeownership and investment within the corridor. We actually evaluated four alternatives, which came out of a previous study. We look at a baseline alternative what would happen is there was no change in terms of economic impact in that area; what's the impact if there's reverse flow as Commissioner Sanchez said; moving traffic on 7th from East to West or rather West to East 8th going from East to West; and finally we looked at a two-way alternative. What happens if you have traffic going both ways on both 7th as well as 8th Street? A substantial amount of work went into the effort. We did a wide review of demographic and economic data, spoke with over 100 businesses, as part of the analysis, interviewed within the corridor. I spoke with a number of major landowners and the developers and investors in the area and held two community meetings to get input. Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you but do you have a handout of the study with the public meetings that we've had? The Commissioners would like to see this. Apparently, they don't have this. Mr. Lambert: This is actually the was distributed to the city staff earlier this week. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, it's not in our backup material and I would like to make sure that you do have it. Vice Chairman Teele: I don't have it. 26 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't have it. Commissioner Sanchez: Do you have copies that we can provide the Commissioners? Mr. Lambert: Yes I -- Commissioner Sanchez: And the City Clerk, please? And I'm sorry for the interruption. Chairman Winton: Who's the staff that -- ? Keith Carswell (Director, Department of Economic Development): Keith Carswell, Department of Economic Development. Just like to add the information that we have is a preliminary report that staff received in the later part of December. It's still being reviewed. We have several departments that are reviewing it, CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel), Planning, Transportation so the report itself is not final. Commissioner Sanchez: I know but it's something that they can look at and basically while he's going through this presentation, it basically gives you the outline of the scope of the services that they provided. It's very informative although it's not the final. I think, it'd be paramount to have as backup material. I mean it's just... Chairman Winton: So, who's working at getting us that material right now? I don't see, I can't figure out who's moving to get this done. Mr. Lambert: What we can do.. Chairman Winton: Mr. Manager, could you tell us who the staff person is that would be doing this? Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Keith. Mr. Carswell: We have a copy of the draft. We'll get a copy of the executive summary to you by the end of today. Chairman Winton: We want to look at it right now. Mr. Gimenez: Do you have a copy machine back there? OK, we'll get some copies done. Chairman Winton: OK, so can we then just put this on hold and we'll take another agenda item and we get our copies, Joe, and then just start this over. Would you mind that? OK, so -- Mr. Lambert: Well, we'll hold off and -- Chairman Winton: I'll call you back up as soon as we all get copies and we're ready to go. 27 January 23, 2003 Mr. Lambert: To give you an opportunity to read it as well. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 8. (a) DIRECT MANAGER TO PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT ON TRAFFIC STUDY IN AREA OF ALLAPATTAH PRODUCE MARKET. (b) DIRECT MANAGER TO PROVIDE SALARY INFORMATION FOR NEW EXECUTIVES THAT WILL BE HIRED IN POLICE DEPARTMENT. Chairman Winton: Next agenda item. I guess, Commissioner Gonzalez, do you have anything on you're blue sheet? Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, actually I don't have anything printed on the blue sheet but I just have two items that I would like to address. Chairman Winton: Please. Commissioner Gonzalez: If you would allow me to Mr. Chairman. One of the items is, Mr. Manager, in 1997, a state representative, Manny Priegues, appropriated $600,000 for the Allapattah produce market, to do a traffic study and to do some improvements on the produce market area. We are in 2003 and nothing has happened in the produce market in these six or five years. While I was in campaign two years ago, I met with the NET administrator of Allapattah Eddie Borges. The consultant that was doing the traffic study and another gentleman that I can't recall. I'm getting old and my memory doesn't go that far back. At that time, two years ago I was told that the traffic study was almost done. It was going to be ready pretty soon like a couple of months we're going to start working everything is going to start getting done. We are in January 2003 and I don't have an answer when that project is going to take place. I'm afraid we may be losing $600,000 from the state for the improvement of the area. I don't know if someone could address this issue and give me an answer when is this traffic study going to be completed. I understand that we have already even paid for the traffic study $75,000. I also heard that now the company that is doing the traffic study has to do a signal study or something and that's it's going to cost us another $25,000. I wonder where we stand? Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Commissioner, you have me at a loss. I know I do recall the project. What we'll do is why don't you let us get the information together and we will give you a report when we come back in the afternoon. Commissioner Gonzalez: Let me tell you it's very frustrating because when we came up with the idea of doing this project in the produce market, it came out of Allapattah Business Development Authority, OK. We presented the project, we came to the City Commission and asked for $125,000 as a community based organization to initiate the program. It was approved by the City Commission. At the time that the money was going to be allocated the former Mayor decided to stop the project as many times he used to do, and then I appealed to Representative Manny Priegues. Manny Priegues told me don't worry about it. I'm going to try to get the money from the state and in fact he did. He got more than what the City was going to put into 28 January 23, 2003 the project. He got $600,000, but we're talking back once again to 1997 and we are in 2003 and those merchants there are asking you know when is this going to happen? Is this ever going to happen, it's not going to happen, at least tell us so you know... Chairman Winton: So, Commissioner Gonzalez, Mr. Manager, you're going to get all the details associated with this and bring it back to us this afternoon -- Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: -- for this afternoon's report. OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: Another issue is Mr. Manager, we have sent you two emails sent to you and the person in charge of Human Resources asking the new executives that are coming into the Police Department from other states I want to know, I've been asking what the salaries are going to be and if they are going to be under contract then and the actual police chief and if they're going to be under contract, is the contract suppose to come to the Commission for approval or not? Mr. Gimenez: They are not going to be under contract. They are going to be employees of the City of Miami. Commissioner Gonzalez: They are going to be employees of the City of Miami. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Do you have an idea of what the salaries are going to be so, because, you know, we been asking for this for the last month and I don't seem to be able to get and answer and I don't think that it should be a secret. Mr. Gimenez: Well, first of all they haven't been here for a month, and I just -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Well, but I imagine that they haven't been here a month but we probably decided more than a month ago -- the City of Miami probably decided more than a month ago that we were going to hire these gentlemen and probably more than a month ago we sat with them and negotiated right? Mr. Gimenez: No, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: No? Mr. Gimenez: Where in -- today's January 23. Chief Timoney took office on January 6 Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Gimenez: So, it's less than a month and it took at least a week before I met with one of the gentleman that he wanted to bring in and I know that I met with the other gentleman I think 29 January 23, 2003 sometime last week. I can give you the information of what that salaries are going to be. That's not a big issue. Commissioner Gonzalez: I appreciate it, Mr. -- Mr. Gimenez: I will get it to you as fast as I can. Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't want to take anymore time of this meeting, because we would like to expedite it and finish early, but please do me a favor and provide me with the information that I have requested via through email, twice. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. 9. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO MODIFY CONTRACT WITH LAMBERT ADVISORY, CONSULTANTS WORKING ON ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF CHANGING CURRENT FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON SOUTHWEST 7TH AND 8TH STREETS, TO ADDRESS: (1) SPILLOVER TRAFFIC INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS; (2) PARKING NEEDED; AND (3) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. (See #5, 7). Chairman Winton: We're going to go back to the -- Joe I think we can -- this is handout for your project? So, could we bring the consultants back up and walk through this again? Paula Lambert: Thank you and we'll walk through the document one more time again. Paul Lambert with the firm Lambert Advisory. There's four alternative that we evaluated. A baseline what happens if you do nothing with the traffic pattern in the area from an economic impact perspective. What happens if you cause reverse flow on the two streets. It's a reverse flow with some shoulders for speed up and slow down of traffic and we looked at the two-way alternative on both streets as well. What happens if there's traffic two ways. As I mentioned before, there are a number of interviews with various groups, two community meetings that were conducted as well as over 100 interviews with business within the area. Our initial finding is that if you did nothing, if you made no changes to the traffic patterns on Southwest 8th and Southwest 7th, it's not much of an option in a sense that there's actually negative economic impact. The employment in the Little Havana neighborhood has actually decreased substantially over the past several years. Businesses are struggling more today than they have in the past and while homeownership has certainly, there's been substantial amount of investment in new homes and resales within the area most of that is not going to the benefit today of the corridor, so there is a need for some intervention to some degree. We also found that the costs of making that intervention are relatively modest, both in terms of the capital cost. There's been estimates of between 1 and 2 million dollars to change the road patterns in the area very preliminarily; and also that the loss of business costs, which was a big concern on southwest 8th west of 27th Avenue when there was conversion to two-way traffic. The loss of business cost in this scenario change in traffic pattern east of 27th to I-95 are very, very modest. These changes can occur over a two-week period, most of them occurring at night and very the weekends and so there is no real loss of business that's going to occur from construction and the changes and making changes to traffic itself, but the changes that are needed, the study found, are more than just in direction of 30 January 23, 2003 traffic. Changing direction of traffic alone isn't enough to cause substantial economic development or reinvestment within the corridor. There's more to it. The most single item that came up in every meeting that we had is pretty clear is the lack of parking within the corridor, off-street parking. Just changing the traffic alone without having the additional -- yes, sir. Chairman Winton: I think we've heard that a lot. Vice Chairman Teele: It's the whole issue. Chairman Winton: Right. I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Winton: Right. Well -- Mr. Lambert: And off-street parking, the important fact is -- Commissioner Teele, this came up a number or years ago when we were working -- said the same thing a number of years ago on a different project that we were working on with the CRA, (Community Redevelopment Association) but with that off-street parking being in close proximity, well lit, well landscaped parking, kind of inviting environment for patrons is very important, especially when it comes to food and beverage restaurants. It's a critical component of being able to grow business in the area, particularly nighttime businesses that's related to food and beverage, so it's a key area that if you change traffic pattern without investing in the parking, you don't get much bang for your buck. It's when you add the additional parking and deal with some other items where the real benefit comes into play, but once you add the parking, we looked at the various scenarios assuming that you added parking that in fact, the reverse flow scenario provides the greatest economic benefit largely because it's so important for businesses to have afternoon traffic coming out of the main CBD (Central Business District) and on the Brickell area to be able to pick up that afternoon traffic and the commercial core is very important to -- the big box retailers, the supermarkets and others and reversing the now on southwest 8th and southwest 7th which are much more residential streets, allows you to start to pick up that business, allows you to track larger retailers into the area where it's currently not the case and so it provides the greatest benefit. That benefit is only minimally better than the benefit arrived, if you go two- way. The two-way benefit is a little bid different in terms of form and function in the sense that while the reverse flow benefit comes from sales tax benefit, from property benefit, from employment benefit, the two-way benefit comes from addition of eating and drinking, slowing down traffic on the street, potential of developing residential at some scale for the first time within -- along Southwest 8t especially in that core area between 9th and 17th. It creates a whole different dynamic within the corridor, so while the reverse flow benefit again provides the greatest benefit in terms of total gross dollar amounts. There are some community benefits overall from actually a 2 -way and in fact the 2 -way is only modestly less when you add total value added into the general fund and in terms of jobs it's quite similar to the reverse now benefit. Our final conclusions part of this is that the City of Miami has a role to play and it's more than just making the transportation improvement. That all of the issues of -- that the problems associated with redevelopment our present within this corridor. You have a continued drop in tourist traffic in the areas and particularly since September 11th. There's a perceived lack of safety in the area and also there's very broken ownership of parcels of properties without an 31 January 23, 2003 entity and a group that is able to start to guide that process along, try to bring parcels together to try to hurry development along or to bring development along. Our sense is that changing once again, changing traffic pattern alone doesn't allow you to realize as much benefit as the area could actually achieve and so there's a broader strategy here, a broader implementation of a redevelopment or a reinvestment program. It's a very vibrant area already, has a lot more potential of even becoming more vibrant and if you look at the home sales even south of Southwest 8th Street, you have 50 percent of appreciation in home prices in the past four or five years. We've seen it all over the county but that is particularly strong. There is a lot of reinvestment in the area. Now is a good time to start investing in the commercial districts as well. There are three further areas of analysis that are quite modest in scope that probably need to be done and came out of some of the community meetings. The first one is, that there's some concern that this could be a significant amount of spill-over traffic into the residential neighborhoods surrounding Southwest 8th. If you slow down traffic on Southwest 8th, that can be modeled and studied relatively quickly. The second area of analysis is how much parking do you actually need given the program that we have developed; so there's a parking analysis that we recommend be done out of this. Finally, because we feel there's this impetus and need for broader implementation, as opposed to a broader program of redevelopment than just changing the traffic pattern, that needs to be flushed out more in terms of an implementation plan, and so that briefly give you an overview of where we are in this analysis and we'd be pleased to answer any question of course today or at anytime in the future. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: I don't have any questions. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Lambert? I would like to make some statements pertaining to his presentation and what's going on in the area but at this time I'll defer to any questions that my colleagues may have on this traffic study. Chairman Winton: Well, I would like to understand what the next steps are. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, this is a preliminary report. They will come back with a final report. Chairman Winton: Does the final report address the three major concerns that they described but the kind of end of the summary of this document? Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I think we have to address all the issues. I have never looked at just the stroke of the brush of looking at the entire artwork here. We want to address all the issues. You know that the area for many, many years was neglected. It was a political battle that really at the end of the day the only people that suffered were the residents. I can tell you several projects that were delayed because of political vendettas which I will never be a part of and I know my colleagues here, at least no one has displayed that type of actions to try to prevent an area from improving just to hurt some other candidate or someone that would be running against you. Just to talk about the area -- and I'm not going to get into it. I've sold 8th Street and at East Little Havana enough here. Living Cities were just here, and we just attended several meetings and we had a dinner yesterday with the Knight Foundation. They are very impressed with the 32 January 23, 2003 area. We realize, and I realize as the Commissioner for the area that businesses are struggling. I realize that employment is decreasing in the area and I know that we're not going to solve the problem just be changing the traffic flow, but we are looking at everything here. I have had several meeting with Off -Street Parking. We realize that parking is a necessity and without parking we're just going to continue to stumble and fall on our faces and we're addressing different properties and one is a property that we just bought behind the tower, we're in the process of buying. The other one is behind McDonald's there's a parking lot there. I mean there's an empty lot that we can turn into a parking facility, but just to look at the entire area that we have looked at. We realize that the four options that they are presenting before, the analysis of traffic that they're talking about we have had several public input. We continue to have public input with the merchants. They are very concerned with making it 2 -way. At one time it was 2 - way and if we do 2 -way then we have to be careful that we don't compromise the parking because we cannot afford to give up one parking space in that area to turn it into a 2 -way single lane going eastbound and westbound. We are exploring all the possibilities. Now, I've always stated every report and you are professionals Mr. Lambert, I am not, but I have done some research. I have looked at other cities. I have seen traffic changes of specific areas especially corridors such as this one that is improving based on a lot of things that's going on in the community with the merchants involvement and stuff. But the traffic flow Johnny, we looked at the three major employers of the City, you're talking -- that are in the eastside. You're talking about the Port of Miami which employ a lot of people. You're talking about downtown and you're talking about Brickell. We — that specific area there is basically surviving just on local traffic itself because, all the major corridors or all the major highways, interstates that go to that area bypass 8th Street. In other words the only people that are going through 8th Street is to cut from using US -1 or using 836 or 112 or I-95 and those are the people that are just zooming on their way to work. We know that everyone on their way to work only stop for three things. They either stop for coffee, fuel or to use the bathroom. We realize that and what we want to do here is if we're able to change the flow of traffic. You're the expert. You'll come back on the report -- we will have more public input -- to make use of this that there are people that are traveling from work home are going to be able to drive through that area. We are seeing new restaurants coming in the area because they know that the properties are going up. Living Cities were very impressed. A lot of investors are very impressed with the area but they know that we have to take this to another level, so that's why it is very, very important that this traffic analysis that we're doing when we come back and we finalize how we're going to do it. We're also going to have to sit down with FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). I'm not sure how they're going to accept this turning a main artery into downtown and Brickell into a 2 -way because it's going to really slow down traffic, so we're going to have to compromise on this matter, but we are addressing every issue, and this is something that we will bring back to the Commission until we're able to do it. We have sat down with FDOT on the matter. We have discussed it back and forth. They are very concerned about turning it 2 -way, I want you to know that Mr. Lambert because they're saying that it's an artery that cannot be stopped and they are very concerned. People parking in areas and having to slow down traffic to a minimal to park in those parking facilities, so, you know, we wait for the final report that you'd bring to us, but this is something that we cannot continue to wait because the longer we wait more businesses are going to suffer, more people are going to lose their jobs and we are holding back the progress of an area that is basically improving every single day based on a concept that people must understand. The arts and culture, we are very proud to say that we have nine art galleries, two 33 January 23, 2003 more on the way and I take this opportunity to always invite people to come to Cultural Fridays and other events we're putting together in that area, but as long as we don't address the issues of parking and we don't address the issue of changing the traffic now to whatever it may be based on the experts, that area will be stagnant, it will not improve. It's gotten to a point now where it we don't do what we need to do it's just going to stay there but I cannot allow that as a Commissioner for that area so I ask my colleagues to support me which they have done. The administration and everyone to work with us on this to improve the area. I don't want to have to go back five or six years ago, ten years ago when everything here was a political vendetta where it was stopped because one person was making progress on this community or whatever, so thank you for this time. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, I'm not sure that I understand it all the answer to my question, which is what are the next steps, and I'm not asking you the question. I'm asking them. Commissioner Sanchez: The next step, they are going to come back with a final report of their recommendation of what we should do, but he's basically, he's making my argument, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot just address the traffic. It's parking and other matters that -- Chairman Winton: You'll never get an argument out of me on that. These three key concerns, the three bullet points on the last page, will these issue concerns be addressed as a part of their final study? Mr. Lambert: Those are not part of this study. Commissioner Sanchez: His concern is the traffic study. He's doing the traffic -- Chairman Winton: But you can't, with their scope of services, they're going to come back with the recommendation. That recommendation will not be an appropriate full recommendation because three crucial questions still aren't answered that really ought to become a part of the real global answer here, so my view here is that we need to be moving quickly to do something about their contract so that you get the full picture and all the right answers so that you can develop a comprehensive plan for solving the problem., so I think what y'all need to do is work to getting this contract modified so that you can get everything that you need and we don't get only part of the answer. Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, I agree with you a hundred percent. I'll tell you what I will not do, I will not do another master study of 8th Street. We got about 50 of them on the self. I'm not going to piss away money and they all say the same thing. Chairman Winton: I didn't say anything about a master study. I said do something about the contract to get these three issues. Commissioner Sanchez: We are. We're addressing them. We're also addressing off-street parking. Maybe at the next Commission meeting we could have our Off -Street Parking come because I been in front of Off -Street Parking. Let me tell you, I woke up at 6 o'clock in the morning to get out there at 7:30 to go in front of their board, they meet early in the morning. We addressed their concerns and I have been back and forth talking to them to address the issue and 34 January 23, 2003 they are looking at taking care of that issue. Once we take care of those two issues, I think the other issue will just fall in place. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Add my voice in support of what Commissioner Sanchez is trying to do. But I'm really concerned that Commissioner Sanchez is not hearing either what Commissioner Winton is saying or what the consultant has just said about this study. This contract Mr. Manager needs to be expanded and that's the specific issue that the Chairman raised, Joe, I think with you. It needs to be expanded to cover the three areas that he has said on the record that he's identifying but it's not in his contract. Otherwise, we're going to wind up with another, we're going to wind up doing exactly what you want to avoid, Joe, and that is issuing a new RFP (Request for Proposals) for a consultant, and before long, it'll be another year before we're standing right here at this point dealing with the three issues that are there. If it's anyway this contract -- Mr. Lambert, I think you ought to hear me now because you and he can talk all the time. If there's anyway this contract can be expanded, we want to see the project move forward the same way Commissioner Sanchez is outlining. Secondly, I don't need, respectfully, Joe; we don't need to hear from Off -Street Parking here at this Commission. The problem of Off -Street Parking is not going to be solved. Now, I'm going to say it one more time the off -Street parking in Little Havana is not going to be solved. It's not going to be solved in Overtown, it's not going to be solved in Model City and it's certainly not going to be solved in Little Haiti because of the bond restrictions and the covenants in the bond and indeed the charter itself of the City, which says and restricts the City, Joe, to the fact that if the City owns the land and the City builds a parking lot, under the Charter of the City, it must be managed by Off -Street Parking with kicks you into a whole other array of issues. There's a hundred ways around that. There's a hundred ways to be faithful to that provision but not fall into that trap and I would urge you to work with the Law Department and the consultants in developing some of those models that we sort of spearheaded in the CRA and in some other areas. However, I believe that this Commission wants to be on record as saying this is a very important project and we want to support it. I also think, Joe, you got to it and then you backed away. What's really missing from this also I think, is an art and public places or public space component. Commissioner Sanchez: The plaza. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, well I'm just saying you have one plaza, but I'm saying if you are going to redo the road you ought to look at the landscaping of public space, open space as just an issue and if you don't want to, don't do it. Commissioner Sanchez: No, could you yield for me? Vice Chairman Teele: I'd be happy to. Commissioner Sanchez: We are. We are. We have the plaza. It falls in that area and basically with the traffic. The Cuban Memorial Drive which is being turned into a linear park falls within that and then we need to look further down the road from 4th Avenue to 27th Avenue from Stn Street to 7th, that whole place should be commercial. There isn't a reason why you should have 35 January 23, 2003 commercial on one side and residential in be back because all that creates is complaints. It holds us back from bringing in major restaurants. It's just holding back there —so, those are the things that we are addressing and if you want to put it all together and address it I'd be more than glad to do it. I think it's the right thing for us to do. It's just that we can't continue to just chip away at it and not be able to create something, and we do have a long -termed goal here that what we want to do. The picture is there we just have to -- Vice Chairman Teele: If I may, Paul there is one thing that I'm really concerned about. I need to see some empirical data and some footnotes regarding some of the statistics. I'd really like to understand from 1990 to 2000 this conditions that you've described. I take your word for it and I know you are extremely well qualified. I hope the planning director heard everything that you said, Joe, because this is part of the problem that we deal with here. We're here in these meetings. We're trying to get things done and everybody's got side conversations going. But, I hope that, Paul, you'll take this up with the planning director what Commissioner Sanchez said because obviously there's -- we need to make sure that when we're saying things that they not falling on deaf ears, and that's more and more what is happening, I think, when you look at the record or what didn't happen and certainly there is going to be a discussion later on today when we talk about these F schools. Chairman Winton: OK, so, let me understand something here, are we -- is there a directive to the Manager to get this contract modified to address these 3 issues and their final report? Commissioner Sanchez: I am prepared to make that motion Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: OK, please do. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Vice Chairman Teele: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. 36 January 23, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-95 A MOTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE CONTRACT WITH LAMBERT ADVISORY, THE CONSULTANTS WORKING ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY OF CHANGING CURRENT FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON SOUTHWEST 7TH AND 8TH STREETS, TO ADDRESS THREE AREAS OF CONCERN: (1) SPILLOVER TRAFFIC INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS; (2) HOW MUCH PARKING WILL BE NEEDED; AND (3) IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY MUST BE DEVELOPED WHICH IDENTIFIES THE BEST WAY IN WHICH THE CITY OF MIAMI CAN ENSURE THE REVITALIZATION OCCURS IN THE SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET BUSINESS CORRIDOR. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Lambert, take into consideration also when you create the linear park, which is on 13th Avenue, that's going to connect two corridors and also the plaza that they will start construction on. I think they are going to bid it out in March. Vice Chairman Teele: What's the prime on this contract? Are you the prime? Mr. Lambert: Yes I am. Chairman Winton: OK, any other discussion on this item? Commissioner Sanchez: We should meet. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: And it's important one of the issues that you gave us -- it's important to try to avoid the spillover to the residential areas of the parking because that's one of the major complaints and Joe's district is eight but District 4 is nine and whenever we have an activity on 37 January 23, 2003 Southwest 8th there is no parking and people really complain about driveways being blocked and all that, so I would urge you to give us some idea so to how do we resolve from different areas, the parking onsite. Mr. Lambert: And if I can speak, I think it's a very -- and that also goes with Commissioner Sanchez' comment as well about taking parking off of a 8th if you go two-way. What happens under both of those scenarios, the worst thing -- you want to avoid unintended consequences here and if you push traffic into the Shenandoah neighborhood, that could have some significant consequence to home values and what the neighborhood is all about currently, so the importance of doing the modeling. The same thing with Southwest 8th. If you leave the parking on Southwest 8th, all of the plans are showing that there is no loss of net parking on Southwest 8th but then you are left with one travel lane in each direction and a turning lane up the middle. There is some concern that you choke traffic to such a great degree under that scenario that it's going to be difficult for people to get into the area, that they are going to get frustrated and you actually have some negative consequences in business, so more the reason to go through this modeling process, which distributes traffic based upon different scenarios and that's why we think it's important exactly to get at those issues. So, ... Chairman Winton: OK any other comments? Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Chairman Winton: Did we vote? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah, we did. Chairman Winton: I thought we did. Didn't we vote on that? Yeah we already voted on it, so -- Commissioner Regalado: No, we didn't. Chairman Winton: Madam Clerk, did we vote on the resolution? Commissioner Regalado: Not on the second motion to extend the contract. Chairman Winton: That was the only motion on the table. Commissioner Regalado: No we have two motions. Chairman Winton: No we don't there's only one. We can't have two motions on the table. Commissioner Regalado: He said I'm prepared to make that motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, we did and we voted on it, right? Chairman Winton: Well -- 38 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: In order to extend the contract -- Chairman Winton: Well, the Clerk is saying -- Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk, did we vote to extend the contract to address the three issues that are on this preliminary report? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): According to my records I have one motion made by Commissioner Sanchez, second by Commissioner Teele, and yes, I do have a vote. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Chairman Winton: OK. 10. SUPPORT GIRLS ADVOCACY PROJECT'S COMMUNITY FORUM, WHICH WILL FEATURE SERIES "LOST IN THE SHADOWS: GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM", TO RAISE AWARENESS OF ISSUES THAT CONFRONT YOUNG WOMEN IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE (See #4). Chairman Winton: Next item. We have the Commission on Status on Women presentation. Yall are ready to give that presentation I understand. Anita McGruder: Good morning. I'm Anita McGruder. I'm here representing the Commission on the Status of Women. I'm going to defer to Ms. Eileen Nexer Brown who is the Co -Chair of the Girls Advocacy Group Commission. The Girl Advocacy Group who will provide you some information. Once she has finished here presentation then we have a resolution that we would like the Commission to consider. Eileen Nexer Brown: Good morning. Thank you for taking a few moments to listen to some information about what we are doing for girls in the juvenile detention center in Miami Dade County. Chairman Winton: Excuse me, I need your name and address for the record please. Ms. Brown: My name is Eileen Nexer Brown, 1901 Brickell Avenue, number B, 1809, Miami 33129. Thank you, Commission. The girl's advocacy project was a brainstorm of our administrative judge of the juvenile court Judge Cindy Lieberman. She saw that what was happening in Miami Dade County mirrored what was happening in the county. That there is a huge influx of girls into the system and the system is not prepared for the amount of girls that have been coming into the system, and in the detention center where some girls were staying for months on end there was no services for them, so she started the girl's advocacy project with a grant from Department of Juvenile Justice. It has mushroomed to be a pilot program and a cutting edge project that everybody in the country is looking at because it is the only project in detention center serving girls in the state of Florida and one of the very few in the county, and the reason why it's important to us in our community is this is a first step intervention to assist girls from deterring them from not coming in and recycling back into the system, not only as 39 January 23, 2003 juveniles but into the adult system. As all budget cuts in the state are being looked at we are asking the support of everybody in our community to be aware of the issues of how devastating it would be if we didn't have this program. Not only is the project being looked at --- one of the things in this community is giving us good press all over the country, I mean, truly good press all over the country. We speak all over the country about what's going on here and people are in absolute admiration, not only because of the project, but because of the community involvement. When the Judge asked me to come and see what was going on at detention and I said we need to get community awareness because the girls that are in detention are not what we would always picture them to be if you look at arrest forms, and the issues that affect them are very different than boys. Seventy percent of girls in the juvenile justice system are victims of sexual abuse or assault; 80 percent are victims of physical assault, so drug involvement is different. Their path is different, it's to numb a lot of pain and they become very vulnerable and susceptible to being used by older men and GAP (Girls Advocacy Program) educates them. They have four days of two-hour sessions of conflict resolution, independent living, working with emotions, that were acted out before that now that can be processed and it's so successful in the system that the superintendent of the Juvenile Detention Facility has started a first offender mod for boys because he has seen how effective it is working with the kids when they are in detention. We are having a community forum on February 20. You are all being given some packets about GAP. We'll give you some more information about it also you can log onto our website to learn more about it and we invite you all, and anybody that you feel should be a little bit more aware of these issues please join us on February 20 and we truly thank you for your support, and this is a community issue that affects our mothers, future mothers and the safety of all of us. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. McGruder: And so gentlemen we have presented a resolution for your consideration supporting the forum, which will take place on February 20th. It's a forum that our Commission has worked on in conjunction with -- Chairman Winton: Where's the resolution? Ms. McGruder: Other woman's Commissions within Miami Dade County and with the Girl Advocacy Project. Commissioner Regalado: I move the resolution. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second on the resolution. Discussion? Vice Chairman Teele: I strongly support it. Chairman Winton: Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. 40 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE GIRLS ADVOCACY PROJECT'S ("GAP"), WORKING IN COOPERATION WITH THE MIAMI COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, AND OTHER LOCAL COMMISSIONS ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE ISSUES CONFRONTING AT - RISK YOUNG WOMEN AND BRING ABOUT POSITIVE LIFE CHANGES, TO ORGANIZE THE PRESENTATION OF A FORUM ENTITLED "LOST IN THE SHADOWS WHO ARE THE GIRLS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM." Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Ms. McGruder: There was one additional issue that I would ask in terms of processing of the resolution. In the past the Commission has been very supportive of the issues that we have brought to this body. However, one of the concerns that we have is the timeline in which these particular issues have been published for public consumption. It's been an average of five to six months after you have adopted or supported a resolution before it has been gotten back to us or sent to the proper authorities. Vice Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. Ms. McGruder: We would ask -- yes. Vice Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Yes, sir. We've had issues with resolutions and we have a draft resolution now they have to go to the law department for the legislation to be corrected and 41 January 23, 2003 checked and everything then they have to go up to the Mayor. There have been times when they were delays but the Clerk reports -- Vice Chairman Teele: But I thought under our charter the Mayor had 10 days. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: I can't understand why anybody would have to wait 5 months for anything under the charter. Before there was no time limit but once the charter provision that said that all legislation much be submitted an approved or acted upon by the Mayor within 10 days. Ms. Thompson: Let me just say to you that when we get the legislation we send it up to the Mayor's office for his signature and as soon as we get it back we do send it out to the authorities as listed or as requested by -- Vice Chairman Teele: But even if he doesn't sign it, in 10 days it's law by virtue of the days passed. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: Is that correct? Mr. Vilarello: That's correct. Chairman Winton: That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: But the point is that no one should have to wait more than 30 days for whatever the reason is in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: I agree completely and maybe Madam Clerk you ought to provide us with some sort of log that shows -- you know, I am with Commissioner Teele. I don't see how there can be a log jam, period. So, if you have to send it to the Mayor, the Mayor has 10 days and if it doesn't act its law. So -- Mr. Vilarello: Legislation is produced by our office, so, I can provide you a log of the pending legislation. However as an example, this legislation was provided just now. It does take some time to produce it, getting it in the appropriate form to the -- Vice Chairman Teele: But we're not talking about a few days we're talking about five months. Ms. McGruder: Five months and we've been dealing with the City Attorney's Office. Chairman Winton: Anita, hold on. Ms. McGruder: OK. 42 January 23, 2003 Mr. Vilarello: We'll address that issue for you specifically with regards to this particular issue and the backlog of pending legislation. Chairman Winton: Yeah, and I think that's -- with this particular issue, y'all will deal with that immediately, but in terms of the bigger problem you're going to provide us with some documentation that shows what the timeline is for getting legislation through our internal system. Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. OK, anything else? Thank you very much. 11. SUPPORT NOISE ABATEMENT TASK FORCE'S "OPERATIONAL NOISE MITIGATION PROCEDURES - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" REPORT, WHICH WILL BE SENT TO FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY (FAA) IN ATLANTA FOR DISTRIBUTION AND APPROVAL. Chairman Winton: We have a time certain 10 o'clock item which is -- oh, it's noise abatement, so that's Item number 5, discussion concerning Miami International Airport noise abatement program. Are the folks that are going to discuss that here today? Chip Iglesias (Chief of Staff): The consultant was not available to travel. He's in California. Frank Rollason who has been representing the City on this issue is here, and he's prepared to give an update to the Commission, and has distributed some documentation on that. So, Frank is here to provide that update for the consultant who is not able to travel. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Rollason. Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): Good morning. Frank Rollason, and I'm here today as the administrative representative. I sit on the noise abatement task force at M.I.A. (Miami International Airport) and I'm just going to give you a little update and I'll answer any questions that you may have. I've given you a couple of documents. One is the last report that we received from our consultant, Ray Nugent from Essentact, which is pretty fresh, it's from the December meeting. We had a meeting in December and last night we had the last meeting we had. I'll refer to that in a minute and the other document that you have is a document that's in color that shows you page by page the current take off and landing flight paths and then what the proposals would be in conjunction with the environmental assessment or the EA that we will have going before Atlanta out of M.I.A. First, let me give you a little update on the EA. The environmental assessment has been a document that this group has been working on for approximately five years. There's been some movement recently on it that has gone pretty well and we have had a draft document now that the task force has approved that the airport with Director Giddens who met with us at the December meeting. She came to the meeting, she was supportive of the draft document and it will be going forward to Atlanta. There's been one slight delay, there was a request. You have to understand this task force is made up by groups from all over the County and one of the communities is out West by Doral because some of the flights on take off if this goes through are going to be diverted and are going to go westerly at night. They made a request that the planes not be allowed to make a turn until after they've gone ten miles, that was a change 43 January 23, 2003 to the existing EA and a little bit of a fly in the ointment, so the task force voted to let that go forward and we're waiting now for a reply from the Atlanta office but most likely that'll be denied. That should slow us down about 30 days, so what we're anticipating is the entire EA document will go to Atlanta probably February and at that point once it hits Atlanta there will be a distribution of that to all of the parties that have a say nationwide dealing with these environmental assessments and these plans to try to control the noise. Those responses will come back and each one of them will have to be addressed and they will be then funnel back from Atlanta to Miami and then we will have to address those as to whatever amount they come up with. Now, our feeling at this point is that we have a fairly clean document and there are not going to be a lot of controversial comments that are going to come back that have to be addressed. If that goes well, then probably we're looking at about June that the EA would be approved in Atlanta and will be sent back to Miami International Airport to begin to implement though the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). The FAA here in Miami would be the implementing agency that would begin to put these flight paths into operation that you will see in this document. In speaking with the FAA representative last night who's in charge of the Miami Airport, he stated that with training with them moving to the new tower they'll bring the new runway online by the way in 36 Street which will be coming online shortly which is primarily for landings which that is good. He anticipates it'll probably be December of this year or January of 04' before full implementation takes place on the proposed routes. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I remember that the first legislation that I presented and was approved in September of '96 was the creation of a noise abatement committee. Patrick McCoy, Captain Edwardo Ferrer and Frank I think that you and I think also Tory Jacobs. Mr. Rollason: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: We spent many, many hours at the Miami International Airport in `97, '98 nothing to done anyway, and one of my colleagues at that time here said hey, airport noise, airplane noise is like taxes and death. There is no way that you can get rid of it. But I did remember at that time that once flying into Heathrow with the White House press corps, the president planes was fined because it exceeded the noise level, so I'm saying this because it's all about enforcement, and what we are having a -- well, actually this report, Frank, is more or less the same that the two pilots McCoy and Ferrer, gave us, remember many years ago, and I really hope that you push the consultants to insist on the enforcement side because what we are having now is cargo planes problems. These cargo planes are flying in and out of Miami International Airport over West Little Havana, Shenandoah, Baypoint or your area from 1 AM to 4 AM. They fly three hours (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and these are the older engines. Mr. Rollason: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: So these are the problem that we are having and these are the complaints that we are getting now as of the Doral people having problems I mean, they want to 44 January 23, 2003 dump everything on the City of Miami because everything that goes south or east out of Miami International Airport goes over the City of Miami. Mr. Rollason: Well, if you would take a moment and look at that large document that I gave you and look on the first pages 4-1 and 4-2. This is a part of the EA and it's very graphic as to what exactly is happening. If you look at the first page you will see exactly what's happening with no action being taken with the flight tracks are right now and you can see how the City and you'll see that the arrivals are blue and the departures are in green and you'll see quite clearly what is happening right now in the City. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Yes sir. Chairman Winton: I met with Patrick McCoy probably about two weeks ago, and you know everybody --- I got dragged kind of kicking and screaming into this noise thing, and I told my constituents that this issue was not my top priority but I got dragged kind of kicking and screaming into the middle of the issue anyhow, and when I first got involved I heard all this discussion about what's to call this something 150? Mr. Rollason: Right, that's the part when I'm going to speak to the department -- Commissioner Regalado: Part 150. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: Too costly, Johnny too costly. Chairman Winton: May I finish please? Commissioner Regalado: Sure. Chairman Winton: In my discussions with him it became clear to me that as a part of the recommendations that were coming from our consultant they were going to recommend this Part 150 implementation and they were going to recommend changing flight patterns, and as Frank just pointed out if you look at the first page you see the current flight patterns. As I began to think about this whole thing logically, the Part 150 thing implementation of Part 150 will be an unmitigated disaster for the City of Miami because what the Part 150 program says is that the Federal Government will bring a ton of money to the table to refurbish buildings and homes within the new flight pattern zones so that instead of having the flight patterns you see on 41 you'll end up with flight patterns that kind of mirror things in exhibit 33 or 4 ... Mr. Rollason: 2-1 if you look at 2-1 and 2-2 you'll begin to see how the patterns begin to change as -- Chairman Winton: 2-1 and 2-2 does not point out the picture at all. You have to go to 47 those areas would be the new flight patterns that will be and I don't remember which one of these is 45 January 23, 2003 but there's one or two of them really are actual but they give you a clear picture of the noise arena that will be measured and it is within those zones where this Part 150 would be implemented. And Part 150 says that the Federal Government will bring the money to the table to sound proof homes, buildings, day care centers all that kind of thing. Now that sounds, when you first hear that, that sounds great. The problem is that if you do that, government is required essentially to rezone the entire area and you are not allowed to have schools or any residential property within those zones. Well, what does that mean to us? That means that neighborhoods that we all represent over the course of the next 30 years and it will take that long, if you have a single-family home structure in the middle of a neighborhood that deteriorates to the point that you have to bulldoze it, you cant build anything except warehouse kind of stuff on this. You can't build any kind of residential. You can't have schools, so that we would over the course of a 30 -year period be literally changing single-family residential neighborhoods into something else and because we wouldn't have the money to go in and do a wholesale buy-out of neighborhoods, you would end up doing it house by house over a 30 year period that would be an unmitigated disaster, so that's point one. The second point then is gets to this whole concept of funneling the traffic into these zones so that it isn't scattered, but then I thought about that when you think about the logic of that, in fairness, and frankly most of these zones, I mean, I have representation up in that area, but I think Commissioner Teele has a lot of constituents in this area and I know that Commissioner Gonzalez has a lot of constituents in this area. I have a few, and so, my constituents would probably be happy because a narrower zone of my constituents would be impacted by noise, but when you think about the fairness quotient and you think about one other thing that's going on. The fact of the matter is that I've lived in this noise zone now for six years and I can tell you that the noise level that I hear from airplanes today is very different than I heard three years ago because all the 727's have been taken out of service on the passenger side. We still have the issue as you said on the cargo side but that also going to ultimately get addressed over the course of the next few years, so then you think why do we want to funnel all then of the airport traffic into one little narrow zone that impacts those few neighborhoods constantly, 24 hours a day? That doesn't make sense to me either. The map that's on page 1, this one, where we all share in the pain makes a lot more sense to me, so what I said to Patrick is that you know, we spent an awful lot of time and energy with consultants in fighting with the airport to try to figure out how we solve this noise abatement program, but from where I'm sitting and you know this hasn't been presented to the Commissioners yet, but from where I am sitting, I don't like any part of this plan any longer, because it will have a huge negative impact on the City of Miami. The law of unintended consequences here are going to be more mind-boggling than anything that I ever could have dreamed. I apologize to him because people were explaining this stuff to me a year and two years ago. I just didn't get it. I couldn't get the clear picture in my head until he came and met with me one morning in my office during the holiday period, and so, but it's clear to me now, so that comes in -- comes back to the point of and I didn't get this, I should have thought of this but I didn't ask this question clearly enough of Patrick McCoy, that is, we haven't voted on this so, I'm only stating an opinion and y'all can come back in here right now, but if my opinion were to prevail, my opinion would be we don't want to do a damn thing. We want to leave the whole thing alone. Any traffic that we can get that goes west that makes me happy, but this whole idea of the part 150 implementation plan will be a total disaster and the narrowing the traffic patterns into a narrow zone I think will -- just simply isn't rationally fair, so what we need to get an answer to immediately is the timing of the movement of these recommendations. We need to make sure that there are no recommendations 46 January 23, 2003 go to Atlanta or anywhere else until this Commission has taken a formal position and vote on, on what we can deal with. Mr. Rollason: Can I address that, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Winton: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: Johnny if I may, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Commissioner Regalado: This is why I said from the beginning part 150 is no good, that we should insist with the consultants on enforcement of the noise level. That's what Boston, that is what London, that is what Dallas does. The only way to alleviate the problem is by enforcement. Remember that the County was supposed to install noise monitors in several parts of the City. Never happened. I don't know, Frank, if you know why it never happened but it never happened. In fact they were going to install one on City Hall one in Shenandoah. Mr. Rollason: There are, OK. Commissioner Regalado: Anyway, but my point Johnny's right part 150 will be a disaster because first of all the federal government does not have the money now to insulate all the areas and so you know, forget about it. It's on the situation that we have, but what I'm saying is that enforcement. We should push the consultants to get the strict guidelines for enforcement and then fine the airlines and fine the planes. They have the method to fine those planes. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, what I think we really need to do? I mean, we could sit up here and have lots of thoughts about it but we really need to understand the timing of this and get the consultants here so that this Commission can make an informed decision and vote on something before it's out of our hands. Mr. Rollason: All right let me hit a couple of issues and maybe I can get us back on track a little bit. Number one, part 150 is not a part of this EA. There is not part 150 going to Atlanta. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Rollason: We have not asked for it. It has just come to the discussion phase with director Giddens that she would entertain if the task force wanted to discuss 150 that the County was willing to discuss 150. 150 is not a part of this. Chairman Winton: OK. Good. Mr. Rollason: In the document that you have from Asentec, after we had our last meeting and Director Giddens started talking 150, I requested or I directed the consultants to give us a thumbnail pros and cons of the 150. You will find that in that report that begins on page 2 in a block type of format where he actually give you the pros and cons. It goes on for several pages 47 January 23, 2003 of the 150 and many of the things that you discussed it would take 27 years at 12,500,000 a year etc. etc. to be able to do the City. So, right now without further direction as I sit as a representative for the administration, we would come back and we'd say they're discussing 150. What's your position? I would get that and I would go back and I would vote according to what the direction is that you gave us. There are some good things about 150 but there's a lot of bad things about 150. Right now 150 is not on the table. Chairman Winton: I understand so -- Mr. Rollason: Now, let's talk about the big document that I gave you and we talked about funneling this into one area. If you would look at 4-1 and 4-2 which are the east flows and the west flows if nothing happens, you will see that the predominate in the greens now are the ones that make the noise at departures. There the first and second page of your -- when you --- turn the cover you'll hit the first one with all the squiggly lines, that's 4-1. Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. Mr. Rollason: OK. That's how we're looking today. With the east now and the next page is the west flow so that means all take off and landings going east all take off and landings going west and then the colors are delineated blue and green. If you would look how the Grapeland Heights and the areas are taken the primary hit, you will see that if you do nothing, they will continue to take the hit and as you go on the next few pages you will begin to see like on page 2-3 which is East flow night time departure tracks is not adversely affecting the areas that are taking the hits that are right now, so what this has done is it has narrowed those paths and you will see through the consultants report at the very beginning that it's not the best of what we can obtain, but it does give a format that will allow the enforcement that Commissioner Regalado is talking about. Right now the FAA does not have an EA in place that they can enforce the fines, so our position has been since the reduction has really been so great, and also, right now with the take off and landings 72 percent are going east and 28 percent are going west. With this EA it's going to become 50-50, so not only has it been narrowed -- Commissioner Regalado: And that is what we want because it is not fair. Mr. Rollason: That's what in there. Commissioner Regalado: And you know why they are doing that? Because of the pressure of the West and the fact that the airlines do not want to spend five more minutes on the air, that's all that there is to it. Mr. Rollason: Our position is we have sat at that table and we have negotiated and bargained with all the communities and we have been able to bring the take off and landings from 72 percent to 50 percent going east over the City of Miami and we've also narrowed it into primarily the same paths that were being affected. Grapeland Heights is always going to be affected because they're right there, so what this has done is, you look at these, you will see, and it needs to take a little bit of time but if you do take them back and look at them you will see that the noise contours that are further to the back correspond with the tracks that are up at the front 48 January 23, 2003 and you'll see if you do procedure for this is what the noise contour will look like et cetera, so it really is for the first go -round a compromised position that will allow us to get some relief within the City of Miami and Patrick who is here and myself and other representatives Tory we have championed the City of Miami position and we feel that this is a very good document to go forward on the first cut to start to reduce our problem. Now, there's another issue that you need to be aware of and that is what the Chairman alluded to. He sort of thinks it's a part of 150, but really this no-fly zone or the no -build zone for the schools and for daycare centers and some of the dense residential is a state law that was passed in the 90's and what has happened is the state has come to the County and has told the County that you have not codified this into your zoning ordinance, and as a result, people are still pulling permits for charter schools, private schools and that type of thing and they are building them in these no school zones, which are designed in the event that there is an air disaster that a plane doesn't fall into the school, so the County in response to that, has drafted a zoning ordinance, which will impact the City as you have pointed of if it passes. That says -- primarily mirrors what the state has mandated through law that you can't build in these areas. On top of that in the zoning ordinance are the requirements in reducing decibel levels for future construction that takes place within the 65 DNL, which is the Decibel Noise Level, so as you start to look at these charts as they go over the City and you look at that green line which is the 65 DNL, when you come inside of that and somebody goes to do new construction, if this zoning thing goes through, forget about 150. We don't do 150. The zoning thing goes through. There are going to be requirements in there that these new constructed places have to meet the noise reduction requirement which is 25 decibels below the ambient to be able to build these different types of structures, schools, residences, warehouses they don't care about, but places of construction, so that ordinance has been drafted by the County and is going to the transportation committee of the County on February 13th. It's imperative that we are involved in that and I know that Ana, Planning is involved and the Manager's been involved and I know the Mayor's office has been involved to some extent to have our input into that. One of the things on the variance alone for schools is that it rest solely with the County and the draft and our position is that the City should be able to grant a variance if we had to put a school somewhere. That zoning ordinance it's imperative that we stay on top of that because it is going to have an impact because it's a minimum. The City could enforce or enact something more restrictive but we would have to go by that so, ... Chairman Winton: Frank, I would like to get a copy of that proposed ordinance. Mr. Rollason: Right. Chairman Winton: I'm assuming it's currently drafted. Mr. Rollason: Yes, sir. I know Ana has it. Chairman Winton: OK. I'd like to get a copy of that ordinance immediately to each of the Commissioners offices, number one, and number two, I would like to put that ordinance on the agenda for the very next meeting of our Commission so we can discuss that ordinance as a body. OK, anything else then? 49 January 23, 2003 Mr. Rollason: No, I mean, at this point, I need to tell you that this EA, this part here with the flight paths and the reduction and the narrowing has been passed by the task force I think it's good for the City and it's going forward to Atlanta. 150's not, and you need to stay on top of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Winton: I understand, so what I did, just so y'all understand, I made a complete misstatement when I was talking about my thoughts and opinions, because the part 150 thing, which really created all those problems and I... Commissioner Regalado: It's not there, its not there so, Chairman Winton: It's not there so, so -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion in support of the task force decision of moving with this plan and send it to Atlanta with this word of this City Commission. Because you know... Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: The best we can do is to get a fair shake from Miami International Airport. I mean, today it's 70 percent, if we get 50-50 it's fine, and it would alleviate many of the problems that we have but still and I will say in the motion that we instruct the consultant to stress the issue of enforcement. It's nothing new. We are not inventing anything here. Boston does it all the time, Dallas and London and every major airport, so that will be my motion. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, Mr. Rollason. Mr. Rollason: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: Your statement, you said that Grapeland Height is going to continue to be affected and I can understand that because we are in the way of the runways of the airport. But how is -- with the new plan is the traffic going to be minimized, is there going to be a reduction of traffic? Mr. Rollason: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gonzalez: Because let me tell you, in my house, if you sit in my porch and my patio sometime you think that the planes are going to land right on the patio. I'm about 5 blocks from the airport. Mr. Rollason: The 50-50 and Patrick is here but I think the first go -around it goes into affect at 11 o'clock at night and it goes until 6 AM and then once this, listen, once this goes through now we start working on phase 2 of this EA. We've go a document and we're going to start saying 50 January 23, 2003 we want to see what the impact is and can we back it up to 9 o'clock can we back it up to 10 o'clock, so we need to get this in place and then we can work with the local FAA and they say you know what, our traffic says on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday we can back up to 9 but Saturday we can't. So, those kinds of tweaking we'll be able to do, but we have to get this in place first. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yeah because that line of traffic not only affects Grapeland but also West Little Havana. Planes go from the airport straight to the bay you know, on the line. Mr. Rollason: And also what's also a big help is the phasing out of these jets that make the noise and the ones that have the hush kits and that's online to go away. Where the pressure needs to be put as the Chairman put out is that these planes are being bought by the commercial carriers for cargo and so what we're trying to do with them is restrict the hours of flight that they take off during the morning daytime so that we can start to control the noise within that way, so the task force looks at a lot of different options. Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-97 A MOTION SUPPORTING THE NOISE ABATEMENT TASK FORCE'S "OPERATIONAL NOISE MITIGATION PROCEDURES - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT" REPORT, WHICH WILL BE SENT TO FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY (FAA) IN ATLANTA FOR DISTRIBUTION AND APPROVAL; FURTHER INSTRUCTING ACENTECH, THE CONSULTANT WORKING WITH THE TASK FORCE, TO STRESS TO THE FAA THE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF AIRPLANE NOISE LEVELS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. 51 January 23, 2003 ABSENT: None. Mr. Rollason: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question? Chairman Winton: Yes. Mr. Rollason: At this time I had planned to have the consultant come down in April and give an overall report to you as to what was happening and where we're at. Do you want to hold on that and wait until the EA's in place or what's your pleasure? Chairman Winton: Well, I just told the Manager that it seems to me that we ought to be -- the ordinance that the county is working on -- Mr. Rollason: That's number one. Chairman Winton: That's a big deal for us and I'm not sure, y'all need to decide, but if the consultant has the appropriate skill sets and will help us to understand this ordinance I think he ought to be here for that discussion. If he doesn't bring anything to the table as it relates to that kind of discussion then don't bring him but -- Mr. Rollason: He does, he's very knowledgeable on 150 and there is a meeting coming up on the 28th and he will be on a conference call with our people and then if it's necessary that he come, he'll come. Chairman Winton: OK, great. Patrick McCoy thank you very much for all your hard work. It's been I'm sure for you it's been a labor of non -love, torture plus. Patrick McCoy: That sums it up. Chairman Winton: Thanks. Commissioner Sanchez: An a bit noisy. Tory Jacobs: May I have a word please? Chairman Winton: Yes you may but quickly because I want to move this agenda along. Mr. Jacobs: Tory Jacobs, 145 Southeast 25th Road. On behalf of the Brickell Homeowners Association I want to thank the Commission for retaining the consultant and the City Manager for permitting Frank Rollason to continue to represent us on the task force. It's made a world of difference. You know, we've been banging away that this for some five years and really fighting windmills with not knowing which way the wind was blowing, but now we have two professionals that make a big difference. We are very grateful to you. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 52 January 23, 2003 12. DISCUSSION CONCERNING PILOT SMALL BUSINESS START-UP GRANT PROGRAM. Chairman Winton: OK. Next item. I think we have -- I thought I saw Leroy Jones in the audience, personal appearance. Mr. Jones, you're on, but do me a favor, Leroy. I'm moving these meetings fast, so -- Leroy Jones: In two minutes, I'm gone. Chairman Winton: Thank you, sir. Mr. Jones: Good morning, Commissioners. Leroy Jones, Executive Director of Neighbors and Neighbors, 180 Northwest 62nd Street. I'm here to talk about the Pilot Small Business Start -Up Grant Program, which the last year and a half the City Commission been working on. I'd like to add that, in the last year twice I've tried to sit down and meet with Mr. Dan Fernandes in reference to the Small Business Pilot Project, and it was unsuccessful, but I had the opportunity, last week, to sit down with Ms. Barbara Rodriguez in reference to it, and in the past we never spoke about the pilot project, but just last week I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to her, to go over some things about the Small Business Pilot Project. I feel that we have a good -- NANA (Neighbors and Neighbors Association) have a good working relationship with Ms. Barbara Rodriguez, and knowing Ms. Rodriguez' reputation, that we can get this pilot project off the ground to help the ex -felons through new business opportunities. The businesses have already been created. September 2001 we started, with the leadership of Commissioner Teele. We met with some individuals in the community and had them sign up to participate in this program. Out of that, we decided to create 20 new businesses. In a matter of four months, out of the 20 businesses, we had already -- we had got six of them licensed out of the 20. I want to explain a little bit about that because it takes time. You just can't start a business and expect to go out and get licensed and don't have anything to follow up on, so we had to be real careful with that, of going out and licensing 20 businesses and not having any money to actually start the businesses. In that process we was requesting $100,000, which we could use $5,000 per business. Under NANA leadership, we'll go to seek some matching funds. So, we'll try to get $100,000 to match the $100,000 if we could get the commitment from the City with $100,000. I want to mention, though, that the City of Miami is a part of the consortium -- if I'm saying the word right. Consortium -- and is one of the members that decides who receive funding, and have been one of the members that decide who receive money. We're requesting that you set aside money to help the ex -felons in the City of Miami, not just -- you know, not just for the 20 new businesses that we're creating, but every district, I'm sure, have some convicted felons in their district that want to get back and be productive members of society. We need to look at the fact that we need jobs. The City of Miami is apart of the consortium board. Chairman Winton: So, Leroy, let me interrupt you. Mr. Jones: I'm wrapping it up, Commissioner. Chairman Winton: Oh, wait. 53 January 23, 2003 Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: But I want to be clear on what you're asking for. Tell me what you're asking for again. Mr. Jones: We're asking for $100,000. Chairman Winton: From the South Florida Employment Consortium? Mr. Jones: Well, I'm -- we're asking for it from this Commission, because at first, if you look at your package, what I gave you, Commissioner, I just wanted to make mention that the City can do this every year through the Consortium, but when we first started working on this project, our intent was to get it from the City of Miami, and the money will go the Neighbors and Neighbors Association. Neighbors and Neighbors Association will be the agency that's responsible for making sure the 20 new businesses get the funding that's needed to start up. Right now today, if we're not late, the County is voting to pass a Neighborhood Training Program, which is the Brothers of the Same Mind was the motivating factor of getting the County to create the program. I'm going to tell you a little bit about the program, because I know we short on time, Commissioner. The program will start with $2,500,000, and it will employ 400 people in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The pay rate will be from $9 to $20 an hour. Nine dollars for unexperienced labor and twenty dollars -- the arrangement was scaled from nine dollars. If you're unskilled, if you've never been a part of a training workforce, if you never worked on a construction site, the minimum amount you would make is $9 an hour. Based on your experience, you could make up to $20 an hour. The County will match half of it, and the contractors who's awarded the contract will match half. That is the way the County is trying to stimulate job opportunities with the poor -- with the low and very low, because we leaving out a whole class of people -- we always saying the low and moderate, but we leaving out the low and very low people, who these workforce programs and training programs don't never reach, so the County felt sensitive because we made the pitch. And now, today, it's going up for vote, and I just heard that it was passed. And it's actually two programs; one will be $2,500,000, which will employ 400 people, and the other program is limited. It's all countywide contracts, where they're asking contractors to hire unskilled, or skilled, unemployed, low and very low-income people, and that was a project that we worked on now since October of 2001. It just got passed today, from my understanding. OK. I want you all to remember the first source hiring in the City of Miami, as well, in this process. I'm almost finished, Commissioner. I'm wrapping it up. We need to do something real seriously about the unemployment rate, especially when it comes to ex -offenders that's re-entering back into our neighborhood. If we want to make them to be and have them to be taxpayers and be responsible, and now be a full citizen, you know, to participate in our great City, then we need to do something about it, OK? I'm hoping that the Commission -- because if you look at the paperwork that I submitted, in the package NANA had created the pilot project program in the package that I give y'all. And it's just something to start with. It's called the Small Business Revival Loan Program. And we want to make this $100,000 available, not as grants really, but as loans, so that the money can be reused, so new business owners can be created out of this Revival Loan Program. So, we put together a package for you all to look at. If you want -- feel need — changes need to made, to make some changes, but it's a 54 January 23, 2003 real simple program. And I also want to mention the Mom and Pop Program that NANA is right now doing, which have $1,000,000 in it, which we're right now making small grants available, up to $25,000 for small businesses in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and this can be a great component with those two programs working together to create some new business opportunities, as well as some new job creations in disadvantaged neighborhoods. OK. One more thing, Commissioner. I'm asking this Commission, when you all have some free time, because I know y'all busy, please pass by 4101 Northwest 17th Avenue. If you read the Miami Times, just a month ago Neighbors and Neighbors Association and Brothers of the Same Mind partnered to make some ex -felons in our community business owners. It's a Laundromat and a restaurant. We have five new jobs created because of that project; two people work in the Laundromat and three people work in the restaurant. We're talking about five people that wasn't employed, at all. We partnershipped. We raised the funds through the County, two small projects that we got. The Brothers of the Same Mind. NANA provided the technical assistance. No financial assistance came from NANA to do this project, so NANA provided and still are providing the technical assistance to make sure the project succeed. But it's a Laundromat and it's a restaurant, and please come by and take a look at it. The name of it is "Wash and Eat with the Brothers," so you could come and dry clean your clothes and have a meal at the same time, so please come by. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Jones: Any questions? Chairman Winton: Comments, questions from the Commission? OK. Leroy, thank you very much. Mr. Jones: All right. Thank you. Well, Commissioner -- excuse me, Commissioner. I'm still unclear. What now? I mean, is we moving forward? Is this going to happen or not? Chairman Winton: I think from -- you made a presentation to the Commission. There's been no action taken on the Commission, so I'm assuming that somebody's going to think about this for some -- over some period of time and make a decision about whether or not there's going to be an action taken. That's what I'm assuming, since there's no -- Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: There's no -- yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: The Commission's already acted. And at appropriate time, I'll be more than willing to discuss this later on today, but the Commission has acted. Without getting into a debate, one of my colleagues has raised a strong objection. We had a long discussion. It's a matter of record. I have a strong view that ex -felons should be given every opportunity to be able to integrate into society. I have a strong view, an unmovable view. One of my colleagues, that I have tremendous respect for, feels that public dollars should not be used in that manner. A series of things have happened. First and foremost, the commitment has always been for the organization to provide technical assistance, which is clearly the area in which I'm comfortable, 55 January 23, 2003 and I think the organization has a demonstrated expertise in. The Consortium has had two meetings with me. They're in the process of designing a program, such as this. I have told the Consortium that I will support using the available dollars through the CD (Community Development) process, technical assistance being provided by the organization, NANA, that has brought this forward. At the same time, the staff has a resolution asking them, as a part of the budget process, to look at $40,000, I think the specific amount was -- to be correct, at the September 26th budget hearing. I think the specific amount was for $40,000 to look at, in terms of developing a loan portfolio. I've had conversations with both the Dade Community Foundation, with Shack, and several other entities, to see if we can get the dollars and, therefore, allow my colleague to be clear in his conscience and allow the program to go forward. I want to just reiterate, I have no -- I have full support for allowing NANA to provide technical assistance for such a program. As it relates to the quirks or the dollars themselves, as I've said to -- on the record and as I've said publicly, I think the best and the most appropriate way to do that may be through NANA and it may be through a third party that does nothing but administer those kinds of micro loan kinds of programs. But in no way do I think we should recede from the view that we should keep the faith with the 20 businesses that I think, as a result of a discussion, a discussion that NANA went out and identified, and I intend to live up to that. Chairman Winton: OK. And, Leroy, just for -- as the Chairman, if you were trying to get this Commission to act on a request for a new $100,000, I wouldn't allow the vote, because I think it's totally inappropriate for a personal appearance to come before the Commission and have an action taken by the Commission for a big chunk of money, because it would never have been put on the public record for the public to understand, so this is how I'm accepting your request right now. You've given us presentation; you've asked for some support; Commissioner Teele has responded to how some of this support is already in place, but the next step, if there is something that is in addition to what Commissioner Teele just described, you're going to have to get somebody to sponsor a resolution that would then be directing the City Manager to work at that - - at finding that money, and that would have to be published as a part of our regular agenda, and then we could vote yes or no on it. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is for Mr. Jones to continue to work with the Community Development staff on this. I don't think, you know, that we should preempt the staff process on this. Chairman Winton: I agree a hundred percent. Vice Chairman Teele: There's a whole series of issues going on that may or may not allow for -- there's a whole series of issues that I think staff is better in a position to understand. But, again, I think, you know -- Johnny, I want to always fight to the death for the right of a legislative body to have collegiality and, yet, work together. And until my colleague withdraws his very, very strong objection, I'm not prepared to use public dollars. I'm seeking public City dollars. I'm prepared to use foundation money. I'm prepared to use the Consortium dollars. I'm prepared to 56 January 23, 2003 use dollars from any number of sources, and I think there's a whole series of programs out there Chairman Winton: And you're working on all those angles (INAUDIBLE)? Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I mean, I could always use more help from the Manger, or staff, or from Mr. Jones, or from anyone else. But I think there is no objection to NANA providing the advocacy and the technical assistance, which they are very capable of doing. Chairman Winton: OK. All right. Mr. Jones: Commissioner, if I can close with this, is that we're not asking for the forty and additional hundred. We're trying to change the forty to a hundred because that was what was requested from the very beginning. Chairman Winton: Got it. OK. Mr. Jones: And that's what Commissioner Teele -- Chairman Winton: Is work -- Mr. Jones: Is working -- Chairman Winton: Was speaking -- OK. Mr. Jones: That we thought was working on the hundred thousand and not the forty. Vice Chairman Teele: I'm working for $100,000 to be available for 20 businesses -- Chairman Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Teele: -- which you have identified. Mr. Jones: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: And you all will provide the technical assistance. Mr. Jones: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Jones: OK. Chairman Winton: Leroy, thank you very much. 57 January 23, 2003 13. CHANGE VENUE OF PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED WORKSHOP IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS) TO BE FUNDED WITH UNALLOCATED HOMELAND DEFENSE/ NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 AT JAMES L. KNIGHT CENTER, TO DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL, 1717 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. Chairman Winton: We need to, we have to do this before noon and that's a change of venue for the bond workshop. We were going to originally have it at the Hyatt, but the Hyatt is booked, so we need a motion to move it to the Double Tree Grand. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second, move it to the Double Tree Grand, which is at 1717 North Bayshore Drive, the grand ballroom. Motion and a second, further discussion? Vice Chairman Teele: Amendment. Commissioner Sanchez: It's an amendment. Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. Vice Chairman Teele: Why can't we have it at Margaret Pace Park? Chairman Winton: I can't hear you. Commissioner Sanchez: You're amending it. Vice Chairman Teele: Why can't we have it at Margaret Pace Park? Chairman Winton: It might be raining. Commissioner Gonzalez: Especially tomorrow. Chairman Winton: Or it might be snowing as cold as it's getting, so we have, yes sir. We have a motion and a second all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. 58 January 23, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-98 A MOTION CHANGING THE VENUE OF THE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED WORKSHOP IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS) TO BE FUNDED WITH UNALLOCATED HOMELAND DEFENSE/ NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND FUNDS AT 2:30 P.M. ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2003 AT THE JAMES L. KNIGHT CENTER, TO NOW TAKE PLACE AT THE DOUBLETREE GRAND HOTEL (GRAND BALLROOM), 1717 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 14. TEMPORARILY CHANGE LOCATION OF REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS TO MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED AT 900 S.W. 1 STREET, UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AT CITY HALL IS COMPLETED. Vice Chairman Teele: Is this thing tomorrow or next Friday? Chairman Winton: Oh, City Hall probably won't be ready until 2004, so, I think we probably need -- Vice Chairman Teele: I move that City Hall be designated as the official venue for the Bicentennial of Haiti Celebration on January 2004. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second that. Chairman Winton: But we do need a motion on where we're going to have our Commission meetings. Vice Chairman Teele: (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Gonzalez: I have a motion to have the meetings at the Manuel Artime. 59 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion, second further discussion? Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-99 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TEMPORARILY CHANGING THE LOCATION OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS TO THE MANUEL ARTIME COMMUNITY CENTER, LOCATED AT 900 S.W. 1 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION AT CITY HALL IS COMPLETED. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, there was an advertising today on the Miami Herald regarding the February 13th public hearing and it mentioned the Manuel Artime, so just before we voted -- Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): It's a good thing that you passed it then. Commissioner Regalado: Well, it's a good thing that we did. How about if we didn't? Mr. Gimenez: I don't have the answer to that question. 60 January 23, 2003 15. INSTRUCT MANAGER TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING AT COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003, TIME CERTAIN OF 5:30 P.M., TO DISCUSS PROPOSAL FROM AHT ARCHITECTS TO ERECT MONUMENT IN MEMORY OF EMILIO ARECHAEDERRA IN SOFTBALL FIELD AT SHENANDOAH PARK. Commissioner Sanchez: We're on item 6, Mr. Chairman, it's a public hearing. Chairman Winton: We are or were? Commissioner Sanchez: We are. Five was the discussion concerning the Miami International Airport. Chairman Winton: No, no but we haven't done the, we're still doing blue page stuff. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, Commissioner Sanchez do you have anything on your blue pages? Commissioner Sanchez: No, sir. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Sanchez: I'm hoping to get out of here by 6 tonight. Commissioner Regalado: Not today. Not even with Johnny. Chairman Winton: I think you're right, Commissioner Regalado. Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I have three items. One of them I think it -- three of them would be quick. First of all, there is a proposal from AHT architects to erect a small monument in Shenandoah Park and why this is on the agenda? Well, because in 1991, the City Commission passed a resolution naming for a deceased person, a person that did a lot for the sports part of Shenandoah Park on his behalf. Now, his son and his family is willing to pay for plans and to erect them a small monument to commemorate Emilio Arechaederra Park within Shenandoah Park. It's not the park it's Albert it's -- Albert Ruder (Director, Parks Department): Albert Ruder. It's a softball field, which is already named after him, but they just want to erect a monument. Commissioner Regalado: And because everything that we do in parks has to do with public hearings and all that, simply this is a motion to call for a public hearing -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. 61 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: -- in order to -- Vice Chairman Teele: Is there any objection? All those in favor signify --- you want to give a date for that? When is the next? Commissioner Regalado: February 13th Vice Chairman Teele: February 13th Commissioner Regalado: Time certain. Commissioner Sanchez: It should be after 5 o'clock. Commissioner Regalado: It should be after 5 o'clock. Vice Chairman Teele: 5:30. Commissioner Sanchez: 5:30. Commissioner Regalado: 5:30. Vice Chairman Teele: Incorporated in the motion. Is there objection? All those in favor, signify by the sign of "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chairman Teele: Those opposed have the same right. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-100 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003, AT A TIME CERTAIN OF 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS A PROPOSAL FROM AHT ARCHITECTS TO ERECT A MONUMENT IN MEMORY OF EMILIO ARECHAEDERRA IN THE SOFTBALL FIELD AT SHENANDOAH PARK. 62 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Chairman Johnny L. Winton 16. DIRECT CITY CLERK TO KEEP COMMISSIONER REGALADO INFORMED ON STATUS OF SENDING CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTICES IN ENGLISH, SPANISH AND CREOLE. Commissioner Regalado: The second item is a discussion concerning a status report on the distribution of multilingual notices from the code enforcement board. We discussed that several days ago. I think it was the last Commission meeting and the administration was to directed to bring back this on this meeting and it all has to do with code enforcement notices being sent in English and Spanish and Creole, and that was a proposal there was, by the way, Commission by the City Commission a long time ago and never happened, so my motion is to first of all, we need to know if the administration is ready to do this, and second, the motion will be to implement this within the next 60 days. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): If I can Commissioner Regalado, Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk's Office, and I'd like to give you the status report on behalf of the Executive Secretary of the Hearings Board who met with the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Director and ITD (Information Technology Department) yesterday to finalize the plans and is hoped that the whole program will be up and running by the middle of March. The three documents are already drafted, have been translated, those three documents are notice of violations summons to appear and affidavits of postings. They've already been translated to Spanish and Creole. ITD is working right now to figure out how to implement the system so that the inspectors can utilize it. OK, so, that's where we're at this point. The only glitch that we have is that the computer program it's not being able to recognize the Spanish right now, the Spanish and Creole. It recognize the English but we've got to work on that Spanish and Creole part. Our target date is the middle of March. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Tersita Fernandez (Hearing Boards): If I may, to clarify a little bit more. What happened is that the -- Commissioner Regalado: Your name. 63 January 23, 2003 Ms. Fernandez: Oh I'm sorry. Tersita Fernandez, Hearing Boards. What happened is that the mainframe only speaks English and that's what we have to work on. Commissioner Gonzalez: Send it to school. Miami Senior High gives Spanish classes and Creole classes. Vice Chairman Teele: All right, how do you want to handle this, Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Just that --- I'm glad that the administration is moving and I accept the dateline of March. So, there is no action here neither. Vice Chairman Teele: No further action required. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Ms. Fernandez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk would you make sure you keep the Commission informed if there is going to be a glitch. Ms. Thompson: Definitely, definitely. 17. INSTRUCT MANAGER TO SCHEDULE AT COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003, TIME CERTAIN OF 3:00 P.M., UPDATE FROM SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD REGARDING APPEAL OF RFP PROCESS IN SELECTION OF OPERATOR FOR CONSOLIDATED ONE-STOP CENTER IN LITTLE HAVANA. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, we need to get an update on regarding the South Florida Workforce Board regarding the appeal on the RFP (Request for Proposals) process and the selection of an operator for the consolidated One Stop Center in Little Havana, and this was an item that we decided it was suppose to come back. I don't know if the appeal when Ms. Spevac was here at the Miami Arena. She said that by this date we may know about the appeal and the consolidation process, so Barbara. Barbara Rodriguez: Barbara Rodriguez Department of Community Development. We have a status report, number one, SABER'S Little Havana One Stop Center's contract has been extended to February 28th. The Florida agency for Workforce innovation, which is reviewing the appeal, has basically said that they will not have an opinion until the mid to late February, so as of now the appeal has not been completed. We have also been provided by Harriet Spevac from the South Florida Workforce Board that in the event that the appeal is not completed by February 28th they will consider another extension to SABER'S Little Havana One Stop Center. Commissioner Regalado: So, your advice is to bring back this on the last meeting of February or the first? 64 January 23, 2003 Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. The second meeting in February. Commissioner Regalado: The second meeting of February. Ms. Rodriguez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: OK Mr. Chairman, that is --- I don't know if we need a motion just to place this item on the agenda on the last meeting of February. Vice Chairman Teele: Second the motion. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Vice Chairman Teele: Why don't we have a time on that? Because it involves other people coming in and I think we need to conserve their time. Commissioner Regalado: If we can do it in the afternoon it will be fine or in the morning whatever you guys what done, you know. Vice Chairman Teele: 3 o'clock? Are you going to bring people over from the consortium? Ms. Rodriguez: The South Florida Employment and Training will be making the presentation. Vice Chairman Teele: Exactly. And I think -- Chairman Winton: Time certain 3 o'clock. Vice Chairman Teele: 3 PM. Chairman Winton: We have motion and a second. Discussion? Being none all in favor, JJ " aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -101 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE AT THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003, AT A TIME CERTAIN OF 3:00 P.M., AN UPDATE FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE RFP PROCESS IN THE SELECTION OF AN OPERATOR FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ONE-STOP CENTER IN LITTLE HAVANA. 65 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 18. APPROVE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S (DDA) BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT OF DANA NOTTINGHAM AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DDA. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, do you have other issues? Commissioner Regalado: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm done with the blue pages. Later on I'll have pocket items and all that but it's later. Chairman Winton: Right, Commissioner Teele, blue page? Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, two things, first, are you going to bring the matter of the DDA (Downtown Development Authority)? Chairman Winton: Yes, I am. Vice Chairman Teele: I think we should do it before Commissioner Regalado leaves, but I'll yield to you. Chairman Winton: OK. Great. Would you mind chairing? Vice Chairman Teele: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: I have an item I think we gave you a hand out that I can't -- I have to much junk in front of me I can't find my -- Vice Chairman Teele: Your staff has been very diligent. They've gone by and given everybody a -- Chairman Winton: Dana Nottingham, are you here somewhere? He was, Dana, please come up to the podium, and was there a copy of the resume, of the brief resume -- 66 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Very complete resume. Chairman Winton: So, I am extremely pleased to bring to you all the newly appointed Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority Dana Nottingham. When we made the decision to seek a new Executive Director I think we made that decision six or seven months ago, I appointed a committee that I did not sit on to do a national search for a new Executive Director. We hired a search firm to help us with that effort. We interviewed an awful lot of people and some very good people but I can tell you that the man standing in front of you we are all, our entire board is just extremely excited about, and as you can see from an education standpoint Dana has a Bachelor Degree in architecture from Hampton University and a Master of City planning from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He's been in the business community as a senior development person with people like Rouse and Disney, so he brings not only very strong academic credentials to the table to help an entity that's called the Downtown Development Authority, so he has the academic credentials to help guide something like that but in addition and most importantly, he's got the private sector experience, understanding how you make development really work and so we're pleased to present to the Commission. The Downtown Development Authority has already adopted the resolution and accepted Mr. Nottingham as the new Executive Director and the Commission, we need the confirmation of the Commission for the hire and I have a motion in front of me doing precisely that, and I will so move that motion. Vice Chairman Teele: Move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Vice Chairman Teele: And seconded. Discussion? Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chairman Teele: Let me just say this as Chairman. I think it really important that Commissioners take whatever time is necessary to give your philosophies, your views and ask any questions confirmation process should be done very, very deliberately and thoughtfully and this is the time for you to say what you need to say, so I want to start with my colleague Commissioner Regalado and I would hope that each Commissioner would at least say what is important to you or from the DDA's perspective and give that opportunity to be heard, so Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: No, I just have a very brief comment. It's a very impressive resume. I want to understand something about Celebration. Chairman Winton: Celebration? Commissioner Regalado: How was the planning process because you know, I think that you can give us some ideas in terms of Celebration to certain areas of the City? 67 January 23, 2003 Dana Nottingham: Well, first, understand celebration is a real unique project because of the developer and the resources that were available to the Walt Disney Company do that project. I think it has been positioned as the model or one of the most important models for neo -traditional town planning and the country and a lot of people travel there to see it. I think that when I think of Celebration I think of downtown and in -town housing. I look at what are the principles that are there more so than the specifics of what is there and I think that a driving principle is the fact that housing downtown is an absolute top priority and to create a range of housing chores in a mix of uses and to put it into a format that actually give the customer what they want, and the whole notion of strengthening existing communities and creating, packaging enough land to create new communities as sub areas or urban villages is something that's very important to us to keep us competitive in the region, and it's certainly something that's on my agenda and I think there are a lot of principles that are reflected in Celebration and that whole neo -traditional movement that we'll be looking at. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Nottingham, I'm very impressed with your resume although I think this job is going to be very rewarding it's also going to be challenging for you, but at the end of the day I think that we have such a great opportunity to turn our downtown into one of the most vibrant and most livable and enjoyable downtowns compared to any other major city throughout the United States. I'm very impressed, the Rouse Company you worked for them on that project. The underground Atlanta, what did you do for underground Atlanta? Mr. Nottingham: Well, I was the Vice President and the Senior Development Director for Underground Atlanta in 1970, when it opened in 1989, so that was not this version of it, it's the last revitalization version of that project. Commissioner Sanchez: New Orleans River walk. Mr. Nottingham: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: Very impressive. Walt Disney Company, Disney Village Marketplace, Celebration Town Center, New (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Development, Downtown Disney master plan, incredible. So, you know, I look forward to working with you and once again congratulations to the DDA and the committee that worked very hard. I think they made the right choice selecting you so, we welcome you to the City sir. Mr. Nottingham: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: I just want to welcome you to the DDA and welcome you to the City of Miami and -- Mr. Nottingham: Thank you very much. 68 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Gonzalez: -- as the rest of my colleagues we'll be here working with you and assisting you in every way we can to make sure that we make your work easier. Congratulations and thank you. Mr. Nottingham: Thank you very much, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Commissioner Winton. Chairman Winton: Well, I made a point that didn't finish the point about the selection process and that was I appointed a committee to make this determination and the only point at which I got involved was when the committee narrowed the selection process down to the final two or three candidates and then I had an opportunity like everyone else on the board to interview them as well. The point to that is that this may be the first time in 20 years where the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority was not a political appointee, that's the point here. There was a very deliberate, thorough process that went into finding the best possible person anywhere we could find that person and ended up with I think a fabulous candidate, and the next point I would like to make is that Dana and I have had significant discussion about other resources that are surrounding downtown. I've asked him to as one of his first priorities to make contact with the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), with the Downtown Miami Partnership and other entities so that -- you know we all, Commissioner Teele, have talked may times about creating real partnerships among these organizations and linking them together. That process never works if you don't have the right staff leadership to make it work and I think that we're building that kind of strength in these organizations now and we'll see a real effort at linking these entities that are focused on the same kinds of things and so, when you create that kind of linkage and you combine the resource process and the thought process there's nothing we can't get done, so Dana thrilled to have you here and after our vote I'd would like to give you the opportunity to say anything that you would like to say to the Commission. Mr. Nottingham: Thanks. Vice Chairman Teele: Now, the motion that's before us includes approval of a recommendation from the, no, actually it's confirming the DDA compensation package and I think that package is extremely fair. I just want to just make two sets of observations. First, to the Chairman of the DDA and the board, when I came on this Commission, there were no African Americans on the board of the DDA. That has changed. The EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) employment statistic of the DDA was not acceptable. That has changed and I think a tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to Commissioner Winton in his capacity as Chairman of the DDA and the DDA board in literally on this aftermath of Dr. Martin Luther King being colorblind and really looking for a person not based on the color of their skin but the content of their character, and I just want to be on record most of all saying Johnny, and your DDA board I appreciate the fact that the City of Miami can rise above and that the DDA has risen above the natural proclivity, natural tendency to go with your best friend to go with your high school --- your army buddy, your kindergarten classmate if you had one. Clinton's first Chief of Staff was his kindergarten best friend. That's just human nature, but you also have to look at the impact of selecting over people who are otherwise better qualified than your best friend or the person that 69 January 23, 2003 you know. I would hope that today Mr. Chairman, Winton, that this Commission can have an honest discussion on Items 10 and 10A in the context of a broader issue here, and I think this confirmation represents in spades where this City ought to be going and I'm requesting as a Commissioner not as Chairman Mr. Manager, for a list by 2 o'clock of all of the appointments that have been made by the City over the last 60 days and all of the interim appointments that have been made and an EEO profile of gender and race for all of those such appointments. Having said that, Dana, you know, it's easy to be put in a position when you have a resume where you've served ten years and probably the foremost developer of the nation, Urban Rouse Company, very famous, not for Miami's Bayside but for the Baltimore Marketplace and the first real aquarium that was built in the nation as a part of that, or you working for Disney for six or seven years but what impresses me most is the fact that you are a graduate of a historically black college not only a historic black college but the college that trained and educated Dr. Booker T. Washington before he went to Tuskegee. I am well aware of the tremendous alumni and graduates of Hampton. Your architectural degree I think will help you particularly with the construction projects and in closing I just want to underscore what Commissioner Winton just said. We've got a multiheaded Honda what's the word, multiheaded beast that we have in this City and it has got at least five known heads and I count about seven or eight. The first one is the CRA, but the CRA is a misnomer; it's actually two different entities. There's an Overtown Park West Corporation, there's an Omni Corporation, separate boards, separate bodies, same people, separate budgets. We've got MSEA the Miami Sports and Exhibition which has its own board, its own director, its own budget. We've got the Bayfront Trust, which is chaired by my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez, which has its own advisory board, its own staff, its own budget, et cetera. We've go the DDA, which you're there and then we've got the best job in the City of Miami as far as I'm concerned, this job called the Manager of conventions marinas and all the fun stuff which has the Knight Center, which has the University of Miami Conference Center, which has marinas, et cetera, all of which are City of Miami entities that report some way either budget purposes or others, and also we've got the most important one, we complain about it all the time, and they're the smartest people in the town. They always escape the criticism, the Off -Street Parking Authority. So, all of these entities are somehow tied with the City of Miami. I think your presence coming in totally unaware of this, listening to what your Chairman has just said. If you can take the initiative to begin to meet and to understand and to look for ways to bring all of those entities to support you at the DDA you will not only be greatly successful, you will help to move this community forward. I'm looking forward to voting in support of you and I want to yield the chair back to Commissioner Winton to call the vote. Chairman Winton: Can I call the vote, if I made the motion? Vice Chairman Teele: OK then I'll call it. Madam Clerk, roll call. Commissioner Sanchez: Did somebody second it? Vice Chairman Teele: It was moved by Commissioner Winton. It was seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. 70 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: It's unanimously adopted, congratulations. Commissioner Winton, I yield back you to. The following resolution was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY'S ("DDA") BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPOINTMENT OF DANA NOTTINGHAM AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DDA, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREED UPON BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, A SUMMARY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS "EXHIBIT A". Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: Dana, anything you'd like to say? Mr. Nottingham: Well, first of all -- Vice Chairman Teele: Why don't we give him a -- (APPLAUSE) Mr. Nottingham: First of all, I'm touched by your comments and thank you for the vote of confidence. I know it's a big decision for the City. It's absolutely a big decision for me. Make no mistake I really like Miami. I understand and feel its potential, want to be a part of contributing to that in a leadership role. When I look at the DDA, I look at it as an organization that I call a catalyst organization and in all my discussions with everyone in the DDA and my discussions with Johnny if there was one theme it was about guiding change and leading change and innovation and the one theme is partnerships and I've heard that echoed here today which really makes me feel good. I want to underscore some things about my background because a lot 71 January 23, 2003 of times when I came in you hear about the Rouse Company and you hear about Disney. I started in the development business working in neighborhoods and communities and in fact at MIT my focus was housing and community development. I say that because as a consultant over the last six years, half of my clients have been private developers and the other half have been cities and nonprofits, and in earlier discussions the work comprehensive was used which is very important especially when you are talking about downtown because downtown is everybody's neighborhood, and downtown is a piece of a larger economic strategy for the City, the County and the region, and my hope is to reach out an not just strengthen partnerships but build new partnerships where DDA fits into that overall economic strategy to make downtown more competitive, make it more livable, make it more of a 24-hour place, have many reasons for people to come stay long and to return and quite frankly be recognized as the most livable downtown in America, so I thank you very much. I will take all of you up on your outreach to me as a partner. I really want to do that and I thank the whole spirit of catalyst, innovation, change and implementation partnerships is sort of where my head is right now as I start with the DDA and I want to thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Again Dana, thank you very much and welcome and let's rock and roll. 19. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE COORDINATION BETWEEN LAND USE AND SCHOOL FACILITIES PLANNING. Chairman Winton: OK, no actually we got people from the school board here. I'd like to go to item number 21, which is about an interlocal agreement between -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: I'm going to have to leave but I really want to be on item 10 and 10A so if you can do these in the afternoon I would really appreciate it. Chairman Winton: Absolutely. So, item 21 anybody out there? There we go, Sarah. Sarah Ingle: Good morning, thank you. Sarah Ingle, City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department. Chairman Winton: Pull the mike down further please, thank you. Ms. Ingle: How's that? Chairman Winton: Yes. Ms. Ingle: OK. The item before you right now is an interlocal agreement. It's between the City of Miami, the School Board, Miami Dade County and all nonexempt municipalities countywide. The subject is increasing coordination of land -use and school facilities planning. It's a new state requirement. It's required for all school boards, municipalities and counties statewide. 72 January 23, 2003 According to the state schedule we're the first that has to do it but it is a statewide requirement. Basically it requires that the School Board and the municipality share information with one another in a way that we definitely have not been doing before and coordinates as I mentioned before in terms of --- we would become a part of their schools facility planning process. They will become a party to our land-use and development planning process. The agreement is the legal framework for that coordination. The deadline for executing the agreement by all parties and just as a quick side note, the state's requirement is that every municipality the School Board and the county all sign onto one agreement. It has to be uniform. The deadline is March 1st Chairman Winton: That's a state imposed deadline. Ms. Ingle: Yes, it is. We've been working real closely with the School Board over the last four to five months on it. It's come along way since the original draft. The School Board has been real helpful in addressing any questions and concerns that we've had along the way, and we do have a representative here who'd be happy to address you, if you have any questions, also if you have any question for us. Chairman Winton: Comments or questions from the Commission? Then I need a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move Item 21. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion and a second on Item 21. Discussion? Being none. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Just for clarification, Ms. Ingle. Ms. Ingle: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: The interlocal agreement that currently in the packet before the Commission, is that the one that the School Board actually adopted? Ms. Ingle: It is. Mr. Maxwell: It reflects the changes that were made at that meeting? Ms. Ingle: Yes. It's up-to-date. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Chairman Winton: OK. Any other discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." 73 January 23, 2003 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Ms Ingle: Thank you. Chairman Winton: OK. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO IMPROVE COORDINATION BETWEEN LAND USE AND SCHOOL FACILITIES PLANNING. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado 20. ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED PARK PLACE AT BRICKELL. Commissioner Sanchez: Six. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele isn't here. Sure, we can do 6. Item Number 6. Commissioner Sanchez: Item Number 6 is a public hearing. Albert Dominguez (Acting Director, Public Works Department): Item Number 6 is a plat, Park Place. Hi. My name is Albert Dominguez with the Public Works division of the Municipal Services Department. It's Park Place at Brickell. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the plat and it has been determined that it's now in order for acceptance by the City Commission. Specific intent for this plat is to create two tracts on the land for the construction of one -- two residential towers, with a total of 773 units. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. 74 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: I mean, it's a public hearing, but there's no one here. Just for the record. Chairman Winton: Is this a public hearing? Michael Radell: Pardon me. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh, there is? Chairman Winton: So we have a motion and a -- Commissioner Sanchez: Are you in opposition? Mr. Radell: Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. There's opposition. Chairman Winton: It's a public hearing then. Comments from the public, and we're going to limit the comments from the public to two minutes each. So, Madam Clerk, would you please set the timer? Adrianne Pardo: My name is Adrianne Pardo. going to reserve whatever time I need for qualifications. I'll reserve my time. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm just rebuttal. It's standard. We've met all the Michael Radell: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Michael Radell. Law offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. We represent 1428 Brickell Corporation, Martin Taplin (phonetic), and City National Bank, with regard to a letter of objection that they have prepared with regard to this application for plat approval. We believe that this application clearly does not comply with mandatory requirements of your City ordinance, and it doesn't comply, in particular, in two respects. I'd like to show you -- Chairman Winton: Don't forget you have two minutes, so ... Mr. Radell: Section -- with all due respect, my presentation may take more than two minutes, but I'll do my best to keep it as short as possible. Chairman Winton: You have two minutes and it's being timed. In fact, set the -- reset the timer so that it would start now so that he has an absolute full two minutes. Please. 75 January 23, 2003 Mr. Radell: Section 15-15(4) of your ordinance provides with a subdivider request the vacation and closure of portion of an alley, he shall provide others property suitable access from the closed end of the alley to the nearest public street -- Chairman Winton: Sir? Mr. Radell: -- or streets. Chairman Winton: Could I interrupt you for a second? The City Attorney is advising me, since you're the -- since he's the what? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): The appellant. Chairman Winton: The appellant, that I should give you a little more time. So you could have that -- Mr. Radell: I will do my best to keep it as brief as possible. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Radell: We believe that this application for plat approval does not comply with this mandatory section of your ordinance in two important respects. First, the ordinance requires that the access from the closed end of the alley be to the nearest public street or streets. In this case, it does not go to the nearest street. In fact, it goes to the furthest street, which in this case, is Brickell Avenue, as opposed to South Miami Avenue. It's probably difficult to tell, though I think this application is part of your kit. The distance from the closed end of the alley, which is located here to Brickell, is in accordance with the plat submitted by the applicant, 181 feet. The distance from the closed end of the alley to South Miami Avenue is 150 feet. There is no provision in your ordinance for waiving that requirement. The applicant must comply by either providing access just to South Miami Avenue, or in the alternative to South Miami Avenue and Brickell in accordance with your -- with Section 55-15 of your Code. I'd also -- we are also very much objecting to the suitability of this access. Keep in mind that this alley is currently servicing the 1428 Brickell, including City National Bank, and in that regard, the alley is used by both employees and visitors to this property, so I would like to present, for a very brief presentation, Mr. Jim Gran of Civil Works, who is a professional transportation engineer who has prepared a report regarding the suitability of the access that's being provided by this plat in replacement for the alley, which this Commission has previously closed. Jim Gran: Thank you, Mike. My name is Jim Gran. I'm Vice President with Civil Works, and our main offices are at 10 Northwest 42nd Avenue, Suite 200, Miami, 33126. I'd also like to submit copies of our report right now. To make this brief, we were hired to look at the impacts of realigning the alleyway from the north/south alley that it is today to an L-shaped alley, turning and going out to Brickell Avenue. We did traffic counts in the area. We looked at the design of the plat as far as what was being platted as public right-of-way, or public easement use. We also compared that to the approved site plan for Park Place, and we found several engineering problems that created a significant hazard in operational problems within an alleyway. First off, 76 January 23, 2003 the alley has to be operated in basically a southbound to eastbound direction because of the fact that when we turn 90 degrees, even though the alley is platted very wide at the turn point, vehicles cannot operate in a two-way direction around that curve at the same time. Therefore, we're being forced to have to operate in a one-way direction. That limits almost half of the use of the alley from existing users today, to have to go back and put traffic back on Brickell Avenue when they wouldn't otherwise. The other problem is the fact that if we go ahead and look at the requirements of the one-way operation, that this impacts significantly the traffic leaving 1428 Brickell and arriving there also, plus, the drive-thru teller of the bank that's at that location. It also affects traffic leaving, picking up, or dropping off passengers at the Metro Rail station right there at the financial district. That's also an impact of existing traffic. We counted the alley and found that there's about 200 cars that use it everyday, and most of that is in the southbound direction, but there is a fair amount in the northbound also. The traffic study that was prepared for Park Place concluded that the loading docks will be serviced internal to the site. Well, in closer looking at the proposed plat, that's not the case, because four of the loading docks that are internal to the property of Park Place can only be accessed from the alley by backing up from the alley into the dock. That means, in essence, what you've got is large delivery trucks stopping in the alley and then having to turn and back into the loading dock, while we're mixing this with other vehicles, cars from the neighborhood from the surrounding area. That's asking for an accident, a serious accident, because of the number of vehicles using the alley. Two of the proposed loading docks, again, that face the alley are set perpendicular to the alley. They're set up to be a 35 -foot depth loading dock so that they'll handle a 50 -foot truck or a small semi. The problem is, they abut the existing 20 -foot wide alley. There's no way you can put the two vehicles side-by-side in that loading dock at the same time. Only one of them will be, in essence, usable at any one time. Again, that's reducing the efficiency and the good operation of the alley. The overall management of the loading docks located in towers two and three, they're internal to the building, but access from the public alleyway into their driveway and out again is insufficient to allow two trucks to pass at the same time. Again, you're going to be storing trucks and delaying other vehicles using this alley from being able to access it in a reasonable and safe manner. The alleyway right now, as proposed for platting for the four loading docks that, again, empty onto directly the alley, they provide no storage space for the trucks. They provide no parking area, no maneuvering area, other than the alley itself. Therefore, these driveways -- I'm sorry. These loading docks are not being serviced from internal of the site. They're using public property. And in the -- again, no stacking. Also, the problem is that the original design assumed a drop curb -type driveway connection to Brickell Avenue. That's not sufficient for proper operation of a truck. When you turn out of a driveway like that, the only way the truck will make it is by encroaching into the second lane of Brickell Avenue. So, you either have significant more delay to wait for a sufficient gap to have two lanes open, or you're going to be delaying traffic on Brickell by pulling -- an aggressive truck driver pulling out in front. That's an accident waiting to happen. The plat needs to be revised. A proper driveway needs to be included as part of a necessary platting for Brickell Avenue. And beyond everything else, it's an improper use of Brickell Avenue. Driveways and alleyways should be minimized as much as possible on Brickell. And when you have an option to have taken this to another direction, by all means, that alleyway should have gone away from Brickell, because it's not the proper use of Brickell. In closing, I'd like to say that based on this information, this is not a sufficient operational drive -- alleyway for the existing uses and should not be approved as a plat. Thank you. 77 January 23, 2003 Mr. Radell: Mr. Gran, would you please confirm that the alleyway -- the closed end of the alleyway is closer to South Miami Avenue than it is to Brickell Avenue? Chairman Winton: Would you speak into the microphone, please? Mr. Radell: Would you please confirm that the closed end of the alleyway, as required by Section 55-15(4), is closer to South Miami Avenue than it is to Brickell, which is where they are proposing access? Mr. Gran: That is correct. It's 150 feet nearest side of the alley to South Miami Avenue, and from the nearest side of the alley to Brickell, it's 181 feet, plus or minus. Mr. Radell: One minute to close. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Radell: You're welcome. I'd also like to make this board aware of two other items. The first is that when this applicant initially began to pursue this project, that there was a Letter of Understanding signed July 10, 2000, which provided, in part, that the closed end of the alley would -- that there would be an easement to be provided to South Miami Avenue from the alley. And I'd like to make that letter -- submit that letter as a part of the record. Ms. Pardo: Can I just make one objection for the record? We've been through this at the meeting -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Hold on. Hold on. Mr. City Attorney, is she allowed to make an obj ection for the record? Mr. Maxwell: Well, she would have an opportunity to rebut, and that would be the time to make your objection, Ms. Pardo. Ms. Pardo: But I just want to make an objection to what he's introducing into the record now. Chairman Winton: Well, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: So noted. Ms. Pardo: I just want to state I'm objecting because it was raised when this item was brought before this Commission for the alley closure at the City Commission meeting, which was held on March 7 of 2002. Mr. Radell: Right. I'd also like to make -- Mr. Maxwell: I don't see any reason why it can't come in. The objection is noted, but I think it can go into the record. 78 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Radell: I'd also like to present, for the record, an objection from Bill Shocket, at City National Bank, with regard to the adverse impacts that this would have with regard to their operation and understanding about how the alley was supposed to have been used. Commissioner Sanchez: But what adverse impact? Could you state those for the record? I mean, because you've made improper use of Brickell. I've yet to comprehend that. Chairman Winton: Joel, why don't we -- Mr. Radell: Our traffic engineer can describe again the improper use and replacement of the alley. You'll note that your code requires, under 55-15(4), that they provide suitable access. What Mr. Gran's presentation addressed and what Mr. Shocket's letter addresses is the suitability of the access that's being provided in replacement for the access that was lost as a part of the alley. Now, keep in mind that the issue with regard to the road closing has already been addressed by this Commission. Notwithstanding, this is part of your platting requirements. This is a requirement of the plat that you are considering today. So the two issues that we are presenting that are mandatory requirements for a plat are "A", that you shall provide a suitable replacement access for the alley. Mr. Gran's presentation addressed that issue. The second point is that your code requires absolutely that the replacement access be to the nearest street, and that replacement access that's being shown by this plat is not to the nearest street. Having said all of that, we are not opposed, in principle, to the Park Place application. We think that it is a good project, that it will be of benefit to the area. However, we strongly believe that the manner in which the replacement public easement that's being provided is inappropriate; that it is -- will very adversely affect the 1428 Brickell property, and that it does not comply with your code. We would urge you to either deny or defer this application so that the application can bring the application into compliance with the mandatory requirements of your code. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Public Works Director, would you comment, please? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, just before the Public Works Director comments, could I please -- Chairman Winton: Yes, you may. Mr. Maxwell: The document that was handed out a few minutes ago from Ms. -- it's a letter to Ms. Pardo from Mr. Ben Fernandez, the one that I said I thought would be OK to go into the record -- probably still may be introduced into the record -- but, for the record, I don't think it's relevant to your decision. It should not be considered for purposes of your decision. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 79 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: It is a -- it involves a private agreement between the parties. I don't think it's appropriate for the board. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Dominguez: Yes. Again, Albert Dominguez. Technical evaluations of the replacement alley have resulted in our understanding that the replacement alley does serve appropriately for access, and it's appropriate replacement access. Chairman Winton: Ms. Pardo, you have a couple of minutes to rebut. Ms. Pardo: Yes. I would just like to state that a lot of the questions that are raised today with regards to the alley closure, they were raised at the City Commission meeting before the alley closure, which was on March 7th. This applicant was -- I mean, not the applicant, but this property owner did attend the City Commission meeting when we had the alley closure. They spoke. They raised their objections. The item was approved. We had been working on this project for many years, as everybody knows. With regards to the proposed easement to Brickell, it is suitable access. This plat was reviewed by the Plat and Street Committee, and that included the Police Department, the Fire Department. The turning radius was looked at very closely when that was done. And with regards to the Major Use Special Permit and the loading docks, and the provision of how all the trucks and the cars are to back up, that was also looked at very closely when the Major Use Special Permit was filed. And we had several meetings before the Large Scale Committee, which is, again, made up of the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Solid Waste Department, the Public Works Department, Planning and Zoning. And, at the time, with regards to the alley, there was no appeal filed on the resolution, where the alley closure was approved. And when we had the Major Use Special Permit obtained, as well, there was no appeal filed that there were any objections to our loading docks at that time either. So, at this time, we would request that you approve this plat. And it's our belief that we do meet all the requirements of the City's code. Thank you. Chairman Winton: OK. Can we close the public hearing now, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: If there's no one else that wishes to speak on this item. Chairman Winton: OK. Anyone else, who has not already spoken, wish to speak on this item? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Sanchez: If there is no further discussion, after listening to the arguments and the statements made, and the recommendation by Public Works, I will move to accept the plat. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): We already have the motion and a second. 80 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK. We have a motion and a second already. Do we have any further discussion from the Commission on this item? Being none, we'll call the question. All in favor LL " aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. The motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-104 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED PARK PLACE AT BRICKELL, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE, AND FURTHER, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) AN EXECUTED INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY; (2) A BOND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY'S RISK MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF MIAMI CODE SECTION 54-4; AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID PLAT;AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Winton: Thank you. 81 January 23, 2003 21. ACCEPT $35,000 DONATION FROM DADE HERITAGE TRUST IN CONNECTION WITH OLD MIAMI HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. Chairman Winton: I think it's 12, or 5 after 12. Do y'all want to do some addition items, or do you want to break for lunch? If you could wait one minute, Becky Matkov from Dade Heritage Trust says she would like to present, one minute though so we can break, is Becky here? There she is. Becky Matkov: I talk fast. Thank you. I'm Becky Matkov Executive Director of Dade Heritage Trust and I am here to tell you that the 1905 Miami High Bungalow has been saved from demolition. This past Saturday and the -- (APPLAUSE) -- Thank you. This past Saturday in the freezing cold we took this bit of old Miami and successfully moved it to a new home in the City's outside park. Where it will be a city owned community center serving generations of new Miamians. Incidentally, I have photos I want to pass around and for you to keep of --- pictures we took and I just wanted to say it's been a great pleasure to work with the City on this very ambitious undertaking. Much has been accomplished in relocating this historic structure but much more fundraising and work is needed to make it ready for the public to use and enjoy. We hope that later on today actually under the emergency number that I've been waiting for that the Commission will allocate $100,000 for emergency restoration of the roof and porch of this City - owned landmark. That will restore the exterior so that people can appreciate the way it once looked because without the roof and porch it looks a little bare and that will help with fund raising. We see the old Miami High School project as a symbol of a new respect for Miami's heritage that is emerging in Miami City government and for that we thank the City staff especially the Manager and our parks Director Al Ruder and we thank the Mayor and each of you Commissioners. We love you all, you have been truly making a difference by recognizing that restoring old buildings for useful purpose saves the past, enriches the present and educates the future. Now, if you remember at the October Commission meeting Dade Heritage Trust presented the commission with a check for $41,504 which been raised by Miami High Alumnus for the project. Well, today I'm here to give you a little more. Dade Heritage Trust would like to present the City with another check. This one from Kevin Riley of KB Brickell Property Limited, the developer that donated the old Miami High bungalow to the City, this past Saturday presented Dade Heritage Trust with a check fro $35,000. We now, Dade Heritage Trust, would like to present a check for $35,000 to the City of Miami for the old Miami High Bungalow Project, so I appreciate all you've done and I will give -- Chairman Winton: Becky, I would like for you to put the developer's name on the record again because we want to draw special recognition to this developer for really doing the right thing, and there have been a number of developers that we've tried to convince to do some things and their bulldozers get out and tear the stuff up and this was a clear cut example where the developer came to the community, worked with Dade Heritage Trust, delayed his development which cost real money in addition to that and brought us money to the table to help save a really great treasure for our City so I'd like you to put his name on the record again so that we'll all hear. Ms. Matkov: That was Kevin Riley of KB Brickell Partners Limited. 82 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. Matkov: And we too appreciate his cooperation tremendously. Chairman Winton: Thank you Becky. We need a motion to accept the $35,000. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor, aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,000 FROM THE DADE HERITAGE TRUST IN CONNECTION WITH THE OLD MIAMI HIGH SCHOOL PROJECT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Chairman Winton: Thank you Becky. Ms. Matkov: Thank you. Chairman Winton: Would we like to adjourn, come back at 3 o'clock? Yes? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: OK. We're adjourned. No, we're recessed. 83 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion to recess. Chairman Winton: Yeah. Note for the Record: The City Commission recessed at 12:02 p.m. and reconvened at 2:57 p.m. 22. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY, WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND ACCEPT BID OF METRO EXPRESS, INC., FOR PROJECT ENTITLED "STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - DOWNTOWN, B-4662", TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $330,000. Chairman Winton: Six or 6:30? Let's rock and roll. Item number 7. Need a motion on 7. You know I haven't done this. I haven't done this. Meeting to order. Judge Judy. Commissioner Gonzalez: What is that, 7? Chairman Winton: Item 7. Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Need a four -fifth vote emergency ratifying, approving, confirming emergency City Manager finding. Got a motion and as second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries by the four -fifth vote necessary. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY, WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND ACCEPTING THE BID OF METRO EXPRESS, INC., (HISPANIC/MIAMI-DADE COUNTY VENDOR, 3594 S.W. 143RD CT., MIAMI, FLORIDA) FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - DOWNTOWN, B-4662", IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $295,000 FOR THE PROJECT COSTS PLUS $35,000 FOR ESTIMATED EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY, FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $330,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY 84 January 23, 2003 MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 341140. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 23. CONTINUE TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003, PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING REDEVELOPMENT OF 2.95 -ACRE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS CIVIC CENTER SITE. Chairman Winton: Item 8, this is Civic Center site. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move item 8. Lori Billberry: Excuse me Lori Billberry, Economic Development. At this time we are asking this just be a discussion item. We are still finalizing some of the business terms with the developer and we'll have that ready for the February 13th meeting. However, as part of the Betty Grant application there is a section 108 loan requirement. By having this pubic hearing today it allows us to open up the period for public comments. Which comments will be due by February 10th Chairman Winton: So, you would like me to open up the pubic hearing portion of this? Ms. Billberry: Yes. Chairman Winton: So, Commissioner Sanchez: Just for discussion purposes? Ms. Billberry: Exactly. Commissioner Sanchez: No action taken? Ms. Billberry: Correct. 85 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Chairman Winton: OK, we have on item number 8 this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to comment on Item number 8? Tucker, you want to comment? OK, apparently there's no one interested from the public in commenting on item number 8 so we'll close the public hearing. Do we need any further discussion on this item, Ms. Billberry? Ms. Billberry: Alex was just suggesting and I think it was a good suggestion that we go ahead and formally continue it as a pubic hearing though for the February 13th agenda. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -107 A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 2.95 -ACRE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE CIVIC CENTER SITE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele wants to be here for 9 and -- Commissioner Sanchez: 9, 10 and 10A. Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): The administration is pulling Items 10 and 10A. 86 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK, so 10 and l0A are pulled. Commissioner Regalado: You have a crystal ball or something? Mr. Gimenez: Excuse me? Commissioner Regalado: Do you have a crystal ball? Commissioner Sanchez: Don't ask him that. Mr. Gimenez: No. The circumstances, here we had some things happen here this morning and these individuals are no longer wish to be considered for this. So, we're pulling the item. Chairman Winton: Item number 9 we're going to wait for Commissioner Teele, so I guess that takes us to 11. What is 11? I think Teele. What is this appropriation? Commissioner Regalado: He would like -- Chairman Winton: We need everyone here for 11 also. 13. Commissioner Sanchez: 11. What about 11? Chairman Winton: We're going to wait for Commissioner Teele to get here because I think everyone ought to be here for -- Commissioner Regalado: 12. Chairman Winton: Oh, 12, yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Commissioner Sanchez: I believe Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, didn't you ask to defer this, 12? Chairman Winton: No. Commissioner Sanchez: No? Chairman Winton: No, I deferred, is this? Oh no, yes I did. I deferred this at the beginning. Yes. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: So, that's deferred? 87 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes, 12 is deferred. Commissioner Gonzalez: So, we go to 13 right? Chairman Winton: And I want to, yes, 13. This is also an appropriations ordinance. You know, it seems to me that we ought to have everybody here for the appropriations. Commissioner Sanchez: I agree. Chairman Winton: Don't you agree? 24. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 2-1144.4 OF CITY CODE ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATIONBOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/PARKS ADVISORY BOARD," TO PROVIDE FOR: INCREASE IN NUMBERS OF MEMBERS APPOINTED BY COMMISSION FROM (5) TO (10); ELIMINATE DISTRICT ELECTIONS; AND TRANSFER POWER OF APPOINTMENT OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE AND BOARD HISTORIAN FROM COMMISSION TO PARKS ADVISORY BOARD. Chairman Winton: And so, OK, so 15 we'll go to 15. Commissioner Sanchez: So move number 15 second reading. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: This is a second reading ordinance so we have a motion and a second. City Attorney. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Pubic hearing. Chairman Winton: Oh, pubic hearing. Anyone from the public like to comment on item number 15? It's a pubic hearing. Apparently not, so we'll close the public hearing. City Attorney could you read the ordinance please? Roll call, please. 88 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 11 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATIONBOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/PARKS ADVISORY BOARD," TO PROVIDE FOR: AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM (5) TO (10); ELIMINATING DISTRICT ELECTIONS; AND TRANSFERRING THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE AND BOARD HISTORIAN FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2-1144.4 OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 9, 2003, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12312. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. 25. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "FEMA/ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT AWARD (FY 2002)" FOR FIRE OPERATIONS AND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR OPERATION, $362,000, CONSISTING OF $253,400 GRANT FROM FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) AND MATCHING FUNDS, $108,600, FROM CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Chairman Winton: Item 16. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. 89 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on a second reading ordinance on a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) grant. This is a pubic hearing. Anyone from the public like to comment on item number 16? Apparently not, we'll close the public hearing Mr. City Attorney, could you read the ordinance, please? Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "FEMA/ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT AWARD (FY 2002)" FOR FIRE OPERATIONS AND FIREFIGHTER SAFETY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $362,000, CONSISTING OF A GRANT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $253,400, FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) AND MATCHING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,600, FROM CITY OF MIAMI CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 313304, ACCOUNT NO. 289401.6.840, FUNDED BY THE FIRE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD STARTING NOVEMBER 15, 2002; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS ACCEPTING THE GRANT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 90 January 23, 2003 The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of January 9, 2003, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12314. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. 26. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 11.5-28 OF CITY CODE ENTITLED "CIVILIAN COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW" TO PROVIDE EXCEPTION TO RESIDENCY, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND WORKING OR MAINTAINING BUSINESS IN CITY REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO APPOINTMENT MADE BY CHIEF OF POLICE TO CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL. Chairman Winton: Item 17, second -- Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Second reading ordinance. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second on 17. Chairman Winton: OK. We've got a motion and a second. This is a second reading ordinance. Public hearing? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. Chairman Winton: So this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to comment on Item Number 17? Apparently, no one wishes to. We'll close the public hearing. Could you read the ordinance, please? Roll call, please. 91 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 11.5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "CIVILIAN COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW" TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO RESIDENCY, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND WORKING OR MAINTAINING A BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO THE APPOINTMENT MADE BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 11.5-28 OF THE CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. was passed on its first reading, by title at the meeting of January 9, 2003, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12315 The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading unanimously, 5/0. 27. RATIFY, APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S FINDING OF EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT WITH METRO EXPRESS, INC., TO COVER COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE CURB REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2001, B-4646," $230,000, INCREASING TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $77,750 TO $307,750; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Chairman Winton: 19. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move Item 19. 92 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: We got a motion. Need a second on emergency. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Winton: OK. Which is citywide curb replacement project this is spending real money making neighborhoods better. So, we got a motion and a second. This is a resolution. Commissioner Sanchez: Ratifying. Chairman Winton: Four -fifth vote so. Got a motion and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF AN EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT AMOUNT WITH METRO EXPRESS, INC., TO COVER COSTS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE CURB REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2001, B-4646," IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $230,000, INCREASING THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT FROM $77,750 TO $307,750; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 FROM PROJECT NO. 341170, $70,000 FROM PROJECT NO. 341182 AND $100,000 FROM PROJECT NO. 341183. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: 20 was withdrawn. Didn't we do 21? 93 January 23, 2003 Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez: We did 21 already. Chairman Winton: Yeah. So, 22. 22 resolution. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 22. Mr. Gimenez: That was pulled by the administration. Chairman Winton: Oh, it was pulled. I'm sorry. 28. DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 FOR MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY (MSEA). Commissioner Regalado: 23 we cannot do it. Because the MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) board is meeting on the 28tH Chairman Winton: To finally ratify their budget? Commissioner Sanchez: Move to defer 23. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-109 A MOTION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 FOR MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY (MSEA). Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado 94 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Gonzalez: 24, we did this morning right? Commissioner Sanchez: 24 has already been -- Chairman Winton: 25. Commissioner Sanchez: 24 has already been done, Mr. Chairman. 29. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO WAIVE $31,000 OF OFF-DUTY POLICE SURCHARGE FEES (ADMINISTRATIVE FEES) TO SIMPSONBRUCKHEIMER PRODUCTION FOR FILMING OF "BAD BOYS 11". Chairman Winton: Right, so, 25. Fee waiver, Bad Boys II. Is there, Mr. Parente, are you here to talk on this issue? Robert Parente: Yes sir, if so requested. Chairman Winton: The floor is yours. Mr. Parente: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The City of Miami Police Department charges a surcharge on overtime duty hours for all overtime in the City. Our colleagues in regards to filming at the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County have extended to Bad Boys II a waiver of those surcharges and we were approached by Simpson Brokheimer Production Company asking if the City would also do the same for them in regards to their overtime police hours on the filming that they did in Miami. I believe the memo that you have in front of you shows that will be a $29,000 surcharge rebate. They have not paid that yet so we're not going to be cutting a check back to them. It just hasn't been billed and what we will be doing is sort of sending a message to them that we want to be as film friendly as our other municipalities here in the region and extend them the rebate on those hours. Commissioner Sanchez: What is that surcharge per hour? Mr. Parente: I believe Commissioner, it's $3.00 per hour of off-duty hours charge. They --- I believe the number they spent in the City of Miami alone was approximately $325,000 in overtime to police officers. Chairman Winton: Well, I can't imagine what they spent just in services from local vendors. I mean ... 95 January 23, 2003 Mr. Parente: Commissioner we're just so you know, we're going to be supplying you about the breakdown in detail everything from lumber -- you're exactly right. It's in the millions. Chairman Winton: It's incredible the amount of money they spent local from everybody from the taxi driver on up. I mean, it's lots of people get touched. Mr. Parente: That's correct, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Are we prepared just to do it for Bad Boys or any production company that wants to come down here and film in the City of Miami? Mr. Parente: In the future I would negotiate one on one with the producers depending on the number of hours they're going to spend. I'm not prepared to say that we should do that for all films. Again, Miami Beach does not do it for everything, it depends on how big the production is. Commissioner Sanchez: Right that's what I'm getting at. Are we going to have guidelines or category as to how big the production is. I mean, I don't mind giving you know, waiving the fees for a company that's going to come down here and as we stated it's going to spend millions of dollars, put millions of dollars in our economy, but having someone who is going to come down here and maybe film a small production. Mr. Parente: Commissioner, I'm working on that. My office is relatively new. We're going to be creating a whole new set of guidelines for everything from road closures, procedures of how we're going to rebate those surcharges. I also right now the way it's billed, the surcharge shows as a separate line item. It's not wrapped into just one charge, so it kind of stands out as you know an extra tax sort of speak. When we charge it I want it to be part of the overall charge and not be a separate line item, but that said, we are going to work out a policy issue so that it's not rebated on every production that comes into town. Commissioner Sanchez: What's the administration's recommendation? Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Recommend approval of this particular waiver. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: So move. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Further discussion? Commissioner Regalado: Yes I, Mr. Chairman, Robert, when is the premier of that, June? Mr. Parente: Yeah. I believe the filmmakers have indicated that they want to open the first weekend of June. 96 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: OK. Have you made arrangement for special previews in the City of Miami, for the City of Miami? Are they going to do something special? Mr. Parente: Commissioner, actually without letting too many details out of the bag, we're very hard working behind the scenes to get the world premier here. Short of that, and that's a difficult thing because a lot of it is predicated on where Mr. Smith might be or Mr. Lawrence might be and physically they may just might not physically be able to come to Miami for a world premier but certainly we're already in discussions with them about doing a Miami premier in the City to which City officials and stuff will be invited. We also want to work in a component of film students and different youth in our City that otherwise might not be able to afford to see the movie, doing a special showing for them. Commissioner Regalado: I was going to say that, that we need to, first of all I think it's important that we get some courtesy tickets for the police officers that worked many hours in the movie, and second, for some children a special showing for children of the different parts because it showcases Miami so, it's worth it. Mr. Parente: Absolutely. Commissioner, we'll have to be careful about children agewise because I'm not sure where the movies going to come out in terms of its ratings. We will do it if it's appropriate. Commissioner Sanchez: I can assure you that Bad Boys II is not PG (parental guidance). Mr. Parente: Commissioner, by the way, Fast and Furious 2 will be opening the first week of June and I understand that Bad Boys II is going for July 4th weekend, somewhere in that timeframe. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Winton: OK, any further discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. 97 January 23, 2003 The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WAIVE $31,000 OF OFF-DUTY POLICE SURCHARGE FEES (ADMINISTRATIVE FEES) TO SIMPSONBRUCKHEIMER PRODUCTION FOR THE FILMING OF "BAD BOYS IP'. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Parente: Thank you, gentlemen. Chairman Winton: Why don't we go back to item number 11? Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: May I make one observation? Chairman Winton: Yes, you may. Vice Chairman Teele: What's his name? Mr. Parente. Mr. Parente, I want to be on the record with you and your committee that I don't know of anything that we can do more to promote jobs and the economy than the film, and I realize that they're some real inconveniences, but I'm very mindful of the number of hotel room nights. I really think it's important for you to begin to develop a process, maybe with our Economic Development Office, our Community Development Office, so that it's not just a question of how many days they are shooting but we really need to get a much better yardstick on the economic impact. One of the things that I want to encourage you to do, and Commissioner Winton, I don't want to pass legislation, but I really think this affects you more than anyone or your district. We should positively provide incentives in terms of waivers and all that for these film and motion picture personalities and crew that live in the City of Miami, that bed down in the City of Miami because a lot of them want to be in 98 January 23, 2003 Hollywood and some of them want to be in Miami Beach and some of them want to be at the Diplomat and all that. We ought to work to try to not punish anybody but we ought to provide a carrot for people to do that and I think it's very important that we take a very comprehensive look at how we can leverage those dollars, because as you know when there's a filming going on money is not the most important issue, it's time that's the most important issue so, please be encouraged. Mr. Parente: Absolutely, sir, and by the way, I'd like to let you know, Commissioner, we're working right now with director John Singleton on a program that's going to come back into your district and the other districts -- Vice Chairman Teele: Really? Mr. Parente: -- for youth. Yes sir. I can't unwrap them, unveil everything, but we're in the process. Vice Chairman Teele: Please keep me advised. John Singleton, what are his famous movies we just got some folks in here? He did -- Mr. Parente: Well, he did Boys in the Hood. Chairman Winton: Yeah. Mr. Parente: He did Edge -- Vice Chairman Teele: He did that historic movie too -- Mr. Parente: That's correct. Vice Chairman Teele: -- about the black -- Mr. Parente: Rosewood. Chairman Winton: Rosewood. He did Rosewood. Mr. Parente: Excellent. He's a terrific -- Chairman Winton: And he's a really nice guy, just a regular normal guy. Mr. Parente: And we asked if he would do something and he absolutely responded positively, and we're working on that right now, but I got these notes and I'll work on that. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you. 99 January 23, 2003 30. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 12280, CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO REVISE CERTAIN ONGOING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Chairman Winton: OK, Item number 11. Capital projects amendment ordinance. Got staff ready to make a brief comment. Janet Palecino (Director, Capital Improvement Projects): Janet Palecino, Director of Capital Improvements. This is simply a clean up item of some of the capital projects allocations and appropriation for specifically for Miami High School Bungalow, we needed and extra $100,000 that appropriates that, $123,000 for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and some clean up of efficiency improvement studies, it's simply a clean up item. Chairman Winton: Need a motion. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none, all in favor, aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's an emergency ordinance -- Chairman Winton: Oh, sorry about that, oops. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12280, AS AMENDED, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO REVISE CERTAIN ONGOING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. It was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. 100 January 23, 2003 Chairman Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None ABSENT: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Chairman Johnny L. Winton NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12316. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Emergency ordinance is adopted, 5/0. 31. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 12128, ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, FOR PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING SAID APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS. Chairman Winton: OK, Number 13. Is this a public hearing, 13? Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's an ordinance. Chairman Winton: Yeah it's an emergency ordinance, but is it a public hearing? Mr. Vilarello: No. Chairman Winton: No, OK. OK, 13. Vice Chairman Teele: What, did you do 12? Chairman Winton: We deferred 12 at the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move 13. Chairman Winton: We have a motion. 101 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Second. Chairman Winton: And a second. Discussion? Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that this be temporarily passed for just a minute. Let me try to meet with the budget officer I want to just ask a couple of questions if I could. Could we go on to the next one? Chairman Winton: You mean on 13? Vice Chairman Teele: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: Well, actually I had a couple of questions myself so -- Vice Chairman Teele: All right well we -- Chairman Winton: --do you want to just deal with questions? Vice Chairman Teele: Who's the (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Winton: Mr. Manager -- I guess I'm -- would you explain the second part of this the two new fire rescue units and increased compensation cost for negotiated union contractual agreements? How did we not know -- what part of this --I guess I don't understand exactly why this wouldn't have been budgeted for ahead of time. Marcelo Penha (Acting Director, Budget Department): Marcelo Penha, Budget Department. One of the items is the earned time payoff that is a compensation which the fire-fighters accrue during the year and at the end of the year they have the option to get it paid out, so as the amount accrues when it comes to your end we aren't sure specifically who wants to get paid out and they also have the option to carry some of that time over. We don't know the amount that they will either pay out or carry over and our estimate was based on historical basis, which was under the amount actually happened at year-end. Chairman Winton: Well how much of the 1.9 was due to that issue? Mr. Penha: I believe we came out to 900,000. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): 823. Mr. Penha: 823 to be more exact. Chairman Winton: So, and so this year we were in essence $823,000 over what our historical expenditures have been. Mr. Penha: Correct. 102 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: And does that mean it is going to continue in that -- on that plane or is there a likelihood of some change? Mr. Penha: For this fiscal year we did increase the budget and we are working with the Fire Department at this time to see if we can get a better grasp before year end to see where we will be this year. Chairman Winton: OK, good. All right. And how about on the two new fire rescue units? Mr. Gimenez: If I'm correct those new rescue units were actually put in midyear. I think they came in February or so and so that's why they weren't budgeted for in the beginning of the year. Chairman Winton: OK, is that — that's the answer. Mr. Gimenez: Yeah, that is the answer, right? Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Gimenez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: This is the close out ordinance, is that correct? Mr. Penha: That's correct, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Teele: Does this include all of the — does this include the DDA (Downtown Development Authority, the Bayfront Trust, CRA (Community Redevelopment Authority) as it relates to our budget? Mr. Penha: No, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Teele: So, there are no line items in here that reflect their budget? Mr. Penha: No, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Teele: Because one of the concerns that we've had in the past is, the City closes out budgets and then you got an organization whether it be the CRA or the DDA and their audit has not been completed and then you wind out with some reconciliation and then you literally have a hard time doing because you've done the close up ordinance, so I just want to make sure that we're being very transparent here and MSEA (Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority) is not involved in this at all either, huh? Mr. Penha: No. No, Commissioner. 103 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: So, none of the MSEA dollars are involved? Mr. Penha: The only dollars that are involved the contributions that the City makes to these organizations but their individual budget actually come before the Commission as they separate item. Vice Chairman Teele: Have the disbursements been made that were directed by the Commission related to their budgets for the previous year in the closeout? In other words, I did an omnibus resolution that said that any funds that are left over should go to the X, Y, Z entity. Have all of those disbursements been made? Mr. Penha: That's actually in item 14 as where we are appropriating the roll over funds of the elected officials. Vice Chairman Teele: What do you mean the appropriated -- OK. All right. I don't have any questions. Is Mr. — the Assistant Manager for finance is Mr. Nachlinger around? Mr. Gimenez: No he's — right now he's attending at my direction a meeting of the fire and police pension board. They are discussing the new numbers for next year and it's vitally important that he be there. Vice Chairman Teele: I'd say so. Thank you, thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Any other questions Commissioner Teele? Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: OK, any other comments on item number 13? Being none all in favor, aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Oh, it's an ordinance sorry, sorry, sorry. Roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 104 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12128, AS AMENDED, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING SAID APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. It was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12317. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance was adopted emergency measure, 5/0. 105 January 23, 2003 32. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 12279, ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE TO INCREASE CERTAIN OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003. Chairman Winton: Item number 14. This is the appropriations ordinance. So, we need a motion and a second to start the discussion. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion. Marcelo Penha (Acting Director, Department of Budget and Management Analysis): Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, there was a hand out passed this morning. There are two floor amendments to this ordinance. One includes the -- something you heard on this morning, the actual appropriation of the $2,000,000 for the poverty initiative, and the other includes an allocation of five hundred thousand for the Civic Center project funding. Chairman Winton: And so you're placing those two items in this document? Mr. Penha: Correct. And you should have received -- Chairman Winton: OK. From before. Mr. Penha: -- a copy with already that amended this morning. Vice Chairman Teele: But you're not placing the items. You're placing the dollars. Mr. Penha: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: The full amount of the dollars is now available, not the programs. The programs work off of -- and, Commissioner, the board -- the Commission today deferred action on one of the programs. This does not affect that. I just want to make very clear on that. Chairman Winton: Now, could -- Scott, could you run me through, real quickly -- I mean, Marcelo. I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry -- the -- just kind of highlight real quickly the significant changes we're making here, so I understand it. Mr. Penha: OK. When we go through here, what we're doing is -- the significant ones is obviously the $2,000,000 what we're setting the funds for the poverty initiative. Another one has to do with setting funds for the Department of Municipal Services for an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Storm Water Program, which I believe you all were briefed on by the Department. 106 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Well, if we were, I've forgotten, because I wrote that down as a question specifically. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): NPDES. We received a notice from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that we were in violation of certain things that were due to our Storm water Run-off, I guess, Management Program. And we met with the State a couple of months ago, with the City Attorney, and we came up to a resolution of these issues. This money -- these appropriations are needed in order for us to comply with those requirements. Chairman Winton: And what is NPDES? Albert Dominguez: Albert Dominguez, Assistant Director of Public Works, Department Of Municipal Services. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Chairman Winton: I beg your pardon. Mr. Dominguez: It's the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. It's the permit process that allows the City to collect this storm water utility. The federal government allows the City to collect those funds in order to manage their -- and collect the storm water. Chairman Winton: And we have such a tax currently, is that not correct? Mr. Dominguez: It's $10 per household. Yeah, every three months. We collect it with the water bill. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Dominguez: It brings in about nine million. Chairman Winton: And we're supposed to be using that money specifically to manage for this purpose. And so we've been found in noncompliance and it's going to cost us another, roughly, $1,000,000 -- million, one a year to fix the problem? Mr. Gimenez: Well, yes, in order for us to come into compliance, in order for us to continue to collect the storm water fee. Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Did you have other points you were going to hit here, the major -- Mr. Penha: I'll just be brief. The other ones has to do with the rollovers that were part of the financial principals, where we're rolling over the surpluses from the elected officials, from the Parks Department, Information Technology Department, Public Facilities Department, and I believe that's your major items. 107 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: I have a couple of questions. One is in reference to the Civic Center project. Is this the project on 14th Avenue and 16th Street? Mr. Penha: I'd have to ask the -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Fourteen hundred -- Mr. Gimenez: Is that the five hundred thousand that we needed in order to mitigate and to fix the problem with the playgrounds, et cetera? OK. Yes, it's concerning that particular project, in terms of there's pollutants that we've been found to have contained a certain site that we own or, at least, that we may have contributed to the pollution with dioxins, et cetera, and this money is needed in order for us to clean up that site. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. But right now I'm really confused, because I thought that we had applied to a Betty grant to clean up this land, and there was an award of a $1,000,000 for the clean up of the land. Mr. Gimenez: This is in addition to that. Commissioner Gonzalez: On top of that, we have to pay five hundred thousand. Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chair. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is related to mitigations for an adjacent parcel. Unidentified Speaker: Right. Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, to an adjacent parcel. So, it's not actually the track where the project is going to go on? Mr. Gimenez: Right. And that's why I said it's either at or something that we contributed to the pollution of an adjacent parcel. Commissioner Gonzalez: All right. OK. Now, my other question is in reference to the canal and waterfront cleaning. In my district I have a series of canals that we have requested to be cleaned up and supposedly they have been cleaned. Supposedly. But I drive through my district, through the areas where the canal go across the district, and I see the canal clean up today and two days later or a week later, it's all full of boxes and everything that you can imagine, tires and the whole nine yards. In addition to that, the neighbors are complaining that the canals are not being cleaned up properly. What I would like to know is, how much is it costing us to clean up these canals? Because something that I have discussed -- and I don't know, Mr. Manager, if I ever discuss it with you. I don't know if it is better for us to have our own equipment and have people -- employees from the City permanently assigned to clean up the canals in the entire City 108 January 23, 2003 of Miami. I'm sure that we're going to have better service and maybe we even -- we will even attain some savings. Because I don't know how much we're paying this company, but whatever they're doing, let me tell you, you know, they're not doing the greatest job that we expect to be done. And it is a constant battle. I mean, it's a constant battle with the canals. The Blue Lagoon is a mess. It's been a mess for the last -- ever since they started building the Maceo Park. I've been going daily and that is -- it's actually a mess in front of all of those condominiums, and it hasn't been cleaned up I don't know how long. Probably a year. That's something that I would like to know. When was the last time -- not now, but if you could please let my office know when was the last time that we cleaned the lake? Chairman Winton: And could you -- I would like you to take an extra step and find out what the schedule has been for cleaning his canals, who the company is that does it, to kind of -- Commissioner Gonzalez: It's a mess all over the place. Chairman Winton: Yeah. But at least for the moment, I think we do want to answer the direct question about the canals in his district. And I think you ought to schedule a meeting and meet with whomever you want on his staff and get that information to him, just as soon as we can. That would give him additional information that he may use to bring back as a discussion item for a future Commission meeting. OK. Mr. Gimenez: We can also determine what it would take for us to, you know, do that job ourselves. It's not just -- you're right, it's not just canals. It's the river. It's canals. It's also the bayfront. Commissioner Gonzalez: The bayfront. And the lake. Mr. Gimenez: So, I mean -- Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gimenez: -- there's plenty of work there to get done year-round. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: May I make an observation? Chairman Winton: Please. Commissioner Sanchez: Did the City staff meet with DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) staff to iron out everything? Because I know we received warning letters that we weren't in compliance. Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. Albert -- 109 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Should this -- Albert, should this take care of everything? I mean, should we be in compliance after complying with this? Mr. Dominguez: Yes. The package that you received is actually a compliance strategy that we offered DEP. We did meet with DEP about two months ago up in Tallahassee. We explained -- they were able to go ahead and explain to us exactly what their concerns were. We came back and we developed this specifically and strategically for the concerns that they had, you know, step-by-step, item -by -item. They're completely -- Commissioner Sanchez: And they're in agreement? Mr. Dominguez: Yes. They are -- they tentatively have received it. They've approved it. They're -- right now it's actually a wait and see. They want to make sure that we do actually do this, so they can evaluate it because, you know -- OK. So, they've already accepted this. They believe that this will take care of the problem, but they need to see it implemented, not just proposed, first of all. I am prepared to give a lot of the answers that Commissioner Gonzalez requested. I've been pretty closely -- Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Mr. Dominguez: I can do it -- no problem. Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Thank you. Mr. Dominguez: OK. Chairman Winton: OK. Is that an ordinance? Mr. Vilarello: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: OK. So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on that? If not, please read the ordinance. Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The emergency ordinance has been adopted five/zero. 110 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12279, AS AMENDED, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE, TO INCREASE CERTAIN OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN THE TABLE OF ORGANIZATION AND THE ADDITION OF CERTAIN SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, for adoption as an emergency measure, and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, was agreed to by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None ABSENT: None. Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, adopted said ordinance by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12318 The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: The emergency ordinance has been adopted, 5/0. 111 January 23, 2003 33. DECLARE EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH "F" RATED SCHOOLS WITHIN DISTRICT 5; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH DESIGNATED AGENCIES TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE TUTORING SERVICES TO STUDENTS FROM SAID SCHOOLS USING FUNDS FROM ANY SOURCE TO BE REIMBURSED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, I don't recall -- that's takes care of our regular agenda. So, I don't recall whether or not we did your blue sheet items. Vice Chairman Teele: No, you didn't Mr. Chairman, but we do have one time certain item number 9. Chairman Winton: Oh we do? Vice Chairman Teele: 3:30, which is now. Chairman Winton: 9, number 9. Vice Chairman Teele: Do we have that transcript please? Unidentified Speaker: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: How many? Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: I want to thank you and the Commission for agreeing to take up this item relating to the Community Development funds that were set aside back in July for a contingency that we anticipated but in no way could have prepared for. I've asked the Clerk to provide a copy of the transcript and this is the dialogue that went on in July in which I set aside approximately $200,000 of public service funds for District 5 to address the problem of education of the F schools. At that time you'll recall the discussion was that while we always talk about doing things citywide the truth of the matter is we have districts for a reason. The problems in one district are not necessarily transferable fortunately to the next and the good things in some districts are perhaps not in others. The tragedy and the crisis that we're dealing with are F schools, and I indicated over in July, over the objections of a lot of my constituents who -- because we have need for money -- that I had to ensure that the students that live in the district are being adequately served by what I perceive to be the number one problem for our youth other than the prime problem and that is the kids that are in school and don't -- and are having difficulty. First and foremost let me say this, I've spoken to former school board member and currently state Senator Dr. Fredricka Wilson who is keenly aware of the problem and shares my concern. I've also spoken to school board member Dr. Solomon Stenson several times as late as Monday on Martin Luther King holiday and he shares the concern and supports the initiative. The sad truth is that District 5 -- if the City of Miami is the poor City in America and statistically it is, District 5 is the poorest District, but it's not just the function of poverty, it's also a function 112 January 23, 2003 of new immigrants that have come to this county that are being challenged to understand English as if they've lived in this county for 18 years. Throughout the state of Florida there are only two double F High Schools in the entire state. One of the double F High Schools is in Belle Glade. The other is in District 5 Edison. I think it's almost unfair to go any further without saying Edison is fortunate to have a very committed faculty. The principal of Edison is extremely well known. He's been recognized throughout the state of Florida as one of the young up and coming managers, principals and he's here in the audience today Santiago Corrada, and Santiago, if you would maybe take this podium and we'll allow you to introduce yourself as the principal of Edison. I think we could also note that Edison has had it's share of heartbreaks on the football field and even in the court, but again it's a function that we have a school that is very vibrant where the faculty, the coaches, the staff are committed to the kids and the kids are committed to the school and I should hasten to say that we have possibly one of the most beautiful, historic preservations in the entire City at Edison Middle which is a feeder school, so everything seems to be working right. The problem is the two double F schools in this state have one common socio -demographic phenomenon and that is they are schools that have a very large student population of new immigrants. Now, just to put the problem on the table the last FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test) test will be given on March some six to seven weeks away. Approximately 60% of the seniors are at risk of not passing the test, and even worse, looking at next year we're looking at a population of 90% being at risk, so let me get out of this field of education and yield if I can to the principal who is here and maybe you can just give us a little bit more background. The bottom line is I am proposing today pursuant to the notice to move the funds that have been set aside for at -risk --for F schools and that was the basis to place this money in not -for -profits that have been working with the principal and they have designed a plan that is very similar to the approved U.S. Department of Labor plan for job experience based upon education participation in FCAT training by both the school and two or three non -based, community based organizations. Santiago, you might want to just fill in all of the important points that I missed and I should acknowledge that several of the students are also here with us watching these deliberations. Chairman Winton: And we need to get your name and address for the record please. Santiago Corrada: Yes, Santiago Corrada and the address of the school 6161 Northwest 5th Court Miami, Florida 33127. Home address 14816 Southwest 174th Street, Miami, Florida 33187. Good afternoon honorable Commissioners, Mr. City Manager, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for providing us this opportunity and for extending your assistance in our plight. Commissioner Teele really knows his High Schools and when he speaks of Edison he really has a thorough knowledge of some of the obstacles we face. The major obstacles that has been mentioned has is the limited English proficiency of our students and we make no excuses. We take all the students with open arms including those who has left us on vouchers that are returning to us when they've encountered problem with the opportunity scholarships as you well may know when a school is designated a double F in a four year cycle those students are allowed to transfer on vouchers to either private schools for charter schools that have been accepted by the state to receive those vouchers. We are committed to increasing the speed by which our students learn the English language. After just two years of English instruction our students much take the FCAT and pass in order to graduate and there we have the conflict where we have 241 seniors this year out of the 411 that have not yet passed either one or two sections of the 113 January 23, 2003 FCAT and are in danger of not graduation in June, so we're looking at a large number of our students that will be denied a high school diploma and an opportunity to pursue the American dream. We have done everything humanly possible at the school to increase their chances of graduation and passing the test. The one obstacle that we face when we provide tutorial opportunities either after hours or on Saturday, which we currently do, many of our students are really grown ups supporting their families through jobs, so one of the things we were looking to do was to provide financial support for those students to attend tutoring after school and on Saturdays and hit the proverbial two birds with one stone. Prepare for the FCAT, pass the FCAT and at the same time earn a livelihood and I want to make this very clear that this is in no form a way of bribery. We are talking about necessity. My students are not there to earn a minimum wage in order to buy the most expensive sneakers on the market or to go to the movies. They are there to buy food for either their children or to help support their family members, their parents who have not been able to have legal employment in the City, so we're looking at a student body that really is facing two issues here. One, passing the FCAT and graduation and two, supporting their families, so to that end we are very thankful to the City of Miami to Commissioner Teele that would assist us in providing that financial support, not a financial luxury, but a financial support for those students to some day be able to provide for themselves with a high school diploma, move onto college and do some great things. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Chairman Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: I'd like to again put on the record that while the staff has been very, very slow. We had a specific direction to meet with the school board and to meet with the various schools without getting into a lot of "he said, she said." I've been very, very pleased with the response over the last two weeks of the staff. They've met directly with the principal. They've met with community-based organizations. They've culled this down to two organizations that can provide the support and the challenge that I think we have right now is the timing of all of this. The notice appeared today in the Miami Herald and let me compliment you again, Mr. Manager. This is the first notice that has been in the format that has is prescribed by the law, and that is, it says where the money is coming from. I want to just mention one casualty perhaps because it was a part of the Mayor's initiative when I made reference to the poverty issue. There is one organization that we have funded that is being defunded as a result of this and this is the Haitian American Community Association of Dade County known as HACAD, and HACAD (phonetic) cannot meet the technical requirements of the staff and we've gone over that. The staff is not being unfair. There is an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) problem and I think I'd like to take that up at a later date and a later time of the year, so the funds for HACAD as well as the reserves are being transferred into these programs. The challenge, Mr. Manager, given the fact that every hour, everyday is a day that we don't have between now and March -- Mr. Corrada: The first week of March. Vice Chairman Teele: The first week of March. The program has been designed with the principals and his staff direction and leadership. It will be a two part program. Some of the students will stay in the school after school and will receive instruction there and about a half 114 January 23, 2003 will go to two other locations. The work experience -- we want to make sure that this is on the record, Mr. Manager -- includes working with the Little Haiti NET Office in getting literature and information out about our codes, helping us translating information regarding solid waste and other things and we've developed (UNINTELLIGIBLE) program there. Mr. Manager what I would like to do with the Attorney's permission is move that an emergency be declared and to authorize you to enter into a contract using funds from whatever source to be reimbursed by the Community Development. This is public service so it's an eligible activity. Is that correct, Ms. Rodriguez? Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez (Director, Community Development Department): Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And so that we don't lose anytime hopefully we can be up and running by Monday of this week, this coming Monday. I've been advised, I've spoken to the regional HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) people. They have indicated that this is an eligible activity and that there will be no problem being reimbursed. Ms. Rodriguez has insisted on two organizations that are currently under contract based upon the profile and those two organizations are, Ms. Rodriguez. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Just to let you know that -- Chairman Winton: Name please, name please. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Barbara Rodriguez Community Development. There is already an agenda that is scheduled for February 13th that we were already making the recommendations of this program but because of the emergency we're trying to move it ahead of time. We are recommending Word of Life, Catholic Charities and Fanm Ayisyen, I don't know how to pronounce it, but it's the Haitian woman of Dade County. Vice Chairman Teele: It's the Marlene Bastien Organization. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And they do have a contract with the -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And that organization will be responsible for all of the work experience financial disbursements for the students is that correct? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And a percentage of the funds will be redirected to the teachers at Edison that will be working extra hours with the children after school, after school is that the way we -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: This is a work experience educational component where tutoring and work experience will be provided and it will be basically everyday. It will be three to four hours 115 January 23, 2003 of work experience with tutorial services and including Saturday four hours and our goal is that in the next six weeks try to get some of these students that are not going to pass at the rate that they are going and make sure that we get them to a passing grade on the first week of March. Vice Chairman Teele: I should also add that one fourth of the available one hundred slots will be made available to both Northwestern High School that has a large number of F and they are an F school but not a double F school. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: And Jackson the other two schools that have the same problem so -- Chairman Winton: Commissioner. Vice Chairman Teele: I yield to my colleague. Chairman Winton: Commissioner. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Teele, let me commend you on that. I remember the -- when this issue was discussed on the Commission and the concerns that we had were that we asked for a report and that report was to be provided for us on a citywide, all the schools that were ranked F so that we could address the issue. I have not received the copy of that report but let me just say that I have had several call from Miami Senior High School which is also a double F school and therefore -- Vice Chairman Teele: Are they? Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: No. Mr. Corrada: Miami Senior? Miami Senior is graded at D. Commissioner Sanchez: A "137 Well, they're not too far behind. Mr. Corrada: There are five F High Schools in Dade County. Miami Norland, Miami Jackson, Miami Edison, Booker T. and Miami Northwestern. Only two double F High Schools in the entire State, Belle Glade, Central and Miami Edison Senior High School. Miami High is a D, I believe a high D. Commissioner Sanchez: But some of the students might end up in the same situation -- Mr. Corrada: Absolutely, absolutely. Commissioner Sanchez: -- passing the test so, what I want to make sure is that you know, this is a citywide program and everyone throughout the City who needs the assistance that are provided here would qualify for that for them to go to the same facilities that this is provided for to assure that they take the same test and they are assisted to provide this test so -- 116 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is not a citywide program. These are District 5 public service funds when everybody put their -- spent their funds I specifically, and that's why I put the transcript out, I pulled aside District 5 funds and said we need to save funds to deal with District 5 problems, and these problems are not citywide. There's only one double F school in all of Dade County. Only two in the state and this program is designed for them. I have no objections to having the program citywide as long as public service -- Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared to do this -- I'm prepared to amend it, Commissioner Teele. It was a healthy debate that this is, when it comes to the education of students in our community we cannot defer from District and you know we always make the same argument one shoe does not fit everyone. Chairman Winton: But Commissioner Sanchez, there's one very important distinction here. We all split up CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds the way we want. These are Commissioner Teele's funds. These are not citywide funds, so whatever amendment you're talking about will have nothing to do with his $200,000. Commissioner Sanchez: I know, but I'm prepared to somehow work with some type of funds to do the same thing because I'm basically in the situation now where I have one school -- Chairman Winton: I think you need to set that up as a separate discussion item that I'm willing to allow to come to the table right now — Commissioner Sanchez: And by all means I am prepared to support you. I think, I commend you for the leadership that you are taking. You are addressing the issues of your community. I just, you know, maybe I fell asleep at the wheel but now I realize that in my district there is one school and possible two that I'm doing some homework on that we might have students that are going to fall in the same situation and you know, as a leader in this community that's something that I need to address, so therefore I will get with Ms. Rodriguez and we will work something out to try to maybe follow your steps Commissioner Teele. Chairman Winton: Perfect, perfect. Perfect, Commissioner Sanchez. I have a couple of questions. The three community-based organizations that are going to — I'm not sure I understood this correctly so, so, please correct me if I'm wrong. There's three community-based organizations that are going to get the money, the $200,000 and they're going to provide the tutoring that these kids need in order to pass the FCAT test is that -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: That's one of the components, yes. Chairman Winton: OK so, I just want to make sure of one thing, that those community-based organizations have the skill sets to do the tutoring, the best tutoring that this money can buy to maximize passing. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: We will be using school board teachers. We have been in contact with the principal. We had an opportunity to meet with them. They are teachers from the school and 117 January 23, 2003 what we're trying to do is group them in a small group setting that they will be getting that one on one and at the same time guaranteeing that there is some work experience component that they can come and they can make some money. Chairman Winton: And so what happens here is, the community-based organizations actually hire the professional teachers from the school system and pay them. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Chairman Winton: That's OK, I get it, OK, I get that. Second question is, do we have -- $200,000-- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Right. Chairman Winton: Any -- Vice Chairman Teele: Actually, Commissioner. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: It's actually $260,000 -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: $250,984. Vice Chairman Teele: Based upon again the reserve plus -- Chairman Winton: Got it. Vice Chairman Teele: -- the de -obligation of other dollars. Chairman Winton: I understand. Vice Chairman Teele: OK. Chairman Winton: So, $260,000. Vice Chairman Teele: $250,000 yes. Chairman Winton: Any idea how many students we ought to be able to get into the passing ranks with $260,000? Mr. Corrada: We have, like I said 241. We would be very, very happy to get at least half involved. Once they find out the benefits of the program, the financial support for the program I think we should have between 75 and 100 students probably involved in the program. Vice Chairman Teele: But his question was, what do we think the success rate will be, I think. 118 January 23, 2003 Mr. Corrada: Well, we have some living testimony sitting in the audience that the more tutoring you have and the more opportunities you have to take the test, the better you get at it. I mean I have a young lady with me today. It took here three tries in order to pass the test and she availed herself of the tutoring that was available in previous years and she was able to pass the test, so I know that the more assistance that they have and the more opportunities that they have to prepare for the test, the better they do on subsequent tries, so we're hoping that a month of intensive tutoring with the financial support will get some of them over that passing score they need. Chairman Winton: Just so you read the math the same way that I am, and I just wanted to make it easy math. You got you know, 241 I said, 240 students, really getting $260,000 so I rounded to — and wrote it down to $240,000 so, you get 240 and $240,000 that's $1,000 a student, that you're going to put into this program in a really concentrated time so, you know, I don't know how that, I've never, I'm not in that arena where you are so, so, $1,000 a student seems like a pretty good chunk of money to put into an intensive program. Is it or is it not? Mr. Corrada: It's fair. As a matter of fact, the state at this time is looking at funding students that have handicapped conditions and they're funding $1,000 per student. So, it is a -- Chairman Winton: Per year. Mr. Corrada: No, the funds were just received so from now until the administration of the test. Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. Mr. Corrada: So, they're doing about the same amount for the same amount of time for about the same amount of students. Chairman Winton: And would you come back after the you get the FCAT results and give us a report on the success of this program? Mr. Corrada: I will, as a matter of fact, give you some very specific numbers. We know who the 241 students are. We will be able to track their scores and as long as I'm not calling out individual students names I can tell you that out of the 241, 50 passed the reading, 100 passed the math. I can come back in June and do that, my pleasure. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Just very briefly, I really commend Commissioner Teele for this vision and I remember exactly what we discussed and what he set aside and this is an emergency and this is a show of leadership by the City and by the district Commissioner, but immigrants are going to keep coming. The situation in Venezuela is worse than ever, in Haiti it's everyday worse than it is today, the Caribbean Cuba, so we need to next year, think on a citywide basis and also get the school board involved. I mean, this is a budget of $5,000,000,000, and it's unfair 119 January 23, 2003 for the City to take the brunt. We are proud to take the responsibility but it's unfair to take the economic brunt and we need to work with the school board and the state with a budget of the governor being as it is to see if we can get at least some facilities to work more in a more detailed and more prepared atmosphere than this because this is a rush thing, and the other thing Commissioner Teele I think, by next Monday if you can hopefully, there ought to be some kind of ceremony because this is a milestone. This is a City paying to it's residents to be better citizens and better residents and --what I'm afraid, Arthur, is that this goes unnoticed only for the two hundred and some students that will be getting, and I think it's important that the whole community does know that the City is really involved in education and it's about the future of the neighborhoods, so I will be supporting the motion. Chairman Winton: Can I ask one more question? Santiago, would it help if you had some organization like the Miami Rotary Club take up as a permanent project getting individuals from the Rotary Club on an ongoing basis to do tutoring for the students in the school? Mr. Corrada: Absolutely, and we're always seeking mentors. We need adults to really have some ownership over our student body and say, "You know what? I'm there for you. If you're having some difficulties, call me." A big brother, big sister type of situation with the Rotary would be terrific, and we're open to any kind of help. Chairman Winton: Great. Well, I am, I'm a lousy one but I happen to be a member of the Miami Rotary Club. I never go but I was there two or three weeks ago and gave their keynote presentation for lunch and they asked me specifically would you think of some projects we could do in the City of Miami and I will go back to them and ask them if they would be willing to take on your school specifically as a project to help with tutoring and I'll start thinking about that some more. Mr. Corrada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, did we have a -- Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is first, let me do this, this will be continued to be noticed and there will be a formal public hearing on this item on -- Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: The 13th Vice Chairman Teele: On February 13th Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: Along with all the other items that I think. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: What time is it going to be a convenient time for you to come back Santiago, Mr. Principal? 120 January 23, 2003 Mr. Corrada: Whenever you'd like for me to be here. Vice Chairman Teele: No, but -- Chairman Winton: Edison. Vice Chairman Teele: What about 11 -- Mr. Corrada: Give me a time and a date. Vice Chairman Teele: -- what about 11 o'clock? Mr. Corrada: February 13th, 11? Vice Chairman Teele: Yes. Mr. Corrada: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: That's a Thursday. So -- Ms Rodriguez: Commissioner, can it be at 10? We advertised it at 10. Vice Chairman Teele: 10, OK whatever OK. Ms. Gomez -Rodriguez: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: 10 o'clock. Mr. Chairman, I would move that the emergency be declared as it relates to the program and request that the Manager enter into a contract to authorize the issuance of contract to move the program forward pending a final action by the Commission, further ensuring all of the funds that may be expended will be reimbursed from pubic service under this District 5 initiative. I would so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: 121 January 23, 2003 MOTION NO. 03 -111 A MOTION DECLARING AN EMERGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH "F" RATED SCHOOLS WITHIN CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION DISTRICT 5; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH DESIGNATED AGENCIES TO PROVIDE IlVMEDIATE TUTORING SERVICES TO STUDENTS FROM SAID SCHOOLS USING FUNDS FROM ANY SOURCE TO BE REIMBURSED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES; FURTHER SCHEDULING THIS MATTER AS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 13, 2003, AT 10 A.M., FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL ACTION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, as a courtesy, could we just get the four young -- Chairman Winton: I was -- Vice Chairman Teele: -- people that are here -- Chairman Winton: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: -- to come give us your name and address just for the record because I think the fact that you are here symbolizes a lot for all of us. Chairman Winton: Absolutely. Emmanuel Fortune: Good afternoon. My name is Emmanuel Fortune. I stay at 265, I mean, 5900 Northwest 1st Avenue. Chairman Winton: Welcome. Yes, ma'am. 122 January 23, 2003 Sabrina Paul Noel: Hi my name is Sabrina Paul Noel. I live at 230 Northwest 99th Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33150. Chairman Winton: Welcome. Bernard Meyer: Good afternoon my name is Bernard Meyer. I live at 7846 Northeast Fisher (phonetic) Court, Apartment 4, Miami, Florida 33138. Chairman Winton: Welcome. Lovely Bien-Aime: Good afternoon my name is Lovely Bien-Amie. I live on 59 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128. Chairman Winton: And welcome. And go Red Raiders. Mr. Corrada: Thank you honorable Commissioners, that you, Commissioner Teele. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Corrada: City Manager, thank you. 34. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY OF PORTION OF ALLEY BETWEEN N.E. 2 AVENUE AND BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OF N.E. 20 TERRACE, TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Chairman Winton: OK, I guess we will go to PZ (Planning and Zoning) items. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Is it possible to do a non controversial PZ item. I think it's item 16. Chairman Winton: 16 you said? One six? Commissioner Regalado: One six is Southwest 16th Terrace. And it has the recommendation of the administration and the Planning Board and all that and many, many months ago, I visited with the people from the FPL (Florida Power and Light). This is in District 4 and -- Chairman Winton: I would be glad to take it up, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Could we, don't we need to swear in everybody on PZ stuff? So -- 123 January 23, 2003 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: -- madam Clerk. Who's going to do the swearing in? Deputy City Attorney: She's going to do it. Chairman Winton: So -- Deputy City Attorney: Madam Clerk. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Commissioner Regalado: It's item 14, I'm sorry, 14. Chairman Winton: OK. Deputy City Attorney: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Everyone get sworn in? Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Winton: Yes, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, because this is a new year we should also announce the public here that the lobbyist provisions of the City code are in effect and everyone who is lobbying this Commission that is, they are paid to be before the City Commission should register with the City Clerk or they can not appear before this board. Chairman Winton: Now, if they registered last year does it count for this year? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. It's a yearly -- it's an annual registration. Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Maxwell: It expires on December 31st of each year. Chairman Winton: So, all of you out there who are paid to represent your clients in coming before us today you need to, I'm assuming that before you can represent them from the podium you have to be registered. Mr. Maxwell: That's right unless you meet one of the exemptions in the code. Chairman Winton: OK. 124 January 23, 2003 Gil Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, Gil Pastoriza 2665 South Bayshore Drive. Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Winton: Are you representing item 16 Gil? Mr. Pastoriza: No, I am doing, I am requesting a deferral on item number 5. Customarily this Commission entertains deferrals at the top of the agenda. Chairman Winton: Not automatically. Mr. Pastoriza: I understand. Item number 5. Chairman Winton: Do we have a staff? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): That's fine with us. It's a street closure. Chairman Winton: OK. OK, so do we need a motion on the deferral? OK need a motion to -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Move to defer Item 5. Chairman Winton: Are we continuing, deferring, what are we doing? Mr. Maxwell: Asking for a date specific, Mr. Pastoriza? Mr. Pastoriza: Next month if you want to. Mr. Maxwell: Next P and Z agenda? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chairman Winton: So, what are we doing, continuing? Mr. Maxwell: Continuing it to the next P and Z agenda in March -- Chairman Winton: So, we need a motion to continue? Commissioner Gonzalez: Motion to continue item 5. Chairman Winton: To the next -- Commissioner Gonzalez: To the next -- Chairman Winton: -- P and Z agenda, which would be in February. We got a motion, need a second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. 125 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like -- Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Chairman Winton: -- sign, opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Pastoriza: Happy New Year. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -112 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PORTION OF ALLEY BETWEEN N.E. 2 AVENUE AND BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OF N.E. 20 TERRACE, TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 35. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" AND "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES" AT 2731 SW 16TH TERRACE AND 2750 SW 16TH STREET (Applicant(s): Florida Power & Light). Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, it's the one I was referring to, I'm sorry I made a mistake, is PZ 14. PZ 14, which is a very non -controversial item. 126 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: PZ 14. Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Chairman Winton: We will go to 14 then. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): For the record Lourdes Slazyk, Planning and Zoning Department. PZ 14 and 15 are actually companion items. It's a comp. plan and zoning amendment for property at 2731 Southwest 16th Terrance and 2750 Southwest 16th Street from duplex to the G/I (Government/Institutional) category. This is an application by Florida Power & Light. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and also approval by the Planning Advisory Board and the Zoning Board on the companion zoning item. Commissioner Regalado: You want a motion, Mr. Chairman? Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Commissioner Sanchez: Is it 14? Chairman Winton: We're on 14. Yeah, I think we're all struggling to get on the right page -- Commissioner Regalado: 14. Chairman Winton: If you'd give us one second. Commissioner Regalado: PZ 14. This is in District 4. My motion. Chairman Winton: This is first reading ordinance. So, yes, sir, we need a motion. Commissioner Regalado: My motion is to approve to accept the Planning and Zoning Department recommendations to -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Commissioner Regalado: -- approve. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. This requires a public hearing. So, we'd like to open the public hearing on PZ item number 14. Anyone from the public like to comment on PZ 14? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second on this ordinance. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 127 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2731 SOUTHWEST 16TH TERRACE AND 2750 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL AND RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been passed on first reading. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 36. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NO. 40 OF ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO G/I GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL AT 2731 SW 16TH TERRACE AND 2750 SW 16TH STREET (Applicant(s): Florida Power & Light). Chairman Winton: I'd like to go to PZ -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -15 is a companion. Chairman Winton: OK. I'm sorry. 128 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. (INAUDIBLE) an ordinance, public hearing. So, we'll open the public hearing on PZ 15. Anyone from the public on PZ 15? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Read the ordinance please. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 40 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GI GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2731 SOUTHWEST 16TH TERRACE AND 2750 SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A;" MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 129 January 23, 2003 37. CLOSE, VACATE, ABANDON AND DISCONTINUE FOR PUBLIC USE PORTION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT SW CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND NE 13TH STREET (Applicant(s): MIAmi-Dade County and City of Miami). Chairman Winton: I'd like to take up PZ item number 6. Ms. Gail Thompson on behalf of Miami Dade County and the Performing Arts Center is here on this item. She has to go to a County Commission Hearing as well so, Gail. I guess, staff, you want to -- Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Yeah, this is an official vacation and closure of a public right of way associated with the Performing Arts Center. It's Southwest corner of intersection of Biscayne Boulevard Northeast 13th Street. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval by the Zoning Board. Chairman Winton: Public hearing? Public hearing, OK. This is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to comment on PZ 6? OK. No one from the public appears to want to present anything on PZ 6 so we'll close the public hearing. This is a resolution so we need a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ 6. Chairman Winton: Need a second. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Winton: We got a motion and a second on PZ 6. All in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed, motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND NORTHEAST 13 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A." 130 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Bye-bye. 38. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AT 3235, 3245 AND 3255 FRANKLIN AVENUE. (Applicant(s): David Hill & Christine C. Hill, Owners). Chairman Winton: PZ 1. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ 1, 2 and 3 are actually all companion items associated with the Taurus major -use special permit. PZ 1 and 2 are the companion land -use and zoning amendments. If you recall at the last meeting we continued what is PZ 3 now waiting for this to be the second reading for the zoning and land -use change. The department recommends approval on PZ 1, which is the land -use change. It was recommended approval by the Planning Advisory Board and passed by the Commission on first reading December 12tH Chairman Winton: And this is a public hearing? Could we open the public hearing on PZ 1? Anyone from the public want to speak on PZ 1? Apparently not, so we will close the public hearing. This is an ordinance. Need a motion and a second on PZ 1. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 131 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ("SRF") ENTITLED "CITY CLERK'S EXTENSIVE RESEARCH FEE FUND", AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000, CONSISTING OF MONIES PAID IN ADVANCE FOR RESEARCH AND DUPLICATING COSTS WHENEVER AN EXTRAORDINARY TIME CONSTRAINT IS DESIGNATED BY PERSON(S) REQUESTING COPIES OF RESEARCH OR PUBLIC RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK; AUTHORIZING THE REVENUES IN SAID SRF TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY TO FUND THE GENERAL OPERATING BUDGET OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND DEPOSIT ALL REVENUES DERIVED FROM SUCH PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS INTO THIS SRF; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12174 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance passes on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 132 January 23, 2003 39. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NO. 46 OF ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 3225, 3235, 3245 AND 3255 FRANKLIN AVENUE (Applicant(s): David Hill & Christine C. Hill, Owners). Chairman Winton: PZ 2. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -2 is a companion zoning change recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. Approval by the Zoning Board and passed by this Commission first reading on December 12tH Chairman Winton: Public hearing? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Yes sir. Chairman Winton: It's a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ 2? Last chance, no one from the public seems to be coming forward. We'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -2, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ -2. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call, Madam Clerk, please. An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 46 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3225, 3235, 3245 AND 3255 FRANKLIN AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED "EXHIBIT A;" CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 133 January 23, 2003 The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12320. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 40. APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE 11000, FOR TAURUS PROJECT, TO BE COMPRISED OF MIXED-USE/RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX, WITH NOT MORE THAN 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 9,217 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AND 106 PARKING SPACES AT 3532 MAIN HIGHWAY, 3550 MAIN HIGHWAY AND 3225, 3235, 3245, 3255 FRANKLIN AVENUE (Applicant(s): Franklin Avenue David Hill & Christine C. Hill, Owners). Chairman Winton: PZ -3. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -3 is the major -use special permit for the Taurus Project. It was recommended for approval with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval with the same conditions to the City Commission from the Planning Advisory Board. The only correction I have to make on the record is the effective date. Typically, when a major -use special permit is approved it's effective immediately; because this is a companion to land -use and zoning change item that are not effective immediately, we want to change the effective date to be concurrent with the companion land -use and zoning items, and that is a 30 -day effective date. Chairman Winton: Thirty days from now? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Actually, Commissioner, it's, there are two items. One you have the comp plan change and then you have the zoning change with occurs one day later, so I would suggest that the language be that it shall take effect concomitant with the companion legislation and leave it at that, instead of saying 30 days. 134 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Maxwell: Because there may be appeals -- Chairman Winton: OK. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to comment on PZ -3? Lucia Dougherty: Yes Mr. Chairman, Lucia Dougherty with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner as well as the contract vendee. As you recall this is somewhat of a contentious application and we now have the support of our neighbors and I think for the record you may want to hear from them. Don Chinquina: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Don Chinquina with the law firm of Shuman and Bass at 46 Southwest 1st Street. We're very pleased to be here today representing the Campus Gain Homeowners Association and we're very delighted to advise you that we have reached a resolution of our previous differences with this proposed project and that the owners have committed themselves to a quality project, have assembled a great team and the neighbor's wish them well. Chairman Winton: Great. Mr. Chinquina: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Thank you very much. Tucker. Tucker Gibbs: Tucker Gibbs, offices at 215 Grand Avenue, representing the Cocoanut Grove Civic Club and the Cocoanut Grove Cemetery Association and we echo the sentiments that have previously been stated. Chairman Winton: Very good. Anyone else? Anyone else from the public like to comment on PZ -3? Being none, we'll close the public hearing we need a motion and a -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -3. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Winton: We got a motion and a second on PZ -3. This is a resolution? So, this is a resolution, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign -- Commissioner Regalado: Aye. 135 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: -- opposed. Motion carries. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Thank you very much. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5,13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE TAURUS PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3532 AND 3550 MAIN HIGHWAY, AND 3225, 3235, 3245 AND 3255 FRANKLIN AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF A MIXED-USE/RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX, WITH NOT MORE THAN 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE, 9,217 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AND APPROXIMATELY 106 PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Joe Sanchez Chairman Winton: PZ -4 Ms. Slazyk: I believe PZ -4 was going to be for a time certain. This is the Grovenor major -use special permit. Chairman Winton: Oh, it is, yeah. Ms. Slazyk: So should we -- 136 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yeah. I think that's 5:30 time certain right? Ms. Slazyk: Right. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: 5:30 is -- Ms. Slazyk After the 5:30 item. Commissioner Regalado: CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel). Remember, Johnny? Chairman Winton: Oh that's right. I agree that's correct, so I'd be immediately after CIP. Ms. Slazyk Right. So, PZ -7 is next. 41. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "OFFICE" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AT PORTION OF VACATED SW 14TH STREET FROM METRO -RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SW 15TH ROAD (Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department) Chairman Winton: PZ 7 and PZ 7 it is. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ 7 is a -- this is a -- 7 and 8 are companion land -use and zoning change. These are second reading. This is for a remnant parcel that was a result of a street closure and a rezoning for the new parking for the Publix on Coral Way. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, approval by the Planning Advisory Board and passed by the Commission on first reading December 12tH Chairman Winton: OK this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ 7? Anyone from the public on PZ 7? Being no one, we'll close the public hearing. Need a motion and a second on the ordinance. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 137 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY PORTION OF VACATED SOUTHWEST 14TH STREET, FROM THE METRO - RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "OFFICE" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12321. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. 42. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NO. 37 OF ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM O OFFICE TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AT PORTION OF VACATED SW 14TH STREET FROM METRO -RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SW 15TH ROAD (Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department). Chairman Winton: PZ -8. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): PZ -8 is a companion zoning. It was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, approval by the Planning Advisory Board and passed on December 12th first reading by this Commission. 138 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: This is a public hearing. Like to open PZ -8 to the public. Anyone from the public on PZ -8? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Need a motion and a second on second reading PZ -8. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -8. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ -8. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING PAGE NO. 37 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM (0) "OFFICE" TO (C-1) "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" FOR A PORTION OF VACATED SOUTHWEST 14TH STREET FROM THE METRO -RAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY TO SOUTHWEST 15TH ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12322 Chairman Winton: Roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. 139 January 23, 2003 43. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NO. 20 OF ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL AT 1213, 1219, 1223, 1231, 1241, 1253, 1257, 1265, 1275, 1331, 1335, 1353, 1359, 1361, 1369 AND 1373 NW 35TH STREET; 1200, 1230, 1240, 1250, 1260, 1266, 1280, 1290, 1320, 1326, 1348, 1360, 1362, 1370, 1392, AND 1396 NW 36TH STREET; 3500 AND 3512 NW 12TH AVENUE; 3501 AND 3519 NW 13TH AVENUE (Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department). Chairman Winton: PZ 9. Susan Cambridge (Planning and Zoning Department): Susan Cambridge, Planning and Zoning Department. This is a part of the cleanup and it was passed on first reading. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval and the Planning Department is recommending approval for this zoning change. Chairman Winton: PZ -9 is a public hearing, anyone from the public like to comment on PZ -9? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. Need a motion and a second on PZ -9. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -9. Chairman Winton: Need a second. Joe? Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on the second reading of PZ -9. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 140 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 20 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM (C-1) "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO (C-2) "LIBERAL COMMERCIAL" FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1213, 1219, 1223, 1231, 1241, 1253, 1257, 1265, 1275, 1331, 1335, 1353, 1359, 1361, 1369 AND 1373 NORTHWEST 35 STREET; 1200, 1230, 1240, 1250, 1260, 1266, 1280, 1290, 1320, 1326, 1348, 1360, 1362, 1370, 1392 AND 1396 NORTHWEST 36 STREET; 3500 AND 3512 NORTHWEST 12 AVENUE; 3501 AND 3519 NORTHWEST 13 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12323. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0. 44. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, IN ORDER TO CREATE NEW SD -26 ENTITLED "SD -26 COCONUT GROVE MARKET OVERLAY DISTRICT" TO PERMIT OUTDOOR SALES OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITHIN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF COCONUT GROVE (Applicant(s): Carlos A. Gimenez, Miami City Manager). Chairman Winton: PZ -10. 141 January 23, 2003 Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning): PZ -10 is a second reading amendment to the text of zoning ordinance 11000 in order to create the SD -26, Coconut Grove Market Overlay District along portions of Grand Avenue. The companion atlas amendment to this was just continued for the last Planning Advisory Board, so instead of being here it's going to be at the next meeting, if we can get through that. There was some concern by some of the citizens on this, but this is just the text amendment, so this doesn't actually change anybody's zoning. It's just putting the text part that's got all the rules for a Farmer's Market into the zoning ordinance. We recommend approval and it was recommended approval by the Planning Advisory Board. Chairman Winton: This is a public hearing. Anybody from the public want to speak on PZ -10? PZ -10, public, no public? Close the public hearing, need a motion and a second on second reading here. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -10. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, second. Did we get a second from you? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, second. Chairman Winton: OK. So, we have a motion and a second on second reading PZ -10. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An ordinance Entitled -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CREATING NEW SECTION 626, ENTITLED: "SD -26 COCONUT GROVE MARKET OVERLAY DISTRICT," TO PERMIT OUTDOOR SALES OF FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS AND UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The ordinance was passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 12, 2002, was taken up for its second and final reading, by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title, and was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez 142 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12324. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance passes on second reading, 4/0. Chairman Winton: And PZ -11's been withdrawn. Ms. Slazyk: Yes, we are having a 37th Avenue study done, so. 45. TABLED: FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" AND "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AT 536, 602, 608 AND 690 NW 57TH AVENUE AND 601, 605, 611, 631 AND 641 NW 57TH COURT (Applicant(s): Florida Union Land Corporation and Sime Corporation) (See #53). Chairman Winton: PZ -12. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -12 and 13 are companion land -use and zoning change items. It's approximately 57th Avenue and 7th. This is in order to change from single-family and general commercial to restricted commercial. Ben Fernandez: Excuse me, Lourdes. Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: If I can interrupt. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. We have worked with the neighbors on this project. We've reached an agreement. They're supporting the application, however many of them wanted to attend this evening and I realize that you're moving quickly through the agenda. We would request that you move this item perhaps to the end of your P and Z agenda to give then an opportunity to be here with us today. Chairman Winton: Fine. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry, Chairman, I didn't get a name on the record for this gentleman, please. Chairman Winton: Name and address on the record. Mr. Fernandez: Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. 143 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: OK, we'll move this PZ item 12 to the end of our PZ schedule. Ms. Slazyk: And 13, which is the companion. Chairman Winton: 12 and 13? So, we're moving 12 and 13 to the end of the PZ session. 46. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 10544, FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM "HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AT 1700 NW 14TH AVENUE; 1635, 1641 AND 1701 NW 15TH AVENUE; 1601 NW 15TH STREET ROAD AND, 1401 AND 1479 NW 16TH STREET (Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department). Chairman Winton: PZ -- Lourdes Slazyk (Planning and Zoning Department): 16. We did 14 and 15, I think we're up to 16. Chairman Winton: Oh we did? Is that what happened? OK, so PZ -16. Ms. Slazyk PZ -16 and 17 are companion items. The Planning and Zoning Department is the applicant. This was a result of a study that was conducted across from the Civic Center area in order to upgrade the zoning there to meet some of the market demands and allow some of the more flexible housing and mixed use opportunities along the 14th Avenue corridor in order to serve the Civic Center area. This was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department and approval by the Planning Advisory Board. We handed out some new aerials. There was a scrivener's error in the aerials that were in the package. The new aerials show the proper boundaries. The aerials are only in there for reference purposes. The zoning map was correct, the one that shows the actual properties we're proposing for rezoning. Zoning is to restricted commercial. Again, it keeps the same density and FAR (floor/area ratio) as the previous zoning category it just allows more flexibility in uses to be able to create commercial and residential within the same property. Chairman Winton: This is a first reading public hearing. I'd like to open the public hearing to PZ -16. Anyone from the public like to comment on PZ -16? Being none, we'll close the public hearing on PZ 16. Need a -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -16. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, need a second. Need a second. Commissioner Sanchez: What is it? Chairman Winton: PZ -16. 144 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second on PZ -16 first reading. Would you please read the ordinance? Roll call, please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1700 NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE; 1635, 1641 AND 1701 NORTHWEST 15TH AVENUE; 1601 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET ROAD; AND 1401, 1479 NORTHEAST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance passes on first reading, 3/0. Chairman Winton: PZ -17, companion -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, it will be 4/0. Commissioner Regalado. Chairman Winton: 4/0. 145 January 23, 2003 Ms. Thompson: Thank you. 47. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND PAGE NO. 24 OF ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL AT 1700 NW 14TH AVENUE; 1635, 1641 AND 1701 NW 15TH AVENUE; 1601 NW 15TH STREET ROAD AND, 1401 AND 1479 NW 16TH STREET. (Applicant(s): Planning and Zoning Department). Chairman Winton: PZ -17 a companion to 16. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Right, this was also recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and this is the zoning classification of C1. Again, same density, same FAR, it just allows more flexibility in uses to introduce the commercial uses. Chairman Winton: OK, it's a public hearing. I'd like to open the public hearing on PZ -17. Anyone from the public like to comment? Appears as not. We'll close the public hearing. Need a motion and a second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -17. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ -17. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 146 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING PAGE NO. 24 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM R-4 MULTIFAMILY HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1700 NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE; 1635, 1641 AND 1701 NORTHWEST 15TH AVENUE; 1601 NORTHWEST 15TH STREET ROAD; AND 1401 AND 1479 NORTHWEST 16TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): PZ -17 is passed on first reading, 4/0. 48. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10544, CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 281 N.E. 84 STREET FROM RECREATION TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Chairman Winton: PZ -18, first reading. Susan Cambridge (Planning and Zoning Department): Susan Cambridge, Planning and Zoning Department. This item is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. It's privately owned, single-family residence and part of the property is zoned recreation, parks and recreation 147 January 23, 2003 and the land -use recreation. It seems to be an error that happened. We don't know how it happened. We think maybe on the maps when they were making the property because just to the east of this property there is a small park and it's located in the right-of-way and we think they marked it by mistake, so we're changing the property to be consistent with the actual use of the property, so we're making a land use change from recreation to single-family. Chairman Winton: Is Commissioner Teele here? OK, I'm sorry, go ahead. So, it's going to be changed from recreation to single-family? Ms. Cambridge: Yes. Chairman Winton: Isn't this near, isn't there a park right up there? Ms. Cambridge: Yes. Chairman Winton: Is this the park? Ms Cambridge: No. Ana Gelabert (Director, Planning and Zoning Department): No, it's not that's what Ms. Cambridge just said. There is another parcel, which is a park and it's on Parks and Rec. This one is under private ownership and it was inadvertently and we cannot explain why, years ago what we had on our atlas was that it was zoned as Parks and Recreation, but it is under private ownership and we have checked to make sure there is nothing on the record and the restrictions and nothing appears. We also have asked the Parks Director to see if he had anything and no one seemed to find anything. This is a private property and the owner would like to change it to single-family, but it's not the City park. Chairman Winton: OK. Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: I would like to defer the item to the next meeting please. Move to defer. Chairman Winton: We'll defer PZ -18 to the next PZ meeting, which will be in February. OK, got a motion and second to defer. Discussion? Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. Deferred. 148 January 23, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -116 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION AT APPROXIMATELY 281 N.E. 84 STREET FROM RECREATION TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 49. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION AT 281 N.E. 84 STREET FROM PR PARKS AND RECREATION TO R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Commissioner Regalado: You need to defer 18, too. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Yeah, we need to defer the companion item, which is 19. Commissioner Regalado: 19 and 18. Chairman Winton: OK, need a motion to defer. Commissioner Sanchez: So move. Ms. Slazyk: Did we -- Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Ms. Slazyk: -- say a date certain next month? 149 January 23, 2003 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): It will be February 27. Ms. Slazyk: February 27. Chairman Winton: Motion and a second to defer PZ -18, as well. Discussion? Being none, did I -- did we get a motion and a second on deferring? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Winton: OK, discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -116 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION AT APPROXIMATELY 281 N.E. 84 STREET FROM RECREATION TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003. Upon being seconded by Vice Chairman Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: PZ 19. Ms. Slazyk: 19 was the companion. We're on -- Commissioner Sanchez: 20. 150 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: -- 20. Chairman Winton: I'll all mess up. Mr. Maxwell: 19 needs to be continued, you just said 18 a moment ago so, it's 19 you want to continue as well to February 27tH Commissioner Sanchez: 18 and 19. Mr. Maxwell: 18 and 19 are being continued. Commissioner Sanchez: So, we're in 20. Chairman Winton: I started off at 17. Did I? Well, we've already voted on it. I don't need to say anything else. Just don't make me say anything. What's the next PZ item that we're on? Commissioner Sanchez: 20. Ms. Slazyk: 20. 50. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 602 SD -2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 602.3.2, IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE IN LIEU OF CLASS II SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROPOSALS THAT COMPLY WITH COMMUNITY APPEARANCE CODE OF COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (Applicant(s): Carlos A. Gimenez, Miami City Manager). Chairman Winton: Thank you. PZ -20. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -20 is a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to SD -2 in order to adopt a community appearance code. We did this in downtown and it was very, very successful. What it is, is we pre -approved certain awning shapes, color, signage and paint and if somebody comes in and complies with appearance code they can get a certificate of compliance in lieu of a Class II. It makes it move faster, it's cheaper and we get better compliance. Everybody loves it, it was a real winner in downtown. We work with the Coconut Grove community and everyone seems to be very happy with this and they are very much looking forward to it being adopted. The Parking Advisory Committee actually was the one that was pushing this along for a while and they have representatives from the whole community and they were very much in favor. Chairman Winton: Right. OK. Ms. Slazyk: It was approved by the Planning Advisory Board, as well. 151 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ -20? Apparently not, we'll close the public hearing. Need a motion and second on PZ -20. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ -20. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ -20. Read the ordinance please. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, ENTITLED "SD SPECIAL DISTRICTS - GENERAL PROVISIONS," SECTION 602, SD -2, COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 602.3.2, IN ORDER TO ALLOW CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE IN LIEU OF CLASS 11 SPECIAL PERMITS FOR PROPOSALS THAT COMPLY WITH THE COMMUNITY APPEARANCE CODE, AS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVIDING, SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The item, PZ 20 is approved on first reading, 5/0. 152 January 23, 2003 51. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING SECTION 917, BY INTRODUCING NEW SUBSECTION 917.14 ENTITLED PARKING LIFTS, IN ORDER TO ALLOW PARKING LIFTS CONDITIONALLY WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ADDING CRITERIA FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH FORMS OF PARKING. (Applicant(s): Carlos A. Gimenez, Miami City Manager). Chairman Winton: PZ 21, first reading ordinance. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ 21 is also an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow parking lifts within garage structures. This is something that has been used in Europe and in other cities around this country. It helps keep parking garage structures a little bit smaller. It allows the vertical tandem parking. We put a couple of conditions in here in a Class II requirement so that we can review them on a case by case basis for appearance, make sure this can't be seen from the outside, but it's going to help keep those parking decks a little bit lower and get more efficient parking. This was recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory Board and we recommend approval. Chairman Winton: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public like to speak on PZ 21? Being none, we will close the public hearing. We need a motion and a second on PZ 21. Commissioner Gonzalez: Move PZ 1, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: PZ 21. Commissioner Sanchez: PZ 21, second. Commissioner Gonzalez: PZ 21, I'm sorry. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ 21. Read the ordinance, please. Roll call. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. 153 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 9, SECTION 917, BY INTRODUCING A NEW SUBSECTION 917.14 ENTITLED "PARKING LIFTS;" IN ORDER TO ALLOW PARKING LIFTS CONDITIONALLY WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS, AND ADDING CRITERIA FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH FORM OF PARKING; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The ordinance is adopted on first reading, 5/0. 52. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 11000, CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 10, ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS", IN ORDER TO MODIFY AND CLARIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AND BY ADDING MURAL AND JUMBO-TRON SIGNS CONDITIONALLY AND MODIFYING PROVISIONS RELATED TO AWNING SIGNS; AMEND ARTICLE 25 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS," TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS (Applicant(s): Carlos A. Gimenez, Miami City Manager). Chairman Winton: PZ -22. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): PZ -22 is an amendment to the recently adopted sign ordinance. This amendment does a couple things. First of all it reintroduces the mural signs that were taken out when we did the sign ordinance. That's something I think, everybody wanted back. It does add you know, some color to blank walls in the downtown area, but there are some new conditions in there on sizes and distance limitations, 154 January 23, 2003 which we're hoping would at least prevent it from becoming a visual clutter thing. It also introduces the jumbotrons signs, which are only going to be allowed in waterfront retail specialty centers, so this would qualify for Bayside. These things can be located within the waterfront retail specialty center but not visible from any roadway. It can be visible from the waterways and from the retail complex itself but we don't want them to become a visual distraction for the roadways for the people driving, so they need to be put in the center in a way that they are not going to be visible from the road. The other thing the sign ordinance does, this amendment, is correct some scrivener's errors in the first one, regarding awning signs. When I was cutting and pasting the pieces of the ordinance together I inadvertently forgot to put awning signs in certain districts and we have since discovered that with applicants coming in and being told they can't do it, so this corrects the awning sign problem that was in there. The Planning Advisory Board recommended approval of this with one additional request that they wanted to make of the Commission and that's regarding the real estate signs. The new sign ordinance when it was adopted reduced the real estate signs for sale of property in residential districts down to one square foot. They wanted it to go back to how it was before which I believe -- Chairman Winton: It was about 80 square feet. They were huge. Ms. Slazyk: -- I think it was four square feet. I think it as four square feet before and it has come down to two, which was one and one instead of two by two. They felt that was very difficult for people to see at a one by one sign and they really felt strongly that it should go back up to a two by two sign. We did not include that amendment in this ordinance. I'm bringing that to your attention because the City Commission can you know, can direct that that be placed back in for second reading. We didn't feel that was necessary but the, Planning Advisory Board (Planning Advisory Board) felt strongly about that so I'm just reporting what their approval was with that condition. Other than that they agreed with all of the amendments we were making and they recommended approval. Chairman Winton: OK. It's a public hearing on PZ -22. Anyone from the public like to commend on PZ -22? Apparently not, ma'am, are you coming to comment? I think not. OK, we'll close the public hearing on PZ -22. Need a motion and a second. Commissioner Sanchez: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: I need a second. Vice Chairman Teele: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on PZ 22. Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Question. Chairman Winton: Yes. 155 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: How do we insure that we don't get ourselves back in the jackpot this. You know, on one hand we're litigating and we're trying to figure out how this advertising stuff should work. Does someone come in and have the right to apply now? Ms. Slazyk: Not for a billboard. The murals are a little bit different. Vice Chairman Teele: I thought we were talking about murals. Ms Slazyk: Murals, yes, someone can apply. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, so let me ask the question again. Under this process, does someone come in and apply to put up a mural? Ms Slazyk Correct. Vice Chairman Teele: How do we ensure that the people who have not complied with the billboards who came in and applied and have clearly have not complied with the regulatory scheme in the billboards, are prevent or precluded from being able to apply for this? You got all these rules in there. These rules don't mean a darn thing if somebody gets permission, puts them up -- Ms. Slazyk We'll, I'm not sure -- Vice Chairman Teele: Well, hold on now. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Commissioner, if there is an outstanding code violation they are debarred from getting an additional permit. They'd have to go through the process, debarment process. Vice Chairman Teele: No, no. Has anybody been debarred in the last 100 years of Miami? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, so you're answering a hypothetical question. Are there any persons debarred now? Mr. Maxwell: No. Vice Chairman Teele: OK, so my question is still the same question. How do we as a Commission ensure that as a part of this regulatory scheme, people who have come in, in the past and applied to put up billboards and have disregarded all of the regulations, all of the rules, all of the standards are now in a position to come in, apply and do everything you said that they can't do. I mean, we'll be right back in the same jackpot. You said you don't want the signs to be visible from a roadway. Well, you get the permit, you put it up, just like a billboard, and then what do we do? We spend the next six years hiring lawyers and chasing -- we need a regulatory scheme that ensure that people who have clearly shown a pattern of not complying cannot apply. 156 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest that -- Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, otherwise this is all rhetoric. Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest the two steps. One, you can suggest to the Manager, direct the Manager that anyone with an outstanding code violation or so forth, on signs or any outstanding violation -- Vice Chairman Teele: I object, with all due respect I think that's a abuse of our discretion. I think if the regulatory scheme -- Mr. Maxwell: I said there were two things that I was going to recommend. The second is that you amend the code to specifically say -- Vice Chairman Teele: Well, why don't we amend this? Mr. Maxwell: This is the one I'm speaking of, this provision right here can be amended. You can come back with language on second reading that would specifically provide what you are reqesting. Vice Chairman Teele: I mean, I don't know if the majority of the Commission -- Chairman Winton: I agree with you absolutely. Absolutely. Vice Chairman Teele: I don't want to get us back right where we were. I can just see somebody Chairman Winton: So, amend -- Vice Chairman Teele: -- putting a sign out on Venetia -- Chairman Winton: Offer the amendment. Vice Chairman Teele: -- or somewhere -- I would move that the City Manager and Attorney insert the language that would prohibit or prevent those entities that have shown disregard for the regulatory scheme in outdoor advertising be precluded from applying as long as those violations are outstanding. Commissioner Sanchez: And that would be most of the billboard companies. Chairman Winton: That's his point. Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Chairman Winton: So, OK. So, we have a -- who made the original motion? Did we have a motion on this? 157 January 23, 2003 Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): The original motion on the ordinance was made by Commissioner Sanchez and seconded by Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Sanchez: Second by Commissioner Teele. Chairman Winton: OK, Commissioner Sanchez, do you accept -- Commissioner Sanchez: I accept the amendment, yes. Chairman Winton: Does the seconder -- obviously he does so, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Sanchez: And this is first reading. It comes back for second reading. Chairman Winton: Did I -- did we already do the public hearing? I already did the public hearing on this, didn't I? Commissioner Sanchez: This is first reading it comes back for second -- Mr. Maxwell: First reading, this is first reading. Chairman Winton: And didn't I do the public hearing on this already? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, you did. Commissioner Sanchez: If you have any doubt open the -- Chairman Winton: So, we have a motion and a second. The public hearing has been held. Please read the ordinance. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Winton: And you're going to and how do you deal with this insertion of language coming back for the second. Mr. Maxwell: What we will do is we will research it and determine what's the proper language Chairman Winton: OK, so you don't have to -- Mr. Maxwell: No -- come back -- Chairman Winton: OK, roll call, please. 158 January 23, 2003 An Ordinance Entitled — AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 10 ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS;" TO MODIFY AND CLARIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS, TO ADD MURAL AND JUMBOTRON SIGNS CONDITIONALLY, AND TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATED TO AWNING SIGNS; FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 25 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS," TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance has been passed on first reading, 5/0. 53. DENY PROPOSAL TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT APPROXIMATELY 536, 602, 608 AND 690 N.W. 57 AVENUE AND 601, 605, 611, 631 AND 641 N.W. 57 COURT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (See #45). Chairman Winton: So, now we go back to -- there was a PZ (Planning & Zoning) Item that I moved to the end because neighbors wanted to come or some such thing. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Twelve and 13? Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Twelve and 13? 159 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: I don't remember. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Twelve was tabled until the end. Chairman Winton: Look on the -- I can't read -- can y' all help me there? Ms. Slazyk: Yeah, it was 12 and 13. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk Again, while they're setting up, the Planning and Zoning Department has recommended denial of this. Although, they're taking part single-family and part general commercial and changing it to restricted commercial, so there's a partial up zoning and a partial down zoning, what it's going to do is consolidate a very much bigger restricted commercial site without going through any appropriate design review, necessarily, for what's coming in its place. It's a very big piece of property. And the zoning change is just a blanket approval. It's something we're very concerned about without design review. What I do need to put in the record is that at the Planning Advisory Board, the applicant discussed with the Planning Advisory Board that they were going to proffer to you, the Commission, a covenant. So the Planning Advisory Board approved -- recommended approval of the item with a second motion to the City Commission saying, that if you were to so accept a covenant, that they felt the covenant should include some design and buffer criteria for review. The Zoning Board, however, on the companion zoning item, recommended denial. Chairman Winton: The applicant like to -- Ben Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Winton: Proceed, please. Name and address for the record. Mr. Fernandez: Good afternoon, members of the Board. Ben Fernandez, law offices at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, with the law office of Berkow and Radell. I'm here on behalf of Florida Union Land Corporation and Sime Corporation, with respect to this application for a Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan amendment and a rezoning. It's from general commercial and residential to restricted commercial. With me is Mr. Manny Varela of Eckerd, Jeff Brandon of the Brandon Company, Mr. Scott Sime, property owner, Mark Wallace of Wallace & Padomore (phonetic), our Project Coordinator, and my partner, Jeff Berkow. The property is approximately 1.37 acres in size. It's located at the southwest intersection of Northwest 57tH Avenue and Northwest 7th Street. This is a very busy intersection. It's developed with very intense commercial uses. For instance, there's the Air Point Plaza that contains the Home Depot Expo store. The old diamond warehouse is located directly east of this property. And there's a medical office building catty -corner from the site. The property is also less than 1,500 feet from the Northwest 57th Avenue Dolphin Expressway exit. So the point is, this is not a very pedestrian friendly area. It's very commercial in nature. Currently, there's a Shell gas station on the property, a very large, double-faced billboard sign, that you can see over here on the chairs, a photograph of, and there's an unsightly convenience store on the property. There are also some 160 January 23, 2003 substandard R-1 zoned lots located along the west side of Northwest 57th Court. However, the majority of the property is already zoned C-2, and all but 50 feet of the Northwest 7th Street frontage is zoned C-2. The substandard residential lots are really an eyesore to the community. They're also a thorn in the side of Mr. Fausto Callava, who's the Flagami NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Teams) Officer. He has many times received complaints about used cars being sold from the property. This application is going to clean up this site. It's going to remove the existing billboard sign, and it's going to remove the dilapidated convenience store. We believe that the Eckerd will also complement the Pan American Hospital that is down the street on Northwest 7th Street. It's been -- the site has been designed to be compatible with the residential area. To the west, we have a 20 -foot landscape buffer that we're providing as a transition from the commercial to the residential area to the west. And it's significant to note that this -- approval of this application would really constitute a down zoning of the majority of the property from C-2 to C-1. Now, I'd like to say that we have the support of the neighbors. They're here this evening. Many of them would probably like to speak to you. We are agreeing to -- by covenant, that Lourdes mentioned, provide the 20 -foot landscape buffer. We're going to provide an eight -foot masonry wall along 57th Court. We're also going to provide a curb along 57th Terrace, so that there's no parking in the swale area. And because we're doing all of these things, we do have the neighbors' support. As Lourdes mentioned, we also have a favorable recommendation from your Planning Advisory Board on this application, subject to the proffer of the covenant. For all these reasons, we'd ask that you move the approval of this application. We're here to answer any questions that you may have. Yeah, and the billboards. Of course, I want to emphasize that those unsightly billboards, which are double-faced, on 57th Avenue, will be coming down. Chairman Winton: And you asked if anyone from the dais had a question? Is that what you just said? Mr. Fernandez: I'm sorry? Yes. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Aren't you going to let the neighbors that are in support either speak -- Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely. Commissioner Sanchez: Is there any opposition to this? Mr. Fernandez: (COMMENTS IN SPANISH) Commissioner Sanchez: Also, Mr. Chairman, is there any opposition here to this item? Mr. Fernandez: I don't believe so. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman. 161 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes. Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Before -- Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put one thing into the record on this. Chairman Winton: Please. Mr. Maxwell: The applicant has voluntarily proffered a covenant that I think has been distributed. The Law Department has seen it, and we have made comments on it. But this is first reading, and we reserve the right and, in fact, would like to negotiate further -- well, not negotiate. But there are still some concerns that we have concerning this particular covenant. So we want to make sure the applicant is aware that when this comes back for second reading, the covenant should be one acceptable to the Law Department. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from the residents that are in support, and I would like their name and address for the record. Chairman Winton: OK. Residents like to put their name and address on the record, please. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Winton, before they start, we do have our own interpreter here. We need him to put his name on the record first, and then he can go ahead -- Vice Chairman Winton: OK. Fine. Ms. Thompson: -- and interpret for the residents. Jesus Felipe: Hello. My name is Jesus Felipe, and I am the Spanish interpreter. And you will now hear the names and addresses of those residents that are in favor. Thomas Padron (Translated by Mr. Felipe): Mr. Thomas Padron, 533 Northwest 57th Court, Miami, Florida. Chairman Winton: Could I ask where that is in relation to the subject property? Mr. Padron: Two houses away from where the construction begins. Chairman Winton: Let's see. This is west. Is he on the east or west side of 57th Court? Mr. Padron: I am on the east. Chairman Winton: OK. So two houses from the -- on the east side. Thank you. Mr. Padron: OK. 162 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: Could I have the interpreter make sure that the speaker's comments are also picked up by the microphone? Mr. Felipe: OK. Yes. You mean the comments that I say in Spanish? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Mr. Felipe: Yes. OK. Mr. Maxwell: Both. Chairman Winton: Y'all both need to speak into the microphone, by the way. Julio Rivera (Translated by Mr. Felipe): You want to know where I live, right? Chairman Winton: Yes. His address -- his name and address for the record, please. Mr. Rivera: My name is Julio Rivera, and I live on 525 Northwest 57th Court. Commissioner Gonzalez: Is that on the east side of the -- is that on the side that is proposed to be changing? Mr. Rivera: This is going to be four houses away, where the construction will take place. What else do you want me to say? Chairman Winton: Yeah. I'm waiting for that. We can't hear you. Would y'all please -- Mr. Rivera: I am in favor of the construction that will take place there. I am in favor of the Eckerd. Chairman Winton: Thank you. OK, next. Pedro Gomez (Translated by Mr. Felipe): My name is Pedro Gomez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Could you ask his entire address by house number? Mr. Gomez: That is 509 Northwest 57th Court. Chairman Winton: And is 509 -- must be two houses or three houses from the corner? Mr. Gomez: About five. Chairman Winton: No way. Can't be five because you run out of numbers. You're going to start with -- 501 is going to be the corner, and it's going to be 501, 503 -- oh, maybe that is it. 163 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gomez: No, it's 509. Chairman Winton: It's four. OK. Thank you. Next. Next. Do we -- do you have anyone else that would like to speak on the record? Mr. Padron: Mr. Herberto Hernandez. Chairman Winton: What's his address? Mr. Padron: And he is not present at the moment. And he is also in agreement with the construction -- Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. Wait, wait, wait. I don't understand what he's saying. Repeat what he's said. Mr. Padron: Mr. Herberto Garcia, who is not here today, is also in favor of the construction of the Eckerd. Chairman Winton: Well, we can't accept that. We can only accept people being here, their testimony. So, if he would like to testify on behalf of himself, he's allowed to do that. Otherwise, we'll go to the next person, please. Mr. Padron: Well, it's just that Herberto was going to accompany me, and I was told to mention him. Chairman Winton: If he would like to comment for himself, he is allowed to do that. Mr. Padron: Well, we are all in agreement here. I am in agreement and my wife is in agreement. Chairman Winton: Excuse me. We need his name and address on the record. Mr. Felipe: You do have his name and address. Chairman Winton: I do not have his address. Mr. Felipe: OK. Mr. Padron: My address is the one I gave before, 533 Northwest 57th Court. Chairman Winton: Oh, he had spoken before. Mr. Felipe: Yes, he has. Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Right. OK. Anyone else? 164 January 23, 2003 Mrs. Padron (Translated by Mr. Felipe): I am Mr. Padron's wife, and I am in agreement -- we are in agreement of the project about to take place. Chairman Winton: And we need her address, too, please. Mrs. Padron: 533 Northwest 57th Court. Chairman Winton: OK. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner Winton, if I may? I'd just like to ask one of the witnesses, Mr. Gomez, Pedro Gomez, if he is aware of any opposition in the neighborhood, subsequent to our meetings with the neighborhood, any neighbors that may be opposed to this? Chairman Winton: I'm not sure how it's relevant, you know. He doesn't represent the neighborhood. He's not going to have done so. Mr. Fernandez: Well, he was part of the meetings that we've had with the neighborhood. Mr. Maxwell: But it's not really relevant, Counselor. Chairman Winton: OK. So does that conclude your testimony? Mr. Fernandez: Well, we'd like to reserve time for rebuttal, and we'd like to answer any questions you have. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, whenever you close the public hearing, then I'll state my position on this issue. Chairman Winton: Do we have anyone else? Mr. City Attorney, help me here. Mr. Maxwell: There's -- if no one else wants to speak, you can close the public hearing and discuss it. Mr. Fernandez: I believe -- excuse me. I believe that Mr. Varela would like to make -- on behalf of Eckerd, would like to make a statement for the record. Chairman Winton: I'm sorry. Who? Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Manny Varela from Eckerd. Chairman Winton: OK. Manny Varela: Good evening. My name is Manny Varela. Our office is at 3300 West -- excuse me, North 28th Terrace, in Hollywood, Florida, 33020. I'm the construction manager for Eckerd 165 January 23, 2003 Corporation in the South Florida area, and oversee these projects that fall in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Eckerd has been looking for a neighborhood store in this area for quite a while. We missed several opportunities in the immediate area to our competitors directly across the street. This is a unique opportunity for Eckerd to provide neighborhood service in a lot or lots that are currently in disrepair. The closing down of the Shell gas station, which is currently an eyesore, the empty lots that I hear are being used to park trucks overnight and cars for sale, and the not -so -desirable (INAUDIBLE) Center immediately to the south. I think we can make a terrific impact in the neighborhood. We have -- and our consultants have met with the neighborhood groups and tried to see what their needs are, in order for them to allow us to be here and service them. We believe that we have met their needs by providing adequate buffering, screening walls. Initially, we put a six -- we designed a six-foot high wall. They came back and said, could you make it eight foot? We did curbing to prevent cars from parking on the grass and so forth. Again, this is a great opportunity for Eckerd and a great opportunity for us to be able to service this area. And we really look forward to receiving favorable votes from you all. Clearly, the --you were just talking about it --the outdoor advertising sign, the double-faced huge monument that sits there. It's part of our deal to take that down. Again, if you have any questions, I'll be more than happy. Thank you very much for your time. Chairman Winton (Translated into Spanish by Mr. Felipe): Thank you very much. Anyone else from the public would like to comment on -- what PZ number is this? Mr. Maxwell: Twelve. Chairman Winton: PZ -12. Being none, we will close the public hearing. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I noticed through the public hearing, first of all, this project is going to be impacting the residential area west of 57th Court. And as I hear testimony of the people in favor of the project, I didn't hear -- I didn't see any of the neighbors of the -- east of 57th Court or -- I'm sorry, west of 57th Court or north of 7th Street or west on 5th Street. And this is -- I would say that it's about 95 percent residential. And I believe this is going to be a big impact into this residential area. So, based on that, I'm going to support the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Department for denial of this application. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second, recommending denial of this application. Do we have further discussion from the Commission? So we have a motion and a second. No further discussion. All in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. 166 January 23, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -117 A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSAL TO AMEND ORDINANCE 10544, THE COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, TO CHANGE LAND USE DESIGNATION AT APPROXIMATELY 536, 602, 608 AND 690 N.W. 57 AVENUE AND 601, 605, 611, 631 AND 641 N.W. 57 COURT FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado 54. DENY PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 536, 602, 608 AND 690 N.W. 57 AVENUE AND 601, 605, 611, 631 AND 641 N.W. 57 COURT FROM C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL AND R- 1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL. Commissioner Gonzalez: Thirteen. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): Well, 13 is the companion. I guess it becomes moot. Or I don't know if you have to actually move to deny. Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, what do I need to do? Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Clerk): Motion to deny. But I would suggest that you get the recommendation of the staff. Ben Fernandez: Excuse me. Commissioner, would you be receptive to a motion to defer the item, allow us time -- Commissioner Gonzalez: No, sir. We're -- Mr. Fernandez: -- to meet with neighbors, and bring in the neighbors that are east of 57th? Because, you know, that's why we asked for a continuance, to put this to the end of the agenda, 167 January 23, 2003 to have -- they're going to show up. It's just that you move very quickly through your P and Z (Planning and Zoning) agenda. And they said -- we've estimated they'll be here at 6. We as sure we could have them here for the next meeting, and they can tell you about how they support this project. I personally have spoken with Fausto Callava of the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office, who's in favor of this project as well. We'd love to be able to present that to you. Chairman Winton: He doesn't get a vote or an opinion. Sorry. Mr. Fernandez: Absolutely. But I think -- Chairman Winton: The neighbors are -- Mr. Fernandez: But the neighbors can be here. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, we've already voted on the item. Now, if the Commissioner wants to, you know -- Mr. Fernandez: Move to reconsider. Commissioner Gonzalez: I don't want to reconsider it. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Gonzalez: I know the neighborhood, and I don't want to reconsider. Chairman Winton: So, I guess that means nope. So, PZ -13. Commissioner Sanchez: What's the recommendation on the companion item? Ms. Slazyk: The recommendation is for denial by the Planning and Zoning Department, and denial by the Zoning Board. This is the companion zoning change. Chairman Winton: This is a companion item, so we need -- Commissioner Gonzalez: So move -- Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Second for denial. Chairman Winton: Motion and a second on denial. Any other comments? Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign oppose. Motion carries. 168 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: Public hearing on that, as well, Commissioner. Chairman Winton: Oh, there is? Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. Open and close it. Chairman Winton: Public hearing on PZ -13. Anyone from the public would like to speak on PZ -13? Being none, we'll close the public hearing. All in -- we have a motion and a second on PZ -13, the companion item to 12. All in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Gonzalez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -118 A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO CHANGE CLASSIFICATION AT APPROXIMATELY 536, 602, 608 AND 690 N.W. 57 AVENUE AND 601, 605, 611, 631 AND 641 N.W. 57 COURT FROM C-2 LIBERAL COMMERCIAL AND R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Tomas Regalado 55. INSTRUCT CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE MAYOR DIAZ WITH COPY OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF COMMISSION MEETING WHEREIN ISSUE OF COMPOSITION OF CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL (CIP) WAS DISCUSSED. APPOINT HECTOR SEHWERERT, REV. RICHARD DUNK, THOMAS REBULL, DONALD BIERMAN, PETER ROULHAC, FRED ST. AMAND, JANET McALILEY, JAIME PEREZ AND JOHN RUIZ AS MEMBERS OF CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL. Chairman Winton: We will -- we've ended our little break, and we will go to Item Number 26, which is the Civilian Investigative Panel Nominating Committee Process. And y'all please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember this right from our discussion at the last meeting, the 169 January 23, 2003 Commission, in this process, will -- has the right to or the requirement, actually, to nominate nine candidates, at large; is that not correct? Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no, no, no. Each Commissioner appoints -- Chairman Winton: No, no, no. I'm talking about the ordinance. I'm not -- the ordinance is that we nominate -- the Commission nominates nine members at large. And I think, in terms of process, in order to make this process work as smoothly as we can, I think we decided that we're going to give each Commissioner an opportunity to put forward a name that we will also vote on at large. And, so, that will get us presumably five candidates. And then we have the four others, and I'm a little fuzzy in terms of what we decided. I know we decided some sort of ballot, but did we decide -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Can I suggest something? Chairman Winton: Please. Commissioner Regalado: We have this ballot -- and I spoke to the City Attorney, and he thought it was a good idea. We have this ballot for the four left, after the five nominated by each Commissioner. Commissioner Sanchez: At large. Commissioner Regalado: We can all -- Chairman Winton: At large. Commissioner Regalado: We can all write five names here, and the City Attorney can pick four out of the five out of the hat, and it will be fair, and we don't have to debate, because all of candidates are good candidates, and we don't need to debate. So, I would suggest to you that the other four that the City Attorney will pick -- Chairman Winton: That we would each write a name on a ballot? Commissioner Regalado: Right. Chairman Winton: And hand it to the City Attorney and he'd pull them out of a hat? Commissioner Regalado: Right. Five papers, and he pick -- Commissioner Sanchez: This isn't a raffle of the lottery, you know. 170 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: And he picks four. Commissioner Sanchez: No. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, it's fair. Commissioner Sanchez: It's fair, but it's -- I don't think it's right. I mean, if we have been given this responsibility and everyone has worked so hard to put forth all these best candidates, I mean, I don't think it's just right for the luck of the draw to select one out of a hat. I mean, I've put a lot of effort into reading all these resumes -- Commissioner Regalado: I read them. Commissioner Sanchez: -- and meeting with someone just to pick one out of a hat. Commissioner Regalado: I read all of them, all of them. But, you see, one Commissioner is going to be left out anyway. Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: No. I think, if we just go through this -- are we going to let people speak or -- ? Mr. Chairman, what is your pleasure? Chairman Winton: Well, I'm not sure -- is this a required public hearing? Is this a public hearing? Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): It is not. Chairman Winton: It's not a public hearing. So, you know, I don't know who we would want to encourage to be speaking, frankly. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: What I don't want to do is allow all of the candidates who have an interest to come up and talk about why they're interested. That's why we had a Nominating Committee, so. Yes, sir, Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I think that Commissioner Regalado's recommendation is probably the fairest thing that we could do. But I also think it would give a perception that we have somehow abrogated our responsibilities, a very tough decision and a very tough responsibility. And, candidly, I'd like to just sort of put my name under the door and be through with it and run away, because it's going to hurt my relationship with a lot of people that I respect, that have every right to be on this Commission -- on this panel. The problem that we have, candidly, is that the Nominating Committee did too good of a job. That's the problem we have. Chairman Winton: Well, that's a great problem to have. 171 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: And, you know, we have a lot of people that are here. You know, I want to say on the record, Mr. Chairman, there are no women on this dais, and I'm really concerned about how we're going to ensure that the gender issue is properly dealt with, and that's going to be a real problem. I mean, I can -- you know, that's just -- that's -- so, I think the simplest thing for us to do is to narrow this down by making the first round of five nominations, which doesn't have to go this way, but I think the sense was that each person would be recognized to make one nomination; we would vote on that, and one by one by one, and then we would move on. Or we could all put one name up and vote on them all five at one time, which may be the simplest way to do that, and then we could move to the harder part of this and figure out how we want to do it. Commissioner Regalado: That's fine. Chairman Winton: Mr. Manager, would you like to comment? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): There is a way that you can -- I think it makes sense to go ahead and do each one of your -- one each, that takes five. There is a way to get to the other four. It's a process called the Nominal Group Process. And what it is is each one of you picks -- has one person. Those names are put on a list, and each one of you rank them one, two, three, four, five, with the top least vote -getters being the ones that actually get appointed. That way, in other words, they're all ranked by each one of you, and then if person number one gets a one, a two, a three, whatever, as you do all that, then there would be a numerical score. And the ones that get the least amount -- the first four that get the least amount, they end up being the appointees. That's one way you can do it. Chairman Winton: Well -- Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: It's a lot of ways to do it. I want to do the first five, and then -- Chairman Winton: I agree. Vice Chairman Teele: But I do want to do this before anything is done. I want to say on the record that I was the one who made the motion that allowed for the Mayor to have three appointments, is that correct? Chairman Winton: That's correct. Commissioner Regalado: Yes, you did. Vice Chairman Teele: And it gave the Commission, in effect, one appointment each, and a group of four. Or stated correctly in the ordinance, the Commission has nine. Chairman Winton: Correct. 172 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: But at the time -- and the Clerk will pull the transcript -- at the time that the process was being done, we said -- I said that the reason that I'm recommending that there be three for the Mayor is to balance out the ethnicity and gender issues. Chairman Winton: That's exactly what you said. Vice Chairman Teele: And I want the transcript pulled, because I want to be on record as saying or moving first, that the Clerk of the City is instructed -- I would move that the Clerk of the City be instructed to furnish the Mayor with a verbatim transcript of the underlying policy reasons why this Commission gave the Mayor three appointments, with the understanding that it is our hope that the Mayor will carry out the intent of the Commission, no matter how this comes out. That way, if we do this before, nobody can say we're putting the Mayor in a box. Chairman Winton: Right. OK. Vice Chairman Teele: I would so move. Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: And a second. Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -119 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE MAYOR DIAZ WITH A COPY OF THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL (CIP) WAS DISCUSSED, SPECIFICALLY THE POLICY REASONS WHY THE MAYOR WAS AFFORDED THREE APPOINTMENTS TO THE CIP. 173 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: Is the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Nominating Committee here? I can't see anything up there. Oh, Joe. Joseph Serota: Yes. Chairman Winton: And my apologies for not recognizing you, but I think it would be appropriate for you to kind of open this off, and give just a few brief remarks on your process. And we would like to all recognize your entire committee and thank them for a job extremely well done. Mr. Serota: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. There are a number of members of my committee here, as well. But -- Chairman Winton: And please recognize them, if you would like. Mr. Serota. Yes. Let's see. Could you stand? OK. Do we have anybody else? Chairman Winton: How many of you are there? Mr. Serota: OK. Chairman Winton: Why don't you have them come to the microphone? Mr. Serota: We have Mr. Blumenfeld and Miguel De La O. Chairman Winton: Why don't you have them come to the microphone and put their name and address on the record -- Mr. Serota: Sure. Chairman Winton: -- as well, please. Miguel De La O: Miguel De La O, 37 Bay Heights Drive. 174 January 23, 2003 Jack Blumenfeld: Jack Blumenfeld, 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Mr. Serota. Mr. Serota: My name is Joseph Serota, 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Miami. This was an incredibly hardworking committee. Altogether, we had 21 meetings. Twenty-one meetings, where we had good attendance and, obviously, a quorum in every one. We started with a great deal of publicity. We were on TV (Television), radio, television, Spanish, English, Haitian, to get applications. We got 118 applications. We all reviewed 118 applications. We went through them and we culled it down to 35. Of the 35, we interviewed at a minimum of 30 minutes for every single one of the 35 applications. We then went through -- the 31 applicants. We went down through the 35 applicants. And then, finally, after all that, we began voting. And we were very conscious, as Commissioner Teele has stated, about both the ethnic, gender, location, age. We tried to get as diverse a group as possible, based upon the people that had applied. I mean, frankly, of the 118 that applied, you know, there were certain ethnic groups or gender groups that were more heavily represented, so we only had what we could work with. But of that 35, we came down to 24. We also have, I believe, one or two alternates, if for some reason we needed it beyond the 24. But that was the process, Mr. Commissioner, and we're down to the 24, which we do feel is an ethnically and gender diverse, and professionally diverse. Because I will say, although I am an attorney, if there was a group that was ethnically represented but not representative overall, we had more attorneys than any other profession, although it was an ethnically diverse group of attorneys, we had that. So we had to kick out a lot of these attorneys. And we think that, in the end, this is what we've got. Chairman Winton: Well, that's a -- good work, Joe. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: Let me take this opportunity to thank the Chairman, Joe, and everyone who labored so hard to go through this process, making it a very fair process. The presentation itself, let me just say that it's incredible. I mean, all the resumes were put together, pictures. I mean, my staff didn't have to do much of the work. And basically, one of the biggest responsibilities on the CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel), in putting this together, was that, you know, we have to be very, very careful how we put this panel together. And I think that we have taken a fair and professional manner to put this panel together. Now it's up to us, and we have now the responsibility to put this -- make this panel as diversified as possible to represent the entire community. And that's why I think all the steps that were taken by this -- the Commissioners here and Commissioner Teele, you know, having the Mayor appoint three to make sure that he balances the ship so we could, you know, have a clear sailing on this. It's incredible. The -- every one of these individuals that have made it here deserve to be here. I mean, they are the top notch. I'm sure that some people got left out because it just wasn't -- you couldn't present that many. But everyone who applied, I want to thank them for taking the time and commit themselves to this process, which is not a simple process and a lot of sacrifice will 175 January 23, 2003 come from being in this panel. So I just want to take that opportunity to thank you and everyone who labored so hard to put this panel together. Mr. Serota: The only other thing I'd like to say is that your staff, the City staff, especially Shirley Richardson and Carrie Abia, were really tremendous. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, we don't want to leave them out either, so thank them, too. Mr. Serota: OK. Thank you. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Joe. Chairman Winton: Thank you very much. Commissioner Sanchez: Are we ready? Chairman Winton: Madam City Attorney, I would like to -- you to answer one question on the record and that is whether or not we are allowed, in this position, to accept any nominations from the floor, or whether we can choose anyone other than those candidates that were selected by the Nominating Committee? Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): You may only appoint from those submitted to you by the Nominating Committee, pursuant to the terms of the ordinance. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: Just one other administrative matter. I would also move or request that the entire Nominating Committee be awarded or presented with a proclamation -- a presentation at the next regular Commission meeting -- Chairman Winton: Great idea. Vice Chairman Teele: -- for the full members, to thank them for their service, and we should work with the Protocol Office to design an appropriate -- you know, not one of these mimeographs, but a real seal or something that's significant. And I would just simply make that request that that -- Commissioner Sanchez: Here, here. Second. Chairman Winton: Yes. Very good. Vice Chairman Teele: So moved. 176 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: I don't think we need a motion. It's just a directive, and we'll -- they will take the directive and comply. Thank you very much. OK. Let's -- should we -- shall we start with the first five. Commissioner Sanchez: As J.L. Plummer used to say, it's time to fish or cut bait. Chairman Winton: Man, I hate that (INAUDIBLE). Commissioner Sanchez: That's why he said it, Johnny. Chairman Winton: I think I'm the wrong, you know -- OK. Well, shall we fish or cut bait. Commissioner Sanchez: Yep. Chairman Winton: Here we go. As Chair, I guess I will make the -- submit the last name of the five. If you don't mind, we could start at that end or this end, whatever y'all would like. Commissioner Sanchez: You're finally learning protocol. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, would you like to start? Commissioner Regalado: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. And my appointment is Hector Sehwerert. Chairman Winton: Your suggested nominee. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Chairman Winton: Hector. Commissioner Regalado: Sehwerert. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Chairman Winton: Hold on, I've got to -- oh, I see it. OK. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Hold on. All right. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, in 1990, when I was elected to the County Commission, the organization known as PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality) came to me and requested that a Civilian Independent Panel be impaneled for the County. After a long discussion, I rejected that notion, much to the chagrin of PULSE and many of the people that I represented, because I didn't find that there was any factual reason at that time that the County should have one. Indeed, all of the presentations that were made by PULSE were City of Miami 177 January 23, 2003 incidents, and my comment then was, the problem is not in the County. It's in the City, and I will not move forward with a Civilian Panel. Well, as fate would have it, I'm in the City. And I find it completely necessary that this panel be impaneled. But I, in deference to the organization that has worked for over 20 years, when no one else -- when they were the lone voice, with all due respect to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and all the others and all of the community that has come about -- by the way, is the Police Chief here, Mr. Manager? Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): I'm not sure. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, I -- Mr. Gimenez: No, he's not. Vice Chairman Teele: I was very disturbed to read some of the comments, and I think that, at a minimum, the Police Chief needs to be given a transcript or a recording of this, because I think the attitude of the Police Chief is very important for this Panel's success. But in any event, in deference to PULSE, I am nominating a Vice President of PULSE, the Chairman of the central committee for PULSE, the Reverend Richard Dunn, II. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thomas Rebull. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, my appointment is Donald Bierman. Commissioner Sanchez: Don who? Commissioner Gonzalez: Donald Bierman. Commissioner Sanchez: Very good. Chairman Winton: I don't see his name. Where is it? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): It's the second from the top. Vice Chairman Teele: Second from the top? Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I'm looking through the (INAUDIBLE). Chairman Winton: Donald Bierman. And I would like to suggest Mr. Peter Roulhac. And -- Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. 178 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: I move the adoption of the said five names. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second on these five nominees at large by the City Commission. Further discussion. Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-120 A MOTION APPOINTING THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL: HECTOR SEHWERERT (nominated by Commissioner Regalado) REV. RICHARD DUNN (nominated by Vice Chairman Teele) THOMAS REBULL (nominated by Commissioner Sanchez) DONALD BIERMAN (nominated by Commissioner Gonzalez) PETER ROULHAC (nominated by Chairman Winton) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: Now, to get to the next four. Commissioner Sanchez: Four. How are we going to do it? What's the wish of this Commission? Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. 179 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: I recommend that each Commissioner be authorized to submit not less -- not more than two names for consideration, and that the names be voted upon one by one as a panel. Commissioner Regalado: But how do we do that? Chairman Winton: Yeah, how do we -- Vice Chairman Teele: In other words, we'll have 10 names before us, and those 10 names will be read off, and we'll get to vote for one of the -- we'll get one round of voting until we come up with a consensus of three votes for one name. Commissioner Sanchez: Can I simply that? Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah. Chairman Winton: Yeah, please. Commissioner Sanchez: If, out of the 10 names, there are names that are repeated, those should be the ones that come out first. Chairman Winton: I'm sorry? Commissioner Sanchez: In other words, out of the names -- if we're going to put two names on the ballot, you put two, then it goes down the line, and the names are repeated -- and maybe there's two or three Commissioners that have selected that name, those individuals -- Chairman Winton: Well, why don't we just put one each, and see if we can't get it done through there? Commissioner Sanchez: Right. Chairman Winton: I mean, I don't know why we need -- Vice Chairman Teele: You know why? Chairman Winton: Why? Vice Chairman Teele: Because we're going to have a gender problem if we don't -- everybody doesn't come forward with two names. I think what Commissioner Sanchez was saying is the right thing. We put two names down on a sheet of paper. Everybody write two names, and the names that get the highest number of votes or the most nominations -- the most nominations -- Chairman Winton: Oh, OK. OK. Vice Chairman Teele: -- will be the names moving forward. That way it -- 180 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Great. OK. I got it now. Fine. So -- Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Maria Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, those ballots do need to be signed, and the Clerk needs to read the names into the record that each Commissioner lists on the ballot. Commissioner Sanchez: Signed? Ms. Chiaro: Yes, sir. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Ms. Thompson: They already have their names on them. Vice Chairman Teele: They already have their name on it? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Thompson: Their name is already printed on the ballot. You still need a signature? Commissioner Sanchez: I'm prepared to cast my vote. Ms. Chiaro: No, you don't need to sign them. They just need to be identified, and the Clerk needs to read them. You do not, as long as they're identified. Commissioner Gonzalez: What, one or two? Two? Chairman Winton: Well, I put both on one. I put both on one, so -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. I've got my two here. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Drum roll. Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. Commissioner Sanchez: It's like the Grammy's, you know: "And the winner is..." Ms. Thompson: Nominated by Commissioner Regalado, Jaime Perez. Nominated by Commissioner Regalado -- Vice Chairman Teele: But wait a minute. I thought it was two names on each ballot. Commissioner Sanchez: Two names. 181 January 23, 2003 Ms. Thompson: He -- some people gave me two ballots. Commissioner Sanchez: Oh. Some people can't follow instructions. Ms. Thompson: Moving along. Nominated by Commissioner Regalado, Janet McAliley. Nominated by Commissioner Teele, Janet McAliley, Fred St. Amand. Chairman Winton: We've got to write these down, so you've got to go -- Commissioner Gonzalez: What were the names again? Ms. Thompson: Do you want me to repeat them or you're all right? Chairman Winton: Fred -- Ms. Thomspon: Fred St. Amand. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Thompson: Nominated by Commissioner Sanchez, Jaime Perez and Roger Carlton. Nominated by Commissioner Gonzalez, Micheal De Cossio, is that correct? Commissioner Gonzalez: That's correct. Ms. Thompson: Micheal D -E -C -O -S -S -I -O. Nominated by Commissioner Gonzalez, John Ruiz. Chairman Winton: John who? Commissioner Gonzalez: Ruiz. Ms. Thompson: Ruiz. Chairman Winton: Ruiz? Ms. Thompson: R -U -I -Z. Nominated by Commissioner Winton, Cheryl Roberts and Janet McAliley. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. The two names that were repeated, McAliley and Perez, right? Chairman Winton: Jaime Perez got two. Commissioner Regalado: It's very simple. One has three votes. The next one has two votes. Vice Chairman Teele: There were only two names mentioned twice. 182 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: Right. Commissioner Sanchez: Perez and McAliley. Commissioner Regalado: Janet McAliley and Jaime Perez. Ms. Thompson: According to our tally, we have Janet McAliley mentioned three times -- Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Ms. Thompson: -- and Jaime Perez mentioned two times. OK. Chairman Winton: So we've got two of the four. Vice Chairman Teele: Two of the four. Chairman Winton: Should we -- Commissioner Regalado: Just two of the four. Chairman Winton: Now, should we just use these names and -- Vice Chairman Teele: No, let's go -- Chairman Winton: I mean -- no. But take the names that are remaining -- Commissioner Sanchez: Let's write two more. Vice Chairman Teele: Let's write two more names. Commissioner Sanchez: Let's write two more names. Chairman Winton: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: Can we have some discussion? Chairman Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I only would say this. I think the largest citizens on patrol in this City, by far, is in the Little Haiti community. I think it's very important -- and I think there are at least two or three Haitian nominees -- that there be some representation by the Haitian community. Chairman Winton: I don't see three. There's one. I think there's only one, Commissioner Teele. Now, are we going to write two names only from these that are in front of us now, or are we going to -- you can pick two -- just any others? 183 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: Any two names that have been nominated by the Nominating Committee. Chairman Winton: Well -- Commissioner Regalado: I have mine. Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez: But not the same names. Chairman Winton: Yeah. I guess he's saying you can pick anybody you want from the Nominating Committee. I don't care. Commissioner Regalado: This is the second round. I have mine, so I'm ready. Commissioner Gonzalez: OK. But you cannot use the same names that we already used, right? Commissioner Sanchez: Well, yeah. Chairman Winton: Yeah, you can. Commissioner Gonzalez: Oh, yeah? Vice Chairman Teele: You can use any of the names -- Commissioner Sanchez: Somebody that wasn't nominated -- Vice Chairman Teele: -- other than the two that have already been selected. Commissioner Regalado: I cannot use the one because both were selected. Commissioner Sanchez: Pick two more. Chairman Winton: Who? Commissioner Sanchez: Let me sign. Vice Chairman Teele: It's got your name on it. Commissioner Sanchez: They want me to sign it. It makes it official. Ms. Thompson: We're moving on to ballot number two. Commissioner Regalado nominates John Ruiz and Fred St. Amand. Chairman Winton: Names again. 184 January 23, 2003 Ms. Thompson: From Commissioner Regalado -- Chairman Winton: Uh-huh. Ms. Thompson: -- John Ruiz and Fred St. Amand. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Thompson: From Commissioner Teele, we have nominations of Fred St. Amand and Larry Handfield. Chairman Winton: Handfield, OK. Ms. Thompson: Larry Handfield and Fred St. Amand. From Commissioner Sanchez, we have Fred St. Amand and Roger Carlton. From Commissioner Gonzalez, we have nominee John Ruiz and Jaime Perez. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Jaime Perez is already -- Commissioner Sanchez: He's already appointed. Commissioner Regalado: He's already appointed. Ms. Thompson: Yes. Chairman Winton: He's already appointed. Commissioner Gonzalez: He was? Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah. Vice Chairman Teele: Keep going. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Keep going. Ms. Thompson: From Commissioner Winton, we have nominated Fred St. Amand and Roger Carlton. Commissioner Regalado: OK. We have a tie. Commissioner Sanchez: No, but we -- Commissioner Regalado: Fred is appointed, and we have a tie with Roger Car -- John Ruiz and Roger Carlton. 185 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: So that makes the four. Commissioner Regalado: No. Vice Chairman Teele: That's three. Commissioner Regalado: No, that's three. Chairman Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: We have a tie. We need to decide between Roger Carlton and John Ruiz. Vice Chairman Teele: No, we need to decide (INAUDIBLE) Commissioner Regalado: Wait. But I mean -- you know, I didn't mean -- Chairman Winton: Decide what? Commissioner Regalado: -- that way. I mean that we have to do another round for the last of the four. Vice Chairman Teele: Madam Clerk, would you read into the record the eight names that have been selected by the Commission? Ms. Thompson: Right now I have seven, except we haven't decided on the last ballot yet, before this ballot was seven. Commissioner Sanchez: Madam Clerk, aren't there two remaining? Ms. Thompson: If you would -- may I read the results in? Vice Chairman Teele: OK. I apologize. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: I thought you read it. Ms. Thompson: OK. According to the last ballot, Fred St. Amand received four votes. John Ruiz received two votes. Roger Carlton, two. Commissioner Regalado: So that's it. Vice Chairman Teele: So Fred St. Amand is -- Commissioner Sanchez: Is in. 186 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: -- the eighth person. Chairman Winton: That's correct. Commissioner Sanchez: Right, and then we need to decide -- Commissioner Regalado: And we need one. Vice Chairman Teele: And we need to decide on one. And I'm just asking, so that we don't get a repeat, that the Clerk read out all eight names, so that everybody is clear on who has been selected. And we vote with one name this time. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: No, we break the tie between the ones -- Chairman Winton: Well, let's -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- the two candidates -- Chairman Winton: Let's have a motion -- Commissioner Sanchez: -- the two nominating -- Chairman Winton: Let's have a motion to accept Fred St. Amand. Vice Chairman Teele: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on Fred St. Amand. Any discussion? Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -121 A MOTION APPOINTING FRED ST. AMAND AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL. 187 January 23, 2003 Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Winton: So we now have eight names that have been confirmed by the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, the remaining two that have two votes each, that are tied, we should vote on those two. Chairman Winton: I think that's correct, too, also. I mean, that's -- Vice Chairman Teele: You think what? Commissioner Sanchez: We should just try to break that tie between the five votes here. Chairman Winton: I would break the tie on the two that are -- I would not -- I think we should vote on only one of those two people, who got the most votes just now, which would be Roger Carlton and -- was it John Ruiz? Commissioner Gonzalez: John Ruiz. Commissioner Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Regalado: I have mine here. Chairman Winton: Now, I think, before you do it, though, Commissioner Teele is right. Before y' all hand these in, let the Clerk read into the record all the names that we've submitted so that everybody's clear on that -- Commissioner Regalado: Why? We're voting -- Chairman Winton: -- before you make your final choice. Commissioner Regalado: -- just for two. Commissioner Gonzalez: Just for two. 188 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: They are not there. Chairman Winton: I understand that, but -- oh well, I guess you're right. It doesn't matter, does it? I'm sorry. My apologies. You're right. Ms. Thompson: On the third ballot, we have nominated, by Commissioner Regalado, John Ruiz. On the -- nominated by Commissioner Teele, Brenda Shapiro. Chairman Winton: How did -- I thought we were only voting on the two that were -- OK. So you've -- got it. Keep going. Commissioner Sanchez: No, that's not -- come on. Chairman Winton: Keep going. Ms. Thompson: OK. On round -- Commissioner Sanchez: That's exactly why he did it. Ms. Thompson: On ballot three, Commissioner Sanchez is nominating Roger Carlton. Commissioner Gonzalez is nominating John Ruiz, and Commissioner Winton is nominating Roger Carlton. Commissioner Sanchez: It's a tie. You're going to have to break that tie. Chairman Regalado: It's all your fault. Ms. Thompson: If I might -- Chairman Winton: Yeah, it is all your fault, Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Sanchez: We vote again. Ms. Thompson: If I might, your results are Roger Carlton with three votes, John Ruiz with one, and Brenda Shapiro with -- Chairman Winton: Well, while we're contemplating that, we need to go back a step. We did not vote on Janet McAliley and Jaime Perez. We need a motion and a second on -- Vice Chairman Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. 189 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Second. Janet McAliley, Jaime Perez. Discussion. Being none, all in favor LL " aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. The motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -122 A MOTION APPOINTING JANET McALILEY AND JAIME PEREZ AS MEMBERS OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Vice Chairman Teele: What was the vote on the last one? Commissioner Sanchez: No, it's a tie. Commissioner Regalado: It's a tie. Commissioner Sanchez: We've got to vote again. Commissioner Regalado: Two and two. Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, sir, it is. He voted for Ruiz, Carlton, Ruiz, and Carlton. Chairman Winton: Yeah, it's a tie. Two to two. Ms. Thompson: I'll read -- Commissioner Sanchez: Two to two. Ms. Thompson: I'll read them out again. Commissioner Regalado nominated -- 190 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Because he didn't vote for one of these two. He voted for somebody else. Ms. Thompson: -- nominated John Ruiz. Commissioner Teele -- yes. I'm sorry. We had it recorded wrong. We're sorry. Let me just go through it again. OK. Commissioner Tomas Regalado nominates John Ruiz. Commissioner Teele nominated Brenda Shapiro. Chairman Winton: That's the reason it's two to two. Commissioner Sanchez: Invalid vote. Vice Chairman Teele: All right. So, what do you want me to do, send (INAUDIBLE) Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. We're sending you to bed. Commissioner Sanchez: We're sending you to Iraq. Commissioner Regalado: To Iraq? Unidentified Speaker: You're going to be in Iraq? Chairman Winton: You're going to the corner. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Sanchez has nominated Roger Carlton. Chairman Winton: Time out. Ms. Thompson: OK. Commissioner Gonzalez, John Ruiz, and Commissioner Winton, Roger Carlton. Chairman Winton: OK. One more time. Commissioner Sanchez: We vote again. Chairman Winton: Vote again. Vice Chairman Teele: Could I get the resumes of both gentlemen, please? Chairman Winton: Could you get the resume? Yes, you may. Commissioner Sanchez: Give -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: I'm ready to vote again. Here's my ballot. Madam Clerk, do you have all the ballots? Commissioner Sanchez: No. 191 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Oh. Ms. Thompson: We're on ballot number four. Commissioner Regalado nominates John Ruiz. Commissioner Gonzalez nominates John Ruiz. Commissioner Sanchez nominates Roger Carlton. Commissioner Teele nominates John Ruiz, and Chairman Winton nominates John Ruiz. Chairman Winton: OK. Need a motion on John Ruiz. Vice Chairman Teele: So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second on John Ruiz. Discussion. Being none, all in favor "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. 192 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: Do we have here some of the -- I see at least one or two -- some of the appointees? I think we do. Chairman Winton: Would y'all like to stand and be recognized, if you're one of the recent appointees, those of you who are here? Why don't you -- Commissioner Regalado: Why don't you come up here? Chairman Winton: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: Why don't you come up here? Because, I mean, this is really important. Commissioner Sanchez: Congratulations. Commissioner Regalado: This way, Janet. [APPLAUSE] Chairman Winton: And I would like to -- if you all don't mind, I would like to read all nine into the record so that it is clear: Janet McAliley, Jaime Perez, Tomas Rebull, Peter Roulhac, John Ruiz, Hector -- how do you pronounce Hector's last name? Commissioner Gonzalez: Schewerert. Chairman Winton: What is it? Commissioner Gonzalez: Schewerert, right? Chairman Winton: Schewerert? Commissioner Gonzalez: Right. Chairman Winton: OK. Shirley Richardson: Shirley Richardson, Professional Compliance. He pronounces his name Hector Schewerert. Chairman Winton: Schewerert. OK. Hector Schewerert, Fred St. Amand, the Reverend Richard Dunn, and Donald Bierman. So you all have a very -- we -- I think we all want to thank you your interest in all this. I'd like to thank everyone who applied. You know, it'd be nice if we could have brought the whole group in, but you can't. So thank you all for being really concerned about our City. We appreciate it. To those of you who have been nominated to serve on this committee, this is one heck of a responsibility, and we trust and believe strongly that y'all will carry that responsibility out with the absolute utmost of commitment. This is our City. This 193 January 23, 2003 is your City, and how you carry out this very, very important task will mean an awful lot to the future of our City for along, longtime. So good luck and do a great job. [APPLAUSE] 56. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GROVENOR PROJECT AT 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO 5:30 P.M. DURING COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003; DEVELOPER TO MEET WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND BRING BACK MODIFIED, NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL. Chairman Winton: We have one last item on the entire agenda. I'd like to go back to the PZ agenda, which is PZ 4. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning and Zoning Department): For the record again, Lourdes Slazyk Planning and Zoning Department. PZ -4 is a major -use special permit for the Grovenor Project. It's going to be located at 2610 Tigertail Avenue. The project is to be comprised of a residential complex with 151 residential units and 409 parking spaces. This project was reviewed by the large-scale development committee and the Urban Development Review Board for additional input and recommendations to the Planning Director. Based on that input the department's recommendation is for approval with conditions. The conditions primarily have to do with the standard conditions that are in a major -use special permit with some additional design concerns that have been addressed through conditions in the development order. The design considerations that have been inserted as conditions in the development order, first one has to do with pedestrian circulation. It was felt that the pedestrian access to and from South Bayshore Drive was weak. It required -- the configuration wasn't a convenient access for pedestrians to be able to access Bayshore Drive. We feel that Bayshore Drive is an asset to Coconut Grove and there will be a lot of residents from this building who will want to walk on Bayshore Drive, get to the park and to other areas of the Grove and that should be enhanced somewhat. The other design consideration had to do with the tree disposition plan. The plan showed two mature oaks that were going to be transplanted in order to make way for the driveway. This action may result in the loss of those trees and another option to either redesign the driveway or find a way to retain the oaks should be considered by the applicant. The findings that have been made on this project are that the project is going to benefit the Coconut Grove area by creating new housing opportunities to serve the Grove. The project has convenient access to downtown area and makes it ideally suited for residential use. Based on these findings and the design considerations, we recommend approval. Chairman Winton: Lourdes, are you finished? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Chairman Winton: OK, I'm sorry. We don't want to he here all night. Y'all don't want to be here all night. I don't want to be here all night. No one wants to be here all night so, process is, we're going to allow the applicant to begin this process. We will allow the opposing attorney and equal amount of time to the applicant and obviously each have a right of one cross 194 January 23, 2003 examination. We'll have a public hearing on this issue and a public hearing is going to be limited to two minutes per person and I hope that those of you who are coming from the public that we don't hear the same issue over and over again. Maybe one of you can say there's 10 of you and you can hold up your hand you know, you repeat the same thing but not repeat the same thing, so that we don't have to be here all night. Lucia, you're on. Lucia Dougherty: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the -- Chairman Winton: OK, hold on. We don't -- we have to swear in everyone who is going to testify so, we did that earlier but y' all weren't here for that so, Madam Clerk. AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES. Chairman Winton: OK, thank you, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia Dougherty with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant and joining me is my partner Adrienne Pardo and associate Gloria Velasquez and Zoning Consultant Rosario Kennedy. Also this evening I have with me Ugo Columbo, Bruce Whiner and their colleague Art Murphy who are principals in the ownership of the project. This development group you've heard of before because they have developed in Dade County and the City of Miami. Ugo Colombo only develops very high-end luxury condominiums. He has a sterling reputation for quality development both in the City as I say and in Dade County. In the City of Miami he has developed the Bristol Tower as well as the Santa Maria Projects. The reputation is not only for quality development but also timeless architecture. The architect for this project is the same one for the Bristol Tower and the Santa Maria the icon Marino Grand in Miami Beach and the Portavita in Dade County, that is Luis Revuelta and you'll be hearing from him in a minute. They have a reputation also for being sensitive to their immediate neighbors. You may recall during the Santa Maria Project there was a lot of opposition from our neighbors. We resolved those neighborhood disputes and the neighbors were very supportive of this project during its construction and before. Likewise we've done the same thing today. We have in fact, have agreements with our immediate neighbors to the north and to the south, the Grove Hill Condominium Association as well as the SBF Towers. With respect to this project it's located in a GI (government/institutional) zone and you may recall this property is formerly the naval reserve property, and you may also recall the dispute that there was on this property dealing with the McKinney Act. That was a time when there was a homeless assistance center going to be placed on this property. That is totally consistent with the GI use, and you're going to hear today our opposition say that the project that we're proposing is inconsistent with the GI use. I just want to remind you that these are the same folks who came back then and said that they did not want this homeless assistance center which is and I think undisputedly consistent with the GI use. Development Group here, this development group has owned this property for three years, and during this entire period of time they had been looking land studying this property for the exact right project being sensitive to the Coconut Grove as well as the neighbors. Again, I tell you it's a high-end luxury condominium and these are the qualifications that need to happen for that to occur. They need to have see-through units and we have other condominiums in Coconut 195 January 23, 2003 Grove, recently built, that don't have see-through units, and I can tell you, the back units are not sold. Everything else is sold that faces the water, the back units don't sell, so that's one of the criteria. We also have to have generous floor to ceiling heights and large units, that's our criteria. We have 150 units on this entire site. This is very, very low density. We could have 490 units so, it's very, very large units for this high-end condominium developer. Again, I want to tell you a little bit of history about this particular project. We started three years ago, we first brought in a 40 -story building that was very thin and narrow. The Planning Department looked at it and through their internal design process and said, "Are you kidding? This is not in the context of Coconut Grove. You can't go that high." So, we redesigned the project and brought in the building, went through the design review process. We went to the Urban Development Review Board and have a building that all of the planning staff for the City and the Urban Development Review Board agree is contextual and consistent with the development in Bayshore Drive. We then filed our major -use special permit. After that, we met with the Grove Hill Homeowners Association and the unit owners were very concerned about the views from their building. So, what did we do? We completely redesigned the project again, taking into consideration the views of our neighbors and redesigned it. Pushed the building back. Pushed the building away from the neighbors and having it at an angle. Then what'd we do? We met with the Tree -Man Trust. The Tree -Man Trust said, "We're concerned about the trees in the rear of the property on Tigertail. There are several oak trees and we'd like you to redesign the project to save those oak trees," and I forgot to mention, the other concern about the Grove Hill Home Association is they wanted the trees preserved that are on our property adjacent to their property line. So, they wanted us -- and you'll see that huge Ficus tree, so we redesigned to meet their concerns regarding those trees. So, Mr. Colombo said, " Alright what we're going to do is we're going to move our garage away from Tigertail." We had an underground garage so, it's totally imperceptible from Tigertail but we're going to move that garage, the underground garage back to preserve those trees. That means we had to go from 191 units down to 152 units so, we lost units in order to preserve the trees. Again, we do not have a formal written contract with the Tree -Man Trust at this time but we have agreed to all of the conditions that they want. We have offered a letter to them and we will offer a letter to you and to the City staff to put as conditions the preservation of the trees that they were concerned with including the two trees that Lourdes mentioned in the front, the two live oak trees. We will redesign the driveway to accommodate the preservation of those two trees. Then what happened? We then met with our SBF neighbors, our neighbors immediately to the North. They said, "We don't like the way you've treated our views. We'd like you to move the building back on that side as well." So, we completely redesigned the building again to meet the concerns of our neighbors of SBF. So this is the forth time that we redesigned the building in order to meet the concerns of our neighbors. And we are very disappointed today frankly that we don't have a total consensus of the community. It just seems that we can't make everybody happy in the community. We've done everything that we can to be sensitive to those neighbors who are immediately affected, those to our North and those to our South. I'd like to -- and we have letters of support from the Grove Hill Homeowners Association as well as the FBF Towers, Santiago Echemendia was here this afternoon but he had to catch a plane so I'm going to ask my associate Gloria Velasquez to read that letter from Santiago. Gloria Velasquez: Dear Board Members. 196 January 23, 2003 Joel Maxwell (Deputy City Attorney): Excuse me. Ms. Velasquez, for the record, please identify yourself. Ms. Velasquez: Gloria Velasquez Law Offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. "Dear Board Members, subject to Grovenor House compliance with the terms of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) settlement agreement dated December 16, 2002, by and between Grovenor and Rattio (phonetic) holdings Rattio as owner of the building at 2601 South Bayshore Drive supports the revised major -use special permit application which Grovenor has filed for the property located on South Bayshore Drive with the street address of 2610 Tigertail Avenue as reflected in the revised plans filed with the City of Miami on November 27, 2002. Sincerely, insignia ESG, Agent for Rattio Holdings, Richard Heidelburger." I'm going to submit this for the record and I'm also going to submit the letter from the Grove Hills Condominium Association also supporting the project. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman. Just -- the letters of support are not really relevant for these preceding. If the applicant wants to submit those, have them placed into the record then the applicant may do so but I don't think it's really good use of your time to have them read into the record or so forth. Your decision should not be based on who's in favor and who's not in favor. Ms. Dougherty: This property, and I think we're going to hear from our opposition. The property should be developed in accordance with the SD -17 regulations. The SD -17 regulations are applicable to the properties on the north and south of us. Well, it could be done, but I want you to know the two properties to the north and south do not comply with the current SD -17 regulations. They're both taller than that which would be permitted today. But nevertheless, it could be developed under the SD -17 regulations and you could have 490 units without any variances, a seven -story parking garage in the rear and a 22 story building. You won't have Florida ceiling heights that we have of nine feet and above. You won't have see-through units. You won't have large units and you won't have Ugo Colombo as the developer of this quality project. It won't be him. It could be somebody else and we're not here to say that this is a threat by any means at all, that's not the point. The point is, this is driven by the marketplace. That's what he does, luxury condominiums. We're not making these rules up. This is what he does and this is what he does well and this is what is necessary for these kinds of projects. The project in fact and you'll see from Luis Revuelta's presentation, does not create a wall on Bayshore. It actually flares off of Bayshore. The building flares back to meet and accommodate our neighbors. It's a chevron shape. The setback from Bayshore Drive is 137 feet at the closest point to Bayshore. Near our neighbors it's actually 165 feet. We will exceed that which is required by code and we will exceed that which our neighbors have as setbacks. A setback from Tigertail is 125 feet to the garage. Now, the garage is only 18 feet tall, it's less than a single- family home. The actually construction of the tower is 305 feet from Tigertail, that's a whole football field away from Tigertail and there is no, by the way, vehicular entrance on Tigertail. I like at this time Luis Revuelta who is the architect -- no. I'm going to have Taft Bradshaw actually start so he can show you the site plan. He's our landscape architect and then I'm going to have Luis Revuelta, the architect, to describe the architecture and then Tim Plummer, our traffic engineer, speak. Taft Bradshaw: For the record my name is Taft Bradshaw, of Bradshaw and Gil landscape architects, offices located at 4337 Seagate Drive, Lauderdale By the Sea. Good evening and 197 January 23, 2003 thank you for the opportunity to share this project with you. From the very beginning the landscape and the sensitivity of the existing environment has been of paramount importance to us. We have met with the Tree -Man Trust on several times. We've taken all their concerns at heart and we have what I refer to, we've responded, so our plan has become a responding plan. It responds not only to the issues that occur on Tigertail, but also to the individual tree preservation as well as tree location plan. OK, I think the best way and the most efficient -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, sir. I think we've lost quorum momentarily. Could you hold for a moment? Mr. Bradshaw: Sure. Mr. Maxwell: OK, he's back. We have quorum now, you may continue. Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you very much. I'd also like to introduce my associate who has worked very closely on this Robert Hault. Between the two of us we have worked very diligently in preparing these plans and the plans that have been submitted to the City and the different civic groups that we've met with. For orientation purposes this is Tigertail right here, Bayshore there. Right here in this location here is the Grove Hill the office building is right there. As our very first plan and first submission had the following, the trees that's in these dark green are the trees that will be preserved. We have preserved great majority of the trees whenever possible and also enhanced this in creating native hammocks. At one time we had two tennis courts in here and the recommendation and studying to the client we recommended that we can get one tennis court without removing any of the trees in this area and preserving these. He agreed. The Tigertail, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Tigertail there's an existing rubble stonewall which is quite nice but it's in bad repair at certain points. One of the concerns was could we preserve and keep that and just eliminate any motor transportation, vehicular transportation, and only keep a small pedestrian link from which the residents could use, go out and come in. We agreed to that. We've also detailed a very extensive tree relocation plan, which is in the documents in which we have worked with the Tree -Man Trust on. The two issues that the Planning Department recommended and what we have achieved was the preservation of these two big oak trees right here. Those two trees are big twin live oak trees. In the light here you can see it a little better. Bobby, do you mind holding that for me? These two threes right here, so we did extensive redesign, worked around these trees, worked with advise of the arborist and we think that we have a very good solution by welling around these trees and the drive splits on either side. It's a good solution and we worked very closely with the Tree -Man Trust and appreciate their comment. They were very kind and very generous to us in our meetings so we felt like that we've established the intent and exceeded the direction that we first started in the preservation of the trees in the site. We are very conscious of the character, the vegetation character of Coconut Grove and especially Bayshore Drive. I've practiced here for over 45 years and can assure you that I've done a great deal of projects in the Grove and I understand the vegetation types and the type of landscaping that is indigenous to the Grove. In addition to that, we have submitted a complete detailed planting plan in great excess to the City and also to the Tree -Man Trust and to our neighbors on the condominium to the south. We feel like we've been exercised good stewardship in the preservation of these trees. The development of a very indigenous site plan. The proposed landscaping is certainly very friendly and very tropical in nature, which is the 198 January 23, 2003 character of Coconut Grove. We've had extensive opportunities to work with Mr. Colombo on his other projects. We has similar conditions on Biscayne Boulevard as far as the preservation of wilds and oak stone issues and preservation of trees. He has a good track record with that. We enjoy a nice reputation for our work and we feel like we've exceeded and met the criteria that would be required from an environmental point of view. I thank you and if I have further question, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. Maxwell: Could you please identify the poster that you've been making that presentation from for the record, please. Mr. Bradshaw: These trees right here, the big oak trees in the front -- Mr. Maxwell: Please identify -- Chairman Winton: No, the poster itself. Mr. Maxwell: --For the record what they are. What this poster was you want just reading from. Mr. Bradshaw: OK, OK. The two live oaks that identified on the tree relocation plans as numbers 56 and 57, which was prepared by a typographical engineer -- Mr. Maxwell: No, no. I need him to identify for the record -- Mr. Bradshaw: I'm sorry. Chairman Winton: Hold on. Mr. Bradshaw: I misunderstood you. Chairman Winton: Excuse me, hold on. Mr. Maxwell: -- what document you been using. Mr. Bradshaw: This is the proposed site plan for the entire site, illustrated site plan and garden plan. Mr. Maxwell: And the other one? Mr. Bradshaw: It's dated revised date January 22nd of 03 and revisions on that was in response to the Planning Department which are these trees here. Mr. Maxwell: And the other poster? Mr. Bradshaw: The other diagram, this poster here with -- Mr. Maxwell: The one that you were showing the Commission. 199 January 23, 2003 Mr. Bradshaw: Is also part of the application and it was dated, let me get into some light here, last date -- it was submitted November 27th 02. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Could I ask all of the presenters if you are using any exhibits to please identify those exhibits for the record and when you point out specifics to the Commission you need to identify what you are talking about because the record when you say this tree or here, none of that shows up in the record. Mr. Bradshaw: OK. Mr. Maxwell: So, you need to be specific. Mr. Bradshaw: For clarification purposes the trees that I'd referred to in presentation were the two live oaks located on the plans as submitted on the tree disposition plan as live oak trees number 58 and 57. Mr. Maxwell: Thank you. Mr. Bradshaw: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes sir. Following Taft is Luis Revuelta who is the architect. Luis Revuelta: Good evening my name is Luis Revuelta -- Chairman Winton: Speak in the -- Luis, speak into the microphone please. Mr. Revuelta: My name is Luis Revuelta with offices at 2560 Southwest 27th Avenue. I want to go briefly and explain the project and a little bit of the history. I hope tonight I can demonstrate to you that the method that we have used to site and design this building is what I believe is the best possible option for this site. The design process usually starts with the architect and the developer and the staff and we look at the property, we look at the product and in reality the real force of the design eventually becomes the buyer of these units and the brokers that are representing them. That is what we have found over the years to be the driving force of the designs that we do for the different developers. Our client as you know, it's a developer of luxury residential and we did study different options and different massing possibilities for this site. The two basic options of massing for this site is either north -south or an east -west orientation. Once you look at those two options, they reflect directly into two different types of product. An east -west orientation, which is the way we have the building sited, it's more typical and necessary for a luxury condominium. A north -south orientation basically what it does, it changes automatically the product. It forces the developer to go to either a rental product or a not a luxury condominium product. This units obviously, normally are smaller and the density of the site is bigger, so the final decision was to site the building and to follow what we have been doing for the years, which is a luxury condominium with this orientation. The massing of 200 January 23, 2003 the building, once we make that decision, is basically determined by the size of the units that are necessary and the modules of this unit inside. We have to have living rooms, we have to have bedrooms and certain spaces that are certain with -- that are necessary for this type of product. The -- once we had a design in place we went to the City and like Lucia mentioned before, we had meeting with staff and the building was approximately 40 stories in height. We were told that we had to go back to the drawing board. We began to redesign the building. Once we had a building that was lower and the building that you will be seeing tonight will be a 31 -story building. It was designed in this fashion. It was a rectangular building on the east -west axis, and it was about 80 feet from Bayshore Drive and it was a substantial amount of space behind it, much more than the three hundred and some feet that we have now. Again, the idea was that this building was contextually was better put between the two existing buildings and closer to Ocean Drive and as far as possible as Tigertail. Once we had basically a consensus with staff, we went to the neighbors and began to meet with the neighbors. What happened was that the neighbors said this building is too far forward towards Bayshore Drive, you got to push it back. We then went ahead to push it back to about 105 feet. Met with the neighbors, not far enough you're still blocking our views. We pushed the building further back to about a hundred and sixty something feet and the response was basically the same, not far enough. At that point we said, if we continue to push this building back we're going to end up way behind the office building or we're going to be very close to Tigertail so, we decided to flip the building. We took the design that we had and flipped it completely. At that point, we were providing as land here to try to open up the views from the traffic and the pedestrian closest to the building. That's why we have the slope on the opposite direction and we changed that orientation. At that point they said, that's good, but you've got to push it back, so we went ahead and we pushed it further back to a point about 170 feet at this point from Bayshore, and it's ninety something feet from the east end. Then we started discussing about trees and access and we talked about how we are providing all of our service access here next to the service access for the office building. Our entrance is here and only our exit was here and how we were eliminating all traffic from pedestrian and vehicular was important from Tigertail. At that point we also start meeting with the Tree -Man Trust and trying to do whatever we could in terms of the design to save as many trees as possible. We shrank the pedestal, we moved it away from Tigertail. We eliminated a tennis court. We eliminated a pavilion to save some important notes in the back and we did some changes also in the front. That point we then met with our neighbors to the east, SBS, and they said, that's great, this doesn't work for us. You're blocking our views, we said OK, went back. At that point other than jumping in the bay, I said why don't we also slope the building on that side? So, we basically took the building that we had on that side and replicated the design on the other side. Again, we redesigned the building to take that into account. At that point -- Commissioner Sanchez: How many times did you redesign it? Mr. Revuelta: I have lost count but I have basically shown you as a synopsis of the major redesigns that we have had. In terms to work with staff, work with the different boards and work with the neighbors. I don't know the minor redesigns how many there are but essentially there has been like six or seven designs that we have done in terms of pushing the building back. Similarly, I will show you for example, the building originally was -- and we have some pictures here, was slanted on one side so that the part closest to Grove Hill was the lowest part and the part closest to the office building was the highest part. We have a rendering of that. Once we 201 January 23, 2003 did all those changes, the top of the building was not making sense so that took a major redesign of the roof because the building that you're going to see here today slopes away from the center down towards the office building and towards Grove Hill. So, the elevation and the massing of the building also change not only the shape, not only the location of the site, it effected the pedestal. We had to reduce the amount of units because we were reducing the pedestal. We were -- and I'll explain that briefly when I go through the project, we are sinking this parking garage about one and a half levels and it's only one and a half levels that are coming up because the side is sloping. We're just shoving it in the ground. You will not be able to see a parking garage here. We're going to heavily landscape the back of it obviously, the top of it, the front of it. We're preserving as many trees as we can and we're going to try to plant as many trees as we can on the sides. So, you'll see in the renderings that in terms of landscaping, it's going to be substantial and we're trying to save as many as we can from the existing ones. What you're seeing here is the site plan. That is the final version of what you are seeing. There is actually an additional change that we have made to react to staff desire to have a greater pedestrian effort or symbolism or functional relationship between Bayshore and the building. We have added a pedestrian walkway down next to the guardhouse that comes down and this is -- this case that you are seeing here in black and white so, we have two ways of coming down from the building down to Bayshore for people to walk. One is a ramp that kind of meanders around the front and then comes down and one is a ramp that takes you to the guardhouse to address issues of accessibility and then a series of steps. So, we've also, staff explained, have redesigned the driveway to save the two trees 56 and 57 there and it's going to be challenging but the slopes are going to be difficult but we have done that. That's basically a little bit of the history of the redesign. The building that you are seeing here today is a building that has three levels of parking of which one and a half are underground. The entrance of the building is on this side and the service entrance is on this side. We have a queen trellis to screen part of the entrance. Most of our service area is inside the building under this part. You're driving up if you're a visitor or a guest into this plaza and you're getting out this way and the entrance to the garage, and we have a glass canopy similar to the ones that we have used in the buildings that we've done on Brickell. The building right now sits about 170 feet from Bayshore at it's biggest point and 137 feet at it's closest point. It's three hundred and something feet, three hundred and five and our pedestal is about 126 feet from Bayshore. Originally we had a basement that went all the way to the property line and we were landscaping the pedestal because of the changes we have to make in pushing the building back. We eliminated this also to save the trees so all that is ground, existing ground of trees to be preserved, trees to be relocated, planted and a tennis court that we're going to try to fit somewhere between the trees. The building essentially at that point has a lobby, a mezzanine, which opens up to the plaza. It's going to be landscaped with a swimming pool and then you have essentially a typical floor that is six units per floor. The previous concept had eight units per floor, which was eliminated again because we had to eliminate parking and when we had to go to the redesign we felt that at this point that the six units per floor was the best possible design. As I said before, the modules of this element of each unit is essential to make a luxury building work and be sold to these buyers that are really are the driving force of the design of the building. In some cases, we are less than the minimum required for this type of luxury building, but this is what we had to work with so, we had to do the best we could. You have basically four units per floor up to the level 23 and on level 24 I mean, six units per floor on level 24 you go to 4 units per floor. You have three level of that and these are the elevations. We have three levels with four units per floor then you have three levels 202 January 23, 2003 with two units per floor and then the last two levels are two units, which are two story units. By doing this, we could have done a flat top building and brought the height down of this building. Both me and my client felt that it was, and staff, that it was substantially more contextually correct, interesting to the skyline to step the building. This design is very expensive, not easy to achieve but it does create a relationship and a context to the buildings next door that this drops into this buildings and in my opinion is going to create a very interesting building for the skyline. I think it's substantially better than just do a flat top building. I would regret it if I had to end up with that kind of a design. We've gone to a lot of trouble to try to create interest and you will see that on the renderings to achieve that. The other thing that we have done is we've broken the building facade, as you can see, in elements that you have saw in the plan. This balcony is going to shift and recreate a different shadow line so the building facade will be broken and this vertical elements will help to do that as well as we have done the same thing in the back, so not only the fact that the building slopes like a V shape, but it has this breaks in the facade. It helps cut down on the length of the building. It's something that we have done in the past. We did in the Santa Maria. It looks like you're looking at three different buildings all together rather and one single building. So, this is the view from the north that you're looking at. These are the side elevations that you have in your package with a little bit of color. We have a section here that I'm not going to go into it basically explain the building. We have two context studies. One was done by the neighbors, and one was done by us. This is the one that was done by the neighbors. The only liberty that we took was to take these two buildings and use the same colors that the center building was submitted this was done in black and this one in white and I thought that the context was not -- or the drawing was not properly done. That way so we just use the same color and through these meetings we keep hearing that this building is not within context and we are obviously arguing about different points. I just don't see it. Even when I looked at their drawing, I don't see this building to be out of context. Our drawing, which is the one that you have in our package, doesn't have color, but it basically shows the same thing, that this building steps down -- Chairman Winton: We can't see anything there. That's a blank piece of paper. Mr. Revuelta: All right I don't -- you have your glasses? Chairman Winton: It's not my glasses, it's the light. You don't have dark enough print on that so, move it over to where there's light over here. Mr. Maxwell: And identify it please. Chairman Winton: Over here. Mr. Revuelta: It's like -- Chairman Winton: Look where -- turn right there. There's light. Mr. Revuelta: It's actually the same context study that you have in your package it's just blown up to a larger scale. And it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) showing you light, it's half light -- 203 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yeah, right. Mr. Revuelta: You may want to move it to your right. Chairman Winton: There you go. Mr. Revuelta: We went ahead and prepared three dimensional graphics because I feel that reality is not expressed in a drawing like this or even a drawing like this that I'm showing to you. You do not see buildings in a straight elevation unless you are sitting somewhere far away and just sitting there for half an hour looking at the building. You see life in three dimensions. As you drive up and down Brickell, whether you're driving or your walking, you have a series of buildings that are narrow, perpendicular to the water because of the nature of the size that there were developed on. When you come to the Santa Maria site, which is a wide site, the building breaks, you see light, you don't see anymore wall after wall after wall. The reason for that is we didn't ask for any variances. We did the building as per code but by shifting the building because we had a wider site. The pedestrian that is walking and that's when you see a building most of the time. If you're walking or driving you seeing something for a few seconds or minutes and you are not seeing on straight elevations and I have not been able sometimes to be able to explain that correctly to different groups but when you see an elevation like this it just doesn't make any sense to me. This is just something that static and not reality. Reality is in my opinion something like this. When you're going up and down the street, when you're walking or driving, this is the kind of thing that you will see in reality. This building because it's being pushed, back is going to look almost the same height as the office building. If you are on the opposite side, again because the building is pushed back, the proportions change just because perspective. It is just the way you see reality. So you can see in this graphic here there is substantial light and air between the two buildings. You're going to hear comments that say the building is ten feet from the property line. Well, the building is ten feet from the property line but there is a heck of a lot of space between these two buildings and if you were to take a different approach a development on this site and you put a building perpendicular on the north and south axis, with units looking directly into these buildings, it would impact more the pedestrian and the driver on Tigertail more so than on Bayshore Drive because what they will see is the wall. It's the wall that you see on Brickell Avenue, building after building after building. So, I have no doubt that the massing and the location for this site for this, and the building product because of the density that it has, is be best possible solution, so that's essentially the story of the building and the pictures so, I thank you for your time and I'll be available for questions. Chairman Winton: Thank you. Lucia, anything else? Ms. Dougherty: Tim Plummer. Tim Plummer: For the record, Tim Plummer with offices at 1750 Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables, Florida. Let me start by saying that this is one of my easier assignments. I usually get tougher assignments than this, but high-end luxury condominiums are very low generators of traffic, especially at 150 units. When you look at what can be put on this site with 490 apartment units that's much greater traffic. We went to the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) traffic study 204 January 23, 2003 process with the City and the City's consultant reviewed and approved our methodology, went through our analyses looking at a few of the roadway links and signalized intersections. They all meet level of service standards and our study has been reviewed by the City's consultant and -- Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty, maybe I missed it. Mr. Plummer did you identify what your specialty is? Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry. My specialty is -- Mr. Maxwell: You're testifying as an expert. Aren't you? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: I think you should put that on the record. Mr. Plummer: I'll start again. Tim Plummer with David Plummer and Associate, just my identification. Traffic engineer for the project with offices at 1751 Ponce De Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables, Florida. So again, our study has been reviewed and approved by not only City Staff but the City's consultant. All level of service standards are met for this project and the traffic impacts are fairly minimal. Thank you, I'll be here for any questions that you might have. Ms. Dougherty: We do have Tom Slothsburg from Darryl Sharpton and Brunson's Office who are Economic Development Impact but we are not going to put them on. So, with that we'd like to conclude and would reserve some time for rebuttal. While they're setting up I just want to mention that the zoning board approved this unanimously, the Planning Advisory Board voted in denial but it was a three to three tie. Chairman Winton: Tucker. Tucker Gibbs: If you could give me about one minute so that we may set up, I'd appreciate it. Chairman Winton: Tucker just for planning purposes, that went 38 minutes. Mr. Gibbs: I thought that was 40 that's great, thank you. Chairman Winton: Well, I started to round it up but I said you know, two minutes, two minutes. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. They ran up density in this City I mean, or is it ran it down? My name is Tucker Gibbs with offices at 215 Grand Avenue in Coconut Grove and I represent the Coconut Grove Civic Club and it's members and Gordon and Linda Eddie who live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive near to this project. Beginning, I'd like just to ask the people here who are in opposition to this application to stand up if they would. All those in opposition. I know. The 205 January 23, 2003 point is I just want to let you know how important this issue is to people who live in Coconut Grove. Remember we're not at Dinner Key. This is Manuel Artime Center and these people have driven here and just like and that's -- you know. Also I'd like those -- anyway my clients object to this application for four reasons. The residential project which is unrelated to any governmental or institutional use is not permitted in the government institutional zoning district and even if it was permitted it's too massive for this neighborhood. The developer also seeks to use two development bonuses that themselves are severely flawed and probably illegal. The developer also seeks to use a MUSP process that is impermissibly vague and with no clear objective criteria to guide this board in making its decision. We're not asking you to reject development on this site, we're asking you to reject this project in this government and institutional zoning district. What we want is development that is consistent with the existing zoning and land -use designations along South Bayshore Drive. Please remember that the zoning district on either side of this and all along South Bayshore Drive from Aviation Avenue to 27th Avenue is SD -17. SD -17 overlay that limits heights to 220 feet above South Bayshore Drive and limits the floor area ratio to 1.21. This building is 346 feet high and has a FAR of 1.72 with bonuses that add approximately 142,000 square feet to that side. Do you want to show the model? We've a model that shows this particular building and the actual bonuses. If you look at this model -- I'll wait -- if you look at this model the yellow portions, right here, that's a bonus and that's a bonus. This much of this building is square footage and density and square footage and FAR bonus. The top part right here is affordable housing. This part here relates to the PUD (planned unit development). This is the building, this is the building they believe is allowed as a matter of right at 1.72 FAR, however, remember, the surrounding zoning allows for an FAR that's even smaller than this, it's a one point two one. This residential district -- could you put the language of the comp plan up? -- This residential development is not permitted in the GI zoning district and I'll tell you why it's not permitted in the GI zoning district. Florida statutes states that all development shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. When seeking approval of a site plan or a development order and this major use special permit permits the development of land and therefore a development order. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the plan complies with the City's comprehensive plan. The City's comprehensive plan is clear. It says here major institutional public facilities transportation and utilities -- that is the land -use designation for this piece of property -- watch out it's falling. I made it big because I'd like you all to look at it tab one in the hand out that we presented to you. The last sentence in that provision is very important in the comp plan. It says, "Residential facilities ancillary to those uses, these uses," meaning the uses that a major institutional public facility transportation and utilities "are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to high-density multi -family residential, subject to the same limiting conditions." That's all it says. That's all it says. If you want a residential use on this property it needs to be ancillary. Nowhere else in this comprehensive plan does it say within this comprehensive land -use district that you can put in residential, unless it's ancillary. There's no other language in the comprehensive plan that expands on this, it's clear. Well, let's step back for a minute. This prohibition of non- government or institutional related residential uses makes sense. This is a governmental and institutional land -use, why is it a governmental and institutional land -use? History tells us that probably before there was a City of Miami this piece of property was owned by the federal government, The United States Government, a governmental use. What was the use on there that was government? It was a Coast Guard, part of the Coast Guard station, then it became part of the Naval Reserve Center, and the Feds owned that property and that's why it's zoned 206 January 23, 2003 government institutional. It's not zoned to allow somebody to take advantage of increased density and increased height to build a stand alone residential building. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes. Vice Chairman Teele: If this is true then why isn't this available under the federal law to be a homeless facility? Chairman Winton: It is. Mr. Gibbs: It is. Chairman Winton: It is available for -- Mr. Gibbs: It is allowed. Vice Chairman Teele: Excuse me, I'm trying to -- this property is still government owned? Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Gibbs: No, this property was sold by the federal government and purchased by Mr. -- I don't know who purchased it, but by the development team that's developing it. They own it and they want to development it in a nongovernmental way and that's our problem. Our problem isn't the development of this land, look at the GDC building, which is taller than what's allowed now under -- Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, well, I'm trying to understand a different issue. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Vice Chairman Teele: This City has a problem with homeless. Now, I thought that the rule was, that the federal law was, I didn't pass it, that governmental properties were to be available first for homeless facilities. Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner, you're talking about the McKinney Act. Vice Chairman Teele: Yes, I think that the McKinney Act. Mr. Maxwell: I think there were some amendments to that and I think that during the applicant's presentation Ms. Dougherty touched on that. She may want to directly respond to your question. It's how the McKinney Act relates to this specific piece of property but I believe that they have already -- McKinney Act has been amended to allow what they are asking. Ms. Dougherty. Vice Chairman Teele: To allow what? 207 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: So that they no longer have to first, they might have already -- that might have been addressed -- Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but it -- Mr. Maxwell: -- at one time -- Vice Chairman Teele: -- it would have been -- Mr. Maxwell: I know at one time there -- Vice Chairman Teele: The McKinney Act required that the local government Mr. Maxwell: It will be made available for homeless. Vice Chairman Teele: To the local government. Mr. Gibbs: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. Mr. Maxwell: No. In fact, I think there were bidders. I don't know what happened on that, Ms. Dougherty you can respond to that. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Back when the federal government owned this property the McKinney Act did require them -- Chairman Winton: Name. Ms. Dougherty: -- to make it available. Chairman Winton: Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: Name, please. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. The McKinney Act at that time, did require that the federal government make it available to a homeless assistant center and we had the same folks here who are saying this isn't consistent with the governmental use provision of your local zoning code making the same argument back then that they didn't want something that was consistent. Clearly, a homeless assistance center today would be consistent with your local government -- with you local zoning ordinance. Vice Chairman Teele: But, are you representing to me that this issue came before this Commission, I mean the commission -- 208 January 23, 2003 Ms. Dougherty: No. It never came before this Commission, but you do have a current -- Vice Chairman Teele: Wait, wait, wait. Ms. Dougherty: -- zoning designation of GI which government institutions. Vice Chairman Teele: What was your reference to the fact that there was opposition? Ms. Dougherty: Oh, back when the federal government owned the property and they were making it available to the homeless assistance center. These same folks -- Vice Chairman Teele: Well, hold it. Where's the record on that? Is this part of the record. Ms Dougherty: Where's the record? Vice Chairman Teele: Is this a part of the record? Ms. Dougherty: It's not only -- Vice Chairman Teele: I want it -- Ms. Dougherty: -- my testimony is a part of the record it was not a part of the record of this because now it's privately owned. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah, but it has a lot to do with the issue that counsel over here is arguing. Because the issue is, whether or not it's an appropriate use, and to change the governmental designation and if there was in fact a discussion I would like to see what that discussion was on the record. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Commissioner, I believe this was a matter that the City had a peripheral interest in only. It was a federal issue and -- Vice Chairman Teele: Whether it was peripheral or not, if it came before this Commission, this Commission has a right to see the whole record relating to this land. Mr. Gibbs: I couldn't agree with you more. Ms. Dougherty: It didn't come before this Commission for a vote on that issue. It came before this Commission as a discussion item, because this commission did not want a homeless assistance center at that site. Vice Chairman Teele: Ms. Dougherty, I don't care if it came before this Commission as a Christmas item. If it was presented, this is a governmental body and we have a right to look at our own record here. We don't have to be blind. We can look at our own record and I would like to understand what the context of the record is. 209 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: And so does anyone have a suggestion as to how we might accomplish that, Mr. City Attorney? Mr. Maxwell: The item would have to be continued for us to -- in order for that to be researched and come back to you, if the decision is based on that or you want that part of the record in your decision making deliberation process. Vice Chairman Teele: It is so germane to the argument of counsel over the whole issue of the objection to the governmental -- to redesignating this from governmental use. Mr. Gibbs: No, that wasn't our objection. Our objection is not that we objected to the designation, the change of the designation. In fact, they, our issue is the right now, this use is not permitted. We have no objection the use -- it's properly in context of what's next door, and if you let me continue my argument, I think you're going to see where I'm going and you're going to see other examples of this situation within the City of Miami that have been dealt with by this City Commission, and I think that may answer your question. Chairman Winton: Continue, please. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. If you look at tab two, tab two of our handout to you is Juan Gonzalez' letter and the applicant has relied and I think the Planning Department has relied on Mr. Gonzalez' letter of March 9, 2001 for the assumption that a stand alone residential project in GI is permitted. There are several reasons, this is problematic for several reasons. One, the letter ignores the comprehensive plan language. Mr. Gonzalez' letter, if you look at it, discusses a lot of stuff in the GI zoning district. The fact that O is a permitted use and he makes the argument that under O you can have an R-4 residential, you can have residential use and then it's OK. The point is, nowhere in Mr. Gonzalez' letter is the comprehensive plan ever mentioned, ever dealt with and as I said before state law says and case law confirms it that your comprehensive plan is what governs, not your zoning code, and if your comprehensive plan doesn't even mention the word residential except in saying residential ancillary to governmental institutional uses that means that a stand-alone residential use is not permitted as a matter of law. Furthermore, if you look at Mr. Gonzalez' letter, I don't necessarily believe that it's an interpretation. Because he merely recites certain provisions of the GI code provision. He doesn't talk about the intent. He doesn't talk about why the intent provision is not important and the letter ignores that language and the intent provision that mirrors the comprehensive plan. Look at the comp. plan language, look at the language in the intent section of the GI zoning district. They're the same. Ms. Dougherty may say we had our opportunity to complain about Mr. Gonzalez's letter. After all, Mr. Gonzalez wrote it on March 9th 2001, and we're entitled to an appeal to the Zoning Board of Mr. Gonzalez's opinion. That'd be real nice if any notice was ever given of Mr. Gonzalez's opinion. Mr. Gonzalez's opinions are not noticed in the newspaper, on a bulletin board, nobody knows when Mr. Gonzalez makes the opinion, so if I can, if I have 30 days from the date and I know about it, you're absolutely right I ought to appeal it. I didn't know about it. When I found out about it was at the Planning Advisory Board meeting and I had Mr. Gonzalez's office fax me a copy. It was over a year -- good God, over two years later, almost three years later. I don't think I have the right to appeal and that's the problem. I think it's a due process problem with the City's processes. Let's look at the history and the precedent that this project will set and this 210 January 23, 2003 goes to Commissioner Teele's issue. This property's been owned and operated by the federal government for 50 years. It's always been owned and used for public use, government use. The City placed the land-use of major institution, public facilities, transportation and utilities and GI zoning on this property because that's exactly what is was. This developer wants to take advantage of the GI zonings higher FAR, one point seven two and unlimited height. Look at the future land-use map. Is this the map? I know it's pretty small but this is the best we can do. I want you to look at the gray areas. I want you to look at the gray areas all over the City. Now, Dodge Island, Civic Center, Dinner Key and then some interesting ones, Commissioner Sanchez, Saint Peter and Paul, the temple. We have over here Saint Sophia. We have in Coconut Grove, Ransom Everglades Middle School. One thing about all these properties, they're all surrounded by single -family residential land-use. They're R-1, up by Saint Peter and Paul, R-2. Juan Gonzalez's letter says you can build this project 348 feet in the air with an FAR of 1.72. You can build this. Saint Peter and Paul sells tomorrow, it's GI. Ransom Everglades Middle School sells tomorrow, GI. Dade County School Board, our friends over at the school board, they need some money, don't they? Wouldn't it be great to sell Coconut Grove Elementary? They've talked about it, GI zoning. Want a high rise in the middle of Coconut Grove? You can look in every Commissioner's District I this town and see churches and schools that have this designation, it's land use designation and that are zoned GI, and Mr. Gonzalez's letter is telling you that you can put a high-rise on every single one of them. I checked with Lourdes Slazyk and I asked, are there any other properties in the City of Miami that are GI used, GI zoned that have a non-GI residential use, and Lourdes said yes there was one in the Civic Center somewhere in the Civic Center, and I guess, I don't know if this is it or not but I'm just guessing that's it's what use to be called the Capistrano's Tower, which is student housing for the medical students and I'm just assuming that, but it's a housing and I'm sure it housing for people who use the facilities in the Civic Center, but that's only one, and that building was built I think, in the 70's or early 80's. The point I'm trying to make is you all are opening up Pandora's box and there's a simple solution. This is a very simple solution. We're not against the high-rise. What we are is we're against the fact that this developer is trying to cram as much as he can on this property. He wants this and he wants this and he wants all of this in a zoning district where it isn't allowed. In a land-use where it isn't allowed. Let's look at how the City of Miami has disposed GI property it owns. If you look at tab three in your hand-out, you will see the example of Bobby Maduro Stadium. City owned Bobby Maduro Stadium and the City applied to change the zoning from GI to R-3. Now, if Mr. Gonzalez is correct, that wasn't necessary. You didn't need to rezone Bobby Maduro from GI to R-3 to be able to allow development there. You can do it under GI, because after all GI allows up to 150 units an acre, according to Mr. Gonzalez's letter, and because of that R-3 is considerably less than that. It could fit, it could work. Why did the City go through that exercise, that time, for his stadium, for this rezoning? Well, what it says in the planning report to the City Commission in 1998, it is found that the subject property has R-3 multi-family medium density zoning designation immediately adjacent to the northwest, see attached map. That's like us, we've go SD-17 on both sides. Then it says, it is found that the proposed change will allow the subject property to be developed at a moderate level of new residential use, which will provide opportunities for it to complement the immediate adjacent neighborhood. They didn't need this to complement the immediate adjacent neighborhood if Mr. Gonzalez is correct, but they did this, and the question is why. Why would you do that? You do it because it's the right thing to do. Bobby Maduro Stadium is a baseball stadium. You don't build houses, you don t build residential units on a baseball stadium zoned piece of property. It 211 January 23, 2003 just makes sense, you rezone it. All we're asking this applicant to do is to rezone the property so he has the same rights and has the same favors and everybody else in the SD -17 district. Why should he get something special? Why should he get something special when nobody else on South Bayshore Drive got anything special? Approving this project in GI, based on this interpretation is opening Pandora's box. It allows the highest density residential development, R-4, in the midst of many low-density neighborhoods. This is bad planning, and it is bad planning according to your comprehensive plan. Major institutional and public facilities allow residential uses that are ancillary to those uses only. It's clear from that language. The development also needs to be consistent with the surrounding area. In your comprehensive plan and land -use objective LU 1.13 says you all are charged with protecting neighborhoods against encroachment of incompatible land uses. This is incompatible, and Mr. Alvarez, our planner is going to speak to that issue when he has the opportunity to speak. Why did these applicants apply for the MUSP? A MUSP allows the property owner to apply for and get two large bonuses per square footage. Number one is the PUD bonus, which I showed you. That's the lower part 63,327 square feet. The donation to affordable housing trust fund allows the developer to get up to 25 percent additional square footage, which is 79,000, approximately, square feet, for a total of 142,485 square feet. The affordable housing bonus allows for this increase and they allow you to make that decision as the City Commission. If you find that the increase would not, a, cause the development to be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. We've already showed you that it is inconsistent with the comp. plan, that it violates concurrency. We're not arguing that it violates concurrency and that it results in a variance. Our issue here is from a legal perspective, this is nothing more than a use variance. You are allowing a use in a district where it isn't allowed and that requires a hardship. In addition to the affordable housing trust fund, the developer must pay $6.67 into the trust fund per square foot and I want you to think about that. This is a bonus. The idea is to give an incentive to a developer to provide a benefit to the community. Here Mr. Colombo gets 79,000 square feet in additional square footage at $6 a square foot, oh, $6.67 excuse me, and the City gets $527,938.86. Let's examine this trade off. The developer gets 79,000 square feet of luxury condominiums and they said it on the record. This is going to be first class and I agree with them. Mr. Colombo is the first class developer. He builds a first-class product, and that's something this City can be proud of and the City is proud of his product, but he's going to get a lot of money out of this. Because if you take this $79,000, you multiply it by it by $400, which is going rate for a top-level condominium, he's going to gross approximately $31,000,000. Cut that in half, let's say it's a $10,000,000 profit on that after his construction cost and the rest of it. Say he gets ten million bucks out of that. What does the City get for his $10,000,000 profit? The City gets a half a million dollars to build affordable housing. Let's say you build affordable housing at $75 a square foot, you end up with about four of five units, and I'm not saying that your affordable housing trust fund is a one for one trade off, but he gets $10,000,000 and the City gets 4 or 5 affordable housing units. Something is wrong, something is dreadfully wrong. The real effect is, the developer makes money and affordable housing gets a token. Where does the trust fund money go? Does it go to Coconut Grove neighborhood that is suffering from a dearth of affordable housing? What is the legal basis for this dollars for density scheme? It's my understanding that there's got to be a nexus or connection between the payment into the trust fund and the increase in square footage the developer gets in exchange for his contribution. What is it, do we know? Do we have a clue? Where's that $6.67 per square foot come from? Where is the study? And when was the study made? Is the study up to date? There is no evidence on the record that there was any 212 January 23, 2003 study done. The bonus is arbitrary and the payment has little relationship with the provision for affordable housing. It's our position that this bonus as set out in your code is illegal. The PUD bonus allows for a 20 percent increase in floor area because this project is a PUD. I defy you, the Planning Department or the Legal Department, to give a clear definition of the PUD to show me where, or show my clients, or show the public, where is the definition of the PUD I the zoning code. There is a definition. I'm going to read it to you because I don't understand what it means and maybe somebody in the Planning Department can tell me what this sentence means. Planned unit development, an area of minimum contiguous size as specified by this ordinance developed according to a plan as a single entity in containing one of more buildings or structures with a pertinent common areas. See also section 501 of these ordinance. That's a single-family house. That can be a single-family house. It's a piece of property. If you go to 501 it's the same thing. The only thing that I get out of that ordinance is that you got to have a 50,000 square foot minimum lot size. I'll let our planner talk about the PUD language and how strange it is, but let's look at the PUD bonus language, the language that gives them their seventy-nine -- their fifty something square feet. That language and I'm going to read this to your from the code. I think I have it, Mark I have on a -- it's up there? OK. This is what it says, an increase in floor area of up to 20 percent over that allowed by the underlying district when allowed under the limitations of the Miami Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the application. That's not even a sentence. It's not a sentence. It doesn't grant anything. There's no subject, there's no verb, there's nothing there. It doesn't say, if you do this, then you get this. It's a clause, but let's give them the opportunity. Let's say the City is right, and this non -sentence actually means something. Even if it means something, whatever bonuses limited by the language about the comprehensive plan, it's under the limitations of the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan doesn't allow residential in this zoning district. It doesn't allow it in this land -use category. How could you have a PUD in this land -use category? Again, what is the nexus between the PUD and the granting of the additional density? This provision is nothing more than an automatic bonus with no relationship to planning as it is granted with absolutely no standards. The language in the zoning code governing your major -use special permit in articles 13 and 17 provides only general statements that are not objective criteria. An ordinance that does not provide definite objective criteria to guide the City Commission and Advisory Board is unconstitutional. That's the Omni point case, I know people don't like hearing about it, but not only is it the Omni point case, it's several other cases cited in there. Whether it's the Federal Court or whether it's the Court -- the Appeals Court out in Hillsborough out in Pinellas County, and even if you believe that MUSP passes constitutional muster, then I ask you to look at section 1305.8, which allows you to look at this project and say hey, it's too big, let's do something about it. You have the right to deal with that potentially adverse affects from everything from buffering to lowering the size of it. Finally I had to say this for Mr. Maxwell, this project will have an impact on my clients that's not shared by other City residents. It will increase traffic and you will hear about that from my clients. It will impact on their quality of life because of its visual and aesthetic disruption of the historic South Bayshore Drive corridor. The City, if it approves this project, will give this South Bayshore Drive property owner benefits not shared by other similarly situated property owners between Aviation and 27th Avenues. Zoning interpretations that permit residential uses not ancillary to the GI uses and allow for increased density and size and height cause impacts on my clients that are not shared by other residents of this City. In conclusion, we urge you to reject this application because a residential project that is not ancillary to a government or institutional use is not permitted under this zone -- land -use 213 January 23, 2003 category into your comp plan and not permitted in the zoning code. The developer is seeking an advantage to increase FAR from 1.21, which is what everybody else has around it, to 1.72, an increased height from 225 feet, which is allowed everywhere else between 27th and Aviation, to 346 feet. Allowing this project in GI opens Pandora's box and allows this kind of project in every single GI land -use, every single GI district in this City. Bonuses, the PUD, affordable housing he's requesting are excessive and flawed and they're not legal. There's a simple and fair solution that we've said over and over again, I'm going to say it again. Require the developer to apply for a land -use change for residential development and rezoning consistent with the rest of South Bayshore Drive from Aviation to 17 to 27th Avenue and that's the SD -17 overlay. Mr. Alvarez will follow me. There are some neighbors who wish to speak. I'd like the opportunity when all the testimony is given to be able to cross-examine anybody providing expert testimony. Chairman Winton: How much time do they have, Madam Clerk? Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): According to out timer, they have 10 minutes and 20 seconds. Chairman Winton: OK. You guys have 10 minutes so -- Mr. Gibbs: I do want to say and I need to say this Mr. Maxwell for the record that this is a quasi- judicial proceeding. I understand the need to follow through, but these are legal issues that have impact on my clients. I wish to state for the record that I need the opportunity, my clients need the opportunity to say what they have to say. If you're going to limit it, that's fine, but we're going to state our objection on the record. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: We are going to limit it, so if yall are going to clap, it's only going to create more time here and that will cut down on his need to speak so. Mark Alvarez: Mark Alvarez business location at 247 Southwest 8th Street number 214. I'm a professional planner in the state of Florida registered with AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners). What I would like to do if it pleases you is I'm going to submit my notes for the record since they do need to be on the record and then I can be very, very brief maybe down to a minute or two if it's the very, very big highlights if I may do that. Mr. Maxwell: We have no -- the City has no objection, you may want to check with your counsel. Yes to the City Clerk. Mr. Alvarez: I can give you mine when I'm done. Now, I'll just hit the very big highlights. I was going to talk a lot about the compatibility. I think Tucker has, and my notes will cover a lot of those issues. I'd like to cover probably what I think is the central issue here. Certainly compatibility is the central issue for the neighbors who will speak later but the central issue is the zoning, and in section 1703 regarding your findings for granting a MUSP application, 1703 paragraph A and paragraph B say that you need to make a determination whether it will be in conformity and necessity a change in the adopted comprehensive plan or -- could you leave that - 214 January 23, 2003 - or rather the development is in accord with or will require a change in district zoning. This development will do both based on what Tucker showed you, what Mr. Gibbs showed you that it's in the intense section of the zoning for GI and in the comprehensive plan, both of those would have to be changed in order to allow this development on GI property. Getting to the guts of that issue on the zoning issue we could spend a lot of time talking about R -4's and ancillary use we have spoken a lot about that and certainly that's the -- I say it's one of the primary issues that R-4 should be used -- is allowed only as an ancillary use. But there is a very obvious issue that we haven't really discussed and it's so obvious. In GI both in the comprehensive plan language and in the zoning language, the most salient feature of GI and it's the only place in the zoning code where the use is not defined by the actual use but it's defined by the who owns the property and who controls the property. The salient feature of GI is that it's owned, developed and controlled -- I should not say developed -- it's owned and controlled by either government or an institution. Without belaboring the point I'm not going to get into a long discussion about what institutions are but I think we can very safely say that Grovenor House LLC, which is listed as the developer in this MUSP application, is not a government and it is not an institution. An institution is something that has a public character. They can sometimes be corporations and even for-profit private corporations but they have a public character, like a school, like a homeless center, like a home for the aged, so on and so on. I think we know what an institution is. That's the major problem. That's why we can't put this development on GI. It's not public -- I'm sorry -- it's not an institution and it's not government. It has to be rezoned before this building could be put there by a private developer. That's it. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Tucker. Unidentified Speaker: I guess it's public. Chairman Winton: Well I don't -- no it is not public yet so, hold off just a minute. Tucker, are you finished with your formal testimony? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Alvarez is finished, but there are people here who are going to testify who are citizens and -- Chairman Winton: That's the public hearing part. Mr. Gibbs: No, no, let me explain and Mr. Maxwell I think can confirm this. Lay testimony is allowed, it is allowed and it is considered -- can be considered and so, what I'd like to do is get all the testimony in because here's what's going to happen. Ms. Dougherty is going to rebut. You are going to have questions of staff. Chairman Winton: Correct. Mr. Gibbs: I would like the ability to cross-examine staff because when staff is going to respond to your question, staff is going to be presenting evidence and I have the right to cross-examine. I want to be able to cross-examine staff. 215 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: What does that have to do with getting the public testimony in the middle of Mr. Gibbs: Well, I wanted to -- Chairman Winton: -- your expert testimony? Mr. Gibbs: I'm sorry because I want to make sure that we have all the testimony in. I thought you were asking me in terms of cross-examination. Chairman Winton: No. Mr. Maxwell: The Chairman is asking whether or not your case in chief has been presented. You -- Mr. Gibbs: Yes, our case in chief has been presented. Mr. Maxwell: OK. Mr. Gibbs: But others from the public -- Chairman Winton: Right, but, I'll do the whole public hearing part and everybody's going to get to say their piece but I want to get this piece of it done first. Lucia, I guess you have an opportunity to come back to the podium. Mr. Maxwell: He can still cross-examine. Chairman Winton: Lucia, OK, and then I'm going to have staff come up and -- Mr. Maxwell: The time for that, Mr. Chairman, will be -- do you -- would you like to cross examine any of -- Mr. Gibbs: No, but I may be cross examining City staff and I want the ability to be able to cross examine City staff. Mr. Maxwell: You have that, you have that right. Mr. Gibbs: And that's why I'm waiting until the end to be able to do that. Chairman Winton: So, Mr. City Attorney, is it time to hear -- Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 216 January 23, 2003 Ms. Dougherty: I'd like to rebut after when I hear all the testimony of the residents as well if you don't mind. Mr. Maxwell: You can, Mr. Chairman, you can then waive that and take testimony from the citizens at this time. Two minutes I think, you said you'd limit it to two. Chairman Winton: Well, don't we want -- when do we want staff to answer questions? Mr. Maxwell: You have the right if you want to do that now. Chairman Winton: I guess we can do that after we hear all the -- OK. We will now open the public hearing portion of this so, Ron, or whomever. And we're going to limit this to -- the public hearing portion two minutes each max. If you can get it done in one great, and let's try not to do too much repetitive stuff. You're on. Name and address please for the record. Robert Krulick: Robert Krulick, 2481 Trapp Avenue, Coconut Grove and I'm a member of the Coconut Grove Village Council, elected member, and we the council had just passed a resolution in opposition of this project. It's just not in fitting with the neighborhood and so as to not to be redundant, we totally agree with Mr. Gibbs and we back everything he said. We would like to see this project, this property zoned to reflect the adjacent zoning and it's just totally inappropriate for the area as it is. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Next podium. Bruce Lazar: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Bruce Lazar, I live at Grove Towers 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I'm the past president of the condominium association. I'm presently the Vice President and a member of the board although I'm speaking individually. I'm here to support this project. I think that we have a quality architect. We have a quality developer. We have a well -sited building that sits way back off Bayshore. I remember when this was going to be used for a homeless shelter and everyone in the Grove raised a great hue and cry about doing that and now we have the opportunity to have a quality building, low impact building in Coconut Grove only 150 residents, which will have very little impact on South Bayshore Drive and I think to lose that opportunity would be a terrible mistake. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Y'all just keep stepping right up to the microphone, we're going to bounce right back and forth, OK? Rosalie Leposa: I'm Rosalie Leposa. I'm just outside of the borders of his association so I speak as an owner -- Chairman Winton: What's your address? Ms. Leposa: 2311 South Bayshore Drive. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 217 January 23, 2003 Ms. Leposa: Right on Bayshore. I'm very concerned about the height of this building. I'm a City planner by education. I'm not affiliated with any company, any organization, any government, and I'm terribly, terribly concerned about the elevation of the new buildings and the extra privileges involved in those elevations and we are changing forever if we continue to do this, the nature of our community. I saw in this morning's paper another piece of property, which has been low density and low use Taurus in now coming down for another high-rise. When are we going to have enough of excessively tall buildings? Thank you ever so much. Chairman Winton: Next podium. Gordon Ettie: My name is Gordon Ettie I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive. I actually grew up in the Grove too. And what I've heard tonight is you have a difficult decision to make. And how would you base that decision on? There was a lot of issues with this building and you've heard that. They've redesigned it, they tried to address a great deal of the issues and I think they've done a great job on the planting and the views and things like that, but they missed one very important point, does it fit in with the Grove? Does it work I think was quoted by Ms. Dougherty, so the context of the Grove? You have to take a hard look tat that when you make your decision because as being having grown up in the Grove and a resident there and using all of the facilities of the Grove plus the water, this building just does not fit. It does not fit in the context of the Grove and if you allow this to happen you're opening a Pandora's box and your also impacting on the quality of life of the Grove with the traffic. We live there. We survive that traffic. You're going to have more traffic and so I beseech you to make a good decision on this to make the Grove a great place to live as it is right now and limit the size of this building, thank you. Renan Nance: I am Renan Nance and I reside at 2645 South Bayshore Drive. I'm a resident of Grove Hill apartment 1401. Let's not be impressed by all of the changes to design and to the placement of this design on the property because with all of the changes obviously there must have been some flaws along the way and those changes should not impress you I feel. The other issue is, Grove Hill Association signed an agreement with the developer but within that agreement there were provisions for individual unit owners to object and I did -- I do have 27 petition signers who object to the density and the size of this project. Please oppose this project. Jonathan Blum: Good evening my name is Jonathan Blum. I live at 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I'm here tonight as a resident of Coconut Grove and a citizen of the City of Miami and I'm here to only say two things. Number one, I'd like to be proud in my City government for doing the right thing. I would like the City Officials to be very careful in granting exceptions and granting variances to anyone under any circumstances. If it's not appropriate, if there's not a bigger general public good to be derived by the granting of acceptions and variances I think, they should be considered very carefully. Also, I'm here this evening to challenge Mr. Colombo and his associated partners because he does have a good reputation of building beautiful buildings. I would like him to not simply enhance his existing reputation by building another beautiful building but I would like for him actually to perhaps build a model for the country. Something designed, quote -unquote, "out of the box", something that fits in with a very demanding environment, a village. He could perhaps just reduce the profits a little bit and make something that would be beautiful and last forever, thank you. 218 January 23, 2003 Robert Ingrahm: Good evening, my name is Robert Ingrahm. I reside at 3526 Palmetto Avenue in South Grove, I work at Ransom Everglades School. I've been in the Grove for a lot of years and the one thing I noticed is that everybody wants to come to the Grove and be part of the life that's we live there and as soon as they get there they want to change it. Ladies and gentlemen Coconut Grove is full, it is a sold out show. It is unconscionable to continue to continue to sell tickets to sold out show. If this were an airplane we would not allow it to take off. At some point we have to stop building these things. I counted 11 or 12 tonight coming out of Dinner Key. Every one of those buildings blocks the breeze that the original settlers came here to enjoy when the bay was their show. This is a lot like sitting in a movie with somebody standing in front of you. Thank you. Chris Brunk: My name is Chris Brunk I live at 2545 Lincoln Avenue. I've been a resident of the Grove since 1985, raised my children there and my house literally would be -- I would look at this building and frankly I would rather look at this building than have to worry about another 500 or 490 or whatever the number was, apartment units in that same spot. I would much rather have 150 units and less traffic and less people in that area because he's right, it is a full plane as he said. However, if we allow them or we turn this down, the alternative is horrifying. I can't even I'm imagine having a 500 unit complex two blocks from my house. It will not be good. You don't know how many people would be there. A lot more cars they are planning to bring to our community so, I am absolutely opposed to not allowing them to have this project because I think it's important that we keep the quality in the Grove. I think it's something, we already know how my Colombo builds his buildings and I think it's a testimony to his (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I just don't think it's a good idea to allow an apartment complex to be in the same spot. Thank you. Jim Broton: My name is Jim Broton. I live at 951 Northwest 10t11 Court. I'm president of the Spring Garden Civic Association. I'm here to oppose this out -of -scale development at this site. I applaud the Planning Department recent efforts to change the zoning where they find it inappropriate. I hope that the zoning here and in the Spring Garden Highland Park Overtown neighborhood will be changed soon to protect us while there are still neighborhoods here to protect. Thank you. Mariano Cruz: I'm waiting for Chairman. Chairman Winton: Y'all keep bounce, bounce, bounce. You don't need my permission. Name and address and go. Mr. Cruz: Mariano Cruz 1227 Northwest 26t11 Street. My presence here is mostly as a point of information. One thing I see here quality of life, what about our quality of life when I see in the Coconut Grove Times an article endorsing Camillus House, and I wrote the letter and it's in this months paper there a little note there. When that Naval Reserve place was there for the take 100 points for homeless institution and there was a big fight. The City Commission, there was a motion from Plummer $10,000 to the Neighborhood Association to fight the homeless people going to Coconut Grove. No, now, it's OK for the Coconut people to send it to Allapattah. Oh, sure, and they talk about -- and you know what I am for all this anything private industry that bring taxes to the City to help subsidize the affordable rental housing that the City Commission 219 January 23, 2003 has allowed in past years in Allapattah -- at the Bobby Maduro Stadium that's what they get there. The City change the sell it and not for affordable homeownership like this is going to be, homeownership or whatever it is. No, but quality of life, sorry. You know, the most important life is life itself. Think of the building or the store there. Now you get a heart attack or a stomachache, you don't worry about the height of that building. Think of that for one minute. Your quality of life, life, is the most important thing in life and people here worry about the raccoons about that about the -- may the sun coming in the morning or not. No, no, no, no but why you want to treat the people of Allapattah different? We want parity, and that is the reason I am here today because something if I see an article in the paper of Coconut Grove that it says the state has surplus land in Allapattah you can use it for Camillus House well, the GSA (General Services Administration) the federal government has surplus land there that could be used for Camillus House, too. Thank you. Kendall Coffey: Good evening honorable Commissioners my name is Kendall Coffey. I live at 1639 South Bayshore. I work at 2665 South Bayshore, my daughter goes to school in Coconut Grove. I have characteristics in impact that are not common to other City residents. Because Commissioners ask that we be brief and not repetitious, a hard enough thing for any lawyer, I'll try to incorporate by reference Mr. Gibbs's remark which I think very well describe incompatibility with the character and the aesthetics of this community, and just as fundamentally the inconsistency with applicable zoning criteria. The only answer I heard to the fact that this is not a credibly consistent development with the GI usages to sort of blame whoever was opposed to homeless housing some ten years ago. Well, that's first of all irrelevant and secondly, it's wrong. I happen to have represented as cocounsel with Hogan and Hartson the homeless advocates that sought to make sure this property had the opportunity to be considered for homeless housing. For a lot of different reasons, that didn't happen, but nothing could be more beside the point and the reality is, that that is an essential legal requirement. The other reason that I think that this kind of project is not justifiable is found in the justifications your own staff gave you. They said there's a housing need. What is the housing need in this Coconut Grove community for luxury condominiums? They also told you that there weren't access problems. I can't imagine that they stepped foot within 500 yards of that area of town if they don't think there are enormous access problems. You can't get in and out on a Friday and Saturday night without moving about three miles an hour for a very long time, and whether is 409 additional parking spaces or 4,000, there isn't any more room. So, for all these reasons we urge the denial of this request. Bob Fitzsimmions: My name is Bob Fitzsimmions. I like at 2512 Abacco Avenue in Coconut Grove. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Park Homeowners Association, which is the area of single-family houses that surround this project to the north, and we are the single-family residents that will live with this project after the developer has built it, made his money and left. So, I ask one, out of respect that the developer representative not be presumptuous and tell us what's better for us. Whether this project is better for us than some other project that might be proposed. We want to judge it on this project. And the issue for us is very simple. You have developed the zoning for South Bayshore to make it consistent and to make each building compatible with the other. We simply ask that you zone this parcel so that it is compatible and that it is consistent. If you allow this to happen, instead of having the consistent 220 -foot height limitation, we have 346 feet. That's a huge additional building that I will look at, that the 220 January 23, 2003 members of my association who live in their single-family houses will look at for the rest of our mortgage payments while the developer is gone. All we ask is that you allow them to rezone it, we'll support the rezoning so it's consistent with the SD -17 and build a building within the guidelines of SD -17. Thank you. Joe Jamison: Hello, my name is Joe Jamison. I live at 2591 Trapp Avenue in the Grove and I've just been living in the Grove for about five years so, I'm not a lifer like some of these people, but I came here actually to point out a few things and also pose a few questions. First of all, the first question is, what impact has been determined about the effect of the building of such a building on that site? Will it bring about the escalation of property values of income tax assessments in the surrounding communities and by doing that, will it cause about it a transformation of the Grove from an area that's represented by a diverse income mix and ethnic mix to simply a Grove that is for people who can afford very expensive high-rise condominiums? I was wondering if that assessment has been made. I think that one of the main concerns here is that it's not so much the building itself, but the precedent it sets in the fact that the building could represent stage one of a rather grotesque transformation of the Grove. I think that's the thing that people are really most concerned about. They do see the essential character of the Grove being destroyed, and actually the lure of the Grove the reason that it has, its reason for being, they see that being eliminated. They see it turning into yet another really mega high-rise, overpriced condos, so I was wondering an assessment had been done of the economic impact of this either this building or all the buildings that could follow. And my final question, and I'll get off is, the developer talks about establishing these good relationships and maintaining these good relationships with the surrounding -- the people of the surrounding community and I was wondering if they would mind specifying what steps they did to ensure that they remain in the good graces of the neighboring community? Thank you very much. Andy Parrish: Andy Parrish, 1617 Tigertail Avenue. I'm the president of Wind and Rain Homebuilders in Coconut Grove, which is the only affordable homebuilder in the African American section of Coconut Grove. I'm also a member of the planning and zoning committee of the Coconut Grove Collaborative and we have bunches of questions about the amount of the affordable donation that's being made to the City whether it's adequate or not, where the money is going to go, whether it's going to stay in Coconut Grove. The Commissioners should know and they're probably going to face the same things in their areas. There is a tremendous need for affordable housing in the African American section of Coconut Grove as gentrifying extremely rapidly and all these issues that affect where funding is coming from and how much it is and whether it's fair and whether it's going to go to into the right area, into the area that needs it, or would -- the Collaborative would love to meet with all those parties to discuss that, and that's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Angus Murray: Good evening, Commissioners. Angus Murray, 2462 Inagua Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm reminded of an old episode of Dragnet that some people may remember. Joe Friday's been invited to dinner by his partner and this is the Harry Morgan Dragnet, not the Ben Alexander which was my favorite. And Joe Friday protests. He said, "You got a family. You're not going to have enough food." So, his partner says to him, "That's all right. We'll just cut the meat a little thinner," and that's what's going on constantly now in Coconut Grove. I just feel that my wife and my neighbors we're under attack by these developers and there ain't going to 221 January 23, 2003 be much left of the meat here. The planes full, everything's been sliced. When I walk out of my house, go for a walk, I look up and I see the top of the Ritz Carlton. So, now I'm going to look at this thing. I'm losing my sky. We're going to have a series of walls running down 27th, that'll get four-laned. Progression of these things going down Tigertail, the building at 22nd and US -1 is an absolute abomination and that may get extended in terms of height with other buildings all the way down there. I urge you, Commissioners, to make this guy go back to the drawing board and do something that's more in keeping with my neighborhood. Thank you. Ron Nelson: Good evening. My name is Ron Nelson, 2535 Inagua Avenue. I'm the president of the Coconut Grove Civic Club. We're happy to see high-end condo, lower density. That's nice. We're happy to see that they have managed to save some trees although that wasn't originally their plan. It took major objections to make that happen and we're glad to see that they've done it. And now we still have the issue of too much building. It should conform to the zoning. I won't go into that. You've heard the argument from the attorneys. Remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You do it on this GI property, you're going to have this argument on every other GI property around, and remember that to take into account the spirit of the others. I think the Grove Hill Towers next door could have pushed their building to within 10 feet of the property line and extended their balconies out over that and really had a setback of five or seven feet as this building is doing, pushing all the way to the edge and then extending their balconies into the setback, and you have this massive building with almost no setback. So, when you see the drawings remember those setbacks are because people like Grove Hill set their building back more than they really needed to because that's the Grove. You need room. You need foliage. You need those things that make it nice and this building has just done lot line to lot line width. I understand to get the through buildings but the rest of the people that live behind that have 346 feet from lot line to lot line casting a shadow on their single-family homes. It's not appropriate. It needs to be within the guidelines around it. Thank you very much. Sue Kaye -Martin: Hello my name is Sue Kaye -Martin and I live on Blain Street in Coconut Grove. I've live in Coconut Grove since 1960 so that's like 43 years and I don't have a problem with sensible and sensitive advancement of the quality of life in Coconut Grove, but the quality of live is very ill served by packing a minimum of 151 units on quite a small space. I know exactly the acreage there because I've lived there in that house since 1968. Now, what they want to do is continue the condominium canyon from Brickell Avenue all the way down to the Barnacle and I violently object to that, because that's affecting my quality of life. They talk about a quality project, well, what about my quality project, my life? If this project is built as they plan, I will walk out my front door on Blain Street and turn toward the bay and the obscene middle finger will be starring right at me at the intersection of Tigertail and Blain Street, and also by the way, there's no air let now anyway. They've already blocked it all off. Thank you very much. Ilaria Legnaro: My name is Ilaria Legnaro. I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive. I'd like to oppose this development. We heard the development representative addressing the concern of adjacent owners. Well, I don't live right next to the project in question but I live another building removed from that. I believe after having lived in Coconut Grove seven years that this project is going to have a tremendous impact on our lives, not just in terms of traffic but also in terms of again of the skyline. They also mentioned about previous project that were developed 222 January 23, 2003 by this developer and all of them are massive look-alikes. No matter how you look at them they are basically an image, a further image of what we're going to have. This project is also very massive. It will disregard just like the previous one has disregarded the current development of the areas such as the one in Coconut Grove. I also heard before that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) state that there have been many changes and also that it would be desirable to have this specific developer handle the project. My concern, and I hope yours also, should not be who will be the developer or whether there has been enough changes but whether the project itself and -- is appropriate, and it is not. So, if it takes an additional change, and an additional reformation to what it is right now to make it right, I hope you will support that. Thank you. Nina West: My name is Nina West. I have a home at 176 Northwest 44 Street. Chairman Winton: We can hear you. Ms West: OK. But I also have a home in Coconut Grove and one of the reasons that I own these two homes is because they were in small neighborhoods. There's a mix of economic types, ethnic types and what makes for a vibrant City living. And for me these two little houses are a total investment of my life savings and they are also to preserve what's best of Miami. So, I am asking that you not set this precedent. Biscayne Boulevard is going to be developed all the way up North, it's the North Corridor. We look forward to the park in Little Haiti and we look forward to the diversity of the community. And we don't think that high-rise condominium development that is low density is necessarily a vibrant addition to the cultural part, social part and the fabric of the community concerning the people who are here, thank you. Linda Ettie: My name is Linda Ettie. I live at 2575 South Bayshore Drive on the corner of Aviation and Bayshore and I am in agreement with Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Nelson and all these other people who have spoken in objection to the development of the Grovenor property as it stands. Thank you. Ted Stahl: My name is Ted Stahl, 2867 Day Avenue. I have been in this community for 65 years, born and raised here. I have stood before you many, many times over the many years and I always stood at this podium defending the betterment of my community not ever for personal gain. I don't think anyone that has been at these podiums have been totally opposition to development. We understand development, all we're asking you is that this not be so huge a development. We are on a scenic drive that cannot be expanded and the traffic has become a very serious problem here and I hope that you will consider the people that have lived here for many years and have supported this community, and Commissioner Winton that's one minute, I get a credit on the next time for one minute. Chairman Winton: Thanks, Ted, I'll keep that in mind. Jim McMaster: Jim McMaster 2940 Southwest 30th Court. As president of the Tree -Man Trust I'm here just to discuss the trees on the property. As Lucia mentioned we have met with the owners. Art Murphy was nice enough to come by to two of our meeting, and the owners -- again, if the footprint of this building, whatever the footprint is, whether it's a three story building on top of it or thirty three story building, the impact is the same on the trees. The same 223 January 23, 2003 things go with the access drives. So, we are here just talking about the trees. The owners have pulled the underground parking garage away from Tigertail to same some oaks. We've had some discussions about redesigning the front to save the two oak trees in front of the building. We do not have a signed agreement. Lucia mentioned that Grove Hill Towers had a signed agreement on a certain date. We are hoping to have one but we do not. We're pleased that the changes that they've made but as you Commissioners know until it's in writing you don't really have an agreement. So, we're just here to put on the record that the plan as presented is not acceptable. Thank you. Jo Lee: Thank you, Jo Lee, 1736 Espanola Drive. I realize you said this wasn't relevant but I just wanted to say as a long time resident of the Grove I remember well when this property was being considered for use by the Miami Coalition For the Homeless. Claudia Kitchen was Executive Director. The thing was to be for job training for families. I made myself unpopular with some of my neighbors for speaking in favor of the project. So, not everyone here was opposed to helping the homeless. But on to the subject at hand, I certainly agree with Tucker Gibbs that we think that enforcement of the comprehensive plan is really the issue here and I agree also that we certainly don't need another out of scale high-rise. We also would like to comment that perhaps consultation you might even refer to the Coconut Grove planning study for what many of the residents desire for their community. Thank you. Felice Dubin: Hi. My name is Felice Dubin, and I reside at 2645 South Bayshore Drive. The building will block part of my view, which is of the City, and yet I believe that it'll be an elegant building. It'll bring more business to the Grove, which I certainly believe the Grove needs. And 150 more units is a lot of units to have people to come to our restaurants and enhance the Grove. So, I'd rather see that than something -- no? But at least this will bring money -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, you're allowed your point of view and you're not, you don't have to respond to anybody just your point of view just like everybody else and it goes on the record. Ms Dubin: So, any way's, I'd rather see this than anything that would be -- would not bring people to the Grove and I'm one of those truly affected as Mrs. Nance here but I'm in favor of the building, thank you. Harold Turk: Hi, my name is Harold Turk. I live at 3121 Kirk Street in the Grove, a couple of blocks from the project. Frankly, it's kind of mystifying to me that the choice that we have for this property is -- was a homeless shelter and this monolithic oversized condominium. There's certainly no dearth of luxury condominiums in the Grove or the City of Miami and in reality these luxury condominiums really don't bring that much business. But the bottom line seems that the developer can build this by changing the zoning and still make a reasonable profit on his investment. Just to go forward with this excessive size building just seems a little greedy to me and really very negative impact on all of us who live in the City of Miami, not just the people in the Grove. Thank you. Dolly Macintyre: My name is Dolly Macintyre. I live at 1835 South Bayshore Drive. I am in opposition to this building for the reasons that Tucker gives as outlined. I do wish to comment 224 January 23, 2003 that I wish Lucia and her associates would at least be honest with us. We all know that this project is not consistent with Coconut Grove. And we all know that the trees won't make it, and we all know that this is not a low -impact project. Why don't they just come out and say, "We've pulled a fast one on you." because that's what they've done. This group is so sure of us and you that they've already started selling units in this building. So, why can't they at least be honest and simply say we're going to do what we want to do. It's up to you to say no for us. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Joyce Nelson: Joyce Nelson, 2535 Inagua, and I have been a Grove resident since 1974 and I've been holding my finger in the dike here since 1990 so, things have been getting better. I have to say thank you very much to some of the Commissioners that are up there now and our Mayor. I see things improving and I hope we're not going to step backwards. I hope we're not going to bow down to another developer and approve something that shouldn't be approved. I'm really holding you accountable for that. I think you know what is best for us. That's why we're here and we want to make ourselves known to you. One property that they did not mention that's zoned GI is the Playhouse also, right in Coconut Grove and that's what we need right at the playhouse is one of these. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: OK, anyone else from the public want to comment? Where is she? She is a part of the public hearing now? OK, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. This property is zoned GI. We know that. We know that residential which is ancillary to a public institution is permitted such as a dormitory for a junior college, such as a prison would be permitted. We aren't seeking to do such a thing, but we also know that the GI governmental institutional zoning district regulation permits residential. It's clear. It says it right in the zoning ordinance. And then he's saying that comprehensive plan doesn't allow it. He's read to you only one little portion of the comprehensive plan and that portion of the comprehensive plan does not say it's prohibited like industrial. The comprehensive plan for the industrial district says it's prohibited. And not every use, which is permitted in every comp plan category, is actually listed. But the most important thing is I want to read to you from the comprehensive plan above all the categories. It says the land -use designations, which appear in the future land -use plan map are arranged following a pyramid concept of cumulative inclusion whereby subsequent categories are inclusive in those previously listed except, as otherwise noted. In this case it's not otherwise noted. This category is inclusionary in the office -zoning district, which is exclusionary in the R-4 zoning district. So, the comprehensive plan also permits this as a use that is permitted, residential use. But you also have a safeguard and the safeguard is it requires a special exception. Before you can have a residential use introduced into this you have a special exception. That special exception is included within this Major Use Special Permit. We aren't cramming anything into this property. We are not asking for any variances. We're not asking for anything that any other developer isn't permitted to have. In fact, if we rezone this property to whatever they say we should, which is the SD -17 I think, it's the same setbacks. You have the exactly the same setbacks. We are 225 January 23, 2003 asking for 150 units. Under the SD -17, which they would like us to have, we could have 490 or somebody else could we wouldn't have it. The height is really the only issue. The height, not the setbacks, because again the setbacks are exactly the same. So, what are we talking about in terms of height? Yes, it's not exactly the same, but wouldn't this be a monotonous City if every single building was exactly the same height? That's not the case on Brickell Avenue, which is probably the most prestigious you have in all of the City of Miami. They are different heights. They don't all have this monotonous skyline. Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Chairman Winton: I thought you were rebutting, not repitching. (APPLAUSE) Chairman Winton: Excuse me, please, please -- Ms. Dougherty: I think I am rebutting. I'm rebutting the comprehensive plan, I'm rebutting their height issues but I will, I will -- Chairman Winton: Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: -- defer to you. They have one issue left. I'm not going to fight the legal arguments that I have a listing of but they asked what is the bonus doing for the City? And I'll tell you what the bonuses are doing. That bonus is giving you a million dollars in taxes, just the bonus I'm not taking the rest of the building. The bonus alone is giving you a million dollars in taxes and $500,000 into your Affordable Housing Trust Fund in addition to the taxes. That's what it's doing for your City. It's giving you a quality development on this site which otherwise could be a whole litany of other things with a quality developer that is not maximizing the site by any means. So, and I'd ask you to have your City Attorney address some of these legal issues as well as your Planning Department. Thank you. Chairman Winton: Tucker, last shot. Mr. Tucker: I didn't know I got the opportunity to re -rebut. Chairman Winton: Does he? Mr. Maxwell: No. Mr. Tucker: But I'm going to accept it. Mr. Maxwell: You had indicated that you wanted to cross-examine are you waiving that? 226 January 23, 2003 Mr. Tucker: I don't know if you have any questions to staff. Right now I have nothing to cross- examine on but if staff is going to make -- if you are going to ask questions of staff -- Chairman Winton: Is he allowed to do that? Ms Tucker: I have the ability to cross-examine staff. That's why I -- Chairman Winton: OK. Mr. Tucker: -- asked him to wait till the end. Chairman Winton: Well, we are going to ask questions of staff so. Lourdes. I think -- I'm going to ask you a number of the questions relative to the technical, legal part, so you can get that on the record. Does this application comply with our comp plan? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, it does. The statements I was actually going to get up my notes here exactly what Lucia had said. We do have a pyramid comprehensive plan. The land -use categories are arranged in a pyramid fashion. When you get up to industrial it specially excludes residential because that is one of those "unless otherwise noted" items. And the comprehensive plan, just for the benefit of all of the Commissioners, is a generalized description of each of the land -use classifications. It does not list everything that's allowed in each of the land -use classifications. In fact, specially in the major institutional public facilities transportation and utilities which is the land -use for the GI, when it talks about the residential facilities, ancillary to these uses are allowed a maximum density equivalent to high-density multi -family residential. It goes on to say subject to the same limiting conditions. These land -use classifications mirror the zoning classifications and when you go to the zoning ordinance that's where your detailed land development regulations are. That's where all of the specific uses, specific setbacks, specific FAR issues are addressed. They were meant to be addressed in the comprehensive plan. Tucker also brought up the land -use objective that -- about the incompatible uses and making sure that incompatible uses are not introduced into residential areas. This is not an incompatible use, because it's completely surrounded by residential. To talk about what a land -use classification name is or the actual use of the property, in this case, this is a residential property. A residential project coming into a zone where it's residential uses, it's not incompatible. Chairman Winton: Does Juan Gonzalez letter state that this project is allowed? Ms. Slazyk Yes, is does. I have here extra copies, if the Commissioners what to see the March 9th interpretation. Commissioner Sanchez: I would. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, could you have Ms. Slazyk indicate exactly who Mr. Gonzalez is -- Chairman Winton: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Maxwell: -- and his role. 227 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: Juan Gonzalez was the zoning administrator in the City of Miami at the time that this interpretation was issued. He recently retired. What the interpretation says pursuant to -- it was in response to a letter. Pursuant to your March 5th 2001 letter concerning the GI zoning designation and whether a residential multi -family use is permitted, please be advised of the following: the GI zoning designation includes uses permitted as a principal use under the O zoning designation, which further incorporates the R-4 designation, which includes as a permitted principle use multi -family residential dwelling units. The exception to the GI zoning designation is that to introduce a new principal use, a special exception must be obtained. If the proposed residential tower exceed 200 dwelling units or provides and excess of 500 off -Street parking spaces a Major Use Special Permit must be obtained. That's the interpretation. If you look at the GI zoning classification and the zoning ordinance, it allows this as a permitted principal use subject to the special exception, which is required in GI to introduce any new use onto a piece of property. Chairman Winton: On this issue of GI use, Tucker stated that if we allowed this use on this GI site that we automatically then essentially allow by right any other GI site in the City of Miami to be converted to the same kind of density. Is that correct? Ms. Slazyk Not automatically. Obviously, first of all, if it were to be requested, a special exception would be required. Under the special exception using the criteria that we use, just like it was said early on here, when this project was first brought to the Planning and Zoning Department for review, it was forty some odd stories tall. The Planning and Zoning Department did not support that because of looking at the criteria in the zoning ordinance for special permits, it would have been an adverse affect. So, through our comments and through the design review, the project was modified a few times before what you see here tonight. I think that through the criteria and the zoning ordinance for special exception and the adverse affects I think we would deny such request, but what is true about what he said is that they can request it. The request can be made in some of these other sites. That doesn't mean they're going to get it. It's not automatic. Chairman Winton: Well, but it -- Ms. Slazyk But they are allowed to ask. Chairman Winton: They would be allowed to ask. We would be allowed to deny. Ms. Slazyk We would be allowed to deny subject to noncompliance -- Chairman Winton: And they would be allowed to appeal including to Circuit Court. Ms. Slazyk Right, but the request is allowed. 228 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: And then we have to deal with this issue, then a judge will determine whether or not we've set the precedent here on this particular site. Is that correct or incorrect? Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. They don't look at precedent. They will look at whether or not you acted in arbitrary capricious fashion. Whether or not your decision was based on competence, substantial evidence. Chairman Winton: OK, thank you. Ms. Slazyk: And that's what the criteria does. That's what we look at when we utilize the criteria to make an evaluation on a project. That's why they're case by case. Chairman Winton: OK. Does this property have -- the property, period does it have a right to the PUD benefits and low-income housing credits? Ms. Slazyk It's subject to this major use special permit, so we applied the criteria of the major use special use permit. If this project was not seeking those bonuses, the PUD and the affordable housing trust fund, it would not have needed a major use special permit. The special exception would have been enough, because the density they're coming in at is below what would have been a major use special permit threshold. What they requested here was the additional FAR through the major use special permit so that they can do bigger units not more units. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk And that's one of the things we look at for this in determining the adverse affects. They are not increasing to more units to put more traffic. In fact the City has an independent reviewer of their traffic studies when the submit for the MUSP and they were well below you know, what was required. Chairman Winton: Haven't we done something recently in the Grove to address this whole PUD issue, I mean, something changed? Ms. Slazyk Single families, R-1 were taken out. Chairman Winton: OK. So that's what -- Ms. Slazyk So, the R-1 PUDs are no longer exist. Chairman Winton: The six dollars and some cents on the affordable housing -- the amount that the developer pays per square foot into affordable housing program isn't that amount set by code. Ms. Slazyk It is set in the zoning ordinance. It was set actually back in the 80's I believe. I don't think it's been restudied and reevaluated to see if it should be raised. Chairman Winton: So, we -- 229 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: It was done by code. Chairman Winton: -- we probably need to re-evaluate it. Ms Slazyk: Absolutely. Chairman Winton: Can we make a change of that amount in the middle of something like this? Ms. Slazyk: No, because it's a zoning ordinance amendment you have to amend your ordinance first and that ordinance amendment should be based on a study. This very issue came up at the Planning Advisory Board last night and they actually passed a motion asking us to do that and come back to them with those revised figures. Chairman Winton: Could this site any longer be used as a homeless center given the fact that it's no longer in government hands? Would this site still qualify under -- what was that? The McKinney Act or whatever y' all? Mr. Maxwell: Property's been disposed of at this point. The McKinney Act dealt with disposition of government property so, I don't think the McKinney Act is now an issue. Whether or not it can be used as a homeless center now would depend on whether our code would allow it. Chairman Winton: My last question, I'm confused over this whole issue, the zoning issue related to the different SD overlays. Would you explain what the differences are here, what the issues are here? Ms. Slazyk: OK. Chairman Winton: It seems, aren't they're three different -- Ms. Slazyk Yeah, there are three different zonings on the properties on either side of this. Chairman Winton: OK. Ms. Slazyk There's the O, the SD -17 and the SD -19. The O is the underline zoning classification. So, even the properties next door have the -- you know, base zoning with the one point seven two FAR and the hundred and fifty units all of the same things that this property has as GI. What happened with the other properties on either side is that the zoning overlays of SD - 17 and SD -19 were put on them to limit things like FAR, height and you know, whatever all the details are in those. That's what makes the big difference, but the underlying zoning on the properties next door is equivalent to GI as far as density and FAR and all of that, but those things were changed on the properties next door by the special district overlay. Chairman Winton: OK but if the special district overlays were in effect what would it mean here? 230 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: It would mean that they would be limited to a 220 foot height limit or else they would have to come in and request a height variance. It would mean that the base FAR that they would have based their increases on would have been the 1.21 versus a 1.72. Those are the two big issues because as far as setbacks and all those other things, I don't think those are much different. Chairman Winton: By our code what rights does the Planning and Zoning Department have to have required this development to get rezoned and fall under the SD -17 or SD -19 whichever one it is versus the route that was taken? I mean, do -- does the department have that kind of flexibility to require one route versus the other? Ms. Slazyk We can't require a property owner to rezone his property before coming in with an application. We could downzone, but that's not something that is -- and Joel can probably speak to that better than me -- it's not something that's taken into lightly. To do a down zoning would require substantial studies and it's just not something -- Chairman Winton: So we could -- Ms. Slazyk -- we do lightly. Chairman Winton: -- we couldn't have required the developer to rezone his property to Ms. Slazyk: No. Chairman Winton: What was it? Ms. Slazyk Let me explain Bobby Madurro what happened and it's interesting -- Mr. Maxwell: Hold on, Ms. Slazyk. Bobby Madurro is -- may I suggest that Bobby Madurro's a separate application it really not relevant to the decision before the Commission now. You ask whether or not they could demand that the developer go a different route. I think that's a developers prerogative when the planning staff and the Zoning Administrator who is charged under our zoning ordinance with interpreting -- these sole individual charged with interpreting our zoning ordinance, unless that decision is appeal, which it wasn't in this particular case. So, if the Zoning Administrator and staff have already determined that the use to the applicant is seeking is permissible under existing law, then I don't think it's proper, I don't think it would be proper for staff at that time to demand that any applicant proceed on a different path. Now, if they find that the applicant's request in incompatible to the neighborhood then their duty is to recommend, based on the criteria that they utilize, that it be denied. If they don't want to see it perceived down the street or onto other areas, then they should downzone those areas, so that it doesn't occur again, or change the law so that it doesn't occur again, but I don't think that it would be proper for them to say you cannot proceed under a code provision that clearly allows them based on interpretation to do so. Chairman Winton: OK. I don't have any further questions so -- 231 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: You have basically asked a lot of questions that I would ask. I just have one or two questions from the staff. Would you say that this project is compatible in characteristic to its surrounding? Ms. Slazyk: Yes, and let me answer. The 220 -foot height limit that was being talked about is a fairly recent amendment. The building next door is not 220 feet. One of the two is in the 300 range and I forgot how much the other one is but the majority of the buildings are not 220 feet. That was a recent amendment because the code used to read 220 feet or 22 stories and most of the buildings came in with 22 stories with mezzanines and really tall Florida ceiling height type thing so they are not 220 feet. What happened in this building is it went through the design review process and the shaping of the building, it was stepped down in a way to more compatibly meet its neighbors, and because of how it's oriented -- it came down to design, is really what it came down to for compatibility. In stepping the building down on the sides and orienting the way that they did slanting it toward the front the width becomes imperceptible unless you are out on a boat on the water at exactly a certain angle, it really becomes imperceptible because you see it as different angles as you move through Bayshore. And the height is something that was shaped in a way to more gradually meet its neighbors, so that the height in the absolute middle is not a block that extends the entire width of the property and those are the things that we looked at for incompatibility and we determined it was. Commissioner Sanchez: When you say that the project is relatively low density for the site would allow, elaborate a little bit on that. Ms. Slazyk The sight allows whether it's the O underlying SD -17 or GI. It allows 150 units per acre, which means that under the amount of acreage that this property has, they could do over 400 units. The hundred and fifty is relatively low. It puts them at the 55 unit per acre mark versus 150 units per acre, so it's come in at a density that is much lower than as permissible. We're not talking FAR now. We're talking numbers of units. The FAR what that does was it makes the units bigger. The units here are two, three and four thousand square feet. These are very large units. Commissioner Sanchez: One more, Grove Hill -- it's irrelevant. Forget it. It's irrelevant. I withdraw. Chairman Winton: Any other -- yes sir, Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Lourdes, what was it first that the Planning Board or the Zoning Board? Which? Ms. Slazyk It went to the Zoning Board first, the special exception component goes to the Zoning Board, and then the Planning Advisory Board sees it after that, and all their recommendations come to you. Commissioner Regalado: So, what happened in between? I mean, it was unanimous on the Zoning Board, and then it was sort of a tie in the Planning Advisory Board. 232 January 23, 2003 Ms. Slazyk: The Planning Advisory -- they were torn. I mean, it was one of those where I think they acknowledged that it was a well designed building and I think some of the same concerns that the residents raised here was you know, the board members were considering the same concerns. Commissioner Regalado: OK, thank you. Chairman Winton: Anyone else? Tucker you wanted the right to cross-examine staff. I think we're all finished with questions of staff. Mr. Gibbs: Lourdes, I'll make this -- I have a couple questions. The pyramid that you talked about in the comprehensive plan, can you tell us what the hierarchy of that pyramid is? Mr. Maxwell: I think, Mr. Gibbs, I think Ms. Slazyk said pyramid in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Gibbs: She said comp plan and that's what I'm asking about, pyramiding in the comp plan. Ms. Slazyk Well it's in the order of their appearance in the comp plan. I don't know if I can name every single category off the top of my head, but it says that it's arranged in the -- in a pyramid order so, when they begin they get increasingly -- it increases. Mr. Gibbs: Does it say that it's in that particular order within the comprehensive plan? Ms. Slazyk I'd have to read it. I'm sorry I don't have -- Mr. Gibbs: That's all right. Ms. Slazyk If it says it, it either says it or it doesn't. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Ms. Slazyk The interpretation has been that that's the order because they increase it in intensity and in density you know, from R-1 to R-2 to R-3 to R-4. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. Thank you. The other question that I had is you said the maximum -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, what -- Ms. Slazyk: The word subsequent is in there. Mr. Gibbs: Ms. Dougherty mentioned that the word subsequent is in there and my question is what does subsequent mean as in the context of that? I just don't know. Do you have any idea what that means in that context? Ms. Slazyk Again, I mean, the interpretation has been the order in which they appear each one again it adds uses, it adds density and adds intensity and they move up in that order, and then, 233 January 23, 2003 unless a use is specifically excluded in a category like when you get to industrial, which residential is specifically excludes. Mr. Gibbs: Ask a question here, how do you, as a planner, distinguish between government institutional and office use? What makes them different? Ms. Slazyk: The government institutional just adds more uses that are not in office. All of the uses that are allowed in office are allowed in governmental institutional but then governmental institutional adds a series of other uses that are of a more public or institutional nature such as hospitals and jails and major universities. Mr. Gibbs: So, could some of those uses that are office uses I mean, government uses be in the office category if they were not government owned or operated or institutionally owned or operated? Ms. Slazyk Not unless the use was specifically listed in the zoning ordinance. In other words, you can have a government office if it's just an administrative office government office can be permitted in the O district. However, the specific uses listed in GI like jails and hospitals and those can not be reciprocated in the office but pure office use you know, in the comp plan one of the things you actually mentioned and I forgot to put this in the record, you talked about the ownership that's not what it actually says. Mr. Tucker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Ms. Slazyk Well, it was, I guess Mark Alvarez mentioned the ownership that the GI category or the institutional category is the one category that goes to who owns the facility. What it actually says is areas designated as major institutional public facilities, transportation and utilities allow facilities for federal, state and local government et cetera, et cetera. it doesn't mandate that they have to be owned. Mr. Tucker: But it's owned or controlled. Would you agree with that? Ms. Slazyk It doesn't have to be. Mr. Gibbs: I understand that, I understand what you are saying. You will, OK -- you mentioned that this cannot happen. Commissioner Winton asked if this could happen in other places. This can't happen for example in a GI district like Ransom Everglades Middle School; and you said, it can't happen, because? Ms. Slazyk It's not automatic that's not what I said. Mr. Gibbs: OK. Ms. Slazyk What I said was it was not automatic. It can be applied for, yes, but it is not automatic, because a special exception is required for the introduction of any new use, it will go 234 January 23, 2003 through the review case by case utilizing the criteria, and that's one where this building would not be approved there. This one is coming in the context of other high rises. Mr. Gibbs: In terms of the criteria, you had mentioned that the criteria that you had examined that the Planning Department had examined this project when it was at 40 stories you had rejected it and it was appropriated at 31. Why did the criteria fit at 31 but not at 40? What was the rationale? Ms. Slazyk: I explained it already, but it went to the changes in design. They stepped it down. They changed the footprint. They changed the configuration. They changed the setbacks on the property. All of those things led to a final product that was appropriate. Mr. Gibbs: How does that relate to the office district and the issue of the office district in GI? Ms. Slazyk I don't understand. Mr. Gibbs: In other words, the reason why this use is allowed in GI is because it's part of an office designation for permitted use, so how does that relate to the office use, is what I'm asking. How does those issues, the chevron, the design, the setback, how do those relate to the office use? I'm trying to get at what standards did you use, specific standards that you used to say that it was OK at 31, but not OK at 40? Ms. Slazyk I'm not sure I'm understanding what -- Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Slazyk, you can simply respond you don't understand his question. Mr. Gibbs: OK, thank you. You mentioned that the PUD criteria -- the PUD bonus criteria is the same criteria for the MUSP. Ms. Slazyk That's not the only criteria. Mr. Gibbs: OK, can you explain to me what the other criteria is that was utilized in this application? Ms. Slazyk The other criteria for the PUD that was utilized was how does this project, in its design and the enhanced level of amenities and all of those things, how, if it creates a living product that has the enhanced level of amenities and design. And again, because of the increase setbacks, and the trees, and the landscape and all of that and the recreation facilities that were provided, it was deemed to qualify. Mr. Gibbs: Are those standards in the code and where are they? Ms. Slazyk Article five has the standards on the amenities for the PUD. 235 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gibbs: Specifically, can you give me a section in article -- Chairman Winton: No, now Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Maxwell: No. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me, Mr. City Attorney, would you tell me whether or not this kind of detail is required and whether or not we have to continue, I mean, sit through this? Mr. Maxwell: Cross-examination, he should be addressing himself to the issues specifically addressed by Ms. Slazyk. If she didn't raise that, if she didn't raise those sections, she hasn't raised those sections. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Maxwell, can I ask you a question? Mr. Maxwell: You can ask the question, she doesn't have that information -- Mr. Gibbs: Absolutely, she doesn't have to answer me, I have to ask the question though, but the questions were asked by Commissioner Winton. I'm literally going down that list and I'm trying to find out what's going on here, and I think I have a right in cross examination, to find her basis for her answers to Commissioner Winton, and that's all I'm trying to do. Chairman Winton: Does he or does he not? Mr. Maxwell: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: And I'm almost completed, but I have to establish a record here. I have to. I do. The issue of -- Ms. Slazyk I don't know the section. Mr. Gibbs: OK, thank you and that all -- Mr. Maxwell: Be sure that you're speaking into the microphone. Chairman Winton: Yes, that was not on the -- Mr. Slazyk I don't know the section number by heart. Mr. Gibbs: You said that affordable housing, the bonus was set in the 1980's. Does the City Commission have the right to reject the bonuses? Ms. Slazyk The City Commission can reject a major use special permit that grants the bonus if they find that the project does not comply with the criteria. 236 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gibbs: So, it's an all or nothing, is what you're saying? Ms. Slazyk: I don't understand the question. Mr. Gibbs: OK, I appreciate that. All right, thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Lucia, you have a shot. Ms. Dougherty: I just have one question for Ms. Slazyk Lourdes, if the City Commission wanted to protect Ransom Everglades or any other GI institutional zoning category, could they propose amendments which were not be down -zonings that were protected? Ms. Slazyk: Absolutely. There you can always add more criteria, you can always amend the zoning ordinance to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City. That's part of -- Ms. Dougherty: Let me just read you a zoning ordinance from the City of Miami Beach and this is for their GU. It says the development regulations -- Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Ms. Dougherty. Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty. Mr. Gibbs: I object to that, I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: I want to propose this as a solution to this issue that he raised. Chairman Winton: But is has -- Mr. Maxwell: But you're cross-examining right now, it's questions that -- Ms. Dougherty: I want to ask her a question if this is something that could be adopted in the City of Miami and would this add some more protection. Mr. Gibbs: That's speculative. It has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sorry. Ms. Dougherty: It does have -- Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman I don't think it's relevant -- Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney, you need to make a determination here so I can -- Mr. Maxwell: I don't think Mr. Dougherty, in all fairness, I don't think that that's relevant. You've asked Ms. Slazyk a question -- Ms. Dougherty: Then I'll ask another question. 237 January 23, 2003 Mr. Maxwell: -- that was as subject of discussion between Commissioners. Ms. Dougherty: Could the City -- Chairman Winton: Next point. Ms. Dougherty: Could the City to stop this issue of whether or not a high rise development could be in Ransom Everglades School, could the City adopt a regulation that would simply say that the -- if a GI institutional use is sold, that it would revert to zoning districts that -- average of the zoning district surrounding it? Ms. Slazyk: The City can amend its zoning ordinance. I don't now if that's the -- I don't know enough about that particular solution to know if that works -- that would be a law department question. Ms. Dougherty: But it can -- Ms. Slazyk: You have the right to amend your zoning ordinance -- Ms. Dougherty: To prohibit -- Ms. Slazyk To protect -- yeah. Mr. Maxwell: She's asked, she's answered. Ms. Dougherty: -- adverse affect -- Mr. Maxwell: Ms. Dougherty. Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Maxwell: She's answered the question. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Chairman Winton: OK, anything else. Ms. Dougherty: No, sir. Chairman Winton: OK, do we have, anyone else from the -- let's see the public part -- so, we are closing the public hearing portion of this. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: May I preside? 238 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: Yes, please. Vice Chairman Teele: You're recognized. Chairman Winton: When I came in here today and as we all know none of us are allowed to and I think frankly this Commission does a heck of a j ob at following the Jennings Rule and we don't talk to anybody, and the fact -- and it's really interesting because I think the word is out, so even friends don't call, which that's the good part of this, so the only information that I had in front of me when I walked in was conversation with staff and the book here. And when I walked in it was -- and whether we like it or not you still form opinions when you start off the process even though you know, you haven't heard all the -- your going to form an opinion. That's just human nature, and I had an opinion formed and that opinion was I'm going to have more constituents mad at me then I can imagine because they're going to be here. I know they coming in, I hear they are coming in with opposition because I didn't understand the premise of all of their arguments and I looked at the book and frankly there are a number of parts to this project that are very attractive to me in my opinion and included in that is the fact that is going to be 150 high- end condominium units, which has absolutely the least impact in terms of traffic and intrusion as any kind of project that you can have because you all know in these high-rise condos that a very significant percentage of the owns of those condos don't even live there, so the difference between a 409 -unit apartment building and 150 -unit high-end condominium project there is no comparison in my mind, zero. When I looked at the height and the angles and the density I wasn't particularly bothered by all of that. Tonight we were forced to suffer through this long conversation about these technical legal issues. I don't pretend to understand all of these particular issues even at this -- I think I have a pretty good understanding, but I'm not sure I'm right, and I'm not trained to be the major arbiter of whether the technical question that Tucker's posing versus the technical question that Lucia's posing versus the technical answer that our Planning staff is getting. They all sound good to me. I don't know, I'm not trained to be the interpreter of that kind stuff. So, how do I make my decision? I have to make my decision based on what I'm read, what I'm looking at, my own logic, my own opinion because that's what yall elected me to do, and then your thoughts, your comments. And one of the awful parts about this job is that nothing's ever black and white. Nothing's ever all the way over here and all the way over there. If it was, this job would be a piece of cake and we'd be in and out of here in two hours instead of the 12 or 13 we always spend in this place. But as I listen to the arguments of the neighbors, and it wasn't just the arguments of the neighbors, it was the number of people that came from all over the neighborhoods. This wasn't -- this turned out not to be just a few of the automatic, I don't want anymore high-rise people and many of those people are my friends. We all know that we've agreed to disagree but it turned out that it wasn't just that group of people that I know well who were opposed to the density of this project. We have done something at this Commission over and over and over again with great success. And one of the things that we've done with great success is that we've continued these kinds of discussions where there's this big gap between the folks and ask the developer to get back together with the neighborhood people and come back in 30 days or 60 days or some short period of time like that and bring something back and we have always make a commitment as a Commission that we will vote on way or another at the end of the day on whatever comes back. And I want to make another point about that process and when we vote, when it comes back, up or down, and if I think back kind 239 January 23, 2003 of the history of it, I don't remember many that have been voted down since I got elected. And I also want to point out the fact that I probably voted against more developments than all of the rest of my colleagues combined, so I've been pretty disciplined and tough about this development stuff. This one I'm a little more, I don't know what the exact right answer is, but I do think that this process of sending everybody back and making them see if you can't get some better compromise here may be valuable, but I would like to point out something to the neighborhood people. One of the ladies stood up and talked about -- somebody did -- talked about the abomination on 27th and US -1 or 22nd and US -1, whatever that is, that office building. That was done long before anyone of us got here, but I remember Willie Gort pointing that over and over again and I remember me reading about it over and over again and that was that the original proposal for that site was tons less density than what ended up there and I don't think anybody should lose sight of the fact that maybe you can't build 490 apartment units on that site at some point, but you could probably build with the lower density of SD -12 or 19 whatever that number is, you probably are going to end up being able to build 300 or 350 apartment units there. You want to talk about impact? You want to talk about impact of the quality of life in your neighborhood with all those people that will live in those units, will drive on the roads, will have a direct impact on your lives? So, think about that. That is a very real possibility on this site that could happen, could happen easily. I'm going to recommend, my motion is going to be that we continue this for 30 days to the next P and Z meeting, or the next 60 days and you know I want to hear a little bit of input from the rest of my commissioners on that. Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Chairman Winton: And instruct everybody to go back and bring back a modified plan that we hope we can vote on that satisfies everyone. Vice Chairman Teele: All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Is there a discussion? They're being no discussion, Madam Clerk, call the roll. Mr. Maxwell: That's for 60 days, correct? Ms. Dougherty: We would request a 30 days. Vice Chairman Teele: 60 days without additional notice, without additional notice. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, we would request 30 days and if we need 60 days after that, then we would request it but we would ask for 30 days. Chairman Winton: Well, I think that -- I think that everybody's pretty focused on this issue so I would accept 30 days at the moment and if you have to have -- if y'all decide you have to have some more then we'll entertain that so. Mr. Gibbs: That's fine. 240 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: All right the motion has been modified to provide for a deferral- a continuance for 30 days. What would be the exact date, Madam Clerk, the second meeting in February? Ms. Thompson: Second meeting in February will be Thursday, February the 27th Vice Chairman Teele: Was there a time anybody would like to have this? Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners, can we have a time certain 5 o'clock, 5:30? Commissioner Sanchez: 5:30. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you very much. Chairman Winton: Well, you know, wait, wait, wait, don't forget guys. We're moving this agenda along pretty quickly. We had our first ever break here in the afternoon because we didn't have anything to do so, I wouldn't mind a five. Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you want to afford people the opportunity to come from work, I mean, a half-hour to get here. Mr. Gibbs: That's going to be an issue. Chairman Winton: 5:30. Mr. Gibbs: I assume it's not going to be in the Commission chambers. Chairman Winton: No, we won't be back in the Commission Chambers for another year. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you all. Vice Chairman Teele: 5:30 unless otherwise. Chairman Winton: Right here. Vice Chairman Teele: It will be at this location. Commissioner Sanchez: Don't bet on it, Tucker, don't bet on it. Chairman Winton: Manuel Artime. Vice Chairman Teele: Is there anyone else that needs to be heard on the deferral? If not, Madam Clerk, now we've got -- Commissioner Sanchez: We're done. 241 January 23, 2003 Vice Chairman Teele: They'll be no further notice. They'll be no further notice of the item. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Chairman Winton, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -124 A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE GROVENOR PROJECT AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 TIGERTAIL AVENUE TO 5:30 P.M. DURING THE COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2003 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PUBLIC NOTICE; FURTHER REQUESTING THE DEVELOPER TO MEET WITH THE AREA RESIDENTS AND BRING BACK A MODIFIED, NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. Vice Chairman Teele: It's unanimous to defer the item. Mr. Chairman, I yield. Chairman Winton: Thank you. 57. DIRECT MANAGER TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH MAYOR'S OFFICE OF FILM, ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT TO OBTAIN IN-KIND SUPPORT, WAIVERS OF PERMIT AND POLICE FEES AND $5,000 GRANT FROM SPECIAL EVENTS FUND TO SUPPORT LOCAL FILM PROJECT, PRODUCED BY AMY SERRANO, TO SHOWCASE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF MIAMI CULTURE. Chairman Winton: I think we're done with all of our agenda items both the regular items and the PZ agenda and I think the only -- and our blue pages. I think the only thing remaining -- Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: -- would be pocket items, if anyone has any. 242 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: I do, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: I do. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, what order would you like to -- Chairman Winton: Joe, start. Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I have one pocket item and it's a pocket item supporting a Miami -based -- Chairman Winton: Hold on, Joe, hold on. Excuse me, would those of you from the public, Tucker. Excuse me, those of you from the public would you all please take your conversation out so that we can finish our meeting. Tucker Gibbs, would y'all take your people out so we can finish our meeting and talk out there. Thank you. Y'all aren't moving very well, thank you. OK, Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. We have with us Amy Serrano who is a -- who has had several responsibilities. She's been a director, co-director, a producer. As a director, she directed the film "A Woman's Place," as co-director, "Searching for Freedom," as producer, "Adios Patria," and as Executive Producer, "Cafe con Leche." She is with us today and we have a great opportunity to showcase the City of Miami in an international film. And what this pocket item does is basically directing the City Manager to work in conjunction with the Mayor's office of film, arts and entertainment to obtain an in-kind support waiver of permits and police fees and a $5,000 grant from special events fund to support the local film project. Amy Serrano, a local filmmaker is directing a short film that will showcase the positive aspect of Miami's culture including scenes of Cultural Fridays event on Calle Ocho for ten-minute film movie, called "Move USA" will be moving to a feature length international film to be exhibited at a major film festival around the world and we do have her with us here. Amy, could you come up? Thank you so much for being here. Maybe you can address the Commission. Amy Serrano: Thank you very much, thank you for hearing us on this project. Chairman Winton: Need your name and address please. Ms. Serrano: Sure. My name is Amy Serrano, and I reside at 14422 Southwest 113 Terrace, in Miami, and as Commissioner Sanchez says, this is actually an international film project which is based in Rome, Italy. It's composed of the short films of various film makers throughout the globe in over six continents and although it's composed of short films they all share a common element and these common elements interweave as stories. Originally there were film makers from the US that were targeted in LA (Los Angeles) and in New York and for some reason those affiliations did not work out and I am actually the last film maker that was invited to participate on this project which is an opportunity and it's also a challenge because of the timing. It's an opportunity from Miami because rather that LA or New York City which is what the rest of the world might usually see, we have an opportunity to showcase Miami. My short film is about a 243 January 23, 2003 woman from the Midwest who is sent to Miami and her experience actually surprises her, and it showcases Miami at a very positive light, and for that reason I hope that you will support this proj ect. Commissioner Sanchez: And the reason that we're expediting it is because she'll be filming in Cultural Friday this -- the last of this month. So, basically we -- Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Sanchez: -- had discussion with the Director of the Special Events and our film, art, entertainment coordinator and he is supportive and I so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Motion and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. 244 January 23, 2003 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-125 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF FILM, ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT TO OBTAIN AND PROVIDE IN-KIND SUPPORT AND COOPERATION FOR A LOCAL FILM PROJECT, PRODUCED BY AMY SERRANO, TO SHOWCASE THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CITY OF MIAMI CULTURE, INCLUDING FILMING THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE ON CALLE OCHO DURING CULTURAL FRIDAYS EVENTS; AUTHORIZING A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000, TO BE ALLOCATED FROM THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND EVENTS BUDGET ACCOUNT FOR SAID GRANT; AUTHORIZING THE WAIVER OF ALL FEES AND PERMITS PERMISSIBLE BY LAW AND THE PROVISION OF IN-KIND SERVICES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; CONDITIONING SAID AUTHORIZATIONS UPON THE PRODUCER: (1) OBTAINING ALL PERMITS REQUIRED BY LAW; (2) PAYING FOR ALL OTHER NECESSARY COSTS OF CITY SERVICES AND APPLICABLE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH SAID ACTIVITY; (3) OBTAINING INSURANCE TO PROTECT THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY MANAGER; AND (4) COMPLYING WITH ALL CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 245 January 23, 2003 Ms. Serrano: Thank you very much. 58. DIRECT MANAGER TO CO-SPONSOR FLAGAMI FIESTA, MONTHLY EVENT WHICH IS SCHEDULED NEXT FOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2003; GRANT IN-KIND SERVICES AND WAIVER OF FEES FOR STREET CLOSURE IN CONNECTION WITH SAID EVENT. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Sanchez, do you have anything else? Commissioner Sanchez: No. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: No, sir. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele. I'm sorry? Commissioner Teele: (INAUDIBLE) Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have two pocket items. One, the Flagami Fiesta, it's a monthly event being held in Miami to celebrate our diverse community and culture. The next Flagami Fiesta will be held on Friday February 20, and my motion is for the City of Miami to do as we did with the first, to co-sponsor this event by providing in-kind services and waiving the fees for street closure as determined by the City Manager, that would be my motion. Chairman Winton: We have a motion. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Second. Discussion? Being none all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign opposed, motion carries. 246 January 23, 2003 The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-126 A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CO-SPONSOR THE FLAGAMI FIESTA, A MONTHLY EVENT WHICH IS NEXT SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2003; FURTHER GRANTING IN-KIND SERVICES AND WAIVER OF FEES FOR STREET CLOSURE IN CONNECTION WITH SAID EVENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 59. INSTRUCT MANAGER TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO HEALTH CLINIC IN R-3 DISTRICT AND REMOVE SPOT ZONING RESTRICTIONS, WHICH APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY ALONG BRICKELL AVENUE BETWEEN S.E. 26 ROAD AND S.E. 15 ROAD. Commissioner Regalado: The second pocket item Mr. Chairman, is a motion instructing the City Manager to initiate the proceedings to amend the zoning ordinance applicable to health clinic in R3 district and remove spot zoning restriction which apply only to property along Brickell Avenue between Southeast 26 Road and Southeast 15 Road. What this does is just to start the process and public hearing process and take this item to the Planning Board, Zoning Board and finally the City Commission. That is my motion. Vice Chairman Teele: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. I don't a clue what you're doing, but it sounds like there's a big chuck in my District and I don't understand it so -- Commissioner Regalado: No, it's well actually -- Chairman Winton: And I don't understand why it's happening so, I'm going to be hard pressed to 247 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: I can tell you why is this, but it's just a process that would start with the Planning Department, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and it's about specifically some restrictions that were imposed several years ago. One, a few blocks in Brickell. Chairman Winton: Yeah. Why are you bringing a spot zoning issue in my district to the table? Commissioner Regalado: Well -- Chairman Winton: I mean why, I don't get that. Commissioner Regalado: Because some time ago I received a letter before this process even started by Dr. Suarez Menendez -- Chairman Winton: That's what I thought this was. One more attempt at that guy to back, to get - Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Chairman Winton: Out of a commitment he made to that community. He never stops. Commissioner Regalado: Well. Chairman Winton: I understand so I know what the issue is now so -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no no. The issue is that Dr. Suarez Menendez is -- Vice Chairman Teele: I thought you were asking for the staff to study something. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. No, no I'm doing this for the staff to bring it to the Planning and Zoning Board and then a public hearing. That's all I'm doing. But the reason I'm doing this is because Dr. Suarez Menendez is disabled. He cannot longer operate. The restrictions -- Chairman Winton: He's a black belt. He's disabled, I want to see his disabled stuff. Commissioner Regalado: He is disabled. He had a surgery he can no longer operate and that is Vice Chairman Teele: You said he's a black belt? Commissioner Regalado: And as a matter of fact -- Chairman Winton: So, sell his building -- keep the restrictions. Commissioner Regalado: He was on a radio program that I was listening to and that motivated me and it's -- I did some research and I think it's the only doctor that has this restriction in Miami Dade County. 248 January 23, 2003 Chairman Winton: He's the only doctor that happened to get a zoning classification where he shouldn't have an office building. That's the point there. That was the whole argument from the neighborhood. Commissioner Sanchez: Listen, it's pretty late -- Chairman Winton: And he's the one that agreed to all of those -- Commissioner Regalado: Johnny. Chairman Winton: -- restrictions to get that use. Commissioner Regalado: I didn't give him that, neither you, so, I'm just -- I think we should be fair. If this is going to be one City, on future, then we need to decide if we want to have one restriction for one block in Brickell Avenue. Chairman Winton: He wanted the restrictions, Commissioner Regalado. He wanted the restrictions so he could get a use that shouldn't have been put in place in that neighborhood to begin with. Vice Chairman Teele: In fairness, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, this item is not really appropriate as a pocket item. If you want to schedule this for a regular scheduled meeting, I would certainly second a motion for a discussion on it, because I don't think any Commissioner should be stopped from having a discussion on an item that -- whether it's in your district or not, but I do think that to do it as a pocket item is not the way to do the notice on it and I certainly will support -- Commissioner Regalado: But this is not, Commissioner, this is not about changing anything. This is about asking the administration to study the possibility of bringing back to the public hearing. This is not -- this does not remove anything. Vice Chairman Teele: One of the problems with going late it always gets a little -- Commissioner Sanchez: Are you going to withdraw your motion, Mr. Teele, or are you going to keep your motion? Vice Chairman Teele: My motion? Commissioner Sanchez: You second it. Vice Chairman Teele: Oh, now you going to blame -- Commissioner Sanchez: You seconded it, so what are you going to do? Commissioner Regalado: Well. 249 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: I agree with you. I don't think this issue should be a pocket item. It should be brought in regular agenda in a regular Commission meeting so we can debate it back and forth. Commissioner Regalado: Joe, Joe. We just vote it. Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Commissioner Regalado: We just voted. Vice Chairman Teele: No, no I'm going to withdraw my second -- Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Vice Chairman Teele: -- because I don't think we ought to vote on it and set this precedent of voting down something like this, this late in the night. Commissioner Regalado: Well, you've be voting down. Chairman Winton: Mr. City Attorney. Commissioner Sanchez: There is no second. Chairman Winton: Excuse me. Commissioner Regalado: You'd be voting down first. Vice Chairman Teele: No, because you can put it on the regular agenda and -- Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no but look, we just voted for $5,000 and I agree with Commissioner Sanchez, I remember, that we said that we should not do pocket items with economic impact. Did we say that some time ago? Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah that was during the emergency. Commissioner Regalado: That's when you're in the crisis? Well apparently they did -- they singled out this doctor and if you vote this down, why don't you take a vote? I think it's important that we take a vote now. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele, you want to leave your second in place? Commissioner Regalado: Why don't you leave your second? Vice Chairman Teele: I'll leave the second. Chairman Winton: Call the question. All in favor, "aye." 250 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Regalado: Aye. Chairman Winton: I didn't hear. Commissioner Regalado: Roll call Chairman Winton: Yeah, roll call. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Sanchez: No, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Teele. Commissioner Teele: Yes. Ms. Thompson: And Chairman Winton. Chairman Winton: No. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry, I got a 3/2 vote. Chairman Winton: What you got? Commissioner Sanchez: OK, any other pocket items? Chairman Winton: I want to understand what the resolution -- Commissioner Regalado: Johnny. Chairman Winton: That was passed to discuss this -- no, what was it, that wasn't -- Vice Chairman Teele: The motion was simply to instruct the staff. Commissioner Regalado: Instruct the staff -- Vice Chairman Teele: To study the issue, now that's what I voted for. I did not vote to do anything. Chairman Winton: OK. I just wanted to make sure. 251 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: I still think is should not be a pocket item. Is should be brought into the regular agenda. Vice Chairman Teele: I don't think it should be a pocket item. Chairman Winton: Neither do I. Commissioner Sanchez: That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Chairman Winton: Nor do I. Chairman Winton: I don't think is should be a pocket item. Chairman Winton: And I -- Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: -- gotta learn Roberts' Rules of Order of whoever -- Commissioner Sanchez: Any other pocket items? The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03 -127 A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE APPLICABLE TO HEALTH CLINIC IN R-3 DISTRICT AND REMOVE SPOT ZONING RESTRICTIONS, WHICH APPLY ONLY TO PROPERTY ALONG BRICKELL AVENUE BETWEEN S.E. 26 ROAD AND S.E. 15 ROAD. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado NAYS: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Commissioner Joe Sanchez ABSENT: None. 252 January 23, 2003 60. DIRECT ADMINISTRATION TO COORDINATE APPROPRIATE ACTIVITY FOR COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 TO APPROPRIATELY COMMEND CARLOS GIMENEZ FOR HIS MANY YEARS OF SERVICE TO CITY. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, I have two. Commissioner Sanchez: Before you do -- Chairman Winton: I do not have one. I have no pocket items. Commissioner Sanchez: I would like to take this opportunity. Each and everyone of us was surprised to return back after a lunch break and find a letter from Steele Hector and Davis that the City Manager has joined that firm and he will be leaving us and I think each and everyone of us should take an opportunity to thank him for what he's done, 28 years in this City. Carlos, you deserve a hero's exiting when you leave the City and although I have not agreed with you on all the issues I think that you are a true professional. You've done a great job for the City. You should be very proud and I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your family. Because I've seen you put a lot of hours in this job and really the sacrifice that you've made for this City and your family especially your wife and your children is something that should commended, so I wish you the best and it's been a pleasure to work with you for four years and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Thank you, Commissioner, it's been an honor and a privilege to serve the City and like I said in this release that I'm very excited and look forward to the opportunity that Steele, Hector, Davis is giving me will be giving me and starting in February so thank you -- Commissioner Sanchez: We need to make -- Mr. Gimenez: --thank you for you're your kind words. I really appreciate them. Commissioner Sanchez: We need to make arrangements to you know, give you a good farewell party. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: I would hope that the Chairman's office and the protocol office would coordinate an appropriate activity at the next meeting, February meeting. Chairman Winton: OK. Commissioner Regalado: We'll do it when the chamber is ready. 253 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gimenez: I don't think I'm going to live that long, sir. Chairman Winton: Commissioner Regalado, it will be February but it will be February of next year. Mr. Gimenez: I'm not sure if I'm going to be sitting in this chair next Commission meeting. I may be or I may not be, so, you know, if it isn't, then you know, we can have something there, if not, it's been a great pleasure for me to work with the five of you. Chairman Winton: You can still come back and do something whether your sitting in the chair or not. You can still come back and we'll do something. Mr. Gimenez: Yes. 61. COMMEMORATE 100TH CELEBRATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF PANAMA ON NOVEMBER 15, 2003; REQUEST ADMINISTRATION AND MAYOR'S OFFICE TO PROCEED WITH CONSUL GENERAL IN DESIGNATING APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES FOR PANAMANIANS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH, PARTICULARLY TO NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY AT THIS CRITICAL POINT. Chairman Winton: OK, Commissioner Teele. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, three quick items. First, on last evening the City of Miami was honored to have a very broad cross section of foundations that visited our community and I think Commissioner Sanchez spoke eloquently for all of us when he basically noted that -- you know it's really good to work with people and not form an opinion because for a former cop I never would have dreamed that they guys got such a soft side when it comes to art and culture and I got to tell you I'm very impressed with what Commissioner Sanchez is doing in his district in the area of Cultural Friday and trying to bring back the beauty and the magic of Miami and that's one of the points that was made so eloquently. You know, like New York, Miami has the opportunity to lead in a Renaissance around culture and the arts and that's why the things that Commissioner Winton has done at the Bicentennial is so important. I just wanted to -- for the public to be aware of the fact that this City is beginning to be noted throughout the United States by foundations that was designated as one of four cities in the nation as a livable City and many of the resources such as even the Mayor's initiative today is being driven by foundations that are taking note of Miami and it's a real compliment I think to you, Mr. Manager, and each of the Commissioners and the Mayor. In that regard, I do think that one of the things we have to continue to build is our reputation and our thrust as an international City. I'm offering a pocket item that commemorates the 100 celebration of Panama as a way of getting this started in hopes that the City of Miami through the Mayor's office and the staff will move forward with the Counsul General in designating the kinds of activities for Panamanians that have contributed so much, particular to the national security to this county at the critical point, that their 100 anniversary is coming up and it authorizes in the form of a November 15the celebration as a part of that. I would so move. 254 January 23, 2003 Commissioner Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Being none all in favor, LL " aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: MOTION NO. 03-128 A MOTION COMMEMORATING THE 100TH CELEBRATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PANAMA ON NOVEMBER 15, 2003; FURTHER REQUESTING THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSUL GENERAL IN DESIGNATING APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES FOR PANAMANIANS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED SO MUCH, PARTICULARLY TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY AT THIS CRITICAL POINT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 62. CLARIFY PREVIOUSLY PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 03-77, ESTABLISHING "MIAMI AND SOUTH FLORIDA COORDINATION COMMITTEE FOR CELEBRATION OF REPUBLIC OF HAITI BICENTENNIAL (JANUARY 1, 1804 — JANUARY 1, 2004)," TO ENSURE THAT MAXIMUM, BROADEST AND MOST APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION IS VISIBLE ON COMMITTEE; AUTHORIZE OFFICIAL RENAMING OF COMMITTEE AS "HAITI BICENTENNIAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE". Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, and last week we passed a resolution 03-77 that acknowledges the Haitian Bicentennial. This resolution clarifies by inviting all of the cities in South Florida, all of the counties, School Board to be a part of that coordinating committee 255 January 23, 2003 through the inter -local agreement process. It also authorizes the Manager to cooperate and it does not require or provide for the expenditure of any City funds at this time. It does provide for in-kind support in printing and postage however for the coordinating committee. It further provides for representation from a broader cross section and I just left the grass roots of the coalition this afternoon where some 15 organizations, umbrella organizations, unanimously endorsed this resolution as a way of having a governmental and activist role and so again I would ask and move the resolution, which essentially would provide for coordination. It makes -- it provides that the Clerk will provide legal notice in both English and Creole of the meetings and provides specifically that the Mayor should make available as a point of contact people that are fluent in French and Creole to further facilitate this. I would so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Motion and a second, discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CLARIFYING PREVIOUSLY PASSED RESOLUTION NO. 03-77, ESTABLISHING THE "MIAMI AND SOUTH FLORIDA COORDINATION COMMITTEE FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI BICENTENNIAL (JANUARY 1, 1804 — JANUARY 1, 2004)," TO ENSURE THAT THE MAXIMUM, BROADEST AND MOST APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATION IS VISIBLE ON THE COMMITTEE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE OFFICIAL RENAMING OF THE COMMITTEE AS THE "HAITI BICENTENNIAL COORDINATION COMMITTEE" AND SETTING FORTH THE OFFICIAL CONCLUSION OF THE YEAR LONG ACTIVITIES AS MIDNIGHT JANUARY 1, 2005. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 256 January 23, 2003 63. DIRECT MANAGER TO MAKE DIRECT PAYMENT TO RENAISSANCE OMNI HOTEL TO UNDERWRITE EXPENSES MADE IN CONNECTION WITH BREAKFAST HELD FOR ROLE MODELS PROGRAM. Vice Chairman Teele: Mr. Chairman, and at the last meeting we approved funds for the Role Model and I would like to amend that to provide for the City to make direct payment to the hotel that's within the City of Miami. I think it's the Renaissance there at the Omni instead of making payment to the Role Model. That is, we were the underwriters for the breakfast and I would simply ask the authorization be changed from the Role Model program to a direct payment, to the hotel which is in the City of Miami. I would so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Motion and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 03-76, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000, FROM THE SPECIAL EVENTS FUND ACCOUNT, IN SUPPORT OF THE 5,000 ROLE MODELS OF EXCELLENCE EVENT, TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE DIRECT PAYMENT OF SAID FUNDS TO THE OMNI RENAISSANCE CENTER FOR COSTS OF SERVICES FOR THE BREAKFAST PROVIDED BY THE CENTER FOR THE EVENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 257 January 23, 2003 64. DIRECT MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK LEGISLATION TO CONFORM STABILIZATION OF SALARY OF CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RESERVISTS BEING SUMMONED BY MILITARY, TO BE EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S ORDINANCE; MANAGER TO BRING BACK REPORT LISTING HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE AFFECTED BY THIS, INCLUDING NUMBER OF WOMEN RESERVISTS AND FINANCIAL IMPACT OF SAID MEASURE. Vice Chairman Teele: And finally Mr. Chairman, there are two specific issues. I'm requesting the Clerk, the Manager to -- well, let me just say this. Right now we're in the midst of call ups by the United States Government of reservists. Our City is being directly affected. However, the reservists do not receive the same pay in may cases as they receive at the City. We have a provision now that provides for six months I think for stabilization. Carlos A. Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. Vice Chairman Teele: And I'm specifically requesting the Manager to look at bringing back an ordinance or a resolution that will conform our stabilization payments to be at least equal coterminous of that with the County, if not beyond that. In other words, we provide for -- is that ready? But what I'd like to do is have the Manager and have the whole budget analysis so that we know what we're going to be doing but again it's my intent that it will be extended, Mr. Manager at least 180 days. That is, the county as for one year the City's got six months and you know, God knows, we ought to really support our men while they're over there no matter how long but I think doing it for one year gives us the opportunity to recalibrate the economic impact at the end of the year. Mr. Gimenez: Commissioner, we, budgetary, I can tell you right now that it is no budgetary impact because what happens is we're just going to be offsetting whatever the military is going to give to bring them up to the salary of the City. We don't fill those positions while they are gone because they are holding the positions. Vice Chairman Teele: Yeah but you can go overtime for other positions. Mr. Gimenez: Yeah, but I think that the one year at least is not a problem. We can do that right now and I can come back with an ordinance to see what the county does. Vice Chairman Teele: Then if the Attorney would read it into the record if you were saying that the financial impact is insignificant in that you wont be filling the positions or hiring temporary people to do it. Mr. Gimenez: Yeah and I think it's the right thing also. Vice Chairman Teele: Thank you. Chairman Winton: But I think we all think it's the right thing, but not having a clear understanding of the economic impact, I think is a mistake, so I'm a little nervous about just this kind of statement comment off the top. 258 January 23, 2003 Mr. Gimenez: I can't -- Chairman Winton: I think we're all going to vote on it but it's nuts not to know -- Vice Chairman Teele: Well, it ended in six months. There's no reason it has to be done tonight. Chairman Winton: Right. Vice Chairman Teele: I think the Chairman is right. We ought to have a full economic impact and we ought to basically -- I would very much like, to the extent that it doesn't violate the privacy, I would like a memo as to how many people and basically I don't need the addressed but the -- how many women for example are being called up? I'd like to understand what the overall impact is on our workforce. Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir. 65. APPOINT BILLY HARDEMON AS MEMBER OF COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARY COMMITTEE. Vice Chairman Teele: And finally as it relates to the boundaries Commissioner Gonzalez, are we moving forward on that at this time? Have you -- Commissioner Gonzalez: To be honest with you, I haven't been notified of any meeting. I haven't been notified of any activity in reference to that. Vice Chairman Teele: Well, if it's going to move forward, you would have to be doing the notifying, I would assume. Commissioner Gonzalez: I was appointed to the enterprise board and that is a problem that's been existing. We are asked to nominate people to different boards. We make the nominations and people don't find out about their nominations for three or four months, so you know there is a problem in communication in reference to all those boards and all those committees. Commissioner Regalado: I'll tell you, West Miami is very aggressive trying to annex a huge area west of us and I think it's still Little Gables and Melrose and Model City are the prime areas, and Angel you should call a meeting. I don't know if you have quorum. Vice Chairman Teele: I would like to move the appointment of Mr. Hardmon who is an activist in the area who apparently is head of the Martin Luther King Foundation on 62"d, who's very interested in supporting and putting that we really should do it. I would so move. Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chairman Winton: Got a motion and a second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor, "aye." 259 January 23, 2003 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Winton: Like sign, opposed. Motion carries. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Teele, who moved for its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 03-131 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION DISTRICT BOUNDARY COMMITTEE. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Chairman Johnny L. Winton Vice Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Tomas Regalado Commissioner Joe Sanchez NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. 66. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO MANAGER. Chairman Winton: Anything else? Commissioner Gonzalez: Yes, I also would like to take the time to congratulate the City Manager and express to him my gratitude for his service to the City and for the relationship that we have established in my tenure as a Commissioner and I'm of the belief contrary to some other people that actually it's good to have people spend many years with our City because that gives up people with experience. That's gives us people that show their commitment and their dedication like you have done, so I really applaud you for your service to the City of Miami and to its residents. I wish you all kind of luck. Carlos A. Giminez (City Manager): Thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate your kind words. Chairman Winton: Adjourned. 260 January 23, 2003 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. ATTEST: Priscilla A. Thompson CITY CLERK Sylvia Scheider ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MANUELA. DIAZ MAYOR 261 January 23, 2003