HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2001-01-25 MinutesCITY OF MIAMI
r
INCR RIP GRATES �
a It6 7
g
COMMISSION
MEETING
MINUTES
OF MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 25, 2001
PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/CITY HALL
Walter J. Foeman/City Clerk
ITEM NO.
INDEX
MINUTES OF COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 25, 2001
SUBJECT
LEGISLATION
1. PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS
1/25/01
(A) PROCLAMATION: WOMEN'S FUND OF MIAMI-
PRESENTATIONS
DADE COUNTY DAY ON MARCH 19, 2001, TO
2
RECOGNIZE THIS GROUP'S WORK WITH AT -RISK
TEENAGE GIRLS IN WYNWOOD AND LIBERTY
CITY. THEIR SOFT-BALLTEAM AND ACTIVITIES
PROVIDE WAYS FOR YOUNG GIRLS TO STAY
AWAY FROM DRUGS AND CRIME.
(B) COMMENDATIONS TO POLICE PERSONNEL IN
EDGEWATER/WYNWOOD NET WHO ENHANCED
QUALITY OF LIFE IN AREA BY PARTICIPATING IN
COMMUNITY PROJECTS: LT. MARIO A. GARCIA,
SGT. ALEX OLIVA, SGT. JOSE GRANADO, OFFICER
LAZARO ALFONSO, OFFICER AQUILLES
CARMONA, OFFICER JOSEPH FLERES, OFFICER
ALBERT GUERRA, OFFICER WILLIAM A. LOPEZ,
OFFICER GREGORY WILLIAMS, PUBLIC SERVICE
AIDE, FRANK THEYE, COMMUNITY SERVICE
PROVIDER, YOLANDA CAMACHO, COMMUNITY
SERVICE PROVIDER, SANDRA MARTINEZ.
2. (A) CONSENT AGENDA
1/25/01
(B) RENAME "SPOIL ISLAND" ON BISCAYNE BAY
DISCUSSION
EAST OF MORNINGSIDE PARK TO "CLAUDE
3-5
PEPPER ISLAND."
2.1
AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH
1/25/01
INTER—AMERICAN CAR RENTAL INC. FOR
R-01-55
PROVISION OF AUTOMOBILE RENTAL SERVICE
5
FOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $100,000, FROM $125,000 TO $225,000
ANNUALLY.
2.2
AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN CONTRACTS WITH
1/25/01
VARIOUS VENDORS FOR CITYWIDE
R-01-56
PROCUREMENT OF COURIER SERVICES FOR
6
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING, ANNUAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $11,000, FROM $22,000
TO $33,000 ANNUALLY; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM
BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS.
2.3
AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF MAINTENANCE
1/25/01
SERVICES FOR XEROX DOCUTECH 135 DIGITAL
R-01-57
COPIER FROM XEROX CORPORATION FOR
6
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, UNDER EXISTING
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NO. 99K-
6YC, $72,000; ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS
DIVISION BUDGET.
2.4
AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE
1/25/01
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH 21s'
R-01-58
CENTURY SOLUTIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF
7
POLICE FOR COLLECTION OF BASELINE DATA
AND ESTABLISHMENT OF EVALUATION SYSTEM,
$29,530; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM SCHOOL—
BASED PARTNERSHIPS GRANT II.
2.5
ACCEPT PROPOSAL OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
1/25/01
COMPANY FOR DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND
R-01-59
MAINTENANCE OF UNDERGROUND STREET
7
LIGHTING SYSTEM AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES
IN CIVIC CENTER AREA, $248,000.
2.6
ENDORSE SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICATION
1/25/01
BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
R-01-60
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
8
(DERM) TO FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION
DISTRICT (FIND) FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION OF SPOIL ISLAND NO. 3, LOCATED
ON BISCAYNE BAY EAST OF MORNINGSIDE
PARK; AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO IDENTIFY AND
ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION OPERATIONAL
BUDGET, $1,000, TO ASSIST DERM WITH TRASH
PICK-UP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
MAINTENANCE FOR RESTORATION PROJECT.
2.7
GRANT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
1/25/01
TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
R-01-61
DISTRICT FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2001 TO APRIL 14,
M-01-62
2002, ON .017 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY
9-11
AT MELREESE GOLF COURSE LOCATED AT 1400
NORTHWEST 37TH AVENUE FOR USE AS STAGING
AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUMPING
STATION, SUBJECT TO BUNKERS OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA JOINT VENTURE, EXECUTING JOINDER
TO THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT.
3.
COMMISSIONER TEELE COMMENDED MANAGER
1/25/01
ON DIVERSITY OF HIS RECENT NEIGHBORHOOD
DISCUSSION
ENHANCEMENT TEAM (NET) ADMINISTRATIVE
12-15
APPOINTMENTS (NAMELY CHRISTINE MORALES,
WYNWOOD EDGEWATER SERVICE CENTER;
HAYDEE REGUEYRA, NORTHEAST COCONUT
GROVE SERVICE CENTER; AND DR. LUMANE
PLUROSE CLAUDE, LITTLE HAITI SERVICE
CENTER); FURTHER REQUESTING OF
ADMINISTRATION TO CONSIDER THAT SAID
APPOINTMENTS SHOULD BE MADE ON
ROTATIONAL BASIS.
4.
GRANT REQUEST FOR PLACEMENT OF BUST OF
1/25/01
MAXIMO GOMEZ (CUBAN PATRIOT) IN LITTLE
M-01-63
HAVANA DOMINO PARK.
16-18
5. STRONGLY URGE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 1/25/01
OF JUSTICE/IMMIGRATION AND R-01-64
NATURALIZATION SERVICES (INS) TO 19-20
COOPERATE WITH CITY'S PASSPORT
ACCEPTANCE FACILITY IN DISTRIBUTION OF
FLYERS ON DAYS NATURALIZATION
CEREMONIES OCCUR.
6. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT 1/25/01
WITH MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION FOR R-01-65
ADVISORY SERVICES TO CHARTER REVIEW 21-22
COMMITTEE, $25,000 FROM UNDESIGNATED
FUNDS IN NON -DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT.
7. MANAGER TO ESTABLISH CITY ANTI -FRAUD 1/25/01
TASK FORCE COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING M-01-66
INDIVIDUALS: NO LESS THAN ONE ATTORNEY 23-30
FROM CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; ONE STAFF
PERSON FROM DEPARTMENT OF RISK
MANAGEMENT; ONE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN FRAUD; SAID
INDIVIDUALS ARE TO WORK ALONG WITH STATE
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR PURPOSE OF
PROSECUTING VIOLATORS AND SEEK
RESTITUTION FOR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS MADE
AGAINST CITY.
8. STATUS REPORT ON DRAINAGE PROJECTS AT: 1/25/01
3965 SW 6TH STREET, 3945 NW 4TH STREET, AND DISCUSSION
MEDIAN LOCATED ON SW 10TH STREET ROAD 31-36
BETWEEN SW 9TH STREET AND SW 10TH STREET -
PROBLEMS WITH STREET EXCAVATIONS.
9. MANAGER TO DIRECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO CONDUCT SURVEY OF PROPERTIES WITH
HISTORIC VALUE IN AREA OF NORTHWEST 8TH
STREET, EAST OF I-95 EXPRESSWAY, SOUTH OF
NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND WEST OF
NORTHWEST IST AVENUE; REQUEST THAT SAID
SURVEY BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (IF APPROPRIATE); SAID
SURVEY SHALL INCLUDE BOTH CITY AND
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROPERTIES AND GIVE PRIORITY TO WARD
ROOMING HOUSE PROJECT.
10. RESCIND PREVIOUS RESOLUTION DIRECTING
MANAGER TO WORK WITH ONE DEPARTMENT
RELATED TO LITTLE HAITI BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; DIRECT MANAGER
TO COME BACK WITH TEAM APPROACH
(INCLUDING PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF
ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF PERSONS FROM
AFFECTED COMMUNITY), WHICH IS TO BE USED
FOR JOB CREATION, INFRASTRUCTURE
IMPROVEMENTS, CODE ENFORCEMENT GRANTS,
AND OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS.
11. APPROVE MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO
ESTABLISH ONE SERGEANT AT ARMS
CLASSIFICATION (REDUCING NUMBER OF
POSITIONS TO ONE FOR CITY COMMISSION) AND
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FOR MAYOR
(ESTABLISHING NUMBER OF POSITIONS AT
TWO); STATING THAT COST FOR BOTH
POSITIONS (LEGISLATIVE SERGEANT -AT -ARMS
FOR CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMISSION AND
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FOR MAYOR) SHALL
BE SEGREGATED WITHIN MIAMI POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET; STIPULATING THAT
SERGEANT -AT -ARMS POSITION, AS PERTAINS TO
LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL WORK WITH
CHAIRMAN.
1/25/01
M-01-67
37-40
1/25/01
M-01-68
41-43
1/25/01
M-01-69
44-60
12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION
18-500 THROUGH 18-502 OF CITY CODE ENTITLED
"FINANCE/FINANCIAL POLICIES/ANTI-
DEFICIENCY ACT" TO REQUIRE APPLICATION OF
ANTI -DEFICIENCY ACT REGULATIONS TO ALL
ENTITIES FUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY
CITY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
AGENCIES, AUTHORITIES, TRUSTS, BOARDS OR
COMMISSIONS, EXCEPT FOR THREE CITY
RETIREMENT TRUSTS.
13. ACCEPT PLAT ENTITLED OLYMPIA PARK
REPLAT.
14. CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE LEGISLATION TO
CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERROR (MISSING FOLIO
NUMBER) IN RESOLUTIONS SEOPW/CRA R-00-124
AND OMNI/CRA R-00-63, WHICH RECONVEYED
VACANT PARCEL OF LAND ADJACENT TO
THEODORE GIBSON PARK TO CITY FROM
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
15. AUTHORIZE CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT OF LAW
FIRM OF AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A.
FOR REPRESENTATION OF CITY IN MATTER OF
DONALD H. WARSHAW V. CITY; ALLOCATE
$20,000, FROM SELF-INSURANCE AND
INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
16. AUTHORIZE CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT OF LAW
FIRM OF TEW, CARDENAS, REBAK, KELLOGG,
LEHMAN, DEMARIA AND TAGUE, L.L.P., FOR
LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO CITY IN MATTER
OF CITY BOND OFFERINGS, A-1581; ALLOCATING
ADDITIONAL FUNDS $40,000, FROM SELF-
INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND.
1/25/01
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE
61-64
1/25/01
R-01-70
65-66
1/25/01
DISCUSSION
67
1/25/01
R-01-71
68-69
1/25/01
R-01-72
70-71
17. APPROVE AND CONFIRM MANAGER'S 1/25/01
EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH EVARE, L.L.C. R-01-73
FOR LEASING OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 72-73
AND FINANCIAL TRANSACTION SOFTWARE
SYSTEM FOR DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, $11,300;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND.
18.
CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF OSCAR VALIDO AS
1/25/01
MEMBER OF CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL
R-01-74
EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES'
74
RETIREMENT TRUST.
19.
GRANT REQUEST TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR
1/25/01
USE OF PORTION OF VIRGINIA KEY PARK
R-01-75
COMMONLY KNOWN AS "PICNIC AREA" AND
75-77
PORTION OF MARINE STADIUM PARKING LOT, IN
CONNECTION WITH PARKING FOR ERICSSON
OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT.
20.
TEMPORARILY DEFER CONSIDERATION OF
1/25/01
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL
M-01-76
APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR
78-81
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 FOR PURPOSE OF
ADJUSTING SAID APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO
OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY
REQUIREMENTS OF OFFICE OF PROTOCOL AND
CERTAIN CITY DEPARTMENTS (See #44).
21.
GRANT REQUEST OF BOTH APPLICANT AND
1/25/01
APPELLANT TO DEFER FOR 90 DAYS
M-01-77
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF HISTORIC AND
82-83
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD
DECISION WHICH APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF
APPROVAL FOR TREE REMOVAL AND
RELOCATION FOR INSTALLATION OF PLAYING
FIELDS AT APPROXIMATELY 2015 SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE.
22. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED FIRST
READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING
ORDINANCE 11000 TO ALLOW ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE
RELEASES OF COVENANTS AND UNITY OF TITLE
PROVISIONS.
23. APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS SANTA CLARA
METRORAIL STATION PROJECT FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH SANTA CLARA METRORAIL
STATION AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (SADD) AND ADOPTION OF MASTER PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (See #27).
24. APPROVE MODIFICATION TO WATERFRONT
CHARTER REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 3(MM)(II)(A) OF CITY CHARTER, WHICH
ESTABLISHES 50 -FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT
FOR ALL PROJECTS ALONG MIAMI RIVER, EAST
OF NW 5TH STREET, TO PERMIT 40 -FOOT SETBACK
FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED ON EAST BY METRO
MOVER GUIDEWAY, ON WEST BY SOUTH MIAMI
AVENUE, ON NORTH BY SE 4TH STREET AND ON
SOUTH BY MIAMI RIVER (Applicant(s): Miami River
Associates, Inc.).
25. APPROVE SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR ONE MIAMI PROJECT, LOCATED AT
205 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, IN ORDER TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE I OF PROJECT,
CONSISTING OF 29 STORY OFFICE TOWER, 38
STORY, 425 RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOWER WITH
RELATED AMENITIES AND 10 STORY PARKING
GARAGE WHICH WILL INCLUDE 1,485 PARKING
SPACES (Applicant(s): The Related Group of Florida).
1/25/01
M-01-78
84-86
1/25/01
M-01-79
87-94
1/25/01
R-01-80
95-104
1/25/01
R-01-81
105-132
26. (A) DENY APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION,
WHICH APPROVED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS
LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, ZONING
ORDINANCE OF CITY, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401,
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO
ALLOW USED AUTO SALES FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 632-634 SW 8TH STREET (Applicant(s):
VRU Holdings).
(B) PERJURY ALLEGATIONS MADE BY APPELLANT
JOSE A. RAJOY AGAINST APPLICANT'S AGENT
JOSEPH S. GELLER, ESQUIRE.
27. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
REVIEW PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR SANTA CLARA
METRORAIL STATION JOINT DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH SAID
STANDARDS IN ORDER TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL
TOWER WHICH INCLUDES TOTAL OF 208
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 294 PARKING SPACES
(Applicant(s): Miami -Dade Transit Agency and the
Carlisle Group) (See #23).
28. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW USED AUTO
SALES WITH 19 PARKING SPACES AT 7500
BISCAYNE BOULEVARD; REQUEST OF
APPLICANT, IMAD & ABUDL HAMMOUD, TO
SCHEDULE PUBLIC MEETING WITH NEIGHBORS
AND NOTIFY CITY CLERK WITH TIME AND PLACE
OF SAID MEETING AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO
SUCH MEETING TAKING PLACE; CITY CLERK TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE IN NEWSPAPER OF
GENERAL CIRCULATION REGARDING SAID
MEETING.
1/25/1
R-01-82
133-152
1/25/01
R-01-83
153-154
1/25/01
M-01-84
155-168
29. TABLED: APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION 1/25/01
WHICH DENIED VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. TABLED
11000, ZONING ORDINANCE OF CITY, ARTICLE 4, 169
SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, REQUIRED PARKING, TO WAIVE
223 OF REQUIRED 223 PARKING SPACES FOR
PROPOSED BAR (REQUIRING SEPARATE CLASS II
SPECIAL PERMIT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34
NE 11TH STREET (See #33).
30. DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 1/25/01
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR M-01-85
PROPERTY AT 2225 S.W. 19TH AVENUE FROM 170-174
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE.
31. DENY PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT 2225 S.W.
1/25/01
19TH AVENUE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY TO
M-01-86
OFFICE.
175
32. TABLE: PROPOSED APPEAL BY JEFFREY BASS,
1/25/01
ESQUIRE FOR TORY JACOBS, NORMAN
TABLED
MINENBERG AND JOE WILKINS OF
176-209
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION BY ACTING
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING
"DERMOCOSMETIC SPA" AS ACCESSORY USE TO
HEALTH (MEDICAL) CLINIC FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1900 BRICKELL AVENUE (See #36).
33. TABLE: PROPOSED APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD
1/25/01
DECISION WHICH DENIED VARIANCE FROM
TABLED
ORDINANCE NO. 11000, ZONING ORDINANCE OF
210
CITY, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
DISTRICT REGULATIONS, REQUIRED PARKING, TO
WAIVE 223 OF REQUIRED 223 PARKING SPACES
FOR PROPOSED BAR (REQUIRING SEPARATE
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 34 NE 11TH STREET (See #29).
34. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED 1/25/01
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW GROVE M-01-87
HARBOUR MARINA PROJECT, MARINA, RETAIL 211-220
SPECIALTY SHOPS, EXHIBITION SPACE, BANQUET
HALL, RESTAURANT AND RAW BAR AT 2600/2640
SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE.
35. CONFIRM DATE OF FEBRUARY 8, 2001 FOR FIRST 1/25/01
REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF SAID M-01-88
MONTH. 221-222
36. DENY APPEAL BY JEFFREY BASS, ESQUIRE FOR 1/25/01
TORY JACOBS, NORMAN MINENBERG AND JOE M-01-89
WILKINS OF ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION 223-227
BY ACTING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DATED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2000, REGARDING
"DERMOCOSMETIC SPA" AS ACCESSORY USE TO
HEALTH (MEDICAL) CLINIC FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1900 BRICKELL AVENUE
(Applicant(s): Jorge Suarez -Menendez).
37. REFER TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD 1/25/01
PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT BY M-01-90
ATLANTIS ON BRICKELL FOR RESIDENTIAL 228-229
DEVELOPMENT AT 2101-2105 BRICKELL AVENUE.
38. GRANT APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD DECISION 1/25/01
WHICH DENIED VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. R-01-91
11000, ZONING ORDINANCE OF CITY, ARTICLE 4, 230-233
SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, REQUIRED PARKING, TO WAIVE
223 OF REQUIRED 223 PARKING SPACES FOR
PROPOSED BAR (REQUIRING SEPARATE CLASS II
SPECIAL PERMIT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34
NE 11TH STREET (Applicant(s): Diamondback
Development Corp.)
39. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CONSIDERATION OF 1/25/01
AMENDING ORDINANCE 10544, CITY FIRST READING
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, BY ORDINANCE
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 234-235
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3601 BIRD ROAD FROM
"DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "GENERAL
COMMERCIAL" (Applicant(s): Deel Realty, Inc.).
40. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: CHANGE ZONING 1/25/01
AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE 11000, ZONING FIRST READING
ORDINANCE OF CITY, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, ORINANCE
SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, FROM R-2 236-237
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 GENERAL
COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3601
BIRD ROAD. (Applicant(s): Deel Realty, Inc.).
41. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND SECTION 1/25/01
62-156 OF CITY CODE, ENTITLED "ZONING AND ORDINANCE
PLANNING FEES", SCHEDULE OF FEES, IN ORDER NO. 12018
TO AMEND PROVISIONS RELATED TO MAJOR USE 238-241
SPECIAL PERMIT FEES, TO ADD TRAFFIC STUDY
REVIEW FEE FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
APPLICATIONS (Applicant(s): City of Miami Planning
and Zoning Department).
42. APPOINTING RUTH HAMILTON AS MEMBER OF 1/25/01
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. R-01-92
242-243
43. APPOINTING JOE GARCIA AS MEMBER OF 1/25/01
CHARTER REVIEW AND REFORM COMMITTEE. R-01-93
244
44. (A) FIRST READING ORDINANCE: PROPOSED
1/25/01
AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) FOR FISCAL YEAR
ORDINANCE
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 TO ADJUST SAID
R-01-94
APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN
R-01-95
OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS
245-262
RELATING TO TRANSFER OF OFFICE OF
PROTOCOL FROM OFFICE OF MAYOR TO OFFICE
OF CITY MANAGER.
(B) CLARIFICATION CONCERNING DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICE OF PROTOCOL.61
(C) ESTABLISH PROCEDURES WHEREBY ANY
COMMISSIONER MAY TIMELY SUBMIT REQUESTS
FOR PROTOCOL DOCUMENTS TO EITHER MAYOR
OR CITY MANAGER, INCLUDING REQUIREMENT
THAT REQUESTING COMMISSIONER MAY AFFIX
HIS NAME TO SAME; ENSURING THAT IF SAID
REQUEST IS MADE THROUGH CITY MANAGER
THEN MANAGER SHALL ENSURE AN EXPEDITED
PREPARATION OF SAME; IF SAID REQUEST IS
MADE THROUGH MAYOR THEN MAYOR SHALL
NOT DECLINE SAME EXCEPT IN INSTANCES
BASED ON TIMELINESS.
(D) DIRECT MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN TABLE OF
ORGANIZATION POSITION (INCLUDING JOB
DESCRIPTION) FOR INDIVIDUAL WHOSE DUTIES
INCLUDE PREPARATION OF PROTOCOL
DOCUMENTS AND TO BE ASSIGNED AT
DISCRETION OF MAYOR, CITY COMMISSION AND
ADMINISTRATION OF CITY.
45. DIRECT MANAGER TO SCHEDULE DISCUSSION
1/25/01
ITEM IN CONNECTION WITH MIAMI
M-01-96
DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT 2001.
263-265
46. AUTHORIZE MANAGER TO APPROVE PLACEMENT 1/25/01
OF PROMOTION BANNERS ON FLORIDA R-01-97
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) M-01-98
CONTROLLED RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR EVENTS 266-268
SPONSORED AND CO-SPONSORED BY CITY.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
On the 25th day of January 2001, the City Commission of Miami, Florida, met at its
regular meeting place in the City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida in
regular session.
The meeting was called to order at 9:39 a.m. by Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort, with the
following members of the Commission found to be present:
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton (District 2)
Commissioner Joe Sanchez (District 3)
Commissioner Tomas Regalado (District 4)
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr. (District 5)
ABSENT:
Commissioner Wifredo Gort (District 1)
ALSO PRESENT:
Carlos Gimenez, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk
Sylvia Lowman, Assistant City Clerk
Commissioner Regalado: Commissioner Gort will be a few minutes late so we're going
to start the meeting. Commissioner Sanchez will do the invocation; Commissioner Teele,
the pledge of allegiance, and then we'll proceed with proclamations. Commissioner
Sanchez.
An invocation was delivered by Commissioner Sanchez, followed by
Commissioner Teele leading those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
1 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: Commissioner Winton has proclamations, and we have, I
think, here all the honorees. So, Commissioner.
Commissioner Winton: Thank you.
Note for the Record: Presentations and Proclamations were administered at this point.
2 January 25, 2001
Note for the Record: Vice Chairman Gort entered the Commission Chamber at 9:59
a.m.
Vice Chairman Gort: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for being late.
First item of...
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, not the first item. I think they wanted (inaudible).
Vice Chairman Gort: The first item of business, Commissioner Teele requesting to...
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I requested, but I think it's important that we
follow the order of the day, and I think — at the point and time we complete the consent
agenda, I would like to bring forth some of the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team)
people after we go through it, but under our — under the format that we've established as
Commission items come up right after the Consent Agenda. So, I would move the
Consent Agenda, with your permission, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion and a second. Under discussion. Is there anyone
that would like to pull any items of the Consent Agenda?
Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. We need to move CA -4 to the next
meeting.
Vice Chairman Gort: CA -4. Any other items?
Mr. Gimenez: From the regular agenda, pull Item 8.
Vice Chairman Gort: eight. Item 8.
Mr. Gimenez: And the Mayor's Office advised me that he'd like to pull his blue page
items.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. I have a question. On item 6, we've been working on this for
quite a bit now, and we've been without lights on 14th Avenue and the Civic Center for
quite a bit, yet, I understand we have a deal with FP&L (Florida Power & Light)...
Commissioner Teele: What are you talking about? I can't hear you.
3 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: On 14th Avenue, that's CA -6. I'd like to know when those lights
are going to go up.
Mr. Gimenez: OK. So, I'll have that information for you this afternoon.
Vice Chairman Gort: You can give me that later. And, also, on CA -7, there's a
resolution for DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) to... Spoil
Island Number 3. CA -7. I have a request, and I'd like to make a motion, if possible, to
rename that island, if there's no opposition, to Claude Pepper Island.
Commissioner Sanchez: What's the name?
Vice Chairman Gort: Right now it's Spoil Island III.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: I have no objection at all. I would be pleased to co-sponsor it. I
think, however, we've got in place various resolutions and ordinances that require at least
there be a public notice on a name change, and it's certainly something I one hundred and
ten percent support. And as soon as we do this item, if you would like to move it at the
next item, I would support it or provide public notice.
Vice Chairman Gort: Sure. To go through the process. Anyone would like to speak on
any of the consent agenda items? Mariano, you want to — you don't want to speak,
Mariano? Oh, OK. That must be a first. Yes, sir.
Mr. Frank Rollason: Frank Rollason, Assistant City Manager. On CA -6, the lighting in
the Civic Center, they've — after we — if this is passed, then FP&L says by May or June,
they would be able to start, and they will probably be finished in September.
Vice Chairman Gort: So, there won't be any lights until September?
Mr. Rollason: It's been almost three years now, but we're...
Vice Chairman Gort: I know. OK. Thank you. Any further discussion? Any further
discussion? Being none, all in favor state it by saying "aye."
4 January 25, 2001
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
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 Teele and seconded by
Commissioner Sanchez, the consent agenda items were passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 01-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT WITH INTER -
AMERICAN CAR RENTAL, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF
AUTOMOBILE RENTAL SERVICE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $100,000, FROM $125,000 TO $225,000 ANNUALLY;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NOS.
184105.456266.6.610, 184105.456267.6.610, 184105.456268.6.610, AND
799302.452625.6.610 FOR SAID INCREASE; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
5 January 25, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACTS WITH
VARIOUS VENDORS FOR THE CITYWIDE PROCUREMENT OF
COURIER SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING,
IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $11,000, FROM
$22,000 TO $33,000 ANNUALLY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE
BUDGETS OF THE VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO
BUDGETARY APPROVAL FOR SAID INCREASE; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES
FOR THE XEROX DOCUTECH 135 DIGITAL COPIER FROM
XEROX CORPORATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNDER EXISTING UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA CONTRACT NO. 99K-6YC, EFFECTIVE UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 2001, AND ANY EXTENSIONS THERETO, IN AN
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $72,000; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, GRAPHIC REPRODUCTIONS DIVISION
BUDGET, ACCOUNT CODE NO. 505000.420501.6.610.
6 January 25, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH 21" CENTURY SOLUTIONS FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE FOR THE COLLECTION OF
BASELINE DATA AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
EVALUATION SYSTEM IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES
ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
POLICE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $29,530; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE SCHOOL-
BASED PARTNERSHIPS GRANT II, ACCOUNT CODE NO.
142026.290518.6.270.
RESOLUTION NO. 01-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING
THE PROPOSAL OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR
THE DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF AN
UNDERGROUND STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM AND ELECTRICAL
SERVICES IN THE CIVIC CENTER AREA IN MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A" ATTACHED, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $248,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID SERVICES; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM PROJECT NO. 311016, AS APPROPRIATED BY THE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS ORDINANCES.
7 January 25, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ENDORSING
THE SUBMISSION OF A GRANT APPLICATION BY THE MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ("DERM") TO THE FLORIDA
INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT ("FIND") FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION OF SPOIL ISLAND NO. 3,
LOCATED ON BISCAYNE BAY EAST OF MORNINGSIDE PARK,
MIAMI, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
IDENTIFY AND ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
PARKS AND RECREATION OPERATIONAL BUDGET, IN AN
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000, TO ASSIST DERM
WITH THE TRASH PICK-UP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
MAINTENANCE FOR THE RESTORATION PROJECT; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH DERM, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY MANAGER, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
8 January 25, 2001
RESOLUTION NO. 01-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT (S), GRANTING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2001 TO APRIL 14, 2002, ON
APPROXIMATELY .0 17 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AT
THE MELREESE GOLF COURSE, LOCATED AT 1400 NORTHWEST
37TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A
PART HEREOF, FOR USE AS A STAGING AREA FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PUMPING STATION, SUBJECT TO
BUNKERS OF MIAMI, A FLORIDA JOINT VENTURE, EXECUTING
A JOINDER TO THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, REQUIRED FOR THE GRANT OF THE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would accept a motion
from you directing that the staff provide notice for the renaming of that piece of land that
you've designated. Would you so move it, Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Commissioner Teele: Seconded. Is there objection? Mr. Attorney, I'm not sure what the
specific requirements are. You can let us know later on today, but I do know, in light of
several controversies, we said that we would not name something without public
discussion.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): We don't have a specific committee for that;
however, Parks Advisory Board, maybe Waterfront Advisory Board...
Commissioner Teele: Why do we have to take it to a board?
9 January 25, 2001
Mr. Vilarello: We will advise them. Pardon me?
Commissioner Teele: Why do we have to take it to a board, at all?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah.
Mr. Vilarello: You have not obligation to do so.
Commissioner Teele: I just think the main thing is that we just provide notice.
Mr. Vilarello: Public notice?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah. Without objection, it would appear — the motion, as made
by Commissioner Gort, is that the designated land be redesignated as Claude Pepper
Island, and that a notice of that will be done by the management and the Clerk for the
next meeting. So moved and seconded by Commissioner Gort. All those in favor say
aye.55
Commissioner Teele: Those opposed.
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-62
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IN
CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED NAME CHANGE OF SPOIL
ISLAND NO. 3, LOCATED ON BISCAYNE BAY EAST OF
MORNINGSIDE PARK, TO CLAUDE PEPPER ISLAND; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OF
SAME.
10 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
11 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I've asked the management
to bring forth the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) administrator from Little
Haiti, who is new. They've also indicated that there are several others, and with your
permission, I'd like to ask the Manager if he would bring forth each of the NET
administrators, one by one, starting with Dr. Claude, so that they could at least be
presented to the public and the Commission. And I do think that, as we move through
this process, being very mindful of the charter, that we are not to engage in the selection
of employees or promotions, et cetera. I do hope that we can develop a process in which
the Commissioners that represent the various NET Offices, are involved before a public
notice or a final -- immediately after the final decision, but before it's made public in that,
and I just want to express on the record my appreciation to the Manager and the assistant
Manager, Frank Rollason, and director Wheeler, for affording me the courtesies of
knowing exactly what's going on, and I will tell you, I could not have done a better job of
finding a person, if you had let me have some involvement, which is violation of the
Charter, so I would not have wanted, but I just want to commend you and commend the
professionalism of your staff. So, I would ask that you would bring forth the first NET
administrator.
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. I'll have Dennis Wheeler introduce the three
NET administrators.
Dennis Wheeler: Thank you, sir. Dennis Wheeler, acting director of NET. And I must
say that I'm very pleased with our recent appointments to NET, to the NET team. All
three of them added a lot of energy, and vitality in NET, and it's just very, very rewarding
and very pleasing to have Wheeler's angels to the team.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell you. I don't blame you. I have six at home. They can
really drive.
Mr. Wheeler: Two of the promoters, Ms. Morales and Ms. Regueyra, are a result of the
reorganization in NET, where Francisco Garcia, whom we all know, was promoted to the
assistant directors position, and Haydee Regueyra is his replacement. Sergio Guadix has
been promoted to chief of Code Enforcement in NET, and we all know what a good job
Sergio did in Wynwood, and Ms. Morales has taken his place. Dr. Claude. When I --
when Frank Rollason and I interviewed Dr. Claude, it was very obvious that she was the
person that we needed up in Little Haiti because, as we know, there are a lot of problems
12 January 25, 2001
up in Little Haiti, and a lot of it is education. And I must say, in the last three weeks, Dr.
Claude has probably done more up there in the last three weeks than has been done up
there in the last three years, and I have a confession. I've never been in a demonstration
in my life because that's just me. Never thought I would be in a demonstration, and last
night I sat in Little Haiti demonstrating, and I'll let Dr. Claude talk about that a little bit
more as we go on, but it was pretty neat. And I think the next time we have one of those
demonstrations, I would recommend that all the Commissioners come out because it was
pretty neat. And...
Commissioner Teele: You need to state on the record, Dennis, it was an anti-drug
demonstration.
Mr. Wheeler: Well, I'll let...
Commissioner Teele: Don't leave the public hanging.
Mr. Wheeler: Well, I will let Dr. Claude speak about that later. But, any way, Ms.
Morales, would you like to say something?
Christine Morales: Well, I don't really have much to say, except I'd like to thank the
Manager and Mr. Wheeler for having faith in me and giving me this opportunity, and I
would like to thank Frank Rollason for challenging me everyday to find the best within
myself and give it to others, and that's what I plan to do in my new position.
Vice Chairman Gort: And your name is?
Ms. Morales: Christine Barbara Morales.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Haydee Regueyra: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, members of the City
Commission. My name is Haydee Regueyra. I am Northeast Coconut Grove NET
administrator. I am here today also to introduce our NET service representative, who is
sitting back there, vonCarol Kinchens, and I'm very proud to be a City of Miami
employee, and thank all of you, Mr. Rollason, Mr. Wheeler, for giving me the
opportunity also represent you in the Northeast Coconut Grove NET area. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Lumane Pluviose-Claude: My name is Lumane Pluviose-Claude, and I was born and
raised in Haiti, study at Florida A&M, graduated and move to Penn State; have my Ph.D
and then work for Cornell University as a community and economic developer, and I
come here with the same idea of community, to blend Little Haiti together and help the
people work to make it what it is supposed to be and what they want it to be for
13 January 25, 2001
themselves. And with that idea in mind, have a great lieutenant that we working together,
and I want to tell you about the first step that we did last night. We get the citizens on
patrol and we extend an invitation to the community, to people who wanted to join us,
and what we did, we call it super Wednesday. We march at 7 o'clock. We were on 50th
Street and north Miami Avenue, and we walk from there to Little Haiti, but we have a
specific spot that we wanted to target, where they have drug dealing and illegal activity,
like they have on restaurant food operation with no license, in a house, and we march
basically to tell them that we are here. We want to work with the people, for the people,
and we will make it happen. We know that they are there dealing drugs and doing what
they are not supposed to do. It has to stop, and we are serious about it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. That was a great job. Thank you.
(Applause).
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have a workshop,
leadership workshop scheduled and I really would like to schedule just something to talk
about NET in that process. I am particularly pleased with you, Mr. Manager -- by the
way, I was watching the confirmation hearing of John Ashcroft, and I was thinking about
how easy your hearing was. Some people have raised concerns because, you know,
before the Commission just always rubber stamped whatever came down, but I do think
one of the things that we talked about -- you and I talked about in the confirmation
hearing was providing greater diversity for women, et cetera, and I think these three
appointments speak volumes about your personal commitment, after a very shaky start,
with four or five male appointments, I think this speaks volumes, and I commend you and
your team for the diversity. But one of the things that I would hope that we can talk
about in this leadership discussion is a term of office for NET administrators. I continue
to say that it's important that we item empower NET administrators with the sense that
they really are responsible, but it's just as important that we also ensure that we don't get
into run away situations in our NET process, and it's a very thin line. I'm sure you can
appreciate -- I'm sure, as a Fire Chief, you saw people who get into it one station and then
they don't want to ever leave. I mean, you know -- and I think it's very, very important
that we establish a process that NET administrators will be rotated and moved. And let
me tell you why I think this is important. Dr. Claude, as an example, who has a Ph.D.
from Cornell, who is a magna cum laude. I graduated, thank you, Laude from Florida
A&M, in contrast. It's probably just as appropriate in the Allapattah area as in the -- at
least some stages of her background. Her training and much of her work has been in
developing farmers' markets and agriculture. I think we're missing a tremendous
opportunity in not having the best farmers' market in the south in Allapattah. I mean,
we're moving in that direction under Commissioner Gort's leadership and I commend
you, Commissioner Gort, for doing that. But there are tremendous resources that we
have. As I have said to one of your Assistant Managers repeatedly, I think the greatest
problem that we face in management of the City of Miami is how we can utilize across
departmental lines, the talents and the resources of individuals and departments. I mean,
you know, everybody, you know, wants to create their own bureaucracy within that, and I
just use that as an example, and I would hope that Dr. Claude would be called upon to
14 January 25, 2001
work in Allapattah, or to advise, at least, in the formulation, as an example. And, so, I'm
just tickled pink, if you can believe that for a person of hue. See how these sisters and
brothers are all laughing. But to use the old expression that I saw on television, I'm just
tickled pink with what you're doing, Mr. Manager, and I commend you for your
appointments, all three appointments to the NET. Thank you, Mr. Manager.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. And I think it's very important. When I first ran, I
really concentrated on the importance of the NET. I think the idea is great, but it's as
good as the people in it, and that's why I believe -- Commissioner Teele, you're correct
that we have to have a workshop and anything we could do to improve the NET, we
should because that's the direct service to the community. This is where the community
really see the services, but, at the same time, if the phone calls are made an they are not
answered, that's when you get the feedback, and that's very important. OK. Thank you
all very much. Good luck.
(Applause).
15 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: At this time, we'll go into the Commissioners' items. I have a request from the
Domino Park on Southwest 8th Street from Jose Alvarez, President of the Dominican/American Pro -
Integration Association to place the bust of the Honorable Maximo Gomez, who was one of Jose Marti's
compatriots, and he's from the Dominican Republic.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor -- any discussion?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, may I, please?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Will this be done under the auspices of Asset Management, or would it be done
under the auspices of the Parks Department, or just --
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding --
Commissioner Sanchez: It would be both.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is it would be the Parks Department, and they're the ones that
handled it in the past. The plans have been presented to them, and the construction and the placement has
to be in accordance to the criteria and guidelines of the Parks Department.
Commissioner Sanchez: And if I may, just for a minute. Willy, being that Maximo Gomez -- and I
support it 100 percent. There's already a monument on 13th Street and 14th honoring him. This would be
placed inside Domino Park?
Vice Chairman Gort: Inside Domino Park. And my understanding is from conversations that have been
taken with the people that manage the Dominos Park. And Commissioner Sanchez, I apologize for not --
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no, no.
Vice Chairman Gort: No. It's your district, and I apologize and --
Commissioner Sanchez: Listen, although I represent my district, I welcome everybody, and I think we all
truly represent the City as a whole. So I don't have a problem with it.
16 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: But it's my apologies. I should have told you about it. I thought you were aware of
it and you were informed about it. My understanding is this group did talk to Luis Sabines, and they're in
agreement, and they would like to place it on an historical date coming up.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm not as territorial as others.
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand. But we have to --
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that I would hope is that this is an instruction to the
Manager to come back and to provide us with a full plan, including funding, et cetera, understanding that
we all support this 100 percent. If I may, one of the greatest weaknesses from my vantage point of the
City of Miami -- quite frankly, of all of Dade County -- is the lack of statues, busts and mementos that
reflect this cultural diversity that we're always talking about celebrating. I have asked the City Attorney
several times -- I'll ask again now -- if we would draft an art in public places ordinance for the City, for
my sponsorship. The art in public places that is in place now that mandates the City to do certain things
under the County has always had, in my judgment, a woeful deficiency and inadequacy, in that the art in
public places really is an art, as opposed to memento. I'm more interested in mementos, Mr. Attorney, in
public places or art and mementos in public places, statues, but not wanting to argue about what is art and
what is good art and what is bad art. I've never criticized the County statute, but I really do think that the
City of Miami, working with the appropriate departments, if this ordinance comes forward, should look at
a plan that can encapsulate this diversity that we are always talking about celebrating through mementos
such as statues, and busts, and appropriate symbols that are low maintenance, and low cost, that are
graffiti -resistant, that do what Commissioner Gort is doing now. And I really do think we should expand
this thinking Citywide. And I commend you, Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Sanchez, for moving
forward on this.
Vice Chairman Gort: I think we should say the outstanding, the most important -- this will be done at no
cost to the City of Miami. All of the cost will be borne by the private sector. Any further discussion?
Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
17 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved for its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-63
A MOTION GRANTING REQUEST FOR PLACEMENT OF A BUST
OF MAXIMO GOMEZ (CUBAN PATRIOT) IN LITTLE HAVANA
DOMINO PARK.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
18 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: District 2, Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: Yes. I have a resolution that I want to pass. Background here is that the
City Clerk's office is officially designated as a passport acceptance facility, and they were duly
carrying out their duties at an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) swearing in
ceremony at the Knight Center a few months ago and -- and I think this came before the
Commission before --
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: -- the circumstance. And what we want to do is, given the fact
that INS, as far as I'm concerned and I think all of us are concerned, was completely out
of line, we want to pass a resolution that would go to the INS encouraging them to be
supportive of a program that they got -- that they've established throughout the United
States. So, the resolution reads: "A resolution of the City of Miami Commission,
strongly urging the United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization
Services to cooperate with the City of Miami Passport Acceptance Facility in the
distribution of flyers on days naturalization ceremonies occur; further directing the City
Clerk to transmit a copy of the resolution to the officials designated herein." So moved.
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second and just to mention, I think it's important what you're
doing, Commissioner, because we encouraged the City Clerk to establish the passport office, as a
way, not only to get income, but to facilitate to the residents of Miami. Because if you go to
downtown to get a passport, you have to wait three or four days in line to get it. And I think that
we even have to go further. We should request from the justice department, the INS
Commissioner, when he or she is appointed, that what they are doing is not interfering at all with
the work of INS. They just don't want to do that. And I think it's just something that INS feels
that they won't allow it. However, these are people of both parties who register voters outside,
and they have not been valid. So, I mean, it's something that we should discuss further with the
INS. Maybe when they come to seek a change in their -- in the code for their building.
Commissioner Winton: You know, Commissioner Regalado, I've drafted a letter that I intended
to send to the director of the INS, with carbon copies to all of our local Congress persons, and if
you don't mind, maybe I'll -- because it's public record, if you don't mind, I'm going to shoot you
a copy of that letter in draft form. Anyone else would like to look at it -- in fact, I'll give it to all
19 January 25, 2001
of you. And if you have suggestions in terms of add-ons, then please make the changes in there
and get it to Walter's office and, then, ultimately, we'll sign it and get it out of here.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? My understanding, after we pass this resolution,
you should send copy to the congressional delegation, too. Any further discussion? Being none,
all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION STRONGLY
URGING THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE/IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES
("INS") TO COOPERATE WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI PASSPORT
ACCEPTANCE FACILITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF FLYERS ON
DAYS NATURALIZATION CEREMONIES OCCUR; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIAL (S) DESIGNATED HEREIN.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
20 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other items, Commissioner Winton?
Commissioner Winton: No.
Vice Chairman Gort: How about the item B, resolution to authorize City Manager to execute a
contract in a form acceptable...
Commissioner Winton: "B"?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: Oh, sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, you do have one more.
Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry. I wasn't -- you know, I'm half asleep. I hate colds. This is a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract in the form acceptable to the City
Attorney with the Municipal Code Corporation for advisory services to the Charter Review
Committee, in an amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) from
undesignated funds in a non -departmental account. So moved.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny could you, at a later time, could your committee update this
Commission of what you have...
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, that's a great...
Commissioner Sanchez: What progress you have made --
Commissioner Winton: Great idea.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- concerning that?
21 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: Sure. Absolutely.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH THE MUNICIPAL
CODE CORPORATION TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL CONSULTING
SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MIAMI CHARTER REVIEW
COMMITTEE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM UNDESIGNATED FUNDS IN THE
NON -DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT FOR THE REQUIRED
SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
22 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Okey doke. Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. If I may, I know that this is an item
that I have brought to this Commission many times before, the worker compensation.
And it has been a pet peeve of mine since I got here to this Commission, and looked
through the books, and saw this red flag just slap me in the face. When this City had
2,793 open claims. We have made significant progress, thanks to Risk Management, the
administration, and the leadership of this Commission. We are down now to a 1,533
open claims at this time. At a high point -- and I apologize. It was 2,981, at an all- time
high at one point. We are in the process of continuing to reduce this. However, I feel
that the City and Risk Management has gotten to a point where I don't think we could
continue to lower cases, and I see a pattern, when we look at some of the documentations
provided to us, of the monthly comparison of the open claims by major departments,
where we show a pattern of October 2000, November 2000, and December 2000, all
seven departments, and we see -- and I specifically -- I'm just going to take one out, not
to pick on anybody, but we'll take up the Police Department from 828 in October, they
went to 854 in November and then came back down in December to 826. Since I said
one, I might as well say all. I'm not picking on anybody. I realize those are high-risk
jobs, and these individuals will get hurt from past experience in my background in law
enforcement. I know that things happen, and people are going to get hurt. We go to Fire
from 341 to 360 in November. October and November. And then 341 in December.
Solid Waste from 213 in October, 225 in November the 1st, and then they go down to
197 in December. Parks 32 in October. November, they go to 34 and then 35. So, the
pattern there is flexible. As you can see, it goes up and down. Public Works, 1,414 and
then 19, an increase from December -- November to December. GSA (General Services
Administration), 48. In October /November, they go to 52 and then in December, they go
to 50. And all others, 72 in October, 74 in November, and 68 in December. And the
reason why I'm going through this, I think it's important for people that are watching
channel 9 to realize that we have made a significant improvement. However, we tend to -
- we have pressure applied to this now, and I think that we are making significant
improvements. However, I want to make this very clear. In the past administration,
when we where at the high point of this discussion item, we did seek out four cases, and
we identified the City Manager. They identified four cases and go out san investigate
these four cases, and it was alarming to me just taking four cases and develop a
percentage that two out of the four cases came back where the individuals who were out
fully -- being compensated by the City. In other words, they were getting disabilities.
had other jobs. An then later on, through the changes of administration, I fine out that,
although we did that investigation, we didn't follow through with it. So, that goes to
23 January 25, 2001
show you that a 50 percent -- and it's to the best of my ability. And you can correct me if
I'm wrong. Any statement that I make I want you to correct me on it because this is
something that is not only personal to me, it's my pet peeve an I think I've gotten good
support from this Commission to try to do everything we can to reduce these numbers.
Fifty percent -- I'm taking four major cases came back, where two individuals were
getting a hundred percent disability from the City and had other jobs, an still, we did not
follow through with prosecuting those individuals, and seeking restitution to this City. I
mean, if -- well, correct me if I'm wrong.
Mario Soldevilla (Risk Management Administrator): Yeah. This was a -- this were two
cases -- I'm sorry. Mario Soldevilla from Risk Management. The cases that you're
talking about, one of them, yes. In fact, the claimant was receiving compensation from
the City and he did have a second job. However, that doesn't preclude them from
receiving compensation. What we can do is, based on their salary, we can reduce their
compensation if their combined wages are less than or more than what their average
weekly wage was at the time of their injury. As it turned out, that one of them, we were
unable to do that. They -- the wages were not sufficient. So, we had to continue to pay
that.
Commissioner Sanchez: I understand, Mr. Soldevilla. That's taking five -- taking four
cases out of what time -- probably there were 2000 cases. Around that time. Taking four
cases, OK, and not even the top hundred cases, 50 cases, were they are getting a hundred
percent compensation and, as we seen throughout many TV newscasts and the 20 minutes
-- and 20/20 and 60 Minutes, people that are abusing this power and it's really costing us
money and the tax payers, you know. We need to take a step further, and I think the
reason why I bring this is out is because I think that we have done a great job. I'm not
here to criticize anybody. We have lowered this from 2,981 cases to 1,533 cases at this
time. However, I think that now we need to go a step further to go out and not only
prosecute if we have to prosecute, because we have to set an example. We have to apply
teeth to laws. So people that are out there -- and there may not be anybody, but if there is
somebody out there that's violating this law, he's going to think twice about it because it's
costing us money and it's costing the City a lot of money and taxpayers money. So, at
this time, I could see in the letter -- have we, in any way, to take another step, have we
done a city-wide safety program to try to reduce these open claims or injuries?
Mr. Soldevilla: Yes. We're in -- we hired a safety coordinator. We reestablished the city-
wide safety committee, where each major department, Police, Fire, Solid Waste, Parks,
and Public Works and one City -- you know, one member city-wide participate on the
committee to address specific claims in the department, and then to recommend policy,
city-wide, for safety measures.
Commissioner Sanchez: Have we, if any way, worked with the State Attorney's Office
on some of these claims to seek prosecution, restitution for the City of Miami?
Mr. Soldevilla: Yes, we have. We've -- we brought up two claims just recently to the
fraud division. Those were investigated by the fraud division. They were passed on to
24 January 25, 2001
the State Attorney's Office, and in both cases, they decided not to prosecute. But we will
follow other administrative remedies that we have.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, at this time I will let any of the Commissioners
make any statements, and then I have a motion that I would like to direct the City
Manager to take action.
Commissioner Winton: Commissioner, could I ask a couple of questions to try to
understand the data, as an example, I think when you started, you started with the first
number that I remember is Police and it was like between eight and nine hundred
something per month. Is that new cases that are opened each month?
Mr. Soldevilla: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, let me tell you. Johnny, before you go on with that -- I
mean, you've got to realize these cops are out there working, just like the firemen. I
mean, their job is a dangerous job, and they are going to get hurt. Those, of course...
Commissioner Winton: I'm just trying to understand data.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, but if you look throughout -- and I compared -- made
other comparables to other states, and, of course, we have to take certain factors into
consideration, the employment number, and other facts that we have to put into
consideration. And the only thing that is different to other local municipalities
throughout the state it's just the high value numbers that we have of open claims, not the
Police Department, or the Fire Department or Solid Waste. I mean, these are --
throughout all the City, these are the -- the numbers are there. You know, Police is
usually the first one. Fire is second. And then from there on.
Commissioner Winton: Right. I'm just trying to understand the data right now.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is, this is census. It's not the new every month.
It's a census.
Commissioner Winton: Well, what does it mean?
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Commissioner, these are all the claims...
Mr. Soldevilla: Yeah, these are just total open claims.
Commissioner Winton: So, for the month of October, I think it is, let's say the number
was 802...
Commissioner Sanchez: Eight hundred and twenty-eight (828), and then we went to
November; it went to 854, and then...
25 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: OK. So those aren't -- that's open claims in each of those
months?
Mr. Soldevilla: Right. Correct. Those are not new claims.
Commissioner Winton: All right.
Commissioner Sanchez: No, no.
Mr. Soldevilla: Basically we get approximately between 60 and 70 new claims in a
month, Citywide.
Commissioner Winton: Citywide.
Mr. Soldevilla: Now, that also doesn't mean that all these people are out on disability.
Commissioner Winton: How many employees do we have, Citywide?
Mr. Soldevilla: Citywide, three thousand five hundred...
Vice Chairman Gort: Four thousand.
Mr. Soldevilla: Actually...
Commissioner Winton: I'm sorry?
Mr. Gimenez: To the best of my recollection, about 3700.
Mr. Soldevilla: But this also includes like all part timers. It has to include part timers and
anybody that would -- which is what, around 4200 -- 37? Thirty-seven.
Commissioner Winton: Now, Johnny, can you imagine 3700 in that one time, having
2,970 some cases open?
Commissioner Winton: Right. I understand the data. Thank you.
Mr. Soldevilla: OK. Just to put also into perspective. It doesn't mean that all of these
people are out on disability. In any one or two-week period, they might be active
employees. We might have 40 that are out of all -- of the 3,500. Many of these
employees have reached maximum medical improvement and they are in -- maybe in a
light duty capacity, temporarily, so they are back working.
Commissioner Sanchez: But here is the thing. And I realize that in some cases, we could
have people that are out injured working light duty, but they don't have any positions for
them to work light duties, such as Solid Waste.
26 January 25, 2001
Mr. Soldevilla: Then they are not -- then they are out on disability.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm just looking at ways so we cannot only lower the numbers,
but lower the expenses of this City.
Mr. Soldevilla: Definitely. And we're also looking at a Citywide light duty program so
that those individuals, if they -- if Solid Waste does not have a position, then we'll find a
position in another department throughout the City.
Commissioner Winton: You know what would really be helpful to me -- and I just did
the calculation. You said 60 a month, so that's 720 a year. That's 20 percent of the work
force annually. But that number is meaningless to me. Do we -- is there a comparative
data nationally for municipalities so that you can -- so when I look at that number, I say
can, "gee, that's out of line with other municipalities or it's better than everybody else." I
don't have any way of gauging that here.
Mr. Soldevilla: We just did something with Dade County, and we compared Police and
Fire because they are basically the highest volume. So...
Commissioner Sanchez: One the County has a problem, just like we do. We can
compare two problems.
Commissioner Winton: I was going to say, I'm not sure I want to use the County as the
base line.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's compare -- Johnny, who we need to compare ourselves
with, is...
Mr. Soldevilla: But it's not just the County. I mean, it's nationwide. Worker's comp is...
Vice Chairman Gort: It has to be national statistics that we can compare with, state and
national.
Commissioner Winton: Right. Yeah.
Mr. Soldevilla: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: If you want to take it a step further --
Commissioner Winton: That's what I want to look at, is...
Commissioner Sanchez: -- and compare it nationally, you can go ahead and do it. You
can also compare it to Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville...
Commissioner Winton: Right. Exactly. And that's what...
27 January 25, 2001
Mr. Soldevilla: Sure, we can do that.
Mr. Gimenez: What I asked him to do though was to look at Dade County because it's
basically the same area, same conditions; you know the same job, basically. So, that's all
I wanted to do. I don't even know what the numbers are, but I kind of figure that we're
probably higher than Dade County, and they may be even higher, so...
Commissioner Winton: But it would be valuable because you want statistic -- you want
statistically significant data and I think a comparison to only one other municipality
doesn't get you that. So, I would be looking at multiple municipalities, so then you could
have something...
Mr. Soldevilla: I could get something through...
Mr. Gimenez: We just started with Dade County...
Commissioner Winton: All right.
Mr. Soldevilla: No. We could get something like through the National League Of Cities.
Commissioner Winton: Great.
Mr. Soldevilla: And approach them.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. Let me tell you what you can do. You've got Florida
League of Cities, National League Of Cities. What you can do by comparison, you can
see the differences why and maybe they are doing something different than we are, that
we can make the changes so we can adjust to them. And I think that's how we can use
some of those statistics. Any further discussion? Go ahead, Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chairman, I would like to present this resolution to --
it's a motion directing the City Manager to create a City of Miami Anti Fraud Task Force,
consisting of no less than one City Attorney, one member of the department of Risk
Management, an one law enforcement officer specializing in the field of fraud, to work in
conjunction with the State Attorney Office to combat fraud against the City of Miami
workers compensation. Its mission is to simply prosecute violators and seek restitution
for the City of Miami. The City Attorney should have the power to hire outside
investigators to properly conduct these investigations. So move.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion? You have already some of those investigations.
Mr. Soldevilla: We hire outside investigators to do that, yes.
28 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things that, over the years, the
City has just not taken care of business on, and we've sort of, through a series of
circumstances, it's just sort of gotten lost in the cyberspace land of nobody pays attention
to it and even with all the blue ribbon committees and all of that, there have been
problems identified. I think one of the thing -- probably the things that I am most proud
of to serve with Commissioner Sanchez is the manner in which he has taken his
legislative responsibility seriously, by not, based upon an appointment or a fiat or
designation, but as an interested Commissioner, which is what, in a legislative body,
either through the committee process or through individual efforts, we all are in charge
with doing. What has not been said is that the number of outstanding claims have been
reduced by almost 50 percent, and that is a direct result of oversight. Now, you know, it's
a thin line between meddling and oversight, and if the bureaucracy or the staff or --
excuse me. Madam Planning Director. I said I wouldn't use that word anymore. If the
professional staff -- I said bureaucracy. If the professional staff and the gadflies and
editorial boards don't like it, they call it meddling. If they don't really care, it's oversight.
This Commission has done a horrible job of oversight over the last twenty years in
virtually every important area. I mean, I sat here for one year and every time an issue
came up that was wrong with management; the motion was to instruct the Manager to
look into it. I mean, that -- duh. I mean, that -- if the problem is management not looking
into it, you can't delegate your responsibilities and so, I'm just speaking, quite candidly,
in as glowing a terms as I can how proud I am of what Commissioner Sanchez is really
trying to do, an that's oversight. That's not to harass you or to make anybody look bad.
Commissioner Sanchez: He knows that.
Commissioner Teele: Or It's really to get the job done. But I'm not speaking to the director,
individually; I'm talking about the process. Because the lack of oversight in virtually every area
is what we need to do. And I think each of us need to look at specific areas where we can
develop oversight. I was talking to the internal director yesterday. I called just to get more
information on the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes), the payment in lieu of taxes, and it's much
worse -- it's much worst than I've understood. I mean, you know, the County owes us probably
two or three million dollars ($3,000,000) right now, and, you know, it just sort of bounces back
and forth. The point that I want to make is I fully support the efforts that Commissioner Sanchez
is making. I would hope that the management would see that the entire Commission is
unanimous in this. I don't think, however -- and there could be some areas where we disagree --
I'm not nearly as interested in convict -- of prosecuting anyone, as I am in gaining compliance.
And part of what is happened, I can assure you is a buddy boy culture has evolved somewhere
along the line, and it's a slippery slope, and after a while, sort of every day's doing it and then all
of a sudden somebody blows the whistle and all of a sudden what was fun and a game, it now
becomes criminal. I'm much more interested in -- I just want to weigh in -- I think
Commissioner Sanchez is one hundred percent right, that we need to use more investigators. I'm
willing to spent more money for investigators to investigate and to audit if you will, to do
observation of these persons. I think the word ought to be clearly out there, that if you're getting
worker's comp, you're subject to being observed. I am totally in support of auditing these files,
29 January 25, 2001
and asking for money back. On the issue of visiting the State's Attorney Office, I think that
should be a last step, and I think it should be a step that we don't direct it. The management take
-- that the management should take that step in those one or two cases or those few cases that
may be so offensive, so shocking, so disgusting. But what I really don't want to do is create
another one of these momentums where everybody is running around trying to find somebody
and shine a light and catch somebody and say, I got you. I think we need to be very careful, as
we move in that. But having said that, I am one hundred percent in supporting Commissioner
Sanchez. I commend you, as a legislator for taking your challenge an your mandate seriously,
and I -- at some point in time, you will have saved this City tens of millions of dollars just by
your individual actions, and I think you can personally take comfort in that. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: He's already saved quite a few. Any further discussion? All in
favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-66
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ESTABLISH A
CITY OF MIAMI ANTI -FRAUD TASK FORCE COMPRISED OF THE
FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS: (1) NO LESS THAN ONE ATTORNEY
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; (2) ONE STAFF PERSON
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT; (3) ONE
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SPECIALIZING IN FRAUD;
FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID INDIVIDUALS ARE TO
WORK ALONG WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PROSECUTING VIOLATORS AND SEEK
RESTITUTION FOR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS MADE AGAINST THE
CITY OF MIAMI.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
30 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Regalado?
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I'd like to request --
and this is a constituent's request that items PZ -8 and PZ -9 should be -- will be heard
after 5 p.m. They want to be here, and they will -- they work, so they requesting and I
think we can accommodate them.
Vice Chairman Gort: No problem. At the same time, I'd like to state there is no veto
from the Mayor's office. Go ahead, sir.
Note for the Record: No vetoes from the Mayor's Office.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. One of the issues that we've been discussing are the
status reports on different projects. I had requested two projects, 3945 Northwest 4th
Street, that's one; 3965 Southwest 6th Street, and the median on Southwest 10th Road,
between Southwest 9th and Southwest 10th, and the reason for these addresses -- and,
again, Public Works is doing what they can, but I have pictures here that you all will see
of 39 and 4th Street, Northwest. There is a memo that I gave them dated December 30th,
1999, signed by the former Manager, and the drainage work will commence, it says here,
in June 2000. Now, in October we had no -name storm and this happened. So, these
people are even going to the County now and to the Governor, to the Miami -Dade
County Water and Sewer department. So, I don't know. John, I guess that you have
some of these petitions because I think they sent it to the Manager. What can we say to
them?
John Jackson (Acting Director, Public Works): Yes, Commissioner I do. John Jackson,
director, Public Works. Commissioner, this location at on Northwest 4th Street between
38th and 40th Avenue is in our LeJeune storm sewer project, phase III. It's under
construction. And, actually, this location was completed this month, and these projects
that -- you know, we have a number -- we have a number of contractors working
throughout the City in different locations, and while we try to predict exactly where we're
going to be when we'll be at only certain street, and we're doing a whole area.
Occasionally, we run into interferences. Then there is the weather and other factors that
cause the contractors to slip. But this location has been constructed at this time on
Northwest 4th Street.
Commissioner Regalado: And when I placed this on the agenda, they were sort of
beginning near this. On the 6th Street Southwest location?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. The one on 3965 Southwest -- I guess Southwest 6th Street.
31 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: Right.
Mr. Jackson: Which is -- that's also in the same project, LeJeune storm sewer, and that
work is now -- as best as we can predict today, is that it's going to start the first week of
February, which is, you know, not very far away, within a couple of weeks. But it's --
these locations are scheduled. They are on a contract. The contractors are working and
as quickly as we can get them in, they will be done.
Commissioner Regalado: Yesterday we celebrated Chinese New Year, so I'll use a
Chinese proverb. A picture says more than one thousand words. So I'll be sending to the
Manager several pictures that we took of projects, drainage projects that had been done.
The problem, John, is that people really need those projects, but when they leave, it's a
mess. And I'll show you pictures. They destroyed -- in one instance, they destroyed a
swale area. The people were keeping that very nice. They destroyed the Swale area.
They went out and placed some construction equipment on the sidewalk and broke the
sidewalk in another instance. The street is really uneven on other -- and, you know,
problem is that when we finish, after all that we have gone through, the people are not
happy, and -- I mean, the drainage work is done, but they want at least to have what they
had before, and it's messy. I'll send you the pictures. You'll see by yourself. I don't
know if you're sending inspectors before they complete the work. I don't know if you
have the manpower to do that because I know they were doing a lot of drainage. But I
would really ask you to look at those pictures to see if we can have these people
accountable of what they are doing. I think we should.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, Commissioner. We have an inspector on every contract. However,
we have a lot of contracts working. Just brief moment on how we operate. We take
pictures of the location, photos of the location before the contractor starts to work, and
then we follow up with the restoration. So, we know what need, you know, that -- what it
should look like, and it's up to our inspector, before we close a project, we actually
physically walk back and inspect every location to make sure that it's properly restored.
The timeliness of this restoration sometimes, you know, is -- depending on the contractor
and the inspector, you know, we just need to do a better job. But if there any locations
that you know about that has not been properly restored, just like to know about it and
we'll make sure it's done.
Commissioner Regalado: All right.
Mr. Jackson: OK.
Commissioner Regalado: I mean, I do that everyday to the Manager. So...
Vice Chairman Gort: I'll give you the pictures. There are plenty of pictures.
32 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: I'll send the pictures. The median is not completed on the
Southwest 10th Street Road, between Southwest 9th and Southwest 10th. Part was done,
but part is not done.
Mr. Jackson: We did some curbing there. We had some remaining money on a contract.
We put -- we put curbing in. Now, there may be some more that we're going to -- I'm
going to need to get another contract to get it done, but we'll make sure that it's
completed. You're saying that your information is that it's not done?
Commissioner Regalado: I was there. Part is not done. At least half a block is not done,
and you have to consider that this is the 10th Street, then 10th Street Road, 9th Street, 9th
Street Road. It's a triangular thing right in front of Shenandoah Elementary.
Mr. Jackson: Yes. OK. OK.
Frank Rollason (Director, Building & Zoning): Mr. Commissioner -- Frank Rollason,
Assistant City Manager. I've been dealing with a few individual home owners out in that
area, along with NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team), on 48th Court, off Flagler
Street, in the area where they --
Commissioner Regalado: No. That -- this is -- Frank, this is on 22nd Avenue, 21St
Avenue.
Mr. Rollason: Right. But I'm saying, in another project that's going on, I got involved
with some out on 48th Court, and what I found is that, as the subs come in with the main
contractor to do this work, they move far ahead of putting the swales and the sidewalks
back together as they are moving with the equipment and cutting and so forth. We have
found that, if we replace the swales too early, what happens is, the subs come and they
park up the street from where they just finish doing the work and they destroy the sod
that's just put in. So, usually is when they get two blocks over, so they come in and they
do a whole area and they resod. So, we have combined the NET inspectors, along with
John's people to try to eyeball it and see that these things are followed through and that it
gets done properly.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, as long as they do it. But it's very difficult for the people
to live or think that they are going to live with a half -done project. So, -- and I have
pictures of weeks ago, and are still as they left it now. So, I'll send you the pictures and
the addresses, and I hope that people watching would give us a ring or send us a letter if
they have the same problem because I think it may be citywide. So, thank you.
Commissioner Winton: Can could I ask an add-on question to that? Commissioner
Regalado asked this question but I'm not sure I understand the answer. If it is found that
work that the contractors have done was done improperly or not completed, what did you
say that the time frame is, the maximum time frame that's allowed for them to complete,
to come back and finish the job or fix the job that they did improperly? What the
maximum time limit for that?
33 January 25, 2001
Mr. Jackson: Well, It depends on the scope of work and what's involved at that location.
However, it should not go longer than thirty days for the restoration at any one given
location. It shouldn't even be -- it should not even be 15 days, but I've got to be careful
because there is work that may need to be done that they are waiting on final restoration,
and, so, -- but that's the inspector should be on top of that.
Commissioner Winton: Well, then, as an example, you know, they -- in our downtown
building, AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph) came up -- came through and tore
up the sidewalks, replaced the sidewalk, replaced the gutter, and I called in probably a
month ago and had somebody leave a message with somebody in your staff, I don't know
who, that the curb cut that they replaced, some way or another, they chipped a big chunk
out of it right after they poured the new concrete. So you've got this big chunk out of it.
Now, that's been at least a month since that's been done and they haven't been back to fix
the problem. So, I understand this 15 -day to 30 -day timeframe. That makes sense to me,
but it seems to me that we may have a gap in our monitoring efforts that lets these things
get away from us, and we lose some of the tracking there some way or another. So, I
think you may want to revisit how you do that tracking, and make sure we have some sort
of better system in place so that we can really hammer these guys that do this lousy work.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, Commissioner. In your case, it is -- you know, it's the utility company
versus these drainage contracts; we've got better control of. It's these -- as you know,
these utility companies, in getting them to go back because a lot -- it's their subcontractor
that's really doing the work, but I know about the chip and I will make sure that we get
that taken care of.
Commissioner Winton: Well, if we have problem with the utility people, then maybe we
need to craft up some new policy here that gives us better leverage over...
Mr. Rollason: Commissioner, we did that. We had a meeting with all the utility
companies and the general contractors, just after the first of the year, before they started
back, and what I told them -- I only stayed at the meeting for a few minutes. But what I
told them, just like in the instance you're talking about, if John can't get them back, they
are going to be back in here next week to pull another permit and we'll tell them, "You
know what? You can't pull a permit until you take care of that problem over there." We
guarantee you somebody will be in the office -- I mean, that's money. That's time. And
we told them, look; you hold up your end, we're going to cooperate with you. But the
only hammer we have are these permits. So you've got us on this one, but you're not
going to get the next one until you fix the past one.
Commissioner Winton: Well, that's a good thing. I like that.
Mr. Rollason: So, that's what we told them.
Commissioner Winton: OK.
34 January 25, 2001
Mr. Rollason: And we're going to do it.
Vice Chairman Gort: I told you that from the beginning. I told you that six months ago.
Pull the permits. Don't issue any permits and you'll see it done. 14th Avenue, they
finally went in there and they did half of the repair. It should have been done three
months ago, but now the -- whatever they do is, they took the slab off and they have to
put up the -- pour the -- whatever they pour on top of it to make it even. That's been like
that now for four days. And the other things is, we need somehow communication. We
need to let the property owners within those areas to know. Maybe we can send them
through the NET, a notice or something, how long it's going to take because people do
not realize how long a project will take. The biggest problem that I have had on 14th
Avenue, by the civic center, those lights, they've been complaining to me for the last four
years, and I keep sending memo to them, well, they are going to do this. They are going
to do that. It's been four years. Now, you say it's not going to be able to be done until
June. Can you imagine how those people feel? If we come out from the beginning and
said, look -- I and I know it's not your administration and it's something new, and this is
some of those problems that people need to realize. We had quite a few changes in
administration in here, and that sort of sets us back some times. But somehow we have to
set up standard so anybody can continue to follow those standards.
Mr. Rollason: I think that you...
Vice Chairman Gort: And, you know, subcontractors don't have any respect at all.
Mr. Rollason: No, you're right.
Vice Chairman Gort: Because they don't have to pull the permit.
Mr. Rollason: Right.
Vice Chairman Gort: So, they don't care. They go in there; they do whatever the hell
they want, and that's it.
Mr. Rollason: No. The GC (General Contractor) is the one that we have to hammer on
and you all have hammered on us pretty good. We got the message and we're working on
it.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's it. Well, I hope they get it.
Commissioner Regalado: There are...
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry, Commissioner Regalado. Go ahead. .
35 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: There are two issues here, and, Frank is right, on saying that on
the drainage, we have more leverage because we pay these people. On the sidewalk,
also, we pay them. On the utilities -- and I have sent you many pictures of very, very not
well done work by the utilities. Do we need to establish a policy or -- by now, you're
saying you're not going to get a permit if you don't fix what you did? Or do we need to
set a policy to say you don't get paid until you fix -- if you did the sidewalk and you
broke these people's fence, and you broke their driveway because you have your
construction equipment on the sidewalk, you're going to fix it. See, the problem is that
this is supposed to give the people of the City of Miami a perception and a reality that
we're working for the better quality of life, and when they see the sidewalk that was
broken, that is done, they are happy. But when they see that someone just knocked their
fence and nobody is responsible for it, you know, you get people really angry at us
because they don't know that these are contractors or subcontractors. So, I would think
not pay them until they do what they have to do.
Mr. Jackson: Commissioner, the permitting on utility inspections and work is done by a
different utility company, so we -- the control is that -- we have the control from the
permit in that instance. Obviously, in the sidewalk work, which is done by our
contractors, we have tremendous control there. But if a subcontractor, let's say, for
example, hit a fence, then it has to be one of our utility inspectors on that permit and,
hopefully, you know, that will know about it or be notified. And then we have to go back
and find out who pulled the permit and which -- you know, and follow up on it. So, there
is a little lag in that activity but, believe me, with sidewalk construction, we should not
have that happen, where it's not taken care of immediately.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner Regalado?
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
36 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, very quickly. One of
the things that we continue to talk about, particularly in the historic part of our
communities, are the lack of designations and what I'm requesting, by motion, is that the
Planning Department -- is that the Manager -- I assume the Planning Department will
undertake a survey in a very narrow area, as defined here, which is a redevelopment area
in Overtown, to determine those properties -- the Manager uses the term "value." I think
the better term may be "significance" -- and to develop a fast-track process. To do that,
obviously, the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) will cooperate, but, again, I
think the important thing that we need to continue to under score about the CRA role is, it
is to augment the City's efforts. Our City has a historical division. The County has a
very large historical division, and one of the things that I wanted to suggest is that this
may be something that the City and the County could work closely together with, through
their historic division in the County because the County has designated this area as
having Metropolitan significance, which is a CDBG (Community Development Block
Grant) term, but, again, it's one of those ways that we can foster a better working
relationship. I'd like to hear from the director, the planning director, but I would just note
that I have seen at least five buildings that on their engraved in the concrete that were
constructed prior to 1950, buildings that we just sort of look at and don't see, but there are
at least five within -- on the 3rd Avenue corridor, that were developed -- that were
constructed in the 30s, the 40s, and I think we need to begin that process. Now,
landowners have traditionally, for some reason, resisted designation, and I think you
know, clearly, we're not saying designated this point, with the exception of the Ward
Roominghouse, but I think the issue here is to conduct a survey to determine which ones
would be, and then to come back to us for further instructions, obviously, working with
the CRA. And, so, my motion would be to move -- that the Manager is requested to
conduct a survey of properties with historic significance that may have historic
significance in the area of Northwest 8th Street, east of 5th and south of Northwest 14th
Street, west of 1st Avenue. The survey is to be in conjunction with Dade County, if
appropriate with Dade County, and further in conjunction with the CRA and the survey
would include both City and County properties, as well as private properties.
Commissioner Winton: I'll second that motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion and a second.
37 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: I'd like to just hear from Ana, if you have...
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion. Ana.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): Right now -- Ana Gelabert,
Director of the Planning and --
Commissioner Teele: Your name?
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Ana Gelabert, Director of the Planning and Zoning Department.
We do have some information on those properties. They are designated. And we would
have to conduct a survey. We'll be seeking -- the Planning Department has a consultant
that we can just find out what it would entail, and define those properties that might not
be designated but that do have historic value, and, yes, I will work together with the CRA
on this.
Commissioner Teele: Ana, specifically, I want you to prioritize the Ward
Roominghouse, not only for the survey, but for designation, and like to try to come back
within 30 days on that designation, in that the CRA is buying it, so it's no issue that the
land owner...
Ms. Gelabert -Sanchez: I will, sir.
Commissioner Winton: And I couldn't agree more with your initiative here,
Commissioner Teele. I think, you know, you've kind of led the charge on this whole
issue of historic preservation, and, frankly, it's one of the most important things we can
do as a City. The history of our real estate is absolutely the component that can set us
apart from other municipalities all over South Florida and we need to work very hard to
save all of the buildings in our City that we can save. So, I think this is just a great idea.
Commissioner Teele: But, Johnny, you need to understand that the direction of the City
Commission has been 180 degrees on this point. I mean, we have taken the position --
traditionally, not.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, in the old days.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah. And, you know, when you realize that the City is only 100
years old, plus four or five years. We have a very, very, very young City, and, yet, we
have saved -- we've designated very, very little and, you know, 200 years from now, 300
years from now there is going to be nothing, and it really just bleeds me, every time I
think about the buildings that have been destroyed since I've been here, such as the hotel
there that was on 3rd Avenue and 8th Street. What was that hotel that Sonny Wright
owned, the -- not the Mary Elizabeth but the -- in any event, but the Mary Elizabeth as
well. Those were all done by the City of Miami. I mean, the Sir John. No, it wasn't the
Sir...
38 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: That's where the Sir John was at.
Commissioner Teele: The City has done this.
Commissioner Winton: That's pathetic.
Commissioner Teele: And it's really, really very, very sad. So, I just think that we need
to strengthen what we're doing in our historic preservation. I would hope that
Community Development is listening to this as much as anyone, because one of the total
flexibilities that you have in Community Development funding, under the federal
guidelines, is historic preservation. You can spend one hundred percent of the restoration
of a building that has been properly designated and determined, even if it's a building
that's for profit or seen if it's a building that makes money. It could be, you know, a
billionaire's building. I mean, it's one thing that the federal government has said we
really want to preserve is history, and we've not taken advantage of that. If fact, we gave
our first grant, this past year, for historic preservation, and the history of is the City of
Miami. So, this is just a part -- and I would hope that we would look at other areas, but I
realize that developers and property owners, traditionally, have had this relationship with
the City that we sort of have a hands-off position.
Commissioner Winton: Well, you know, we've got another property. I'm going to be
bringing something back to the Commission. At some point, I just found out about it the
other day, and have called a meeting of staff because Dr. James Jackson's original house,
which was moved off over off of Bayshore was set on fire months and months ago. The
owner has no intent to fix the house up and he's allowing that house just to deteriorate so
that ultimately can tear it down and I just found out about it. So, I'm calling meeting of
people to figure out what we can do to save that -- I mean, that's real history there, an it's
just a shame.
Vice Chairman Gort: Johnny, my understanding, I received a letter requesting -- I sent a
letter to the Manager requesting to see -- because they would like to see a place and they
have willing to pay for it. They have the funding to transfer and fix it. They would like
to see it at the Lummus Park. So, we already sent that to administration, that they have
that.
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah. If I may add two things regarding to the house you're
talking about. The Mayor's Office has contacted department and we will be having a
meeting to try to find possible locations for the house. I would like to add one more
thing, Commissioner Teele, which is -- and I will be more than happy to also bring that to
you for your consideration. Right now, the -- we don't have an ordinance in the City for
historic properties. Right now, they pretty much can be demolished. You know, if it's
something that is designated but it can be just -- the process can be delayed. That's as
much as we have. We have prepared something that we could bring to you, together with
the survey, which would give -- which will strengthen what we have, the City, to be able
to -- I don't want to use the word prevent, but definitely try to preserve and slow down the
historic properties that we do have in this City.
39 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: And I appreciate you acknowledging that. We did discuss and
request that back during the CD (Community Development) process, about six months
ago. And I think we can move that forward any time the management and the lawyers
are ready to do it. I would certainly support it. But I just want to put a cautionary note
that this is not something that the development community traditionally has sort of urged
the Commission to do. So, there may be some efforts to -- some opposition.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Thank you, Ana. All in favor state by
saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-67
A MOTION INSTRUCTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT A SURVEY OF
PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC VALUE IN THE AREA OF
NORTHWEST 8TH STREET, EAST OF THE I-95 EXPRESSWAY,
SOUTH OF NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND WEST OF
NORTHWEST 1sT AVENUE; FURTHER REQUESTING THAT SAID
SURVEY BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (IF
APPROPRIATE); FURTHER STIPULATING THAT SAID SURVEY
SHALL INCLUDE BOTH CITY AND COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTIES AND ALSO GIVE
PRIORITY TO THE WARD ROOMINGHOUSE PROJECT.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
40 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, on the second matter that is listed, what I'd like to
do, Mr. Manager, is just to review very quickly -- please don't go anywhere, madam
director -- is that back three years ago -- and, Commissioner Gort, I'm sure you're well
aware of this -- when we were beginning the first process of Community Development
that I was involved in, we recognized a traditional under funding in the Little Haiti area.
And one of this things that we said we would do is we would set a side a small amount of
money -- I think it was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) a year for four
years, up to a million dollars ($1,000,000), until we got it, to create some economic
engine activities, primarily focused on things that would create jobs and expand
businesses. That was specifically the charge. As you know, one of the challenges in the
Community Development process is that we wind up giving money to Community Based
Organizations ahead of anything else. I mean, that's sort of the driving direction that
we've sort of done, and when money was set aside for Little Haiti, I weathered the
criticism from every Community Based Organization that wanted to money to come to
them, anything -- you know, without regard to anything else. We've set aside these
dollars, I think. We did expend one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), is that correct,
Ms. Warren?
Gwendolyn Warren (Director, Community Development): Yes, sir. It's, actually, two
hundred and twenty-five thousand for five years, and you have spent a hundred thousand
on two businesses.
Commissioner Teele: So, what I would like to do is to move to the management -- you
know, we talked about Economic Development being involved in this at one point, when
we had that other director, the Mayor's focus relating to these major projects you know, is
something I don't want to get into -- so, what I'd like to do is to move that we rescind the
previous resolutions directing the Manager to work with one department and to ask the
management to come forth in the next meeting, or as soon as available, with a team
approach, including an advisory committee of persons within the community -- affected
community -- that reside in the affected community or have businesses within the
affected community, to bring forth a program that we can be out on the street within 60
days to advertise and solicit for projects. Essentially, it's what we've already done. We
just sort of been collecting the dollars and looking at the project and now, what I'm
saying is, we need to ahead and move forward. And, so, I would so move.
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second?
41 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Teele: Gwen?
Ms. Warren: Yes, Commissioner. Would you like to have this on the Community
Development agenda for the 15th.
Commissioner Teele: I really would not, and I'll tell you why I'd like for the next
meeting. The problem with Community Development meetings is that they are driven by
Community Based Organizations. That's good. That meets federal guidelines, but that's
not always the best thing. What we've tried to do is take money for an area and say this is
not going to be driven based upon giving money to a CBO (Community Based
Organization) but it's going to be driven based upon need. If we wind up allowing the
CBO to get the money -- and I would think, you know, some of the projects like the
market place project -- I don't know how that works out. I don't want to get into an
organization. But the project itself has some merit, and it could create jobs. It would
meet the clear definition. There are a number of other projects over there. We all have
gone to that -- what is it -- farm over there, which I think would be a major tourist
attraction in Little Haiti, properly done. It has the potential of being the most significant
tourist attraction in the Little Haiti area, tourist and cultural and educational attraction.
So, there are a series of things, but what we're not going to ever do is, we're never going
to get around to those things if we give money to LBOs directly for everything, because
projects that are not politically connected never come to the top, and it's very important to
me that the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) process provide input, but the
process itself be managed by the Manager's departments that run these various things,
like Economic Development and Planning and the Community Development Department.
So, that would be my --
Vice Chairman Gort: If you recall -- I'm sorry, identify yourself.
Ms. Warren: Gwendolyn Warren, Director of Community Development.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. If you recall, the reason this was brought up by
Commissioner Teele is we had CBOs that work out very fine in some of the
neighborhoods, but in others they don't, and that's why we took this measure. Any other
further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
42 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-68
A MOTION TO RESCIND PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH ONE
DEPARTMENT RELATED TO THE LITTLE HAITI BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO COME BACK AT THE
NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, OR AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE, WITH A TEAM APPROACH (INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE OF PERSONS FROM THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITY), WHICH IS TO BE USED FOR JOB
CREATION, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, CODE
ENFORCEMENT GRANTS, AND OTHER ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS; FURTHER URGING THE
CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH OTHER AFFECTED
DEPARTMENTS REGARDING SAID MATTER.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
43 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 2? You've got any further items?
Commissioner Teele: No, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: I would move Item Number 2. I would assume that
-- let me do this. I want to move Item Number 2 relating to the sergeant
at arms. I think the Mayor should provide us some written memorandum
on something relating to the security position for the Mayor that he's
accepted. I will support anything that the Mayor would like to do in that
area, as long as it's within reason, and I would move it, the item of
sergeant at arms for purpose of discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Wait.
44 January 25, 2001
Mr. Vilarello: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Vilarello: This item is before you just as a report of the Manager's
recommendation. It would be a motion to --
Vice Chairman Gort: Accept.
Mr. Vilarello: -- approve the Manager's recommendation.
Commissioner Teele: Approve the -- as it relates to the sergeant at arms.
And the only...
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Commissioner Teele: And the only reason I'm not moving both is that I
don't -- I know how this -- I'm reading in the newspaper how certain
things begin to play out. I want to be very careful on anything relating to
the Office of the Mayor, that we get at least some communication from
the Mayor that this is something he supports. And I will support anything
that the Mayor supports, if it's reasonable, as relates to this area.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're reading Spanish now?
Commissioner Teele: I'm trying. (Inaudible) figure out I've got to learn
it.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: I have some questions. This sergeant at arms
position for the City Commission, is this paid by the budget of the Police
Department?
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Is the Mayor's security detail paid by the
45 January 25, 2001
budget of the Police Department?
Mr. Gimenez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: I have a memo here from the Manager, and I
think it's important that -- I'll just omit the names of the places, but there
are a lot of concerns by some residents in one area of District 4 about
several situations, and the Manager says, situation at so and so motel,
situation at so and so cafeteria, and the conclusion of the memo is "Upon
the approval of Commission to reallocate the surplus from your FY 2000
budget to the Police Department, the Police Department will be able to
further enhance the proactive enforcement activities in these areas." I'm
eager to get the Commission to approve the surplus of my office budget so
we can proceed with this situation, which, I tell you, is very serious in
those two places.
Commissioner Teele: I don't understand.
Commissioner Sanchez: What -- what...
Commissioner Teele: I don't understand.
Commissioner Sanchez: I'm sorry. What did...
Commissioner Regalado: And let me say why I'm saying this. Let me say
why I'm saying this. The Police Department is going to use this surplus
money in order to be more proactive, in order to have the ability to pay
overtime, and attack the situation in these two specific places. I don't
have any problem at all, at all, with the security of the Mayor. I don't
have any problem at all with having a sergeant at arms for the City
Commission. My only problem is that those positions are coming from
the Police Department's budget. It's -- when you have a budget of the
Police Department, that it's over a hundred and thirty million dollars
($130,000,000) or whatever, it's very easy to -- for the elected officials to
use security and have the Police Department pay -- because, I mean, it
doesn't show on the budget just a mere two hundred thousand dollars
($200,000), which is the security of the Mayor's costs every year. I would
request that the maker of the motion and that the Manager and the City
Commission -- I'm in full support of the security for the Mayor. I'm in
full support of the sergeant at arms. But the money paid to these
46 January 25, 2001
individuals has to be shown in the budget of the elected officials. Now, if
the Mayor wants three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) or two
hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) a year in security, he can have it, as
long as it shows on his budget, and he's just going to have to defend that
budget. Now his budget is nine hundred thousand dollars ($900,000),
right? I don't remember. So, what I'm saying is, if we want or need the
sergeant at arms, the cost of the sergeant at arms should show in the line
item of the City Commission, and we will have to defend that with the
public. But I remember this Mayor, when he was a member of this
Commission, saying to another Manager this thing of employees being
paid by other departments and being used in other departments has to
stop. This moving of employees to hide things has to stop. So, what I'm
saying to you, members of the Commission is that, please, let's make all
the costs of the security detail of the Mayor and the sergeant of arms of
the City Commission as part of the budget of the elected officials.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his input.
Look, there have been a series of studies undertaken -- and I commend the
Manager, the Chief of Police. I've reviewed these studies. There is a
sergeant at arms of the Congress, a sergeant at arms of the House of
Representatives. These are studies that have been undertaken. In
addition to the studies, there had been a series of telephone interviews,
starting with Dade County, Dade County sergeant at arms, and Police
Department, et cetera. Now, look, I have no political vendetta or issue
here at all. I think one of the things we've got to try to do is conduct
ourselves as legislators in a very responsible and a thoughtful manner. As
a result of certain incidents, particularly coming out of the Elian thing, I
asked the Chief of Police, through the Manager, to check with Dade
County and the appropriate identification and insignia that County
Commissioners have, which prevented one County Commissioners from
being arrested, to be very candid. Because the police said no. Hey, you
know -- when everybody starts grabbing everybody, they don't know who
is who and what's what, who's there on official duty or who's not there. I
asked that the Manager, some four months ago, provide the identical
identification so that these City Commissioners are afforded the same
level of recognition as any other elected official in this City. What we're
talking about now is not trying to do something that's outside of the norm.
What I want to do -- my intent is to bring the City of Miami, as a
government and as a Commission, as a Mayor and as a body, to the
standards that all -- most of the other progressive cities have done. In
47 January 25, 2001
that regard, security is always a part of the budget of the agency
providing it. It's not a part of an administrative budget. This is true all
over government. I am not -- with all due respect and with admiration to
my colleague -- prepared to do that based upon what a Mayor may have
said in the past about something. I agree -- and I think the anti -deficiency
clearly states -- that you cannot have people detailed for the purpose of
avoiding. And what this memorandum does is, it outlines exactly what's
going on. If you would like for the security aspects associated with the
Mayor or the Commission to be identified as a part of the Police budget
each year, I would have no objection to that. But to move the budget for
providing police or security, whether it be police or non -police to the
Mayor's office or any other office, I don't think is the right way to do it.
It's not consistent with the way it's been done, and I'm not -- I mean, my
issue here is just to do this the right way. We're going to talk about the
protocol office in a few minutes. There are ways to do things so that it's
done in a right way. And, so, my motion would not accept what the maker
-- my colleague is proposing, but it would amend my motion to further
state that the cost of security be divided or be segregated as a part of the
Police annual budget, as a subsection, both as it relates to legislators and
as it relates to executives or the Office of the Mayor, and I think that
meets within what you're trying to establish, and I have no objection to
that. But I would strongly resist trying to make it a part of the Mayor's
budget. And there are a series -- and I think the issue is a very good
issue, and I think we ought to further discuss it. But I just think it could
be viewed -- it's not consistent with the way it's done, and I just think it
could be viewed as being something that is done for the purpose of being
horrible. I would also further ask the seconder of the motion to allow me
to amend the motion to include both the Office of the Mayor and the
sergeant at arms because I'm advised that the Mayor is in support or has
no objections to this. So, I would -- before the motion was just the
sergeant at arms, and I would ask if you would -- you made the second.
Commissioner Regalado: No, I did second the motion.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: Tomas seconded it.
Commissioner Teele: I would ask that you would allow me to include the
office of the Mayor in the motion, as well.
48 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. And I don't have any problem. What I --
my point is that it's very easy to get away with -- I have a small budget. I
-- you know -- and then use the resources of other agencies who have to
take the brunt of yours and, for political reasons, you need to explain that
to the people. I mean, if we are able now to lower taxes to the people and
eliminate all the fees, we can have the luxury of having none -- I mean,
for all I care, the Mayor can have a lieutenant at arms, I mean, if he wants
to have more than us, but that's not the point. The point is that the people
of Miami should know and must know that so much money of the Police
Department is being used in security details for elected officials. I don't
have any problem at all defending that.
Commissioner Teele: And what I'm prepared to adjust the motion to do --
Commissioner Regalado: As long as -- Commissioner, as long...
Commissioner Teele: -- is to provide that notice.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.
Commissioner Teele: But it would not be a part of the Mayor's budget. It
would be a part of the specified...
Commissioner Regalado: As long that it's noted. As long that it's said on
a public hearing, during the budget process, that the Mayor is spending so
much money, that the City Commission is spending so much money.
Commissioner Teele: See, let me tell you where this thing is totally -- I
mean -- I understand what you're doing, but understand what I'm trying to
do. Right now there is at least one uniform officer, who's walking out the
door right now -- looking out the door, whose sole job it is, as a sergeant
at arms here, are to provide the functions that are associated with the
sergeant at arms. Every time there is a demonstration here and the
sergeant at arms, or whoever is designated, picks up the phone and says
"We need 30 units down here or 10 units down here," none of those
numbers are being charged to us. And I think, at some point, you know,
we're going to get on a slippery slope. There is a certain level of security
that goes with public office and for the security of the building, et cetera,
and I think, by designating those individuals, you get a clearer view as to
49 January 25, 2001
what that is. I'm more concerned -- after this passes or it's voted upon,
I'm more concerned with standards, and I think that's where you come in.
Because I think that there needs to be a specific standard that no person
will be involved in political activity. I mean, I want to basically have a
discussion with the Manager, as soon as this item is passed on. I don't
think these people should be attended fundraisers. And I think there are
certain things that need to be very clear. And we need to get an OK from
the Mayor -- I mean, the Manager and the Chief that there are going to be
some standards written up for these people because I think that's the real
issue, is the alleged abuse in the past.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. The seconder of the motion accepts the
amendment?
Commissioner Sanchez: You accept the amendment?
Commissioner Regalado: As long as it shows clearly that it's being used
for security of elected officials.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Commissioner Regalado: And it's divided on the Mayor's Office and the
City Commission.
Commissioner Teele: I said legislative versus executive.
Commissioner Sanchez: Executive.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Point of clarification, if I may.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: I was not here for the discussion, but I do have a
transcript and I read the transcript and caught up with it. Now, some of
the arguments made are very valid, and I think one of the concerns that
my colleagues have expressed is sergeant at arms attending fundraisers,
initiating petition drives that are not in the scope of their duties. So, one
question that I do have is, a sergeant at arms, does he have a job
description? Does he have a specific job description --?
50 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Yeah. It's right here.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- that guidelines exactly what he ought to do?
And I've seen this. And I have not seen the study either.
Commissioner Teele: It's a part of the legislative packet.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I have been out of town and extremely
busy.
Commissioner Teele: The Manager -- I mean, Sue Allan and these people
have done an excellent job. There is a benefit, the whole nine yards,
which we've never had in the past.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Now, we all agree on one thing, that the
Mayor is entitled to the executive security, whether you want to call it a
sergeant at arms and executive security, the Mayor's bodyguards,
whatever you want to call it. The other concern is where the budget is
coming from. Now, -- I want to attend on one thing. There is some talk
about providing sergeant at arms or executive security for both the Mayor
and the Commission; is that correct?
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: No, no, no. The Mayor does not get sergeant at
arms. The Mayor gets executive security. Sergeant at arms is the
function that is associated with the legislative body, and whether we
designate it or not or such, this gentleman serves right now --
Commissioner Sanchez: As a sergeant at arms.
Commissioner Teele: -- as sergeant at arms, OK. Fine officer. And we
always have that. And the fact of the matter is, a sergeant at arms should
be working -- there should be a designated sergeant at arms working with
the presiding officer, as in every legislative body. And that's what the
studies basically show.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you know, I don't quite agree with that,
and I'll tell you why I don't agree with it. One is, you know, we're going
51 January 25, 2001
to be -- there are five Commissioners here, and you're talking about two
police officers. So, if you want to say that there is an event that all five
Commissioners want to go to and you've got two police officers, which
we'll be taking two police officers off of the street to come here and be a
sergeant at arms -- he's doing his job right there. His job is for security
here at this City Hall. I, personally, don't need a sergeant at arms. I
could take care of myself. But it's an added expense to this Commission.
We're going to be talking officers off of the street to bring them in here to
be sergeant at arms at City Hall. I couldn't support that to start off with.
Now, if this Commission wishes to change the name from the Mayor
security to sergeant at arms to executive security, I could support that.
But I cannot support one is, depriving -- and no one here has -- but
depriving the Mayor of security or adding security for this Commission. I
read this. I went through it. A lot of the arguments -- Commissioner
Teele, you made some valid arguments. No sergeant at arms should have
the business of going to fundraisers, inappropriate. Your argument agent
legislative and executive, very good argument. But, you know, I think
that this falls under "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And it's just taking
time that we should be focused on other important matters to pertain to.
Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Call the question.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: I guess I don't -- I've got to ask a question
because I'm not sure I understand this. The two individuals that would be
-- and I think it says here "Two individuals for the legislative body for
sergeant at arms." Is that what it says?
Unidentified Speaker: Two and two.
Commissioner Winton: Two individuals. And are those two individuals
existing individuals that are already, in essence, perform the function or
we're really adding new costs to the City?
Vice Chairman Gort: You're adding new costs. You're adding new costs.
Mr. Gimenez: You would be adding an additional two to our two that
provide the service for the Mayor. So, you would add two...
52 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: So, we're not really adding...
Mr. Gimenez: Two Commissioners for the sergeant at arms (inaudible).
Commissioner Sanchez: So, you're adding four positions?
Mr. Gimenez: No.
Commissioner Winton: No. The Mayor already has two. So, we're
adding -- and that...
Commissioner Sanchez: Right. So you're adding two positions to this
Commission?
Commissioner Winton: Right.
Commissioner Sanchez: Where is that money going to come from? Who's
budget, my budget, Commissioner Teele's...
Mr. Gimenez: (inaudible).
Commissioner Winton: Yeah. And I guess that's where I was coming
from also. I'm -- you know, I understand Commissioner Teele and
appreciate Commissioner Teele's point about the sergeant at arms and I
think, during Commission meetings, we certainly need a sergeant at arms
to do the kinds of things that you've described. What I'm nervous about,
however, is extending the duties of this person because I, too, I don't need
a policeman with me anywhere I ever go and, so, I'm...
Commissioner Teele: I think the debate is a little bit colored by perhaps
some of the -- the lack of discussion on this item. First of all, the
Commission includes our committees. A sergeant at arms should always
be available and present for Zoning Board meetings, for all meetings. I
mean there is a professional manner in which major board meetings take
place. Part of the problem I perceive with the City, that we get into all
the time, anytime there is a debate here, is that we look like what has
been described to me throughout the holiday seasons, as I've talked to
people in the aftermath of the discussion of the INS (Immigration and
Naturalization Services) issues. We need to establish a more dignified
53 January 25, 2001
and more professional presence. The only way you're going to do that is
at least with a dedicated sergeant at arms, who preferably is not in
uniform, who is here all the time. And the reason that the County
Commission is so appropriate -- when these people get up -- where is your
man? He's gone. When they get up, there is eye contact. Everybody
knows what the rules are and that's why it doesn't get out of control over
there. The fact that two people are being recommended slipped past me,
but the fact of the matter is is that a sergeant at arms is a necessity for a
legislative office. This notion of security is something that is being taken
totally out of context. First of all, the County has two or three sergeant at
arms. And it's not about -- it's not at all about who's going to places with
people. That's what people perceive. But the fact of the matter is, is the
first time you have a situation involving elected officials -- and I respect
the fact, Commissioner Sanchez, that you are a sworn police officer, and
you have police training, but the first time you get into an embarrassing
situation with a Commissioner, such as the things that they normally
would coordinate would be, things like the various parades, and that,
that's where we're missing. When the Martin Luther King Parade, for
example, those parades are coordinated more so by the Dade County
sergeant at arms than by the people running around coming before us,
even though it's in the City. Because they work with the community on
those things that Commissioners are going to be involved in. And, so, the
only thing that I would ask is that we look at this for one year. We
designate a sergeant at arms. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't. But the
fact is, a sergeant at arms is not a uniformed person or should not be, in
most cases, and it's a person who works and interfaces on behalf of the
legislative body, with community based organizations, and activities that
are going on in that. We are denying -- and this is particularly true in the
African-American community. We're denying the kind of infrastructure
and items that develop -- that come to us. I'm thinking now of the festival
-- Roots Festival, OK, which is a big thing in the Haitian community. A
lot of back and forth. A lot of name-calling and all of that. That would
never have happened if the Haitian -American community had had access
to a sergeant at arms that could help them in their interactions with the
Police Department. And, so, we're not -- I mean, I respect what
Commissioner Sanchez is saying, but it's more than -- it is -- the function
of going somewhere with somebody is not really the issue. The issue is
smoothing the way, working with these community-based organizations,
particularly in the interface. It is an extension of the legislative branch
and our role as legislative officers in how we carry out our duty. And I
54 January 25, 2001
can tell you this. In the African-American community, there is a real lack
of -- particularly, in the Haitian community and other communities -- of
understanding of how to interface with. I think everybody knows the
name -- I won't call his name, but there is one person who runs the Martin
Luther King Committee. He's a sergeant at arms for the Dade County.
Because they have that support from the legislators to work through all of
those things. If you talk to our City Police Department, it's a Dade
County sergeant at arms that's making a lot of those coordinations. That
is the role of sergeant at arms over and above in the meetings and in the
committee meetings, and I think it's very important that the Zoning Board
and these other boards have that. They are an extension of us, and we
shouldn't think of this as individuals in that regard. And, so, I would ask
that the word "two" be changed to "up to", with the understanding that it's
one or a sergeant at arms, and I would ask your support for this until we
can see how this works out.
Commissioner Winton: So, you're going to change it to one sergeant at
arms, not two?
Vice Chairman Gort: Further discussion.
Commissioner Teele: Yes. Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: What we're saying is...
Commissioner Winton: And it will have a sunset period, which would be
the end of this fiscal year?
Commissioner Teele: It would come back at this end of this fiscal year,
yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: Now, my understanding what we're trying to do --
and I've had complaints with some of the board members that, at night,
when they come out and sometimes their meetings finish very late at light,
it's dark outside, there is nobody really outside to protect them, and, so,
what we're saying is, this individual will be here at all times, during our
meetings and to be here during the meetings of the Zoning and Planning
boards and all those other boards that finish late.
Commissioner Teele: And work closely with the chair, as directed.
55 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Commissioner Teele: But let me tell you. You make a good point. The
sergeant at arms is the person who walks the ladies out and, in Dade
County; they have to walk across the street. I mean, you don't want to get
into -- because it's sort of like making bacon -- I mean, sausage. It looks
a little petty and messy, but the fact of the matter is that I really do think
that we have got to move this Commission and this City into another level
of professionalism. I really do.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Regalado: On the motion --
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: -- we'll say that the budget will be segregated --
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: -- publicly. OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, we're going to have one sergeant at arms for
this Commission that would attend all meetings?
Vice Chairman Gort: The board meetings, the Planning, the Zoning, and
all those meetings that finish late at night.
Commissioner Sanchez: Don't sometimes we have one meeting here and
one meeting over at Bayfront Park, one meeting over at the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency), maybe other meetings at the same
time?
Vice Chairman Gort: That was not my understanding. My understanding
is...
56 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: City Hall meetings.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is it only going to be specifically for City Hall?
Commissioner Teele: No. It's wherever the sergeant -- it's wherever the
Chairman designates, if there is a question. But the fact of the matter is,
they are not your personal...
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Teele, I made that very clear.
Commissioner Teele: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's nobody's personal sergeant at arms.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: My thing is that it is an additional expense for
the City. I don't see it working because there's only going to be one
person -- two persons. I don't see it -- that's only my opinion.
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner, would you believe -- but would you
believe that they don't have 160 sergeant at arms in the State House of
Representatives? They have more like five or seven; that they don't have
13 sergeant at arms in Dade County. They have two or three -- three.
That they don't have 40 in the Senate. I mean this is not an individual...
Commissioner Sanchez: I understand that.
Commissioner Teele: We've got to get past this notion that everybody's
got to get the same thing that everybody else has. These functions...
Commissioner Sanchez: That is not my intent. That is not my intent. The
thing that I'm saying is, if we're going to have security, I'd rather have a
police officer. And if you need a police officer at any meeting, just call
the Chief or direct the City Manager that the police officer will be needed
at this meeting and that meeting, and I'm sure they would coordinate it
and send one police out to that meeting. Why create a position?
Commissioner Regalado: But, Joe, this position is not about security for
57 January 25, 2001
the Commissioners.
Commissioner Teele: That's what he doesn't understand.
Commissioner Regalado: It's more of expediter of things. For instance,
if...
Commissioner Teele: A forum.
Commissioner Regalado: If there is a parade, this person will coordinate
with the parade organizer. Where you're going to be. He's not going to
go with you or me. We don't need -- I don't need any police officers to go
around. I mean -- but I think -- you know -- but my only thing is that if
the people in Miami are going to pay for it, it should come and it should
show as a legislative aid, as a security for a Mayor. And that's all that
there is to it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? My understanding is -- and
I understand what you're saying, Joe. I personally would not be asking
for a sergeant at arms to accompany me anywhere, but we do have -- need
someone that is here that can take care of the Zoning Board and the other
boards that come out late at night. And I've heard complaints from people
coming out late at night out of this meeting here. And if any one of the
individuals here would like to have -- because of the special function of a
sergeant at arms, they could request for it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Does the maker of the motion accept the -- what
is it, a one year sunset clause?
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what he said.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, I accept a one-year set.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. We'll give it a try.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
58 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-69
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITY MANAGER'S
RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH ONE SERGEANT -AT -
ARMS CLASSIFICATION (REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
POSITIONS TO ONE FOR THE CITY COMMISSION) AND
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MAYOR
(ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS AT TWO);
FURTHER STATING THAT THE COST FOR BOTH
POSITIONS (LEGISLATIVE SERGEANT -AT -ARMS FOR THE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE COMMISSION, OUR
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AND
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FOR THE MAYOR, OUR
EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT) SHALL BE
SEGREGATED WITHIN THE MIAMI POLICE
DEPARTMENTS BUDGET; FURTHER ESTABLISHING A
ONE YEAR SUNSET REVIEW PROVISION; FURTHER
STIPULATING THAT THE SERGEANT -AT -ARMS POSITION,
AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR LEGISLATIVE BODY, SHALL
WORK WITH THE CHAIRMAN, AS DIRECTED; AND
FURTHER STIPULATING THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN
SAID POSITIONS SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS FUND RAISERS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
59 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I really have to leave
now. But I would like to discuss the Protocol Office.
Vice Chairman Gort: We'll bring it back afterwards.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.
60 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I really have to leave now, but I would
like to discuss the protocol office...
Vice Chairman Gort: We'll bring it back afterwards.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado left the Commission chambers at 11:50
Vice Chairman Gort: Let's go to Item 3
Commissioner Sanchez: Item 3, Mr. Chairman, we have made a significant improvement
in this City, in putting the City back on track. It's been through better management. It's
been through creative legislative laws, such as the anti -deficiency put forth by
Commissioner Teele and supported by this Commission, and I just want to extend it
beyond just the City itself, and extend it out to the other -- not to limit agencies
authorizing -- trusts, authorities, trusts, boards and, therefore, I move this...
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Which is the -- to apply the anti -deficiency to them, too.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Being none,
all in favor state by...
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): It's an ordinance of the Miami City Commission...
Vice Chairman Gort: It's an ordinance. Read it.
61 January 25, 2001
Note for the Record: The City Attorney read the pending ordinance into the public
record by title only.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTER 18 /ARTICLE IX, DIVISION 1 OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "FINANCE/
FINANCIAL POLICIES/ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT REGULATIONS
TO ALL ENTITIES FUNDED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE CITY
OF MIAMI, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO AGENCIES,
AUTHORITIES, TRUSTS, BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, EXCEPT
FOR THE THREE CITY OF MIAMI RETIREMENT TRUSTS; MORE
PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 18-500 THROUGH 18-
502 OF SAID CODE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT
A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS
DESIGNATED HEREIN; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION
AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Teele: May I just make two inquiries and request, at least, one for change.
On the internal -- the external auditors engaged by these individual agencies, it says they
shall each present the agency's comprehensive annual report. Who are they going to
present that to, and can we clarify that? Can that be presented to the City Manager?
Mr. Vilarello: Most of those...
Commissioner Teele: On page 9 of 10, the underlined portion. The new language.
Because what we're doing now is, we're asking, as I understand it, the external auditors of
these various agencies that are enumerated, that their external auditors make a copy of the
report to us, and I don't have a problem with that. I just think we need to specify who
that report is going to.
62 January 25, 2001
Mr. Vilarello: Commissioner, each of those agencies don't -- do not report to the City
Manager. So, we certainly can ask that those...
Commissioner Teele: Who are you asking that they make the report to?
Mr. Vilarello: To the City Commission. Now, you can ask that the Manager review
those reports, but ultimately...
Commissioner Teele: If your language would be to the City Commission, I have no
objection to it if that's what the maker of the ordinance intended. I just think it ought to
be designated who they are making their report to.
Commissioner Sanchez: Specifically?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah. And you're saying, Mr. Attorney would be to the
Commission?
Mr. Vilarello: It would be to the Commission.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So, I don't have a problem with that, amending it, shall
present to the City Commission the annual report. And then the other one is, the City
Manager is going to present the executive directors of all agencies -- on page 8 of 10 --
shall present monthly, except a written report on the status -- at a City Commission
meeting. I think that's should be changed to quarterly. We don't mean to have these
agencies coming in here every month with that. I think, if you could change that monthly
to quarterly, I think it would mean -- or even semi-annually. I think it would be...
Commissioner Sanchez: Quarterly would be accepted.
Commissioner Teele: Quarterly, as opposed to monthly, is acceptable to the author?
Commissioner Sanchez: Maker of the motion.
Commissioner Teele: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Additional, I would like for the Law Department to sit down with
the executive directors of all these organizations and go over and make sure they
understand what's going to be required of them. OK? I think it's very important that they
understand. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor...
Commissioner Teele: What's the effective date of this? This is going to have to have a
roll call. What's the effective date of this ordinance?
Commissioner Sanchez: Thirty days from second reading.
Mr. Vilarello: Thirty days after final adoption by the City Commission.
63 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: This is first reading.
Commissioner Teele: We can...
Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. This is first reading.
Commissioner Teele: This is first reading? I would like for the maker of the motion to
consider making the effective date, you know, like July 1 or something. We need to have
training. We need to let people know. We can't just start rolling these requirements on
people and not give them enough notice to do it. So, we can do it on second reading, but
I think we ought to look at giving a training time and lead time, letting the internal
auditor work with them, the City Attorney, et cetera, but whatever you want, Mr. Author
of this, I'd have to object to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, you suggest what?
Commissioner Teele: I would suggest July 1 or June 30`h, which gives them, literally,
about 180 days to get in compliance -- the forms and all of that. You want to get some
format on how this information is coming. You don't want to -- you don't want
everybody submitting reports and helter skelter. You want to give them a format and
dah, dah, dah, dah. But we can do that later on. I mean, we don't have to do that now.
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's go ahead and do it on the second reading.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Commissioner Sanchez: Let's do it on the second reading.
Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call.
Commissioner Sanchez: Roll call.
64 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 4 is a plat.
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Mr. Jackson, in compliance
with all the requirements from the City?
John Jackson (Acting Director, Public Works): Yes, it has.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH
ATTACHMENTS, ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED OLYMPIA
PARK REPLAT, A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI,
SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE PLAT AND
STREET COMMITTEE, AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS
SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF SAID PLAT IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
65 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
66 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 5.
Commissioner Teele: On a plat item. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Manager
prepare a pocket item for me on this land transfer from the CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) to the City because, apparently, when we requested it, we
needed some other folio numbers and it's just a scrivener's error, but if we could just get
that later on this afternoon, I'd be grateful.
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): You have a question?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah.
67 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 5. Authorizing the -- Mr. Attorney.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): This is a continuing representation of the City and
the matter of..
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW
FIRM OF AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON, P.A. FOR
REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$20,000, IN THE MATTER OF DONALD H. WARSHAW V. THE
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, IN THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 00-11244 CA 04; ALLOCATING
FUNDS THEREFOR, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000,
PLUS COSTS AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, FROM
THE SELF-INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND,
ACCOUNT CODE NO. 515001.624401.6.661, FOR SAID SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
68 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
69 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 6, authorizing the payment of legal service.
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second.
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Just for the record, the request by the City
Commission was agreed to by counsel and it will provide for a credit against the Deloitte
& Touche litigation, should they be successful.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW
FIRM OF TEW, CARDENAS, REBAK, KELLOGG, LEHMAN,
DEMARIA AND TAGUE, L.L.P., FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED
TO THE CITY OF MIAMI IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF MIAMI
BOND OFFERINGS, A-1581, AN INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO
A FORMAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION; ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS THEREFOR,
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000, FROM THE SELF-
INSURANCE AND INSURANCE TRUST FUND, ACCOUNT CODE
NO. 515001.624401.6.661, FOR SAID SERVICES.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
70 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
71 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Six -A, authorizing lease of (inaudible) desktop.
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any discussion? Being none, all in
favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT (S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5 THS) AFFIRMATIVE
VOTE, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY
MANAGER'S EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH EVARE, LLC.,
FOR THE LEASING OF AN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION SOFTWARE SYSTEM FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3)
YEARS, AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $11,300;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND PROJECT NO.
001000.260301.340 FOR SAID SYSTEM.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
72 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
73 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 7.
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's a confirmation of -- it's been moved and second. All in favor
state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL AS A
MEMBER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND
SANITATION EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST TO SERVE A
TERM OF OFFICE AS HEREIN SPECIFIED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
74 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 8.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
Commissioner Winton: Pulled.
Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): That item has been pulled.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been pulled. Item 9. This is the -- for the Ericcson Open Tennis
Tournament to use the parking lot at the Marine Stadium on Virginia Key. Do I have a
motion?
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman. One question and discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Second? Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
Commissioner Teele: Are we a co-sponsor of the Lipton -- the Ericcson?
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Ms. Laura Billberry (Director, Asset Management): No.
Vice Chairman Gort: No.
Commissioner Teele: Well, Mr. Manager, I would hope that, if you think it's appropriate,
that we would look at being a co-sponsor of that, if it's -- you think it's appropriate, but
the one thing I would ask is that you would give us a report, within the next 60 days, on
the co-sponsorship of the Orange Bowl Parade. Because, apparently, we're not -- I mean,
I thought we were and -- I mean, there is a whole series of things and we need to just sort
of sort that out, but I think we're missing an opportunity to sell the City by not being co -
75 January 25, 2001
sponsors and asking that, as a part of the co-sponsorship, you know, we get naming rights
and all those kind of things, where it's appropriate.
Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir, I'll look into it.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by
saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING
THE REQUEST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (THE "COUNTY") TO
USE A PORTION OF VIRGINIA KEY PARK (THE "PICNIC AREA"),
AND A PORTION OF THE MIAMI MARINE STADIUM PARKING
LOT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3601 RICKENBACKER
CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS TEMPORARY PARKING FOR
THE ERICCSON OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT, TO BE HELD
MARCH 21 THROUGH APRIL 1, 2001, AT CRANDON PARK, KEY
BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CITY'S
CONTINUED USE OF THE STABLES AT TROPICAL PARK;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, IN A
FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID
PURPOSE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
76 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Back at three.
THEREUPON, THE CITY COMMISSION WENT INTO RECESS AT A.11: 59 A.M. AND
RECONVENED AT 3:19 P.M., WITH ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION,
EXCEPT COMMISSIONER TEELE, FOUND TO BE PRESENT.
77 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Only one item left from this morning. I'll wait until Commissioner
Teele and Commissioner Sanchez gets here, so we can get on it.
Commissioner Sanchez: The only item remaining on the regular agenda is 2-A. So why
don't we go ahead and start that? You're the Vice Chairman. Go ahead.
Vice Chairman Gort: The one item that's left from this morning is the protocol. Mr.
Manager.
Linda Haskins: I'm Linda Haskins, Director of Management and Budget. This item is
the ordinance that was requested by the City Commission at the last meeting, to transfer
the protocol budget from the Office of the Mayor to the Office of the City Manager.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. The one thing that I'd like to do -- and I don't know if it's
established in the past -- but I think the office of the protocol should have certain
standards, and I've stated, since I came in here, if we set up the standards, everybody
knows what the rules are and we don't have to play with it. I believe we should check
with other municipalities and other cities, and what are the standards to do the -- for
example, who do we give keys to? Who do we give commendations to? Who do we
give proclamations? And I think that's something you should all come back to us. We
have in — I apologize that I don't have it in front of me. I have the PZ items in front of
me. Is there any specific ordinance that was -- or the ordinance just requesting the
change of funding? What's in front of us today?
Ms. Haskins: The ordinance that's in here and that was requested the Commission in the
last meeting, to prepare an ordinance to transfer the budget. However, we can put
together standards, if you would like, and bring it back.
Vice Chairman Gort: And this will require two readings. This will be the first reading.
There will be a second reading next month.
Ms. Haskins: This is brought as an emergency ordinance.
Vice Chairman Gort: I beg your pardon?
Ms. Haskins: It was brought as an emergency ordinance.
78 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: As an emergency ordinance. OK. Commissioners.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Teele entered the chambers at 3:22 p.m.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: I voted in favor of this at the last meeting and, since then, I
wanted to think about what we did and I've been thinking that, taking the Mayor out of
the picture completely -- because this is really about public policy, as we move forward
and, in my view, it shouldn't be about the Mayor. It should be about the Office of the
Mayor. And as I got to thinking about protocol, it seems to me to be so much more
meaningful if, when we're giving proclamations and these different kind of awards that
we give and all those things, it makes a huge difference if you've got the name and the
Mayor on the thing, and, so, I'm not so sure that, you know, while, in the heat of the
moment the last time, you know, we were all not thrilled by the process that we were told
we had to go through, I'm not sure that we did really the right thing. I'm not sure that the
Office of Protocol shouldn't remain with the Mayor, and what we should do is what
you're suggesting, Commissioner Gort, and that is to work with the Mayor's Office to set
up a specific set of procedures and processes that we all can understand and follow, and
continue to get the things that we need out of the Mayor's Office.
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner, my understanding is, at no time did we want to
eliminate the Mayor's signature. On the contrary, and one of this reasons I'm asking to set
a standard is because what I'd like to see, any proclamation coming out of this City, it
should have the signature of all the elected officials. It should have the signature of the
Mayor and should have the signature of all of us. And I understand sometimes it's very
complicated to get all of those signatures, but we all have -- what do you call them?
Those...
Commissioner Winton: Well, we're all here for Commission meetings.
Vice Chairman Gort: We're here for Commission meetings, but, at the same time, we
have -- our office where they can sign on our behalf, and that's why I'm asking or
requesting. And I think we, as a legislative, like Commissioner Teele stated before, arm
of the City, should set up the standards, who we should give keys to, who do we give
proclamations to, who do we give the difference -- all the reasons we have from protocol
office, so -- at no time I don't think it was the feeling of this Commission to eliminate any
one signature. On the contrary, I personally would like to see everyone -- every
proclamation that comes out of this City of Miami be signed by all of us, all the elected
officials. Anyone else?
79 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: What time is the zoning items noticed for?
Vice Chairman Gort: Any time after three.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, let me say this. Unfortunately, we really should
have been in a workshop environment to discuss this. This is, to me, the kind of thing
that lowers the public's confidence in the seriousness of an agent -- of a government, and
things get said in the heat of passion that, quite frankly, will do none of us good. The
whole discussion is one, quite candidly, that I wish we would not have to have, but I
think it's very, very important that it be held, but I would really hope that we could defer
this item, take up the items of the public, the zoning items --
Vice Chairman Gort: I don't have any problem.
Commissioner Teele: -- and then do that. But I just want to say one thing to my
colleague, Commissioner Winton. I note the presence of a former manager here at the
County, and I was very privileged to work with him as a Commissioner. Having protocol
under the Manager in no way, in no way is designed to eliminate signatures or reduce
signatures. I respectfully don't concur with the colleague -- the statement of my
colleague, Commissioner Gort, that all signatures need to be -- I do think -- on
proclamations -- the Mayor's signature should be, along with any other signatures that are
requested. But I think, before we get fully into this, we ought to all talk about what we're
doing before we start -- and we ought to take care of the public business, but this has
reached a point that it is public business because I'm going to say right here on the record,
when people in any district can't get proclamations, to me it's just like somebody not
being able to get their vote counted. I mean, this is one City, and I feel very strongly
about this. I mean, I cannot communicate to you how strongly I feel about this, because
it really gets down to the essence of fairness and equality in government and I have
confidence that there can be a solution that we can all agree on and discuss.
Commissioner Sanchez: Move to defer.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Commissioner Regalado: Before you do, Mr. Manager, maybe you can just -- when we
convene for this item, explain to me, in -- in one of the paragraphs it says, "This budget
transfer will not affect the employee count for either the Mayor's Office or the Office of
the City Manager."
80 January 25, 2001
Mr. Carlos Gimenez (City Manager): Yes, sir. There are (inaudible) employees that are
taking funds out of what's called Protocol line item of the Mayor's Office, so there
(inaudible) and, frankly, there is not enough for me to hire somebody in protocol for the
Manager's Office, so I don't intend on adding anybody if it transfers over and it doesn't
affect the Mayor in terms of his body count because nobody is being funded for that
account.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. There is a motion to defer the item for later on.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by
saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-76
A MOTION TO TEMPORARILY DEFER CONSIDERATION
OF AGENDA ITEM 2-A (PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE FOR FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADJUSTING SAID APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO
OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS OF
THE OFFICE OF PROTOCOL AND CERTAIN CITY
DEPARTMENTS).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
81 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. First, we have to defer this -- what's the transaction now?
What's the motion you need?
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Let's recess the...
Vice Chairman Gort: Let's recess the meeting and open up the PZ (Planning and Zoning).
Note for the Record: At this point, the City Commission temporarily tables consideration of
regular portion of the agenda in order to consider items from the Planning and Zoning portion of
the agenda.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is there are some applicants that would like to
ask for a deferral or continuance. Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Tucker Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs and I'm here on Item Number PZ -15,
representing Benedict Keuhne, Lynn Kislak, Irwin Gars, Diane Gars, and Brenton and
Anthea VerPloeg. This is an appeal from the Heritage Preservation Board. We're asking
for a deferral for 90 days, and opposing counsel has agreed to it. Unfortunately, he
cannot be here, but has provided me and I've provided the City Attorney a letter
concurring with that deferral request. We're trying to settle this.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So, you'd like to defer this for 90 days?
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any discussion?
Commissioner Sanchez: None.
Vice Chairman Gort: Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
82 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-77
A MOTION GRANTING REQUEST OF BOTH APPLICANT AND
APPELLANT TO DEFER FOR 90 DAYS CONSIDERATION OF
AGENDA ITEM PZ -15 (APPEAL OF A HISTORIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD DECISION WHICH
APPROVED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR TREE
REMOVAL AND RELOCATION FOR INSTALLATION OF PLAYING
FIELDS AT APPROXIMATELY 2015 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE).
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
83 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? OK, PZ -1.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): Mr. Chairman, the administration
would also like to continue PZ -13.
Vice Chairman Gort: To a date certain?
Ms. Gelabert- Sanchez: To February 22nd
Vice Chairman Gort: For when? Oh, by the way, I have a problem on the meeting of
February the 8th. I'd like to change that meeting.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Have we noticed that?
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm going to be out of town. I've never missed a meeting, and I
don't want to miss any meetings.
Mr. Maxwell: Has notice gone out?
Vice Chairman Gort: Can you guys check your...
Commissioner Sanchez: Isn't the 8th when we have the special CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant) meeting?
Commissioner Winton: No.
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: February 15th
Vice Chairman Gort: No, it's the 15th
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: February 8th is a regular City Commission meeting.
Vice Chairman Gort: We need to change that date, so will you all please look at your
calendars. We'll look at it later. OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Willy, do -- can we do two in a week, the special CDBG and...
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, we can. We could probably put it all together for the 22"d
84 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: I don't know.
Vice Chairman Gort: But -- no, we have meetings on the 22nd. So we can combine the
two meetings, the 8th and the 22nd. OK? Think about it and we'll come back on that. So,
you want to continue...
Commissioner Sanchez: All right.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): So PZ -13 to February the 22nd.
Vice Chairman Gort: February 22nd. Do I have a motion?
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Both parties agree?
Vice Chairman Gort: Any discussion? Being none, all in favor state it by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
85 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-78
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM
PZ -13 (PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE TO AMEND
ZONING ORDINANCE 11000 TO ALLOW THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR TO PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE RELEASES
OF COVENANTS AND UNITY OF TITLE PROVISIONS) TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR
FEBRUARY 22, 2001.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
86 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Any other item? PZ -1.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): For the record, Lourdes
Slazyk, Department of Planning...
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Before you continue, I always forget this.
We need to -- anyone that's going to testify, to please stand and be sworn in. Anyone that
wish to testify on any one item, please stand up to be sworn in.
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER
CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON
ZONING ISSUES.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, Lourdes.
Ms. Slazyk: Thank you. For the record, Lourdes Slazyk, Department of Planning and
Zoning. Item PZ -1 is an approval of the development standards, and the Santa Clara
Metrorail Station Joint Development Project for consistency with the standards in order
to allow a residential tower, with 208 residential units and 294 parking spaces. The
department reviewed the project, with -- along with the Santa Clara Metrorail Station,
SADD (Station Area Design and Development) and found the project to be consistent
with the amended plan for the Santa Clara Station. The reason I say that is the original
Santa Clara, SADD from the late 70s, actually called out for industry and commercial
shall uses with no residential at this station, but that was over 20 some years ago.
Conditions changed and amended plan was produced by the County, which is what the
project is now consistent with. The project has 208 units on a parcel of approximately
3.66 acres. It's well designed and it shows innovative design in the balconies and that
sort of thing for a project of this nature on the station site. We also found, in reviewing
the project, that it will provide affordable housing close to large employment areas of the
City. It's near the Jackson complex and the industry section. The only recommendation
we're making, in addition to the project, as presented, was that we would add a
suggestion that additional landscape be provided. The landscape plan, as provided, is not
consistent with what the City would have required under our own permitting procedures.
So we would ask that that be enhanced.
Vice Chairman Gort: So, your request is that additional landscaping be presented to you
and subject to your approval?
Ms. Slazyk: Right.
87 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Winton: What are the surrounding land uses adjacent to...
Vice Chairman Gort: Right next to the produce market.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. To the north, it's industrial. To the south, it's the Jackson complex.
There is other residential to the south and west of this area, but it is on -- located on 20th
Street, so it's on a, you know, major corridor, with direct access to the station and within
walking distance of employment areas.
Vice Chairman Gort: If you all recall, originally, the rapid transit was planned -- part of
the transaction was that, at every, stop there would be housing in order for people to go
ahead and use the public facilities, and, unfortunately, that did not take place and now the
County...
Ms. Slazyk: This one will provide housing there. And they do have additional parking as
part of the -- working with Metro -- Miami -Dade County, they provided additional
parking for the transit usership, in addition to the residential component of the project.
So, there is public parking and residential parking.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Is the applicants here to make a presentation?
Joaquin Avino: Good afternoon. Joaquin Avino, Strategic Santa Clara, one of the
partners involved in the application. As Ms. Slazyk stated, the application is for
approval, so I that we could continue on and take the item before the County Commission
for approval of the same. The application is for 208 apartment units. The project is
designed to accommodate, not only this, but to provide additional surface parking for the
use of the Metrorail patrons. We felt that the location of the Santa Clara Station was
perfect, as it related to providing affordable housing immediately next to a major
employment center, like the Jackson complex, and, as such, we look forward to working
with the City in making this project a reality.
Commissioner Winton: And you're committed to doing the extra landscaping?
Mr. Avino: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Winton: Great. Absolutely move the item.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Anyone else would like to speak on this item? Anyone else
would like to address this item?
88 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Opposition?
Mariano Cruz: (Inaudible) of the Commission.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's in what, alignment?
Mr. Cruz: Most of you don't know exactly what's going on in the City.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Your comments have to -- I'm sorry.
Vice Chairman Gort: You have to...
Mr. Maxwell: Comments have to be on the record.
Commissioner Winton: We don't? So, you're going to enlighten us? Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: Comments have to be on the record. Just a point of information for you
on this item, Mr. Chairman. As you may recall, this item is a little different from other
items you had. On a Station Area Development Plan like this one, the authority that the
Commission has is to either approve or deny, but you cannot modify. It then goes to the
County at that point.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, no one has modified it in any way.
Mr. Maxwell: Oh, I'm just --just so --for the record.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. As you can see 26th Street, it puts
me right in the middle of Santa Clara and Allapattah that's why I received both notices.
Santa Clara and the Allapattah Station. Since the County use a wider circle than the
Department of Planning of Miami and Zoning. I am going to start (inaudible). About
what the City--- look at what the notice say here. Consideration of this item is
predicated upon approval of the Master Plan Development standards by the Miami City
Commission. You know what it is? B.S. Because that doesn't mean anything. Why?
Because you look at here and you know they already putting the bids out and the moneys
for the Allapattah Garden Apartments on 36t1, Street, which was denied by this
Commission on February 2000, as you recall. I came here with Allapattah Homeowners
Association. It's here. I got it right there. In your package at the end. I make a point of
preparing myself to come. (Inaudible) maybe 200, 300 documents, but I give the main
thing. I don't have time to read everything, but I check the main thing. Going by the
89 January 25, 2001
(inaudible) I know my wife told me you're going to lose. I know I lose my time. The
deal is done. This is -- (inaudible) complete. It's done already. But I want to inform that
they are not stupid people living there because even one of the members of the Planning
Board say, "Oh, you know why you're not? Because none of you read The Herald. I was
there. You were there, Lourdes. Did he say that, that nobody there read The Miami
Herald? That was the reason we didn't know anything. You know, that's -- and the
County have everything and, you know, the County goes for affordable housing and the
County has stopped affordable homeownership in that plaza for two years now. They
have stopped that because nothing is being done. You know, I go by 17`h Avenue
everyday in the morning. Everyday I go there. You don't limit the lawyers here, so I am
coming as the act of right.
Vice Chairman Gort: (Inaudible) give you your time.
Mr. Cruz: OK. It cost me a lot of money to be here today.
Vice Chairman Gort: I don't want you to call me later and tell me that I don't give you
enough time.
Mr. Cruz: About twenty dollars ($20) in copies, in Kinkos (inaudible), OK. Now, you
come here and you read all this and look at they say. Applicant, Dade Transit Agency.
What they get in the neighborhood? Oh, good. They (inaudible) to do something for the
(inaudible). No. Look who is behind there. Santa Clara Apartments. Who owns Santa
Clara Apartment Limited Partnership? Who are (inaudible)? (Inaudible) group. Jorge
Perez, the (unintelligible) at the time was Dena Bianchino (inaudible) 28.33 percent. The
Carlisle Group, Rosy (phonetic) Gonzalez, 28.33 percent. United Santa Clara with
notorious Silvio Cardoso, 28.33 percent. And Strategic Santa Clara, minority, 15.01
percent, with Joaquin Avino P.E., right? It's P.E., right? Professional engineer, right.
And you coming out here and you look all this, they don't say everything. And you look
at the -- look at -- and you know where I get all this information? From the Miami Times.
That doesn't come in the Nuevo Herald or (inaudible) because they are about giving to
Allapattah Gardens from SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) moneys in fund,
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($750,000) already. So, what happened to your
decision about not allowing Allapattah Garden Apartments at the Allapattah Station?
Nothing. The County could care less. That Development Impact Committee or
(inaudible), you know who they (inaudible). All of them, Merritt Steirheim, Artie
(phonetic) Fernandez, (inaudible) Rivera (phonetic). All of them County employees
there. There was nobody from the neighborhood. And then what I don't like is the
"arrogancy" of doing something in Allapattah and don't come. They won't dare do this in
Coconut Grove, Brickell and not telling the Roads Association or anybody what's going
on. How come you don't tell us? How come three years in the making nobody came to
me? I got the letter because they mail me, OK. Because I get this in the mail. Then, I
went doing things and I'm going to start -- I know I'm not going to stop anything, but I'm
going to have my time. Jorge Perez. You've got space here about him, too. You know
where Jorge Perez got his millions? In Allapattah Affordable Housing, Civic Towers
there. We help him. Well, you know, he never came back there to even bring a turkey to
90 January 25, 2001
the old people. How come he doesn't do that? He should come there and go to a park
and sponsor a park, sponsor a church. Do something. They get their millions -- the
millions of dollars out of Allapattah and they don't come back to do anything there, and
that's completely wrong. I hate that. Because I live in Allapattah by choice. By choice.
Because I could live any place. I could live within walking distance of the post office,
but as you mention there, one of the selling points, the people walk to work. You know,
in my post office, they have 120 people walking. They have thousand of apartments
walking distance. Nobody live there. Nobody live in those apartments. You know
where they live? They make the money. Pembroke Pines, Hollywood, Miramar. Don't
tell me that affordable house, the people are just going to run and live there. No. I don't
believe that and you don't believe that either. This is something to make a lot of money,
but how come you make so much money? How come all these rental go there? That you
did at University Station? (Inaudible) do a rental apartment for the University of Miami
students? How come you don't do that there? Or Douglas place or even in Liberty City.
You know what they doing at 62 station, at the Martin Luther King, office to be
(inaudible) to the County. That's what they are doing there. Now, in Allapattah,
affordable -- no. Remember, we want affordable homeownership and now one thing
because I can go on many things that happen. Remember what the new secretary of
HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) say the other day, that he is Mr.
Mayor Martinez, which I went with him to several functions too, so I can talk to him too.
He is for affordable homeownership. We are tired of all of these programs, whatever, to
do that, especially when I see that the homeownership that we got there is being stopped.
Now, if this was so good, how come the CBO (Community Based Organization) of our
neighborhood, ABDA (Allapattah Business Development Association) wasn't informed
of this? When they have a tracking record of making thing? How come they were not
informed of this? No. No. Look at the big costs there. Not only you live in Allapattah.
You don't even know where I live. ( Inaudible ) around there. No. No. That's
completely wrong. Completely wrong what you're doing. And about living there, the
affordable home. You know what happened? They got -- they build those housing.
They don't care who live there. Because I remember when they build Civic Towers, there
were cases of people (inaudible). Drunk people, cars being stolen there. The lady that
was prostitute drug addict, that threw the baby out the window, it's in the papers. It
happened. It happened. You know, I was there. I live there. So, a lot of those things
happen. And now in Allapattah, how come when something -- instead of building
something nice, how come the County don't build something nice in Allapattah? I went
there when the theater or the performing arts say the best place to build a theater is
Northwest 21 and 21, at the site of the old post office. They never bother doing that
there. They never...
Vice Chairman Gort: Mariano, you've had six minutes. Come to a conclusion.
Mr. Cruz: Well, I know. I got six minutes. I want to see a lawyer. When a lawyer goes
here past six minutes, he's being paid. Well, I tell you; I'm not going to change anything.
All I just want to people watching there on Channel 9 learn what's going on with their
taxes because this federal guideline was not followed there. Was not followed. The
Community Development money that's going to (unintelligible) or whatever they got
91 January 25, 2001
there, the County was (inaudible) follow because I never receive any notice and then not
everyone there, and now they are giving the money away. Give what from -- my money,
my federal money. I don't pay much in City taxes, but I pay a lot in federal money. In
conclusion, I am going to say that whatever the decision is, I could care less. I could live
with anybody. But a lot of people there are afraid of whatever they going to build there,
especially when they don't count with us in anything. How come they come to the people
in Brickell? Oh, you want a shorter building? You want this? You want that street
open? Oh, know, sure. How come? What about what happened this morning -- what I
saw the flag say, with liberty and justice for some because you've got money, you've got
more liberty, more justice than the other people. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Anyone else? You want a few
minutes for rebuttal, please. OK. Close the public hearings. Comments among board
members.
Commissioner Winton: Move PZ -1.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me tell y'all something. This is completely different to the
other project that was in front of us. This project is being built 20th Street, which is right
-- a block away from Jackson Memorial Hospital and it's right south of the produce
market and the people in the produce market, which is the one they run there and they
pay a lot of taxes, both City taxes, County taxes, and federal taxes, and favor this. You
talked about ABDA. ABDA was here a little while ago. I don't see ABDA here. My
understanding is, we received it -- in our house -- excuse me. We received in our house
the same notice and I don't see anyone here in opposition to this. OK. Call the -- motion.
Commissioner Winton: I moved it.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second? Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: I'll second it. Also, I have a question. On the issue, not this
one, but Allapattah project. What really happened? Is it moving forward? Ana that you
know?
Ms. Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): I don't know.
Commissioner Regalado: The one...
Vice Chairman Gort: The ABDA -- the one...
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. The one that we denied last year.
92 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been denied.
Commissioner Regalado: No. According to this information, it's moving forward.
That's what I'm asking.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, this is going to have to come back in front of us. We have to
make the decision according to (inaudible).
Mr. Maxwell: In terms of the Stationary Development Plan, the way the process works,
if this -- the one we're speaking of is of the same nature as this one, what will happen is
that the Commission has to make a recommendation, as I pointed out before. If the
recommendation is a denial, then nothing would occur there, unless the Dade County
Commission takes it up at a public hearing, which they can do, and override you. It's
possible that that occurred. I don't know. But that would be the process, and that would
be one mechanism by which they could move forward. Now, that occurred as a result of
a change in the law about a year ago.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. That is the same scenario that we have when the
Children's Museum, when we had the Children's Museum before us on the Roads that we
were told -- even if you deny, we'll build it, right?
Mr. Maxwell: Well, under that mechanism would kick in.
Commissioner Regalado: Right. But I just -- you know, I just want to make sure of what
really happened. So, on that project, we were over ride by the County Commission?
Mr. Maxwell: I don't know the history of that project, sir.
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado, we can find out for you.
Commissioner Regalado: It's here. You can read it here. It's being funded.
Ms. Gelabert- Sanchez: On the Allapattah.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, on the Allapattah it's being funded.
Mr. Cruz: That's two pages there.
Commissioner Regalado: But any way, I just want to be clear on that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying
"aye."
93 January 25, 2001
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-79
A MOTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE SANTA CLARA
METRORAIL STATION PROJECT FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
SANTA CLARA METRORAIL STATION AREA DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SADD) AND ADOPTION OF THE MASTER
PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
94 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 2, PZ -2.
Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Item PZ -2 is a request for
a waiver from the provisions of the City of Miami waterfront Charter. You may recall
the "One River View Square" Project that was before you. The plans have been modified
and they have resubmitted. Instead of a 20 -foot setback, they have increased it to 40 feet.
Department is recommending approval of the modified plan, finding that the criteria set
forth in the Charter has been met. Specifically, this plan has increased the open space
right at the river's edge. They provided the amenities and the restaurant at ground level,
and provided access from the river up to the near street. This is where there is an
interruption in the river walk. So, they have basically recreated the continuity of it by
getting you up to the sidewalk from the end of their property. We feel that the modified
plan is consistent with the criteria in the City Charter, and we would recommend
approval of the waiver.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, you recommend approval?
Ms. Slazyk: We recommend approval of the modified plan.
Commissioner Winton: So, explain to me, again, what our rational is (unintelligible) a
waiver from a 50 -foot setback requirement.
Ms. Slazyk: OK. The criteria in the Code requires that, for the City Commission to
determine that the modifications requested provide public access, which they do, public
walkways, which they do, plaza dedications, covered parking up to the flood plain level,
or comparable benefits which promote a better urban environment and public advantages,
or which preserve natural features. The department believes that the modified plan does
promote a better urban environment and public advantages, including the access. And
one of the most important reasons, I think, is because of that access from the river up to
the public right-of-way, the sidewalk, when you come up to 4th, until the entire river walk
is in place, there are points where we have river walk and then there is a break. And it
just ends, literally dead ends. They provided an access up to the sidewalk in front of their
project, so it actually brings you back up through their property and out to public right-of-
way again. It doesn't just dead-end on their property. That makes the accessibility of the
waterfront greater, than if they had not done something like that. The modified plan now
has the 40 feet, with the restaurant at the ground level. That also allows more people
95 January 25, 2001
access to the waterfront in a friendly environment, with you know, a 40 -foot width to the
water.
Commissioner Winton: And, so, the actual -- so, what you're saying here is that the
design of this whole waterfront access has improved public accessibility to the riverfront?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: If they met the 50 -foot setback requirement with their building
design and lot size, would they have been required to -- because I understand where you
are right there, where the bridge comes up there.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah.
Commissioner Winton: So, would they have been required to create, I guess where that
is, on the western side? Is that west?
Ms. Slazyk: The south.
Commissioner Winton: The south side. The question is, you spoke of the additional
design that they did that would allow people to -- the public to actually access the river,
as opposed to running into a dead end.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: And my question is: if they met the 50 -foot setback requirement,
would they have been required to create the access point that -- would they still have been
required to create the access point that could have -- that would have eliminated that dead
end or could they have designed this project in a way where there would have been a
dead end and that would have been allowable under the code?
Ms. Slazyk: They could have, but because it's on the river, they needed a Class II
anyway, so the department would have used a Class II mechanism to try to get the access.
With the waterfront charter modification, it's more of a mandate because that's in the
criteria. With the Class II, it isn't a mandate as much, but we would have used the class II
mechanism to try to get it, which was done because they went through the UDRB (Urban
Development Review Board) and, you know, an actually modified the design several
times during that process to come up with the final product that you see today. It
wouldn't have been a mandate, I think is that -- if that was your question.
Commissioner Winton: That was part of the question. I think the issue here that we have
to deal with is understanding very clearly why we would modify or own regulations and
our own regulation, the provision is that 50 -foot setback requirement, and I just think that
we need to understand very, very clearly why we would accept, in this particular
instance, that modification because that -- it isn't as though that site has -- it's different
than some other sites along the river, where you might have -- or along the bay, for that
96 January 25, 2001
matter, when you go up the upper east side area, where you've got actual blocks in -- you
know, literally property blocking devices that prevent you from accessing the water in the
first place. That isn't the case here. I mean, it's wide-open right there. So, I'm struggling
trying to understand why -- how we meet the code and our regulations and our own intent
by modifying or allowing for if modification of setback requirement.
Ms. Slazyk: The modification is at the -- is for the public benefit. And that's why the
waiver was built into the Charter that way, because if you -- you know, the waiver is
allowable if there is a public benefit or a public advantage to it, and that, then, turns to the
property owner and the developer to see what public advantages, including access and
plazas and activating the river's edge, that they give in return for the waiver.
Commissioner Winton: And, so, the point you're making is that the added public benefit
is the added accessibility, the activation of the water edge, via restaurant and cafe, if I
understand that correctly, is that not right?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: And, so, those added benefits to the public, which wouldn't be
required specifically under our 50 -foot setback requirement -- in fact, with 50 -foot
setback requirement, what a developer could do is just simply build his project; have a
50 -foot --
Ms. Slazyk: Of nothing.
Commissioner Winton: -- of nothing. In fact, have a blank wall virtually at the edge of
that 50 -foot setback, and you haven't accomplished anything, other than giving people
access to the water. You haven't activated the water. You haven't created a good sense
of place for the water, whereas, in this project, you're saying that the developer has done
really two things: He's created better access to that site by bringing it out the other side
of the property. And he's activated the waterfront -- the frontage there by putting a
publicly accessible restaurant and coffee shop in at the ground floor?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: Is that correct?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. And the property owner would not have to provide any public access.
I mean, that is private property. The public access part of it is probably the biggest
benefit to the City, under the section, under the waiver provision of the Charter. They
can't deny the public access. And that's the biggest benefit to the City. If they wanted to
do that nice walkway an do all of that for their own benefit, but deny the public access by
meeting their 50 feet, they could deny public access. This ensures that because they got
something for it. They got to waive this. And that's why it's not called a setback. It's not
a variance that they are seeking. It's a waiver because it's in exchange for the public
benefits and access.
97 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: I've got a question. The whole purpose of this request is
because of security reasons, right?
Ms. Slazyk: Oh, for -- on their part, I'll let them respond to that. Yeah. But that was the
initial reason for the...
Commissioner Regalado: That was the reason that they -- security reasons.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Why don't -- we let them do the presentation, then we'll...
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I just want to make sure. So, security reasons is no
longer an issue?
Ms. Slazyk: I'd rather -- (inaudible).
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Commissioner, those will be questions
probably best directed to them.
Commissioner Regalado: Right. And I have some questions also for them. Go ahead.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Ms. Marrero-Priegues. Have everybody been sworn in,
who's going to be testifying to this?
Ines Marrero - Priegues: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is there any opposition to this? None? Go ahead, ma'am.
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Good afternoon, members -- honorable members of the
Commission. For the record, my name is Ines Marrero-Priegues. I'm an attorney with
the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt, with offices at 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue, in Miami. I'm
the applicant's attorney, and also the owner's representative. With me this afternoon, if I
may go through the formalities of introducing who's with me this afternoon, are Mr. Dan
Sirlin and Jeff Krinsky. They are the partners of Miami River Associates or the
developers for this project. Mr. Victor Yue, who is the architect, who was here before
you, as well, and my colleague, Juan Mayol. We're here as -- I don't want to go through
the whole presentation. I'm sure everybody remembers this application from the last time
we were before this Commission on December 14th. If I may add to Ms. Slazyk's
explanation as to the support that the department has taken relative to our waiver request.
One additional thing that has come as a result of this process is that we had to go before
the Miami River Commission. Because this application is before you, the Miami River
Commission reviewed our plans twice. We incorporated the guidelines. We are here
before you with a recommendation of approval from them. We've listened to what they
had to say. We have incorporated elements that make the river user friendly, not only the
98 January 25, 2001
users of the building, the visitors to the property, but also users of the river because one
of the recommendations of the Miami River Commission -- and I believe that this has
been sent to all of you, but if I may read it briefly. On this issue, is the Miami River
Commission passed a resolution in support of this project with one condition. That cleats
are added on the river shoreline in order to permit recreational boats to tie into the river
walk. One of the members of the Miami River Commission wanted this project to be
river friendly, not only for people on land, but for people on the river, and we've tried to
accommodate the concerns of everybody who is taking the importance of this site into
consideration.
Commissioner Winton: So, you're adding those, is that what you said?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Excuse me?
Commissioner Winton: Are you adding the cleats?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: OK. Thanks.
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: So we've incorporated everything that everybody has told us
makes this site important and makes the project doable. And if I may also add that we've
added another 20 feet. So this is a hundred percent improvement from the application.
The waiver request that was before you back in December. We've done everything that
we can. And if we didn't have -- if we could add another 10 feet, we wouldn't have to be
before you. So, clearly, we have done everything from a design standpoint, to bring this
project into compliance, with the provisions of the charter. Commissioner Regalado,
through the chair, you had a question, sir?
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Regalado, you're recognized.
Commissioner Regalado: Yes. I have some -- the main issue was security because of
being a federal building, you would need a separate parking entity so we don't have
Oklahoma again. That is -- that was the main issue. What I don't understand now...
Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me. Could you have him please verbalize, not shake your head,
answer his question on the record?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Oh, yes. I'm waiting for him to finish his statement and then I
would address it.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: But, yes, I will agree...
Commissioner Regalado: So, now, the security has taken a back seat on this issue.
99 January 25, 2001
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: If I may. The issue relative to the security concern the need for
this garage building to be separate from the main office building. We could not meet the
setback by putting the garage under the building because the General Service
Administration, which will be a major tenant of the building, required as a prerequisite to
this lease, that the garage not be placed under the building. They don't have a problem
with the design of this building and public access. It is a public building. Other people
will have access to facilities. They merely didn't want the garage to be constructed under
the building, and that was a security issue relative to previous bombing incidents in
federal buildings and whatnot.
Commissioner Regalado: No. I understand that.
Mr. Victor Yue: Yeah. My name is Victor Yue with the office of Dorsky Hodgson
Partners. The address is Suite 2400, 1 Financial Plaza. Actually, we address it by
overlapping the building by one bay of parking. We basically reduced the amount of
parking slightly. But we still are above code requirement because we are connected to a
Metrorail station. We have certain discount and we meet all those requirements.
Basically, there is no -- still no parking underneath the building, but the -- with the
limited number of parking, which is the reserved parking space, which is a second secure
parking space, only reserved for the judges, and they agreed to a setback.
Commissioner Regalado: Right. So, just for the people to understand, we are doing an
exception in the City Charter because of a greater need of security by a federal entity.
Now, my question is, do you have a contract for how many years with the federal
government, GSA (General Services Administration). Is that building going to be owned
by GSA or it's a private building? Do you have a lease? How many years?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: This is a private office building. One of the tenants of the
building will be the GSA, but not the exclusive tenant. So, it is a private office building.
It's a major tenant of the building. And it was very important that we accommodate their
security and design considerations, but this is a public building. There will be other
private offices. There will be retail on the ground level. There is going to be a public
restaurant on the ground level. So, do we have a lease? Yes, we have a lease.
Commissioner Regalado: You do have a lease?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Yes.
Commissioner Regalado: A long-term lease. Because, I mean, the whole purpose...
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: Ten years.
Commissioner Regalado: The whole purpose of this change is to accommodate the
security needs of General Services Administration would, in turn, rent the building to
INS. That's exactly what we're doing here.
100 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Before you go on, you can't shake your head because that
doesn't come out on the record. So, when the Commissioner asks you a question, you
need to clearly say clearly yes or no because we need that for the record. So, getting back
to the question that he asked per pertaining to security, and that question was that -- the
reason why this requires -- it require -- you're asking for this is because there is a need for
security reason; is that the question?
Ms. Marrero Priegues: The reason why the building cannot be designed any other way is
due to security reasons, yes.
Commissioner Regalado: That's all I wanted to know. And I think that a 10 -year lease is
a small lease. I mean, you know, I -- INS was trying to -- INS is moving their court from
Miami Avenue to that building.
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: That is correct.
Commissioner Regalado: They were trying to move the building, the main building to
Doral, but they couldn't do it because of some opposition. Are they going to move some
of the facilities from 79th Street to that building, or just a corner?
Ms. Marrero-Priegues: No. This is exclusively -- the judges -- the courthouses and the
judges' offices that are now located on South Miami Avenue. This has nothing to do with
the facility in Doral; and this has nothing to do with the INS facilities on Biscayne
Boulevard.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Commissioner Winton.
Commissioner Winton: I think that I want to commend the developer here. The whole
purpose -- and I think that the key in my mind here is the intent of our setback
requirement is, in fact, to activate the waterfront, and 50 feet, in my mind -- you know,
why not 40, 60, 50 -- somebody picked the number 50. But 50 feet by itself doesn't
activate the waterfront, and what y'all have done here is truly met above and beyond and
have done things that really, truly activates the waterfront. And, so, when I first looked at
this, I was very nervous about the idea of granting this waiver, but the fact that you have
taken the crucial steps that will allow uninterrupted public access to this site, that doesn't
create a blocking effect so somebody walking down the river can't go anywhere else
accept to a dead end, is a huge positive, and the fact that you've done the kinds of things
that activate the waterfront, both from a water accessibility standpoint, as well as
pedestrian standpoint, I think is exactly the kind of things that we're looking for from an
intent standpoint, with this whole setback requirement on our waterfront property. So,
I'm going to move approval of this waiver provision, and period.
Commissioner Sanchez: There is a motion for approval. Is there a second?
101 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: I will second --
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: -- the motion and I support...
Commissioner Sanchez: Purpose of discussion.
Commissioner Regalado: As a discussion, I support. But, Johnny, my point is that we
are changing the City Code to accommodate a federal entity because of security reasons.
That's the only reason that we're doing this, and it's a -- Mr. City Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: Oh, that's the basis for doing it, but you still have to find that there is
significant public benefit given in exchanges for granting that, and that was the
information...
Commissioner Regalado: I mean, what -- I mean, what public -- what more you want to
avoid a bombing on the City of Miami? I mean, the federal buildings are known to be a
security problem throughout the United States. But my point -- the point that I'm trying
to get is that I feel that if we are doing this for the federal government, we need a longer
commitment from the federal government in order for them to say, well, this is going to
be our home for more than 10 years. That's all that I'm trying to do. Because 10 years
from now, then they might want to move.
Commissioner Winton: But 10 years from now, they move, and you get regular tenants
and you get law firms or accounting firms or whatever other kinds of firms are downtown
to move into the building.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. But, see, we're doing this because of security reasons.
Commissioner Winton: Well -- but the point here is that what we've -- yes, the design of
the building is designed in this fashion for security reasons, but the waiver that we're
granting here gets us something that even if another developer comes along, designs a
different kind of building that doesn't have this same security concerns, the fact of the
matter is that the development community could build something and provide us to 50 -
foot setback requirement and provide no activation to the water because they are not
required to do so. And, so, the reason I'm granting -- in favor of granting this waiver is
that they have gone above sand beyond, significantly, to truly activate the waterfront and
that's the real long-term plus to our community. When the feds go a way, let them go.
They can go away in five years, as far as I'm concerned. Somebody else moves in -- but
what we end up with, from a community standpoint, is an activated waterfront, and that's
a huge plus to us.
Commissioner Regalado: I understand, but my point is just that, you know government
local government, federal government, state government should have partnerships, and
102 January 25, 2001
not, you know, deal through third parties. In this case, we need to do this and I think that
they have done san extraordinary work on the design, but my point is that the City should
be more proactive in getting commitment, long term commitment from federal entities
because, after all, in this City, we have all of the agencies of the federal government are
within the City of Miami.
Ms. Slazyk: This is one of the...
Commissioner Winton: See, this is a better -- excuse me. This is a better deal for us than
other federal buildings because this is a privately own building that is on the tax rolls.
Every time --
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah.
Commissioner Winton: -- the federal government comes into our community, builds
their own building, they take the land off the tax rolls. So, we get completely (inaudible).
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, yeah. I know that. That's a plus.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. There is a motion and a second.
Commissioner Winton: I mean, this is good for our community. It's on the tax rolls. It
will have long-term positive tax implications for our community, and, so, I'm glad,
frankly, they didn't come to us and want to build their own building.
Commissioner Sanchez: There is a motion and a second. Still open for discussion.
Commissioner Teele? Hearing none, I think that, first of all, there is public benefit to it,
so I'm one in support it. Call the question.
103 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT (S), MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A
MODIFICATION OF THE WATERFRONT CHARTER
REQUIREMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3 (mm)(ii)(A) OF THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
WHICH ESTABLISHES A 50 -FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR
ALL PROJECTS ALONG THE MIAMI RIVER, EAST OF
NORTHWEST 5TH STREET, TO PERMIT A 40 -FOOT SETBACK FOR
THE "ONE RIVERVIEW SQUARE" PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT
THE PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY THE MIAMI RIVER
ON THE SOUTH, SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE ON THE WEST, THE
METROMOVER GUIDEWAY ON THE EAST AND SOUTHEAST 4TH
STREET ON THE NORTH, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY
DESCRIBED ON "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE
A PART HEREOF.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
104 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Item PZ -3. PZ -3 is modification of provision; approve Major
Use Special Permit for the Miami One Project.
Ms. Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -3 is the Major Use
Special Permit for phase I of the One Miami Project. Since the last meeting, the
applicant has come to the City and requested approval of a non -substantial modification
to the plans. So, the plans that you are reviewing today for approval of this Major Use
Special Permit is for the modified plans, which have been submitted to the City, and the
legislation in your package has been amended to reflect the modified numbers. The
department's recommending approval, finding specifically that the modifications to the
proposed plans are non -substantial, pursuant to Section 22-15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
However, they substantially reduce the impact on the adjacent property by reducing the
size of the abutting wall and the building sizes, thereby increasing the view corridor
between the buildings, and the plan also offers a better solution to activating the river's
edge with additional pedestrian -oriented activity. They have increased the size of the
restaurant at the ground level, and it was increased from 713 square feet to 5300 square
feet.
Commissioner Winton: So, it went from a coffee shop to a restaurant?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes, a real restaurant. And they've added 100 square feet of retail area.
They've also reduced the size of the wall between the actual river walkway, and that plaza
level where the vehicles come into, from five feet six inches to four feet six inches, which
means it's now at a height that can reasonably be seen over, so the plaza level and the
river level, there is a more gradual effect down to the river. It's not such a blunt edge.
The department finds that the modifications have improved the project and we
recommend approval of the modified plans. They promote a better urban environment
and public advantages.
Commissioner Winton: And is there a requirement for waiver of the
Ms. Slazyk: The waterfront?
105 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: -- 50- foot? Right.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. That requirement still exists. The shift in the footprint have made it
bigger in some areas, smaller in the other, but, overall, it still exists and the public
advantages have increased. So, we would continue to recommend approval of the
modification.
Commissioner Winton: Isn't the primary waiver at the -- essentially, at the east end of the
property, that piece of the property that fronts directly towards the bay?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. And they have actually reduced the amount of waiver they needed
there. There is a staircase that comes from the abutting property down into the walkway
there that actually comes onto this property. So, they have increased it there to make that
-- to not impact that so strongly, so it's actually a reduction of...
Commissioner Winton: And what's the setback at that point?
Ms. Slazyk: I don't have it memorized. On the modified plan, it's 29 -- about 37/38 feet.
They have a 29, plus 9 feet 8 inches, 38.
Commissioner Winton: Thirty-eight feet. And, for the record, that 38 feet curving
around the river, fronting on the Bayside, runs right smack dab up to the
Intercontinental's parking garage?
Ms. Slazyk: And the staircase.
Commissioner Winton: And the staircase. And a setback for the bay walk there, for the
hotel, is about 15 feet?
Ms. Slazyk: The dimensions aren't here, but, yes, that would be an approximation.
Commissioner Winton: Well, we had -- I had staff go and measure so that I could
understand, as you come around there -- and we're talking about activating the river front
and we're talking about our own ordinances. The fact of the matter is, that as this
property comes around and heads up the bay side, it is absolutely illogical to continue to
require the 50 -foot setback because the adjoining property only has 15 feet of setbacks.
So, I'm going to apply some practical applications to our setback requirements here.
Thank you, Lourdes.
106 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Counsel, go ahead with your presentation.
Ms. Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the board.
Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. Here today on behalf of the
owner of the property. I'm joined by my partner, Adrienne Pardo, and on behalf of the
owner, One Miami, Skip Staltz is with us this afternoon, and on behalf of the Related
Companies, who is the contract vendee and the developer, Tony Albanese is with us. At
your December 14th Commission meeting, you approved the project, subject to certain
conditions that would be brought back to you, which includes the height of the wall
adjoining the Intercontinental Hotel's pool deck, as well as an adjustment to the parking
garage. At your last meeting, which was January 11 th, we demonstrated how we
addressed these issues; however, the City Attorney felt uncomfortable going -- and
proceeding at that time, given the discussion at the meeting before, and he requested that
we reconsider your motion, and today it's open again for a full discussion. However, we
don't tend to put on our full case. We'd like to incorporate all of the discussion testimony
in evidence that was at your January 11th, as well as your December 14th meetings.
However, since that time, we have submitted the plans and had a determination by the
Planning Department, that this was not a substantial change, not because the changes
weren't significant in terms of reduction, but because the podium, basically, didn't move
in any direction more than 10 feet, notwithstanding the fact that the tower did, in fact,
move substantially. And we have lowered the height. And just to remind you of the
changes, the visual corridor has been increased to 190 feet; the height of the wall is now
18 feet for great percentage of the pool decks area adjacent to the Intercontinental Hotel.
That's a total of 270 feet in length. The height of the office building has been reduced by
five floors and 103,000 square feet; the height of the residential has been reduced by 11
floors and a 107,000 square feet; the height of the residential garage has been reduced by
six floors and 39 spaces, and the height of the office garage has been reduced by three
floors and 260 spaces. The residence is no taller than the existing hotel, and the office
building is actually shorter than the Miami Center office building. Bernardo has done a
great job of activating the waterfront, as well, by creating this restaurant that we
discussed, which is now, instead of 700 feet, is now 5300 square feet. It's actually a
restaurant instead of a cafe. And we have provided shadow studies in all of our plans to
the office building, as well as the hotel. I understand that -- and the owners have met
with our architect, as well as the represent -- as well as Tony Albanese from the Related
Companies. I understand that they are still not satisfied with the impact of the shadows,
as well as the height of the wall. And, for that reason, I'm going to have to have
Bernardo walk you through the plans. Bernardo Fort -Brescia, who is the architect, as
well as his associate, Luis Sinclair, walk you through the plans that he has made.
Everybody says that they want to have development downtown, and this is something
that we think will be a catalyst for all the other development, and everybody says,
107 January 25, 2001
including Jeff Bass and Jack Luft and everybody who talks about it, they think this is
going to be a really important project. And I'll tell you that a lot of folks looked at this
site because it's been on the market, and George Perez was the only developer who is not
a speculator, who didn't want to come and just see what could be done. This is a man, as
you know, who does what he says he's going to do. This is our opportunity to actually
get something built in downtown. This is not a speculative development. When he says
he's going to build something, it gets done. This is our opportunity and I'd ask you not to
lose it. Bernardo.
Mr. Bernardo Fort -Brescia: Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo Fort -Brescia, a
principal with Architectonica, the architects for the project. I'd like to be as brief as
possible to highlight the important aspects of the modifications that were made. I think,
in elevation, this is probably the most telling of the views. You can see here the view
from the river, and what you see here in red outlines the previous project and the height
and bulk of the previous buildings, and you can see clearly here the reduction and height
of the office building. You can see here where the original parking garage used to be and
where it's been reduced. You can see from here to here the original length of the
residential building, and the height of the residential building, and where the new
proposed design is located as in the color drawing. I have -- it's important to note that
this represents about a hundred thousand square feet of reduction in the five levels of the
office buildings, and two levels less of garage, on the office -building garage. We have
also a substantial reduction in the podium of the office building. You can see where it
used to be. Came all the way through. It's now being reduced to much lower, to what is
equivalent to 18 feet, slab to slab. We may have some planters on either side that may
create some minor adjustment to that, but the slab elevation to slab elevation is 18 feet
compared to 73 feet, where it used to be. .
Commissioner Sanchez: (Inaudible).
Mr. Fort -Brescia: Excuse me?
Commissioner Sanchez: How many stories are (inaudible).
Mr. Fort -Brescia: These are six levels over the restaurant, compared to the original 13
stories that existed there on the garage. You can also see that the building has -- the
tower has moved back slightly away from the waterfront in the east /west direction, and,
of course, substantially in the other direction, opening this window from 148 feet to 190
feet of distance, which is not only an elevation but also in floor plans, as I'll show you,
which provides a vista for the existing office building, the City Bank building. You can
see here as well, the view in the opposite direction, facing south, where you can see the
108 January 25, 2001
outline again, where the podium used to be. You can see the red line dotted here, where
the garage used to exist at the 13 stories of garage, and where the two buildings existed in
the previous position, where it is dotted and the difference in distance between the two
buildings, and the difference in the front as well. I'll take you through some of these
statistics, but I wanted to first tell you, in concept, because this is a -- I think these two
views explain, to a large extent, the level of modification that we have created by
providing the parking podium underneath the building instead of behind the building.
Also, important to note is that we have now a double loaded building. The developer has
accepted to position some of the residential units facing north towards the
Intercontinental facade of their hotel, so that whatever they see, we also see of them. We
have -- it is a double loaded building. Instead of a single loaded building, so that same
kind of facade with a substantial amount of glass and balconies that exist on the Riverside
also occurs on the side facing the Intercontinental Hotel. In floor plan it is -- I think it is -
- layout probably tells you clearly where the towers are located. This is the same location
of the original office building. You can see here the new residential tower. What I meant
is that this is a diagonal distance. You can see where the City Bank tower is, and the
window view out to the waterfront. You can see the new position of the tower and the
new position of the podium, which never varies more than about 10 feet, according to the
ordinance and the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) requirements from the previous
submission. You can see at this corner, where we have made a substantial arrangement
so that we are now 38 feet away. You can see here where the corner of Intercontinental
is, 20 feet away, minus our planter of 15 feet of walkway. It is -- so, in fact, it is actually
quite narrow until it opens up at our intersection, when we get to the building, the
building does get closer at the corner, here where you see that point, but you can see very
clearly the opening of the space as it reaches the corner. Likewise, you can see how the
podium has recessed substantially here, so that it creates a very wide-open space here
approaching the point of the river, as we have indicated in figures read by Lucia. And
that dotted lines that you see here show the difference between the original podium and
the current podium and how it doesn't deviate more than the 10 feet. It is also from this
view, we show you have we have worked out the project and the importance of the
location of the building because you can see here in dotted lines, which are -- (inaudible)
as per the template of the Building Department, and how we need this area here,
underneath the tennis court, which occurs here, in order to maneuver the trucks into the
loading area for the residential building so that the residential building begins beyond the
maneuvering space. It allows us also to have a tennis court, which is -- which had been
reduced from two tennis courts to one tennis court. The original apartment building also
had two swimming pools. It used to be a swimming pool on the ground floor. We have
removed the fitness and swimming pool area there in order to enlarge the restaurant, and
we have relocated and left a single pool on the pool deck that you see here in that
drawing.
109 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. The large restaurant is where?
Mr. Fort -Brescia: Right -- everything that you see over here in red or in pink, in the
drawing.
Commissioner Winton: So, it's at the point there...
Mr. Fort -Brescia: It's at the point.
Commissioner Winton: The mouth of the river and the bay?
Mr. Fort -Brescia: That's right. It's at the point -- exactly at that point. And what you see
in brown here provides an out door, sort of terrace/porch for outdoor dining, as well, over
looking the point here. So there is an indoor component and an outdoor component to the
restaurant, as well, which I think some people may choose to be outdoors in that nice
location at the entrance to the river. We also have added some additional shops. You can
see here all say long the walkway. This is arrival, the elevators leading to the parking,
and this is the lobby that links all the way back to Biscayne Boulevard, and there is
additional retail facing Biscayne Boulevard as well. I think that I'd like you to
understand how we were able to work out the parking. You can see here the office -
building garage. It's a quite efficient garage -- and how we have reorganized it to larger
floor place, the garage of the residential building, in order to reduce the number of floors
in that process. And lastly, relating to the elevations, you can see here the arrangement of
the residential building. It is now a double loaded corridor, with a single chore instead of
a multiple chore building that allowed us to reduce substantial amount of FAR (Floor
Area Ratio) in a gross area, buildable area, in general, from the office building -- from the
residential building while maintaining the number of units. We still have that 425 units
that we need to make this project viable, and the office building retained its size of
footprint, but it was reduced in a number of stories to reduce it by a hundred thousand
square feet of leaseable space, which reduced the amount of garage that we needed to
service such building. You can see here the position of the tennis court and the
swimming pool. The dimensions are very tight, but it's an urban site, and that's what --
but we felt we needed at least one tennis court to remain on the project. And you can see
here the position of the Intercontinental Hotel, in the location of our apartments. These
are our apartment that we didn't used to have because we had them all facing in one
direction. I'd like to address -- and lastly, we have redone our view of the project, which
you could see here. What you could see the increased distance between the two
buildings, the location of the restaurant, and the widening of the walkway at the base, by
the elimination of the pool deck and the fitness center, and the activation of the ground
110 January 25, 2001
floor, with retail components at the base of the building, and at the base of the office
building, and at the base of the residential building, with the terraces that overlook the
waterfront over here. And I think that summarizes the general points on the building.
So, in conclusion, I'd like to take you through some of what we feel are improvements.
Last time you asked us to address two items, one the extent of wall with respect to the
terrace of the hotel, and how to deal -- excuse me.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you. Let me ask a rudimentary question. I'm not sure I
fully understand something. Who owns the pedestrian amenity there? Is that -- maybe I
should ask this of staff. Is there a, like in a road, is there a setback in which the City
owns something -- this thing is little bit out of focus in my mind right now. The walkway
amenity, who owns that?
Ms. Slazyk: The City has an easement over it, but it is not owned by the City. Typically,
on the water -- on waterfront property, the private property owner owns all the property
up to the waterfront. They do have setbacks, but the 50 -foot Charter requirement is
above and beyond those setbacks.
Commissioner Teele: OK. I understand...
Ms. Slazyk: But we don't own it. There is an easement in this particular case, but
typically, there is not.
Ms. Dougherty: This was a dedication made to the City that we had the obligation to
maintain and keep open to the public. But it's a dedication to the City that we maintain,
insure...
Commissioner Teele: So, in other words, right now we don't own it?
Ms. Dougherty: No, you haven't...
Commissioner Teele: But if we approve this MUSP, one of the proffers or is that you all
are going to donate an easement for the public?
Ms. Dougherty: There is an easement there right now, but we have to maintain it and
landscape it, insure it.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Let me ask another technical question of staff. Who owns
the wall -- the seawall? If the law is we own to water's edge...
111 January 25, 2001
Ms. Dougherty: We own the seawall. You own the submerged lands by the way.
Commissioner Teele: We or the state?
Ms. Dougherty: This is an interesting case. You actually own the submerged lands, and
we thought that this was a good idea. This was a great thing that you actually owned
them because we thought, oh, we're going to get a lease with the City for our marina
development, as opposed to having to go to the state of Florida, but that's turned out to be
more of a hassle than we ever thought would be, and, frankly, if the state owned it, it
would be easier to get a lease from the state than it has been, frankly, with the City at this
point. But that's where we are now.
Commissioner Teele: OK. I don't mean to -- but -- I want to be very clear. The sidewalk
or this --
Ms. Slazyk: Bay walk, yeah.
Commissioner Teele: -- walkway will be open to the public?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Absolutely?
Ms. Dougherty: Absolutely. Dedicated to the public.
Commissioner Teele: And it will be donated to the public?
Ms. Dougherty: Dedicated to the public, yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you. I'm sorry, Bernardo. I interrupted you, but I just was a
little bit --
Mr. Fort -Brescia: I just wanted to clarify some other statistics of the concept I've
explained in this drawings. We have under the project that we're submitting, the same
number of residential units of 425 units. Under the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) calculations
of the City, where voids are eliminated, we have 41,000 square feet of less gross area.
Under construction area, we have 107,000 square feet, less than the residential tower, and
that's why you see the substantial reduction in bulk. And we have reduced the residential
tower from 49 to 38 stories. So, it's a reduction of 11 stories. We also have northeast
corner of the building gone from 29 feet to 38 feet at that corner, and, as I mentioned,
112 January 25, 2001
there is a reduction from two to one both in the tennis courts and swimming pools. And
the office space, we have a reduction of gross area under our construction definition of
103,000 and under FAR, 91,000 square feet less, with five stories less, with a 67 foot
reduction in height, and the residential garage has a 55 foot height in the reduction and
we've eliminated seven prior levels that existed in that residential garage, and reduced by
54 spaces, the number of spaces for a reduction of -- from 1.3 to 1.16 number spaces per
unit. And on the office garage, we went from 1200 to 940 spaces, a substantial reduction
of 260 spaces. And eliminated two floors. So, that is also quite substantial reduction,
and where we did create an increase is in the retail space by increasing the restaurant by
4569 square feet and some of our retail by another hundred square feet. So, there was a
reduction in the public amenities along that level. It is important to note also that we
have also lowered the arrival level at that residential building because of the FEMA
(Federal Emergency Management Agency) ordinance that allowed us to do that so that
we now have a one foot lower position, which puts it at eye level -- below the eye level of
a person walking along the waterfront, which is, I think, something that many people had
sought that we attempt to do. It's -- I think that summarizes the key points of the
modifications that we've accomplished. I have to say that the developer was very
cooperative in really sacrificing some of his -- the market positioning of his units, but
have accommodated in every respect and we've tried to be very cooperative with the
neighbors. Submitted all our drawings, provided them with drawings, as they were
progressing, not even when they were just finished, but during the progress we delivered
drawings at the beginning of the -- immediately after they were completed in December,
an we continued to provide information all along, until this date. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Lucia, does that complete y'all presentation?
Ms. Dougherty: That concludes our presentation. I just want to add one thing that --
George Perez believes in this project because he really is submitted to a vibrant
downtown, and he wants to be a part of it. And with that, I conclude.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes.
Brett Bibeaux: Good afternoon. My name is Brett Bibeaux. I'm the Assistant Director
of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway,
Miami, Florida, 33149. The City Commission Resolution Number 00-320 requests the
Miami River Commission provide an official statement to the City Commission
regarding all river -related agenda items prior to your deliberations. I have extra copies of
the official statement; and would like to file them with the City Clerk. I would like to
read a portion of the Miami River Commission official statement regarding PZ -3 into the
113 January 25, 2001
record. One of the Miami River Commission's top priorities is to develop a continuous
greenway or river walk around the entire river. Historically, the public has been isolated
from the Miami River, and the river walk would reconnect them to this valuable
community resource. As clearly shown by the success of the Ft. Lauderdale,
Chattanooga, Pittsburgh and other city river walks, our river walk will attract residents
and tourists, creating a critical mass of activity along the Miami River's downtown
shoreline. The Miami River and greenway will become a destination landscape, creating
reoccurring revenues to the City of Miami with adjoining businesses such as cafes,
restaurants, and fresh fish markets. In addition, the river walk will cause nearby
properties to increase in value, therefore, increasing tax revenue. The green way will
connect and unite the multi -cultural neighborhoods around the Miami River, such as East
Little Havana, Overtown, downtown, et cetera. Critical to the success of all river walks
is the need to have a wide and readily accessible walkway for the bicyclist, roller bladers,
joggers, et cetera. The Miami River Commission passed unanimous resolutions stating
all segments of the continuous river walk east of 5th Street should have a minimum of 15
foot clear path, combined with a four foot passers zone, with landscaping, benches, lights,
bike racks, and other amenities, for a total of a 20 -foot greenway. In addition, the
greenway should have cleats along the Miami River shore, in order to provide
recreational boats; they placed a tie up to the river walk. These standards are consistent
with the recommendations of Greenways Incorporated, the professional river walk
planners, who design the Miami River greenway. PZ -3 is a modification of a previously
approved MUSP for the One Miami Project. The majority of the One Miami river walk
has only a 14 foot clear path, and in addition, the west end of the One Miami river walk
portion has a barricade, forcing the river walk's clear path to turn north off of the river
bank, towards Biscayne Boulevard. The Miami River Commission passed a motion
recommending approval of the project, with the following two conditions: Number one,
that the One Miami segment to the green way widens its clear path to a minimum of 16
feet; and, secondly, that, in the event that the Ramada Dupont Plaza opens access to the
river walk along the river shore had the plan to barricade between One Miami and the
Dupont Plaza be removed in order to allow for a continuous greenway. Thank you very
much for your time.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Anyone else?
Commissioner Teele: May I just inquire. Has the staff had -- did you submit those to the
staff in advance of this meeting?
Mr. Bibeaux: Yes, sir.
114 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: And, so, we'll hear from the staff in response to those specific
recommendations. Have any of those recommendations been incorporated or addressed
specifically in the staffs recommendation, the ones that you just read off?
Mr. Bateaux: No, sir. No, sir. I don't believe that the item regarding the west end being
blocked by about a dozen trees, not allowing for a continuous river walk, I don't think
that's in the staffs recommendations, nor, to my knowledge, is the widening of the clear
path to 16 feet.
Commissioner Teele: OK. At the appropriate time, after all of the debate, I'm going to
ask staff, specifically, please, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, to respond to you all
request.
Mr. Bibeaux: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Teele: Thank you for your professionalism.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. What I am going to talk
about the way the people are treated here. Mr. Brescia was there. He talked for nine
minutes, then he was interrupted by Mr. Teele, asked a question, and then he talked for
three minutes more. He never was told you've got six minutes; you've got this, you've got
that. When I was talking, interrupt me. Now, I hate that. I hate that. I like the people to
come here to be treated equally, regardless you got big shot architect or developer,
whatever, or a resident of the City. And, remember, this is an election year, where we've
got until September 22 deadline to register. So anything can happen. Remember, this
country is based on Thomas Jefferson, equality. And I hate to be patronized or be
interrupted, too. OK. I like to be treated like the lawyers or the big developers, too.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mariano, you were never patronized. When you become repetitious
and keep repeating the same thing and don't have different argument -- and your
presentations are completely different from the presentation of a professional that's
presenting a project and going specific. They have different matters.
Mr. Cruz: Now, I am going to talk about project. I'd like to have -- to see the access to
the public ---may times I go to Bayside. I like to walk ---where you will have to go
through the building or have to jump through the building or which way I access to the
115 January 25, 2001
building -- I mean, to the waterfront because I've been in many of those committees about
water front, walkways, and all that, and nothing been done so far. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to you, who, I think, have been too fair
to the public from time to time, I think the public should be made aware that in zoning
proceedings, unlike this Commission meetings, where there is a two minute limit, the
people who are proposing a matter before us have an unlimited amount of time solely to
the discretion of the chair. It could be thirty minutes. It could be 60 minutes. It could be
an hour. And they are not held or anyone who is making a presentation in zoning is not
held to the two minute standard, which happens in the Commission meetings. But we're
not in a Commission meeting now, and I think the Chairman has been very, very
generous to you and I just think the public needs to know that it's not a question of being
unfair. It's just a question; we're in a different process.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffrey Bass: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Jeffrey Bass is my name,
46 Southwest 1st Street is my address. I'm joined here today by my partner John Shubin,
together with the very same individuals who were here before you on the 14th of
December, on the 11th of January. Like Lucia, I am not going to go through a major
presentation. I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that. Most particularly Commissioner
Teele. And, Commissioner Teele, I will not be arguing that these changes are substantial
either, which I'm sure will make you equally happy. To the contrary, I will conclude, as
your staff concluded, that these changes are diminumous. These are non -substantial
changes, as unfortunately as it is, as they relate to you the objection that we presented at
the time of our hearing on the 14th, they are diminumous in terms of redressing those
injuries. So, we're going to stand on our objection as presented and reincorporate the
objection, as presented, on the 14th of December, and, again, reiterated on the 11th of
January. Very briefly, I would like to introduce Jack Luft, our planner for purposes of
the record, to indicate to you that he's reviewed these changes and that -- notwithstanding
the fact that some things have happened, nothing has happened to address those injuries
to the clients, which we represent before you, and he'll be very brief as well. And thank
you.
Mr. Jack Luft: Jack Luft, 1900 Tiger Tail. I'll simply say that the comments that I made
at the last meeting, the presentation addressed really broke itself down into two parts.
There was the issue of the impact on abutting properties, and then I brought to light
116 January 25, 2001
because of the changes that would be necessary to address that, that there were a number
of impacts internal to the project as well. The circulation in the garage, the impact on the
river walk, lack of space at the corner of the bay. I'm pleased that particularly from the
standpoint of the internal impacts, those things that will clearly work to the benefit of the
project itself, some of these thoughts were taken to heart. And I clearly think there has
been some gains there. The presentation that I made as to the external impacts focused
principally upon those as it related to the Intercontinental Hotel. You will recall the
views that I presented to you; the large display boards were all taken from the
Intercontinental from the rooms from the pool deck. The shadow analysis that was
presented, which they've actually confirmed what I showed you. The shadow impacts
are, for the bulk of the year, for the bulk of the day, substantial on the pool deck and on
the plaza area of the hotel. It's important to understand -- if I could -- since they were
kind enough to let me use their easel last time I'd actually asked to use both their and one
of their drawings since...
Commissioner Teele: She said no.
Mr. Luft: The peculiarity of this site is that its stairs step back and the river edge angles
so that what you get is an offset of buildings. You get the office tower here, and then not
in line with that tower but setback from that is the residential tower. From the office
building, the gain in the distance between these two is significant. The angle from the
office building is this way. So their view, which was not our principal concern, I think,
has some advantages. Because the Intercontinental Hotel view -- if you strike this corner
and this corner of the building, you can see, as I stated the last time, the view angle across
here interrupted at this point and at this point on this side and this side, leaves the
thinnest, almost an inconsequential view corridor between the buildings. I point that out
less you think that somehow the 190 is going to open up a magnificent vista for the hotel.
It is not. And that's because of the off set of the buildings. What happens because we've
only gained nine feet at this edge, there is essentially no change in the tower impact either
from a shadow or a view standpoint on the hotel or the pool deck. Nine foot of change is
about all we've gained. That tower is -- it's as tall as the hotel so the shadow will be cast
clearly as far as the base of the hotel most of the year, an will essentially follow that same
shadow cast through the course of the year over the pool. Because the testimony that was
presented was based on the economic impact, and the dimunition in value, on the hotel
from the shadow cast and the views, which are still remain essentially blocked and
essentially covered. I cannot conclude that from that primary concern any substantial
remedy has been presented from that external, substantial and serious impact. It is
interesting to note that there has been a movement of the building this way, which would
suggest that there is some -- and I don't know -- Bernardo, you can respond. There might
be some flexibility in actual positioning of the tower. But from the standpoint of the
117 January 25, 2001
hotel, any adjustment of the tower and this wall to the west would be proportionately far
greater benefit to the primary concern of the hotel than it is to the office building. The
office building still has substantial views to the southeast and southwest. We recognize
that that would come at the expense of a tennis court and we also acknowledge that
they've pointed out the lost of a tennis court and a pool. It was my thought, as I was
listening to them and considering this, with the substantial expanse of the gardens at the
hotel, it may be possible to replace not just one but two tennis courts to the use and
advantage of the residents, since now they can move almost directly from this deck to
that deck. If this was any flexibility to accept the project as its presented but with some
adjustment in the position of the tower, this would be this critical corner, which is where
the real economic lost is felt, and this proximity of this view here, would be considerably
helped. And, so, I didn't want to appear to be, you know, saying that they didn't make
changes. They did, just as Lucia did, even though they are not substantial, they are
significant. The significance is primarily felt from internal to the project and at the river
walk edge, which is all to the good for them and for the public, but I regret to say that, as
a professional within testifying in my best judgment, the impact on the hotel is basically
the same. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Jack, let me ask you a question. You remember, at that time, the
director of the Planning Board, when that project originally came in front of us by Mr.
Gould?
Mr. Luft: Ted Gould, yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. And at that time was a privately owned hotel?
Mr. Luft: Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: And refresh my mind. I might be wrong. But my understanding
was that the sign was for the whole island, for the whole portion of the land.
Mr. Luft: They had a 1980 --
Vice Chairman Gort: It was a two phase -- it was a two-phase project, if I'm correct.
Mr. Luft: -- 5. A two-phase project. And they had 29 towers on this project.
118 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: So, the phase one -- phase...
Mr. Luft: They had a tower here and a tower here. On a stair step pedestal. And, in fact,
although I didn't dwell on it, I briefly showed that picture and I made the point that the
footprint of the hypothetical tower that I showed you on my revised scheme, was the
same as the easterly tower of that original DRI (Development of Regional Impact)
proposal.
Vice Chairman Gort: But my question, the original proposal was the whole complex,
separated in two stages. You build one first and you design that one stage to compliment
the second stage that was going to go up. Then something happened. You all went into -
-Mr. Gould went in bankrupt or something, and they sold the land. So, that separated the
project. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Luft: Yes. That's correct.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Luft: Selling the land is a charitable way of putting it, yes.
Mr. Bibeaux: Once again, I'd like to thank you all for allowing us the opportunity to
review the changes, to present to you. Just on a housekeeping matter, I'd like to make it
clear again that all of our objections from the prior hearings are incorporated; the
transcripts are incorporated, and I would like to make it clear that staff s testimony
tonight do not rise to the level of the I analysis required by 1305 and would not constitute
sufficient, substantial, competent evidence to justify the approval of this. And, with that,
thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. At this time, I'd like to take the privilege and
recognize Councilman Isaac Solberg (phonetic) from Bay Harbor Island. It's a pleasure
to have you with us, councilman.
Commissioner Sanchez: And, also, if we could have Judge Pooler please stand up, who
is a resident of our City. I spotted you judge. (Inaudible), judge, good to see you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Glad to see you all here.
Commissioner Sanchez: Surprise you're not handing out candies.
119 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Few minutes for rebuttal, if Mr. Cruz does not object.
Mr. Fort -Brescia: I'd like to just point out some other reasoning for what we created.
First of all, we do need the space, not only for the tennis court. It's because the only
place we can maneuver the trucks underneath without the impact of a columns of a high-
rise tower for the trucks to load and unload upon the residential building, as you can see
from this plan, and this is important because we can't move further because we're affected
by that Florida Power & Light station that we have to place here at the base of this
building, plus we need to get close to the elevators, to the service elevators for the
residential building, to be able to service such a building. In addition to that, we have a
positioned this building in a logical location to provide appropriate distance between
those buildings. It's -- and we feel that distance between reaching buildings is an
important factor as well, and we have also, with respect to the view of the
Intercontinental, just like they have a view of our building, we have a view of their
building as well, and we feel that -- in fact, it's not that we only reduced a distance from
the waterfront. We made a substantial reduction in the other direction, where the original
building was coming all the way closer by a substantial difference of distance. So, in
fact, we did improve the diagonal views out of really a third only a third of the rooms
from that hotel, but my understanding was that a lot of the concern had to do with a view
of the waterfront of the swimming pool, and that I'd like to show some of the images of
the current project, as it stands today. This is the view that currently is presented by the
Intercontinental Hotel. You can see the solid walls facing our site. I guess -- which we
are building, and, therefore, finally covering those walls. This also shows you the
position of the podium of the Intercontinental Hotel and its proximity to the water. With
this I'd like to address the condition of the pool deck because -- in fact, the pool deck of
the Intercontinental Hotel has substantial landscaping. In fact, some of this landscaping
is as tall or taller than the height that we have on that residential podium, which
encompasses the majority of the frontage of the hotel, and you can see here that this
shows that one is able to landscape easily on top of such deck, and provide appropriate
cover of the parking deck, which, my understanding at the previous hearing, was a
primary concern, the extent of parking deck wall that we were exposing in their direction.
The current height that we're providing is equivalent to a two - story home in the suburbs.
You know, it's not a height that is insurmountable in terms of being able to conceal it
with a planter, and if they choose to put a planter along that edge, which could be 36
inches or 30 inches high or four inches -- four feet high, and we provided a planter on the
top of our slab, we -- between the two of us, we probably can do a pretty good job of
softening such wall, even though it is not a substantial wall. But these show examples on
where, very clearly, even great portion of their own office building is concealed and that
this is substantial landscaping is possible to be accommodated along the edge of that
120 January 25, 2001
podium. I also like to point out in this last image their current condition of the swimming
pool because currently, their swimming pool, they built a pavilion between the swimming
pool and the waterfront, and they could remedy their view of the water by simply
relocating a pavilion that they chose to put between the pool and the waterfront. It is -- if
they are relying to look sideways to the waterfront through our site, this can be corrected
internally. Obviously, the view to the water was not as important from the pool since
they built an entire restaurant pavilion between the pool and the water anyway. And
these are pictures of the actual condition. That pavilion is very close to the swimming
pool. It was a later addition from the original design and you can see from here there is
barely any gaps from the pool out to the bay, and you can see here that they already have
a solid wall and a balustrade so that the difference between such balustrade and our wall
is not a substantial one, and that's why I provided you with these views because this is
actually how you see out to the water from the current swimming pool at the hotel and
maybe view is not as important as we thought from that pool. We prepared also a series
of shadow studies, which we -- with the specific times that Intercontinental requested and
we plotted those accordingly in our computer, and more than half of those times that
we're requested did provide light to the swimming pool, ample light with little or no
interference to the swimming pool. So, in fact, the majority of the times indicated in
those shadow studies were positive, according to the results of the time that's we were
requested to plot through the computer. Needless to say, at some point there is a shadow.
At some point there is shadow from any building to any building, even in a suburban
home from one to another. But we think that the results were indicated positive solution.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. We'll now close the public hearings.
Ms. Dougherty: May I just add something for the record? I want to respond to the
Miami River Commission. They had asked two -- they had made two requests of us.
One is to have a 14 -foot clear way. As you know, our bay walk is 20 feet wide, but they
had asked -- and it is actually 14 feet wide in all places at clear way. They had asked for
a 16 -foot clear way. For the majority of the bay walk, it is actually more than 14 feet, but
in some places, it can only be 14 feet. So we want these plans to be approved. We can't
accommodate a 16 -foot at all places. But there is another request that they asked and that
is, if the Dupont Plaza is able to open up, they would like us to remove our trees at the
west end and we would agree to that.
121 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Mr. Fort -Brescia: I'd like to add, we have a varying edge. Instead of having 16 feet
continuous, we go from 38 to 23/8 to 33/10, to 25. We have a variation of width and the
reason why there is a variation of width from 14 to 38 is because we have an irregular
site.
Commissioner Sanchez: Which is the --
Mr. Fort -Brescia: The narrow point...
Commissioner Sanchez: -- narrowest point in the...
Mr. Fort -Brescia: The narrow point is in front of the office building where we obviously
get to the tightest point of the site.
Commissioner Sanchez: And how many feet is that?
Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, here it's very low because we're almost on grade. So you're not -
- but -- it's a 20 - feet area, but it's a 14 feet walkway because we allocate space for the
seawall, two feet and three and a half feet for the landscaping, for the trees. So, it's a total
of 20 feet. And I want to point out the average say long the whole length is 23 feet. So,
it is above the 16 feet requirement, but we simply -- if you average it, the difficulty we
had is because of the constraints of the site. We were unable to provide 16 everywhere,
but we exceeded so much in other areas, that we think we more than compensated and
provided on average of 23 feet.
Commissioner Sanchez:
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Well, let me...
Commissioner Teele: Is the public hearing closed?
122 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me close -- the public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask staff, again, what was the specific language of the
riverfront -- Commission recommendation regarding the 16 feet?
Ms. Slazyk: The Miami River Commission requested that they'd like a minimum clear
path of 16 feet.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Minimum clear path of 16 feet, and you've heard the
testimony that they are providing a minimum of 20 feet, inclusive of a minimum of 14
feet of walkway. What is a clear path, I guess, is the...
Ms. Slazyk: Well, that it's a clear walkway without landscaping and the sea wall, that
that be clear available for pedestrians to walk. Unobstructed.
Commissioner Teele: So, in other words, you get penalized for landscaping?
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Commissioner Teele: And you also get penalized on the seawall setback and you get
penalized on landscaping, in that regard?
Ms. Slazyk: It takes away from clear path, yes.
Commissioner Teele: OK. That's a better way to -- you're always better on this stuff
than I am. OK. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else?
Commissioner Winton: If you eliminated the landscaping, then you'd have to 16 -foot
clear path, which is greater?
Ms. Slazyk: They could make the 16 foot clear path, but the landscape buffer here,
because of the change of grade, is more -- is a more important consideration.
Commissioner Winton: That's what I would think.
Ms. Slazyk: What the Planning department did was add a condition -- another condition
to the Major Use Special Permit that addressed final review an approval of the edge by
123 January 25, 2001
the planning director prior to building permits. So we're going to continue to work with
them on the final details for design, for furniture, for lighting, paving on that river walk.
Commissioner Winton: So, we get another bite at the apple here in terms of what that
river walk is really going to look like, so...
Ms. Slazyk: Yes, we're going to continue to work with them on -- the trees was a big
issue, too, and the type of furniture and lighting that they are going to provide.
Commissioner Winton: Do we have downtown, do we have shadow requirements for
buildings downtown?
Ms. Slazyk: There are no specific shadow requirements in the zoning ordinance for
downtown.
Commissioner Winton: I have to admit, I think that the developer here has done
absolutely an amazing job responding to the -- no not only the neighbors 'needs, but our
requirements from two meetings ago. And we asked the developer to go back and look at
a number of things, which included the wall that fronted the swimming pool area. We
asked them specifically to look at the treatment of the waterfront there because I didn't
feel -- we didn't feel that that was done well enough, and as far as I'm concerned, what
they've done here is terrific. We've got much better waterfront pedestrian friendly
environment. You know, they've, again, just like the prior developer, they've added a --
they've got rid of a coffee shop and have a real restaurant there that the public can really
enjoy, and I'll tell you, when I first moved to Miami, I found it absolutely -- and that was
20 years ago -- found it absolutely amazing that we have all the water that we have in
Miami, and you had to go to Ft. Lauderdale to go to waterfront restaurants, and I always
thought that -- except for Montys'-- sand I always thought that was really bazaar. And in
one meeting here, today, thanks to the effort of my colleagues here and our Planning
staff, and the pushing of this whole river walk concept and exposure -- what we're ending
up with two new restaurants fully accessible to the public, right on the water, and I think
that's just outstanding, and, so, I think y'all have done a good job, and I'm moving
recommendation of staff on this issue.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
124 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Further discussion. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Under discussion. I want to associate myself with the remarks of
Commissioner Winton. I'd like to ask staff a couple of questions. First let me ask the
attorney. Are you aware of the white diamond/blue diamond case over on Miami Beach
at Eden Roc, in which I...
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, the shadow cases.
Commissioner Teele: I voted and was reversed by the court in that case. I took the
strong position of the Eden Roc and the court reversed us or ruled that there is no right to
shadow. At some point, I think the issue needs to be how do we approach shadows in the
code. This is never really been a big issue in Miami, but it's becoming an issue because,
as you grow, and get more and more, God forbid like New York, you're going to have
these problems. This is a part of the problems. And there appears to be a well-
established law, a rule of law that the courts have ruled on, and, at some point, I'd like for
you to get those cases and give them to us, or sat least give us some summary -- I think
it's really important for the staff. Having said all of that, I tend, up until that point, to
support anyone 's right to be free of shadows, an I've learned that that is not the state of
the law, but I do think that the staff analysis needs to be developed more in this area. I'm
talking now, not about what you all have done, but we need to anticipate this is going to
be a problem more and more, and one of the things that I would be very interested in
seeing is how we can get an engineering firm or, you know, whatever these shadow-
ologists (sic) are, that can come in and tell us because I really do think that it's a little bit
misleading to say that there is no impact. I mean, we need to know that, but I also think
we need to conform to the fact -- and we need to make it very clear to the public, that the
City is either going to establish a right to be free of shadows or we're not within the
context of what the courts have ruled, and I don't think we have a lot of latitude in saying
we're going to have people free of shadows. I mean, that's just my reading of the law. I
voted, admittedly, of the wrong way or at least I was reversed by the circuit court on that
issue. I do believe that the developer need to be encouraged to continue to work with the
property owners, and I'm not sure how we can do that in the context of the approval. But
are there any provisions or is there any mechanism that we can ask for an ongoing
process, whereby they can keep the adjacent property owners, as we go through these
various approval processes? I'm not seeking, at all, to give the adjacent property owners
a veto or, for that matter, even a sense that they've got to a right to refuse, but I do think
we should send the signal that we do think that the Intercontinental, the various
businesses that are there are important to our City, and we'd like to encourage the
125 January 25, 2001
dialogue. Because I think the one thing that can be said of this developer and this team is
they came back in record-breaking time, and under took a substantial number of changes.
Now, whether we call them month you mental or monumental or all of the right
language, I'm not sure. But I don't think that anyone can doubt the sincerity of the
developer to address. And I'd just like to try to see if staff would think about how we can
continue that process as one of the conditions. And, finally, it appears to me that the
intent of the Miami River Commission is codified in the staff recommendation, and mad
dam director, I'd like to just -- I mean, I don't mean to say this is not a big difference
between 14 feet and 16 feet, but when you consider 14 feet is less 6 feet of setbacks of
seawalls and landscaping, I -- is it your intent -- is it your belief that the 14 -- the
minimum of 14 feet, which we said averages out to something different -- at one place he
said 33 feet -- is it your professional view, in light of the recommendation of the River
Commission, that 14 feet is adequate in this context?
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would say, yes, Commissioner, because like the architect had
stated, while there is an average of 23 feet, at one point there is more than 30 feet and
there is (inaudible) actually the experience that you have walking through the bay walk
and the widening and the narrowing that would be -- and the activation that they have
created, that the 14 doesn't really become an issue. So, what's your question? We're not
talking about a 14 feet constant. It is, at one point, it will be 14, but at one point it also
would be 23 and (inaudible) 33.
Commissioner Teele: Does your recommendation -- is there language that says a
minimum of 14 feet clear path?
Ms. Slazyk: No. The final recommendation doesn't require 14 feet minimum. What it
does is it ties them to the plans that they presented here, which show that the minimum
will be 14. The requirement here is that they continue to work with us in developing the
specifications for the water's edge.
Commissioner Teele: So the word 14 feet is not in there, but the plan is attached, which
is a minimum of 14 feet. So, it's just stated in the plan and not in the condition?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: OK.
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would like to add to what Lourdes is saying and what we're
discussing, that the purpose of the condition is to ensure that once it's developed that
what we have is a lesson activated pedestrian walkway connection on the water, and that
126 January 25, 2001
would be the ultimate desirable use of this, and how do they accomplish (inaudible)
landscape (inaudible) dimensions? That's what we would be looking at, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: My final question is really one of ignorance, perhaps. The
bulkhead -- I guess we're trying -- I'm trying to figure out which side is ours and which
side is theirs. We said water's edge. So the bulkhead is a part of the project?
Mr. Maxwell: I would say, sir, that it is a part of the project because they cannot
construct it on our property without our approval, and there is no such request. So, that
would be -- the bulkhead would be part of their (inaudible) element.
Commissioner Teele: Is there a marina associated with this, at all?
Mr. Maxwell: Initially, there was, I think. Ms. Dougherty.
Commissioner Teele: Nothing we're approving is approving a marina, is that...
Ms. Dougherty: There was a marina. There is a marina as part of the project. We have
submitted an application to the State of Florida for a marina, and we have requested a
lease from your property maintenance department to lease your submerged lands, and
that's still under consideration.
Commissioner Teele: The marina is not before us today?
Vice Chairman Gort: Not today, no.
Ms. Dougherty: No. But I want you to know that every board that we've ever been to,
including the Miami River Commission, and the Dade County Shoreline Review
Committee, and everybody really is desirous of having a marina there. They think that
this is the best thing that could possibly happen to enliven that water -- bay walk.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I mean -- I guess I'm -- what I want to make sure is that
we're being intellectually honest, and I'm not suggesting at all that you're not being
intellectually honest, but it seems that the marina is not really before us, but it also seems
that the marina is right behind us, coming forward, and I really do think that the public,
more so needs to be apprised of that, and it, somehow -- and so do we. So does the
waterfront Commission, because I think -- I don't know how we get in this box, Madam
Director, and I -- at some point, I wish you would advise me on how this process works.
But it seems to me that a marina would also be very much an enhancement of the area,
127 January 25, 2001
but it just seems to me that if we're talking about a marina up there, it's going to be a
marina, it should be presented at least conceptually.
Ms. Dougherty: They are in the plans. The marina facility is in the plans.
Commissioner Winton: Well, it may be in the plans, but it certainly hasn't been -- it's
been...
Ms. Dougherty: It's never been an issue...
Commissioner Winton: -- there's been zero focus from this Commission on that issue
because it hasn't been...
Commissioner Sanchez: Not in front of us.
Commissioner Winton: Right. I mean, we didn't...
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. It's a jurisdictional thing because it's not theirs.
Commissioner Teele: Well, let me ask you this. Because I asked the question before and
you said, no. Let me ask the question, if I could, Mr. Chairman? Is the marina before us?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes, it is.
Ms. Slazyk: It's in the plans, but they can't get a building permit for it without getting
other City approvals.
Commissioner Teele: But are we approving -- hold it. Are we approving, in concept, as
a part of the plans, a marina at this time?
Ms. Dougherty: Yes. Yes, you are.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes, you're approving a concept, but they can't get a building permit without
other approvals from the City.
Commissioner Teele: But this isn't a building permit hearing. This is a permit on a
MUSP.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. And in...
128 January 25, 2001
Ms. Dougherty: There are State of Florida permit that's we have to get. We have to get
DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) permits. We have to get
a lease from you. So that issue is coming back to you.
Ms. Slazyk: One of the conditions on the Major Use Special Permit is that, before they
get buildings permits, they have to meet all other requirements and...
Commissioner Teele: I just -- again, I'm saying dash because I don't think this has been
any discussion of it. I hate -- I said I think it's out of ignorance because I'm not really
sure, but I'm now sure that I am uninformed about one aspect, that there is a marina that
we're approving in terms of this MUSP, at this time.
Ms. Dougherty: That's correct.
Ms. Slazyk: The plans that are on file, that are in the books that all of the Commissioners
got, have always shown the marina on the river's edge. There is a linear.
Commissioner Teele: I wouldn't know a marina plan anyway, but don't want to offend
the -- may I just redirect to the water -- have you all reviewed the marina plan and are
you all satisfied with that component of it?
Mr. Bibeaux: We did see the marina come up in the plans, an this were some questions
as to, you know, whether or not DERM would allow it. There is manatee protection plan;
there is the swim plan; there are a lot of regulations on new marina facilities that make
the permitting, at best, difficult. The Miami River Commission did not take a stand on
the marina issue. We would have to look at whether or not it impedes on the Federal
Navigational Channel; whether or not the shipping industry would have any difficulty
getting around the boats.
Commissioner Teele: This is kind of close to the Miami River, huh?
Mr. Bibeaux: On it. So, it really -- to my knowledge, the Miami River Commission has
not taken an official stand as to the marina project.
Commissioner Teele: I don't think we've got to worry about any Miami River vessels
being tied up here, though.
Mr. Bibeaux: No. But the vessels do enter right there and the Federal Navigational
Channel is the quite close to the shore there. And, so, if the boats have coming out 40, 50
feet and it impedes on the Federal Navigational Channel, which is quite narrow in the
129 January 25, 2001
river, you could affect the fifth largest port in the state, which does four billion dollars
($4,000,000,000) trade every year with the Caribbean.
Commissioner Teele: What is depth at this location?
Mr. Bibeaux: The depth is supposed to by 15 feet. That's why we're trying to get it
dredged. Environmental contaminants have filled it up to about 12, 13 feet.
Commissioner Teele: I'm not talking about the river. I'm talking about this waterfront
portion.
Mr. Bibeaux: The river is at about 13. This portion, I'm not exactly sure.
Commissioner Teele: This is the bay, isn't it?
Mr. Bibeaux: It's the mouth of the river. It's...
Commissioner Teele: This is referred to as the mouth of the river?
Mr. Bibeaux: Yes, sir. The east to west. North to south would be the Biscayne Bay, and
then east to west would be the beginning of the river.
Commissioner Teele: You know what the depth is? Lieu lie I don't know the depth.
Commissioner Winton: Commissioner Teele, it seems to me -- I mean, we're approving
something conceptually here. They've got more hurdles than you could ever imagine to
get through, including having to come back before us, as well, and...
Commissioner Teele: Well, I guess my only real issue here is that, in a different
Commission meeting -- in a different meeting, you know, we need -- assuming this is say
approved, we really need to look at ways to assist in some of these waterfront amenities.
I think, you know, it's not before us now, but I really do think, in terms of the
presentation of the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) and some of the other
things that we've been talking about, we need to look at this again, at a different -- with a
different hat on, and I'm very interested in doing that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Commissioner Teele. Let me tell you something. This
land here, it's been sitting empty. This is one of the most beautiful parcels that exists
within downtown Miami. And I think -- and correct me staff and, Luft, you can correct
me if I'm wrong. It's been sitting there empty for the last 15 years. The reason being,
130 January 25, 2001
like I stated before, this was part of a project that came in, when they built the (inaudible)
hotel. It was going to be two phases. And the way -- the reason it was designed the way
it was is because the second phase was going to be a compliment of the original phase,
sand that's what makes it so difficult to build anything there right now because of the odd
shape that exist in thats -- and let me tell y'all something. Financing for that project is not
the easiest thing to do, especially in downtown Miami. I think the developer and the
architects have gone through extreme hardship to create and lower it as much as they can.
At the same time, we don't want to hurt any of the tourism industry that we have here,
which is the number one. But I think we can't stop progress either. I'm ready to vote on
it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question. Could it be a roll call?
Commissioner Regalado: Roll call.
(Comments made during roll call).
Commissioner Sanchez: Based on the recommendation by the City's administration, the
Miami River Commission, and the arguments made by both sides, hearing their
arguments, yes.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
131 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-81
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE
SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF
ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, FOR THE ONE MIAMI — PHASE I
PROJECT, A PHASED PROJECT TO BE LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 205 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, TO BE COMPRISED OF NOT MORE THAN 425
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ACCESSORY RECREATIONAL SPACE,
603,126 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, RETAIL AND OTHER
NONRESIDENTIAL USE AND 1,485 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.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
132 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 4. PZ -4, 632, 634 Southwest 8th Street.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -4 is a request for a -- it's an
appeal of a special exception, which was approved by the Zoning Board, with conditions;
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Department, with conditions, for
used auto sales at approximately 632 and 634 Southwest 8th Street. This is an existing
auto sales facility that wants to add used vehicles to their auto sales. The department has
recommended approval, with the condition that no flags or banners be permitted on the
subject property, as part of the used car sales, so that it maintain the same appearance as
the new car sales that's there today. The Zoning Board recommended approval, and this
is an appeal of that decision.
Commissioner Winton: Say that again.
Ms. Slazyk: The Zoning Board granted it and this is an appeal of that decision before
you. We recommend denial of the appeal and uphold what the Zoning Board granted.
Commissioner Teele: What number is this?
Ms. Slazyk: This is PZ -4.
Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -4.
Commissioner Winton: Four.
Vice Chairman Gort: At this time, anyone that has not been sworn in needs to stand up if
you're going to testify on any of the items. If you have not been sworn in before, you
need to stand and be sworn in. Anyone that would like to testify that has not been sworn
in.
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED
UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1, TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING
TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: So help you God.
133 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: This is an appeal. The appellant gets an opportunity to go first.
Jose A. Rajoy: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, good afternoon. My
name is Jose A. Rajoy, residing at 12310 Southwest 97th Terrace, Miami; an American
citizen since 1974 and a member of this community for over 40 years. I have been, for
quite awhile, fed up with the way our City has been abused by people with power and
influence. I feel guilty for not doing my part to try to clean this mess. The reason I am in
front of you today is a matter of principal, and it's costing me dearly. I was forced, under
duress to pay one thousand one hundred forty-three dollars ($1,143) just to be able to
appeal a decision taken on November 20th of last year by the Miami Zoning Board,
granting a special exception to Vehicle USA, to allow a used car dealer to operate at 632,
634 Southwest 8th Street, case 2000-830 -- 384. Common sense, and City laws will tell
anybody that you cannot operate a business without the proper license in your possession.
With a flagrant disregard of the laws of our City, Vehicles USA has been operating
illegally since November 5th of '98 at 634 Southwest 8th Street, without the proper
occupational license and Certificate of Use. On October 28th of '99 a complaint was
received by the City and after letters and summons, they were found guilty of the charges
on April 26th of last year of failure to have a valid Certificate of Use, but being wealthy,
wealthy and powerful, they keep on operating. They were granted extensions and
extensions, but no fines. What a different standard to other people when they have to
appear in front of the Code Enforcement Board. They give you, the board, ex -amount of
days to fix the problem and after that, it's a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250) a
day. First, the case -- issued by the Miami Zoning Board, number 200-384, should be
declared null and void by the City Commission on account on improper double standard
proceedings. Persons like me, who own a property since 1971 at 2995 Southwest 8th
Street, always use as a used car dealer, are threatened to lose our grandfather right when
the City changed the zoning from C-4 to C-1. At that time, the City of Miami did not
want no more used car lots in south -- on Southwest 8th Street. Lately, it's a ruling that,
if you let the occupational license and Certificate of Use elapse at six months, you lose
your grandfather right to operate a used car dealer, period. I ask myself why this entity,
Vehicle USA, even though they are to be above the law, some City board can give them
property rights, they do not deserve it, and people like me can lose our property rights on
a technicality. That is strange, very strange, to say the least. Am I and people like me
second class citizens? I don't think so. Second. The case decision named above should
be declared null and void by the Miami Commission on account of the City methods and
transgressions of the law by Vehicle USA and their attorney, Mr. Joe Geller, when he
violated chapter 837, 837.02 of the state substantive law. When acting or testifying on
November 20 of last year, he committed perjury under our -- in an official proceeding,
rendering the whole affair illegal. This act of perjury is listed as a felony of the third
degree and I have the proof here. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, Karen, I have to -- Karen, are you
here for this particular case?
134 January 25, 2001
Ms. Karen: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: OK. I ask the City Attorney just now -- because I didn't
understand. I knew they were in the audience, but I didn't understand what issue they
were here for, and I have to recuse myself. I have a conflict.
Ms. Karen: But, Commissioner...
Vice Chairman Gort: Goodbye. Take care of yourself. Have a good one.
Ms. Karen: I'm really here just collaterally.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. I have a question. There are some statements that has
been made by the gentleman, some accusations. Can I get a response from staff?
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Could you -- I think the question regards
whether or not someone is a lobbyist or not, Commissioner?
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no. My understanding is, this gentleman stated that he has
grandfather -- Certificate of Use for car use. If he does not maintain that for six months,
he loses that. He wants to know why these individuals can get that certificate?
Ms. Slazyk: They can if they get the special exception. He lost it. The only way to get it
back is to get the special exception.
Vice Chairman Gort: In other words, this gentleman and any other gentleman that would
lose that, they can come back to us and to the same procedure, can get the license back or
the Certificate of Use?
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Mr. Rajoy: It's not supposed to be that way, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me.
Mr. Rajoy: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me.
Juan Gonzalez: Yeah. Juan Gonzalez, Planning and Zoning. Commissioner, yes, that is
correct, your -- the active used car lots today in the C-1 zoning designation, as long as
they maintain their occupational and Certificate of Use, are legal, non -conformities. And
there is a provision in the code -- he is correct -- that if they were to close down
completely for a period of over 180 days, they basically would be considered lost of the
non -conformity. They would have to go back and get a special exception to operate or
reopen the car lot. In this particular case, the difference is, yes, that the existing -- the
135 January 25, 2001
reason is that he's allowed to operate as a nonconforming and these new individuals, they
went through the proper procedure, which the C-1 allows them to operate as, subject to
approval of a special exception.
Vice Chairman Gort: Also, my understanding is -- and I didn't see this in the fax that I
received here -- that these individuals have been taken to code enforcement.
Mr. Gonzalez: I believe there is something in the fax sheet, that there is a code
enforcement case.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): And they went to hearing on
December the 6th and they have been told to come back January the 28th, pending this
hearing.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So, their extension was something that was done legally?
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Right. Because they were cited for failure to have a Certificate
of Use. They were sent to Code Enforcement, but this would be a remedy for their Code
Enforcement (inaudible) if they were granted -- if they were granted the special
exception. They would have to go back on the 28th of January, back to Code
Enforcement.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Ms. Slazyk: And I was asked by the City Attorney just put on the record that there are
exceptions to the lost of Certificate of Use if they close for more than 180 day, but none
of them apply here. So, they need this in order to reopen legally.
Vice Chairman Gort: No. But I'm talking to this gentleman. And I heard of a case very
similar on 591h and 8th Street, with an individual that had lost the Certificate of Use for a
used car lot and he was told that he could remedy that by going through the process that
we have established. So, there is a process established where someone loses a
grandfather, they can come back and get it.
Mr. Gonzalez: Correct. Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what I'm...
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chairman?
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Chairman?
136 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: One other thing you may want to point out and you may want to just have
on the record, there are certain circumstances where a person may lose their
nonconforming status, commonly called grand fathering, grandfather status, but, yet,
retain it because the loss was through -- but it meant certain exceptions. It was a
governmental action or something of this nature. I don't think any of those apply in this
situation, but just for future reference, there are exceptions to that rule.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chairman. Is it Mr. Rajoy?
Mr. Rajoy: Rajoy. Rajoy in Spanish.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Rajoy made several statements, including some allegations
in his statements that I just feel that we need to clarify it, for the reason to make a valid
decision to either up this -- vote it up or vote it down, how we're going to do it. But one
of them was the standardization that exist when people come in front of the Code
Enforcement Board, and I have been one that have been here in my office working a little
late and I stand back there and I go through the Code Enforcement and I see people that
come here and they are, for whatever reasons, they are found to be guilty of -- by the
Code Enforcement Board and they get -- and the Code Enforcement Board, first of all, let
me say, has improved from the past. They are doing a great job. And they fine people.
But it tends that we have people that walk here with a small violation and then they are
told you have five days to comply, and after those five days, you're either going to pay a
fine, which could be 250, 500, and they are hit. But in other cases, other individuals walk
in here and they are found guilty and somehow they are either fined, but they manage to
go through the system and not pay the fine and, really, it creates a double standard that
how do we change that or how do we look at that when we have somebody like yourself,
who is old and in retirement and probably has a hard time making it through the month,
paying the necessity of bills, when someone that walks in here with what we so-called
Gucci attorneys that are able to make valid arguments and you're not fined? So, that is
something that really has always puzzled me and continues to hurt me when I see people
that -- and I have been here and basically have walked away because I feel a pain in my
heart. Because the last meeting that I was here, this was a Haitian man. I didn't quite get
his -- he came in. He was cited. He came in and said, hey, you know, I was wrong, dah,
dah. They (unintelligible) him. You better get everything done in five days or five
hundred dollars a day ($500). But then there was another case that was similar and, you
know, the guy was able to get treated a little different. So, there isn't that standardization.
I just wanted to bring that up because I think that if we're going to have a standardization,
we've got to have it for everybody, from the poorest individual to the richest guy in our
community. But that's beside the point. I just had to get that out of my chest.
(Applause).
137 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, tell them that you can't do that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. Let's clarify that point right now. My
understanding -- because I went through the experience in Miami Beach. I was taken in
front of the Code Enforcement. The Code Enforcement -- and I want the staff to answer
it. Our Code Enforcement is the same procedure. They asked me to do some repairs
within 10 days. In talking to the people in construction, I was told there was no way that
we could do that within 10 days. I approached the Code Enforcement. I told them I
could not do it in 10 days. I need an extension. I need six months, and that time was
given to me. My understanding is, you can come in front of that Code Enforcement and
if they give you five days and you can come back and tell them, we cannot do it in five
days; I need an extension; I want to comply; I want to do it, you can get the extension.
So, I think that's -- and that might by ignorance that the people are not told. So, I think, if
we have anybody here from the Code Enforcement, I'd like that point clarified.
Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you that, if one goes back before the
Code Enforcement Board, it's a quasi judicial -body, and has an expert testify that the
remedy that they are -- that they have been told to seek, is not doable within that period
of time, I'm sure the Code Enforcement Board would then respond based on the
testimony of that person, to extend the time.
Vice Chairman Gort: But I'd like to know what the experience has been in the past,
because I think this is the -- a point that Commissioner Sanchez brought in, which is very
important. My understanding is, not only the feasibility of doing the repair or whatever
needs to be required to comply, but also sometimes with economic hardship, people will
get certain time to comply with, as long as people say I will comply. My understanding
is, people get fined when they -- and not willing to comply or they are given certain time,
and they do not ask for an extension, and that's when that takes place. I want to have all
that clarified because I think what Commissioner Sanchez brought up is very important.
Do we have anybody from Code Enforcement?
Commissioner Regalado: If I may, just a point...
Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, wait. But before -- listen, Mr. Chairman, before we -- I
had several other...
Vice Chairman Gort: I'm sorry. Make sure -- let's get that answer, and you can bring it
back later. Go ahead, Commissioner Sanchez.
Commissioner Regalado: But, you know, -- excuse me, Joe. Just one -- this is a matter
of policy and the City Commission has to set a standard, because what is happening --
and Joe is right and, Willy, you're right too -- what is happening is you get cited and they
tell you in the letter you have until February the 9th to comply. You don't comply. The
inspector goes by and then the fines start running, and then you are sent to Code
Enforcement. I think it should be the other way around. You should be cited and go
before Code Enforcement. Do you want to comply? If you don't comply in 30 days --
138 January 25, 2001
from 60 days, then you start getting the fines, and we have so many cases of poor people
that are being -- that have taken thousands of thousands of dollars. Remember that case -
- that woman with the ice cream truck. She's running, I think, a two hundred and sixty
thousand dollar ($260,000) fine -- I mean, you can buy so many ice cream trucks with
two hundred -- it doesn't make sense. So, it is a matter of process.
Commissioner Sanchez: Getting back to the statements that Mr. Rajoy made -- and I just
want to bring two more points that I wrote down. One was that they did not have the
appropriate business licenses, the occupational license and the Certificate of Use, and I
think that has to be addressed, that they -- did they or did they not? Because let me tell
you something: There are a lot of businesses out there that continue not to have an
occupational license. I have told this administration many times, go after those people.
There's plenty of money out on the street. But if they did not have the licenses, then why
weren't they cited?
Ms. Slazyk: They were cited.
Commissioner Sanchez: They were cited.
Ms. Slazyk: And their remedy is getting this special exception.
Commissioner Sanchez: Right. And when were they cited? How many years have they
been arguing this back and forth, since 1999?
Ms. Slazyk: Nineteen ninety-nine.
Commissioner Sanchez: Ninety-nine. Well, it's funny because I have the script here.
Let's go through it. Ten -twenty -nine -ninety-nine, received complaint; 10-28-99,
inspection -- initiated inspection. Day after, 291h: letter sent. Ticket warning letter.
What's a ticket warning letter? I was a State Trooper, either I gave you a warning or I
gave you a ticket. I didn't give you both.
Mr. Maxwell: I think that's a ticket and procedure through Code Enforcement process.
That occurs as a condition proceeding to going before the Code Enforcement Board.
Commissioner Sanchez: All right. That was under 29. February the 7th, inspection field
check. February the 10th, letter sent. Summoned to appear; 3-27-00, inspection office
work reminder; 3-28-00, letter sent. Final administration enforcement order: 5-1-00
inspection office work reminder; the 31st through the 7th another reminder; 11-29-00
another reminder. Does everybody get this privilege? Does everybody -- I mean...
Dennis Wheeler: Dennis Wheeler, Acting Director, NET (Neighborhood Enhancement
Team). Not being very familiar with this case, my...
Commissioner Sanchez: And I don't mean to put you on the spot. I apologize for that,
but...
139 January 25, 2001
Mr. Wheeler: I would assume that most people do not get that many shots at the...
Commissioner Sanchez: So -- and there is more. I think we have to put this out. I hate
to put it out so people could see it, but, you know, I think that everybody should be
treated equally. Twelve -seven, inspection affidavit, final inspection and, then, here they
are today. Did they ever pay a penny? Did you collect a penny upfront? Because that's
bad government. And we haven't collected a penny from them. How much money have
we spent? Sending them certified letters. How much time have we spent in the City
without collecting a penny from them? And we'll compare expenses to revenues. You
didn't collect a penny. I'll answer the question for you. You didn't collect a single penny.
And it's here for approval, and I'm going to approve it. But when somebody like this
gentleman comes here and spends a thousand, whatever you spent, sir, to come here and
make this argument and spend his time and be away from his family to make this
argument, I think we ought to give him at least 20 minutes because he's right, in some
cases. Looking at some others, he's probably going to be wrong. Now, we'll go to
another one, and that's something I want you to address. He made a statement that's very
serious. He just accused you of perjury. He accused you of perjury, coming in front of
this Commission -- I'm sorry, in front of the Code Enforcement Board and saying that
you were a registered lobbyist with the City of Miami. My question to you, Mr. Geller,
were you a registered lobbyist with the City of Miami at that time?
Joseph Geller: My understanding is, yes, sir, we've submitted papers. I'm registered with
the City as a lobbyist; been registered with the City as a lobbyist; appeared before them;
paid an occupational license. There was, I will tell you, some confusion, in my mind,
because we received a bill from the City. My staff paid that bill to the City. We
submitted it at the time. We were billed. We paid it. It was an occupational license.
There was some confusion on our part. We have a cancelled check, sir that we paid it,
and that was received -- we called. We were told we were in compliance. I double
checked again and made sure we were.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Geller, I don't want to confuse apple to oranges. We're not
talking about the occupational license or certificate of approval. I'm talking about were
you a registered lobbyist when you came in front of this Code Enforcement and you
testified as a registered lobbyist? Simply, yes or no.
Mr. Geller: To the best of my knowledge, at the time we were in compliance, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Mr. Maxwell: Commissioner.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
Mr. Maxwell: Representation before the Code Enforcement Board is one of the
exceptions to the lobbyist requirement.
140 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Is it?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Well, then, sir, you do not -- wait. This is -- sir, you do
not have an argument against him on that -- because he -- we sit here -- you make
allegations that we -- and I'm not a judge and I'm not an attorney -- but we have to take
those into consideration, listen to both sides -- every mountain has two sides -- and then
we're able to make that. But that's a very serious allegation to make.
Mr. Rajoy: Yeah. It was not, sir -- excuse me. It was not -- I'm not talking about the
Code Enforcement Board. I am talking about the hearing board, and I have the transcript
here.
Commissioner Sanchez: In front of a hearing board, does he have to be a registered voter
-- I mean a registered lobbyist?
Mr. Maxwell: In front of zoning -- if he's talking -- are you speaking of the Zoning
Board, sir?
Mr. Rajoy: Sir, let me get it straight to you.
Mr. Maxwell: If he's speaking of the zoning...
Mr. Rajoy: I am talking, he committed perjury and I got the transcript here when he
appear November the 20, 1999, under -- in the Miami Zoning Board.
Mr. Maxwell: The Zoning Board does require lobbyist registration.
Mr. Rajoy: Yeah, it's required.
Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, do you have proper documentation to show...
Mr. Rajoy: Yes, sir, I've got it here.
Commissioner Sanchez: Show it to me. And I want you to make a copy and provide it to
the City Clerk and every Commissioner and the City Manager and Mr. Geller.
Vice Chairman Gort: Sir, you have to speak in the mike, please. Give him your mike,
Joe. Now, let me ask a question. In looking at my package, I don't have that information
that Commissioner Sanchez is presenting to us.
Commissioner Sanchez: You've got to do your homework. You've got to do your
homework.
141 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Usually -- I do my homework, believe me. But this -- it was not
part of the package. Most of the time, part of the package. When we have something in
front of us, if there's any violation, it comes in here. I thought this was a matter that just
took place now. We're going back for a whole year now.
Ms. Slazyk: Let me explain. What's part of your package is the back -up for the special
exception. On the zoning fax sheet, it does say that there was a citation, a violation, but
what he's reading now -- not relevant to the special exception, 1305 criteria was relevant
and the analysis and everything related to the zoning case. The Code Enforcement issue,
it's a matter of informing you that there is a violation, and that's on the zoning fax sheet,
but the rest of that back up is not here because it's not relevant to zoning.
Vice Chairman Gort: I think we should have that because that's -- I don't know if the
attorney agree with us, but this is not a court where the jury pulse some things --
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, here is another question. Let me not get into the perjury
aspect of it. Do we, at other times, somebody said OK, I'm a registered lobbyist, OK. I
lobby the County; I lobby in West Palm Beach; I lobby in Tokyo, Japan, and you say,
well, I'm not registered with the City, and you pay it a couple of days later. Has that ever
happened in this City?
Mr. Maxwell: That might have occurred. I couldn't speak with any degree of certainty
on that, but I can tell you that the code says that if a person is not a registered lobbyist,
they cannot represent anyone before the board.
Commissioner Sanchez: And what happens if they do and are not a registered lobbyist?
Mr. Maxwell: Well, they would be in violation of the City Code, and they have appellant
provisions for that. If statements are made, then that's a different issue altogether, but if a
person -- if it's determined during a presentation that a person is not a registered lobbyist,
then the testimony stops at that point, and they have to go out and register before you
proceed. I think -- my collection is-- and I would look at this section again, haven't
looked at it for awhile -- but if -- I don't think it would void the fact -- testimony was
given -- does not void an action that you take in furtherance of the item before you just
because the person was not a registered lobbyist. The penalty provisions would go
toward the lobbyist or per se as the lawyer says it was..
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. I have just my -- my chief of staff just brought me a
lobbyist registration by name and principal by the City Clerk, and it shall -- Mr. Geller,
are you registered as a lobbyist on 11-29-00?
Mr. Geller: You have papers in front of you, sir...
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes, I do.
142 January 25, 2001
Mr. Geller: I've been registered as a lobbyist and we paid renewal that year, prior to that
date, submitted to us by the City, paid it and submitted it. And I checked that before I
came to that hearing and spoke to him.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Geller, I'll take your word for it. I mean, if you say you -- I
take your word for it. I mean, I'm just saying that this gentleman made an accusation
against you. I want to clarify it because you know what happens here most of the time?
"Ah, forget him. He's just, you know, an old-timer came in. He's mad about something.
We'll just brush it off and we go on."
Mr. Geller: I object to it most strongly, sir. It's an outrageous gesture.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Can we get the mike working?
Mr. Maxwell: May I respond to -- Commissioner, I have the answer to one of your
questions. Section 2-654G, says, the validity of any action or determination of the City
Commission or any other City board or committee shall not be affected by the failure of
any person to comply with the provisions of this section.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, you've answered my question. Then the other thing that I
have is concern for the gentleman who said that he has not or lost his grandfather status
for the property that he had, and I'm just making these arguments based on the statements
that he's made. I would like the administration to hear him out and suggest ways where
he could get his -- sure, he can. But the administration needs to explain this. You just
can't tell him, yeah, you can do it, but you can't show him. So, in this conversation that
we've had, when this is all done, you know, we, after all -- they pay our salaries. I hope
that we never forget that. You know, take him outside and explain to him how -- what he
could do to take care of his business because, apparently, he is probably here because he
can't get his property grandfathered and he's upset about that and these other matters.
Mr. Rajoy: No, no, no.
Commissioner Sanchez: No?
Ms. Slazyk: Let me explain.
Mr. Rajoy: No, no. That's not the way. I -- in January of last year, my lot, I have it
rented for a lot of years, and my tenant, on account of the problems of the Southwest 8th
Street repair, after six years, he have to go out of business, and I went -- because I knew,
the first was a year, the ruling of the City of losing the grandfather right was a view -- at
the beginning was 8 or 9 or 10 years ago, was one year and you lose your grandfather
right. But that changed maybe three or four years or five years ago, and changed to six
months. When my tenant went out, I just -- went to the City of Miami at 344, I believe,
143 January 25, 2001
Southwest 2nd Avenue, and I asked them to give me a reading on the situation on my
previous tenant, and I have never had any problem. I never lose my grandfather right, but
I'm not talking about losing mine or not. I'm saying that, if I lose it, they told me you're
out. Well, that's what he told me. I want to clarify a little bit about when you apply
because twice I open a business in that location, Southwest 8th Street. One was in 1971
until 1973. The other one was from 1986 to 1989. The other time that property has been
rented out. Every time that you apply for a license for an automobile business, first, you
have to go to the State of Florida, Department of Motor Vehicles. They come and send a
supervisor and check you lot, and say if it is OK to have a used car lot there. They say,
yeah, it is OK. You've got parking. You've got an office, this and that. We allow you
the license. No problem. But that don't mean that you are allowed to operate a used car
dealer in this City of Miami because the City of Miami, up to now, has laws, different
law that you have to go through a lot of checks, plumbing, fires, and this and that, and
you have to apply for occupational license and Certificate of Use. That's common sense,
like I said before. But some people don't give a damn about that common sense. They
figure -- and they have the knowledge because they were in business before, and one of
the gentlemen -- and this is not personal. I don't have anything against them. My
problem is what they are doing, OK. What they are doing is illegal. And the hearing
board, they made a mockery of the laws of our City, and the Code Enforcement Board.
They did not give a damn about it. They did not fine the person, you know, and they
laugh at me, you know, and that's not right. And when I went to the Office of the
Hearing Boards, I was allowed, according to what they send here, 15 days to somebody
to appeal. I went there and I say, what I have to do to appeal? He said, "well, we don't
know. We have to talk to the attorney, City Attorney, and the City Attorney is trying to
see if they can waive the fee for you to appeal." Then he came two or three days and they
were gaining time and the 15 days of appeal were coming out, you know, and in
December 1st, that was a Friday, I went there and talked to the lady, Maria Faria, that she
is assistant to -- Teresita Fernandez is the head person, head staff, member of the Hearing
Boards, and she said, "We didn't hear from the attorney, from the City Attorney." In
other words, we don't know if you are able to waive the fee. Call us December 4 and we
let you know at 8 o'clock. I call at 9:00 in the morning. They say, "We don't know yet".
I said, ma'am, the appeal ending -- I mean, the ending appeal is tomorrow. What should I
do? She said, "Well, I don't know." Then I had somebody that call the office of Ms.
Fernandez and tell her that at least receive me there and see if I have a right to appeal or
to pay for the fee or whatever. I went there December the 5th, the last day, at 12:30.
When I arrive there, Maria Faria was out to lunch. I said, what I have to do now? She
said, "Well you have to wait for her." I said, do you think she come back? Because if
not, I will not have time to file this. After a while, then here comes another nice lady and
said "The only way that you can appeal here is if you pay the whole amount that these
people pay before, and that is eleven hundred and forty-three dollars ($1,143)." I said,
God Almighty. Why the hell I am, as a concerned citizen, as a property owner, as a
citizen of this country I have to pay eleven hundred and forty-three dollars ($1,143) to
appeal a decision that is so out of order? That is a disgrace of the City, and the only thing
it's doing is adding fire to the notion that this is a banana republic, where everything is for
sale -- almost everything is for sale, OK. And then I said, well, I have a check. Could
you accept my check for the eleven hundred and forty-three because I only have about 11
144 January 25, 2001
-- about a thousand dollars ($1,000) in my pocket in cash? And I said, I already paid over
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) -- or close to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in taxes. I
said, could you take my check? "Yeah, we can take your check." And then I was able to
see Ms. Teresita Fernandez. She talked to somebody in NET Office. I believe Mr.
Canton, and she said, from tomorrow, it would be enforcing the two hundred and fifty
dollar ($250) fine. The guy didn't know that it was an appeal. I said, no, everything is
OK. He said "No. There is a gentleman here that is already put in his money and is
appealing this here." And she said, the agenda is closed and it will not be tomorrow in
the Code Enforcement. And I was just a little bit ironic and I said, would you be willing
to bet that tomorrow it will be in the agenda? Because when you dealing here with a Joe
blow like me -- I am a nothing, you know, for some people. Because they have to respect
me because if not I'll make them respect me. And that's not a threat. But when you are
talking about another Joe, another Joe Geller, the Democratic Party Chairman, you know
that's a big Joe or a big joke. I don't know. And there is a difference.. And the next
day...
Commissioner Sanchez: Go ahead with your statement. We don't need to offend
anybody, but go ahead with your statement. But try to hold back on offending anybody
here, please.
Mr. Rajoy: Yeah, I know. The next day was in the agenda, believe it or not, after they
told me it could not be because it was closed. It was in the agenda and then Code
Enforcement Board gave them another extension. In fact, they told me -- they said,
"you're not happy with -- you already stopped the damn procedure. You're not happy.
What's your problem?" I said, "Well, you know, why don't you fine the people because
they are not doing right? And that's the whole thing.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rajoy: Excuse me. I believe I got here a paper from the City of Miami lobbyist
registration that shows that Mr...
Commissioner Sanchez: We've already taken care of that. We've already taken care of
that. Thank you.
Mr. Rajoy: Oh, OK. OK.
Joseph Geller: Members of the Commission, thank you for your attention. Joseph
Geller, representing the applicants here. The issue here is not me.
Vice Chairman Gort: Your address, please, Joe.
Mr. Geller: Address is 2411 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida 33020. The
issue here is not me. I did take exception to the comment that the gentleman made. But
the issue here is a family, which, by the way, is being misrepresented. It's not a big,
wealthy, corporate family business. The co-owner, Marcos Hanono, is present. He and
145 January 25, 2001
his brother, Jose, own this business. Their sister, Bahee (phonetic) Salver, their
comptroller, their brother in law, Isaac Salver, is the CPA (Certified Public Accountant),
and Karen Alvarez, who's his sister-in-law, and her husband, Paul, were the attorneys
who closed it. Now, this is a business that took over a very dilapidated, very beaten
down property, and put in half a million dollars ($500,000) to fix it up to improve that
neighborhood. It was originally envisioned that they were going to sell new cars. They
were in negotiations with a new car dealership from over seas, and they went overseas,
and they went and they obtained an occupational license. Let there be no question that
they were operating with a current, valid occupational license, which has been renewed
repeatedly. Subsequently, when those negotiations fell through and they spent this
money, they started selling some very high-end used cars. They were visited late in '99
by Code Enforcement, who said to them, "You know, you need -- you can't get -- you
have a license to sell cars, but you have the wrong one. You need a special exception,
because that's required on 8th Street". So, they went then through Mr. Salver to try to
obtain the proper papers. He found it a bit daunting dealing with the City. Mr. Salver,
being an old friend of mine since college, asked me to assist. And, Commissioners, I
want to place on the record -- and I know I'm not required to, but the kinds of aspersions
that are being cast against me, I haven't as much has been paid a dime on this, nor do I
have a retainer agreement. Perhaps, at the end they will pay me, but these are a family
that I know and respect for their role in this community and they're trying to improve this
City. So, I've been at meeting after meeting after meeting trying to help them. Since
early last -- yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: Joe, you have stated you have not collected any fee...
Mr. Geller: Not one dime, sir, nor do I have a fee agreement.
Vice Chairman Gort: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: If there is no fee agreement, you don't expect to be paid, you have not
been paid, you represent on the record that this has been totally pro bono, then...
Mr. Geller: I didn't say that, sir. I said I hope, at some point, they will, but I have no fee
agreement.
Mr. Maxwell: That's different.
Mr. Geller: Never miss -- counselor?
Mr. Maxwell: No, no. This was to help you, Mr. Geller.
Mr. Geller: Never discussed -- now, the point is this: Since they were contacted by Mr.
Sell remember, since he began, since they engaged me early last year, all they have done
is work diligently to come into compliance. They found out what they needed. I will tell
you, from a little bitter experience, that the special exception process is not an easy one to
comply with. They hired architects immediately; we got plans drawn; we had plans
146 January 25, 2001
redrawn and redrawn; we submitted them; we resubmitted them, even though the
building was not being changed. The building wasn't being changed by a brick. Not one
brick. The fact is, it took us months to go through this process, to be reviewed and to be
re -reviewed. Every time we appeared before Code Enforcement -- and I personally
appeared before this Code Enforcement Board, no less than four times, and the Code
Enforcement Board always had the same question -- and they always held us on a tight
leash -- "Are you doing everything in your power to cure the only problem?" Mr. Rajoy, I
must say I have no disrespect for, although I take exception to what he said to me -- about
me, but I respect him as a citizen. He's not truly an affected party. He lives out on
Southwest 97th Avenue. His own businesses are two and a half miles away. He's never
lost his own grandfather. But I respect him as a man who's here for nothing on principal.
I don't know why he's chosen to take a dislike for me, but I have no disrespect for him
and nor do my clients, who have spoken to him and approached Mr. Rajoy to find out if
there was some offense that they had committed. The reason they are not in compliance
is only because, even when the Zoning Board approved them, 9/0, Mr. Rajoy, by
appealing that approval, kept them coming into compliance and then wanted them to be
fined for not having come into compliance, and I have been working on this matter for a
year, and I can tell you that, for the year that I've worked on it, I've spent hours sitting
there, personally, trying to push this through as quickly as possible, to bring them into
compliance. They've paid thousands of dollars to the City in fees and applications and
everything else to get this special exception. They want nothing more than to be in
compliance, and we thought we'd accomplished that when the Zoning Board granted an
approval of nine to zero. If you deny this appeal, this is done. They're in compliance.
They're operating properly, and we do not injure -- not one neighbor came forward to
object. Not a single neighbor within 375 feet. So, I appeal to you, Commissioners, let
these people operate, and, for the record, I do take exception to the statements made
about me.
Commissioner Sanchez: And, Mr. Geller, I just want to clarify that it wasn't anything
personal. He just made some allegations that I felt had to be answered, and he made
some valid points, which are -- hey, a few minutes ago we gave a big developer an hour
and a half. I feel that we could have given him the sufficient enough time to answer and,
you know, explain his case.
Mr. Geller: We thank you for the attention to the matter.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
George Warrington: May I say a word?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Are you for or against?
Mr. Warrington: I'll try to be brief. I'm against.
147 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Name and address for the record, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: You're against?
Mr. Warrington: My name is George Warrington. I'm Chief Financial Officer of
Brickell Pontiac/ Honda, GMC (General Motors Corporation) Trucks on 665 and 660
Southwest 8th Street, adjacent property to these people. The reason I'm here is Brickell
Pontiac/Honda owns property on the other end of the block, 600 Southwest 8th Street,
which, for many years, was operated as a used car outlet for Packer Pontiac, which,
subsequently, became Brickell Pontiac. Brickell Pontiac also uses it as a used car
operation. Some time later they used that as it presently is, a body shop office with
parking lot and so forth. Several months ago they decided that they would like to
reestablish this as a used car outlet. I personally went to the City's zoning for Certificate
of Use. I knew that had to be -- had to get one -- and I believe, and I may be wrong, but I
believe part of the zoning, with respect to used cars -- new/used car operations on
Southwest 8th Street requires a new car franchise -- I may be wrong, but I felt that we
were -- had all the...
Commissioner Sanchez: Sir, we need to have that answered by the City.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's not my understanding, but...
Commissioner Sanchez: State your name for the record.
Juan Gonzalez: Yeah. Juan Gonzalez, Planning and Zoning. No. To correct that, there
are two provisions in the C-1 that allows for either new or used car sales. This is the
Florida franchise vehicles, which is the -- we decided to change the owners to make it a
little bit easier for these franchises that sell new cars and, as a percentage, sell some of
the used cars, which has his own separate regulations, and there's a separate regulation
that says "used cars", period. In other words, where all you do is sell used cars by special
exceptions. So, there are two zoning ordinances different in the C-1.
Mr. Warrington: Just let me say this. While I was at the City, I said, well, we have a
neighborhood who is operating a used car lot and I don't believe that they're -- they have
a license. How did this happen? Well, they're a new car operator. They're not a new car
franchise dealer. We were denied a Certificate of Use on this 600 Block. Now, that
doesn't mean we possibly can't go after special exception, but we were denied and our
neighborhood has been operating without a license for over a year. Thanks.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, I think we heard that argument.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you. Is there any other reason, sir? Is there any other
reason why we shouldn't...
148 January 25, 2001
Mr. Warrington: That's entirely up to you.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Now we'll close the public hearings. I think several points has been
brought up, which is very important. I think the lack of communication many times. My
understanding is, if you don't have the funds to ask for an appeal, do we have a procedure
where people can get an appeal without paying?
Mr. Maxwell: The Zoning Board's -- I mean the zoning ordinance specifically exempts
persons within 375 feet...
Vice Chairman Gort: Can you speak a little louder?
Mr. Maxwell: The zoning Code exempts people within the 375 -foot area from having to
pay an appeal fee. There are other provisions in there, as well, but in order to provide an
exemption that would apply to a person in the appellant's position would require zoning
ordinance change.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, it is very important that, somehow, if an individual comes to
one of our offices and ask a question, they should be able to answer that. If you're within
375 feet, which is -- we expand it to five hundred now, right?
Commissioner Sanchez: Which we're in the process of expanding it to five hundred feet.
Vice Chairman Gort: We're in the process of expanding it to five hundred; they can go
ahead and appeal without paying the fee for it?
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: And that the person does not live within those districts, then explain
to them they have to pay a fee, that there is no way, and I think that's very important, to
explain it to them. The other thing is -- and I want to make sure -- and, Commissioner
Sanchez had a good idea. When somebody gets cited, they should know that they can call
-- my understanding is -- because I get a lot of those cases and I handle a lot of those
cases -- in Code Enforcement, inspector goes, gives him a letter. My understanding is --
because I deal with a lot of them -- if we call them and we call the inspector, most of the
time -- and I don't think it's just because it's me -- they'll extend the time before the
people are cited. I believe that should be very important that the inspectors, when they
fine someone on -- they send a letter of violation, that it's very well explains the steps that
those individuals can take. Because I know a lot of times they give them 36 hours, 24
hours or 48, but if you cannot comply within this time, please call this number. I think
149 January 25, 2001
it's very important to inform the individuals so they would not get fined.
Commissioner Sanchez: Being that it's in my district, what are the conditions -- this is
basically for approval with conditions. What are the conditions?
Ms. Slazyk: The conditions are that we wanted to retain the appearance of a new
dealership. We don't want them to have all the flags and banners and that sort of thing
that tends to become cluttering on a used car dealership, so that would be the condition,
that they not do all the flags and banners, and they retain a new car dealership
appearance.
Commissioner Sanchez: Being that it's in my district, I so move, with conditions -- with
the conditions.
Vice Chairman Gort: Moved for approval. Is there a second?
Ms. Slazyk: It's actually a denial of the appeal and...
Vice Chairman Gort: I mean denial of the appeal. OK.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, denial of the appeal.
Mr. Maxwell: And affirming the decision of the Zoning Board.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yes. So moved.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second?
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Vice
Chairman Gort: Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying
'e.�
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
150 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-82
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT (S), DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, TO ALLOW A USED AUTO SALES
ESTABLISHMENT AT THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 632-634 SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED
HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF, SUBJECT TO A TIME
FRAME OF TWELVE MONTHS IN WHICH TO PULL A BUILDING
PERMIT.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Regalado, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Sanchez: Just for the record, it was approved, with conditions, 9-0, by the
Zoning Board, and the Planning and Zoning also approved with conditions.
Vice Chairman Gort: I have -- gentlemen, if you don't mind, I have a request from
Commissioner Winton to hear an item, 14.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: While Commissioner Winton is coming, I would like to make two
151 January 25, 2001
points. Number one, Mr. Geller, you may need to listen to this. Number one, we need to
be very careful, Mr. Attorney. The registration fee is a fee that is based not upon the
right to speak, but it is a fee associated with the costs of running the public access issues
associated with the Clerk's Office, and we -- you know, a first amendment challenge of
this would probably raise a lot of issues, at least when I -- when this ordinance was
written in the County, which I wrote, and then J. L. Plummer brought it over here right
away. It was explained in one way that's totally inconsistent with the way the County
Attorney explained it. And, so, I really think we need to be very careful in using whether
or not a fee has been paid because that fee is not for permission to speak. Any citizen,
under the Constitution of Florida and under the Charter of this City, has a right to come
here with or without a registration. Now, there are certain restrictions and regulations
that we have promulgated, but essentially -- and this is very important from the budget
point of view -- that these fees are for the production of transcripts and public access
things, and I want to be very clear about that. And, secondly, Mr. Geller, I want to
apologize to you, on behalf of the Commission certainly, I don't think anybody should be
personally attacked the way you were, and I think you were extremely professional to
leave it alone and to go on and to explain that, because that's not what we're about, and I
may take some exception with your political affiliations, but I certainly respect your
right, as a citizen, to be whoever you are and whatever you are, and you're great at what
you're doing.
Mr. Geller: Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you, members of the Commission.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
152 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: I understand, PZ -1, we need to make some clarifications.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Yes, sir. On PZ -1. There is a clerical error
on PZ -1 relating to the effective date. The item in your package shows an effective date
30 days. It should show an effective date immediately upon adoption.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. You need a motion on that?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Gort: I need a motion on that.
Commissioner Winton: Moved.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor
state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
153 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, APPROVING WITH
CONDITIONS, THE SANTA CLARA METRORAIL STATION PROJECT
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE SANTA CLARA METRORAIL STATION
AREA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SADD) AND ADOPTION OF
THE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000; 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.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
154 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding, Johnny -- Commissioner Winton, that PZ -5 is asking
for a continuance.
Commissioner Sanchez: Go ahead.
Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Lucia Doughterty, with
offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today representing Imad and Abdul Hammoud, who are
the owners of the subject property. Since the Zoning Board hearing in which the Zoning Board
denied the Special Exception for pre -owned sales on 7500 Biscayne Boulevard, we have actually
asked and engaged Jack Luft to do another site plan for us, and we have preliminarily submitted
it to our neighbors, and they would like the opportunity to consider this site plan, and I'd be
happy to have Jack do a little presentation for you, if that's something you think you'd like to
see. But, anyway, they have kindly agreed to meet with us and have a town hall meeting, and
we'd like that opportunity.
Commissioner Winton: So, we need to — so, I'll move for the continuance.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Heikki Talvitie: Could we...
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion — excuse me. There's a motion and a second.
Discussion on the motion. Yes, sir.
Mr. Talvitie: My name is Heikki Talvitie. I'm president of the Upper Eastside Miami Council.
Reside at 1245 Northeast 81St Terrace. We saw these plans on Monday, so we — our
neighborhood doesn't know about it and it would be — this may be an opportunity, but maybe we
could ask if Jack could make a very brief presentation on the concept, what he's driving after, so
there's a little understanding where we're going.
Commissioner Winton: I'm not sure I see any value in that, at all, Heikki. I think — y'all go
back. If you can work this whole thing out and it meets the neighbors' needs, then let it come
back before us. I don't think we need to take that kind of time.
Mr. Talvitie: It's just two of us have seen it. Nobody else has seen.
Commissioner Winton: But they'll see it when you get back out there.
155 January 25, 2001
Mr. Talvitie: Yeah.
Commissioner Winton: That's the whole point, isn't it? I mean, the point is, they're going —
you're going to take it back to the community and that's what the issue is. So, I — I mean, we're
not going to make a decision today anyhow, so there's no value in us seeing it today.
Robert Flanders: Well, if that's the case — my name is Robert Flanders. I reside at 720
Northeast 69th Street. I've lived in Miami since 1968. We would — as you know, the
neighborhood has not yet keyed into the recent changes; however, we would like to go on the
record to say that we appreciate the Milano Motor Teams addressing the concerns of the
community, and trying to meet the vision that you endorsed a year ago here when you endorsed
the Upper Eastside Economic Revitalization Plan. We think they're on the right track. We don't
have a deal yet. They may have to go back to Planning. We don't know that. But we're very
pleased with their willingness to engage in restrictive covenants, as well as a site plan, which
would enhance the boulevard.
Commissioner Winton: So are we. So...
Ms. Dougherty: Could I ask a question to the Planning Board, and maybe the City Attorney — I
mean the Planning staff? This building has probably moved more than 10 feet in a direction. If
that is a substan — does that, in a Special Exception context, require it to go back to the Zoning
Board?
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning and Zoning): Yes, it would.
Ms. Dougherty: In that case, could we get the Commission to re...
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you this, before you do that. Couldn't they present that to the
— as it is and make that as a change here, if everybody agreed on it? Would it still have to go
back to the Zoning Board?
Vice Chairman Gort: If it's a major change, they'll have to.
Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: It would become a substantial modification. I just want to also say that
the Planning Department hasn't seen the board that Jack has prepared. We haven't — we saw it
now. We haven't been able to review it. The only thing we have is what was presented to us
before. So, we cannot comment because we have not seen it.
Ms. Dougherty: In which case, would it make sense for this board, instead of bringing it back
here, to actually remand it to the Zoning Board for their consideration?
Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): There's nothing changed right now.
Ms. Dougherty: There is a change...
Mr. Maxwell: This is an appeal...
156 January 25, 2001
Ms. Dougherty: ...that we're considering and so...
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, but you haven't put that...
Ms. Dougherty: And we can — we have it for the record.
Mr. Maxwell: They have filed an appeal, but the change is not on the record. If you want to
send it back -- I would suggest, if they're telling you to change...
Ms. Dougherty: I'm telling you.
Mr. Maxwell: ... it substantial, then send it back to the Zoning Board.
Ms. Dougherty: That's what I would like, if you — and then, if it — if there's not agreement there,
then we would have to be back before you, but if there is and there's an agreement with
everybody...
Commissioner Teele: But, you know — you know, look, Mr. Chairman, we need to be
cooperative to everybody, and there's no reason to do what we're getting ready to do. I think the
way to do this — and if I'm wrong, let me know I'm wrong. But the way to do this is to open this
up long enough for them to say something. You have filed the appeal, right?
Ms. Dougherty: I did, yes.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So, get — grant you the right to say something on the appeal, with the
understanding we're going to remand it back to the Zoning Board, and with instructions for you
to have a public hearing or a workshop in the process. But I don't think we need to go through
all of this, and then you've got to start all over on the Zoning thing. Let's just go ahead and hear
enough of it that we can remand it back to them for a hearing. In that way, everybody is saved.
Because what we're trying to do is to work with the developer and work with the neighborhood.
There's no need to put them in a legal limbo.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. My understanding is...
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. This is up — see, this is an appeal and...
Commissioner Teele: And that's why I'm saying we should let them put some appeal on the
record and then remand the whole thing back.
Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's correct, sir. If I may finish. What happens is that, once — on appeal,
you obviously have the authority to affirm, to deny, or modify. You modify to the extent that a
substantial change, it would have to go back. What I hear Ms. Dougherty saying and what I hear
you saying, Commissioner is that you want to hear this information to substantiate such a
decision.
157 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Like two minutes of it.
Mr. Maxwell: Enough to substantiate a decision to send it back, if that is your decision at that
time.
Vice Chairman Gort: The maker of the motion.
Commissioner Winton: Yes, accept that.
Commissioner Teele: Seconder has accepted, but no more than three minutes.
Ms. Dougherty: I'd like Jack just to present his alternative plan.
Vice Chairman Gort: Make sure — wait. Excuse me. Before you go on...
Commissioner Teele: Because, see, this what this does, Mr. Chairman. This gives the
neighborhood association at least a record, and so everybody knows -- that they're not here today
-- what's going on.
Vice Chairman Gort: My understanding is, some individual — like they stated, only two
individuals had seen the change and the recommendations. There's a lot of individuals here in
opposition to this, and I want to make sure that they hear the whole thing. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: They're going to make a presentation showing the changes to all of them now,
correct?
Vice Chairman Gort: They're going to make the presentation.
Commissioner Teele: Three minutes of a presentation.
Jack Luft: Jack Luft, 1900 Tigertail. The boulevard is seeking retail; they're seeking pedestrian -
scaled environments; they're seeking enrichment and better architectural statements.
Vice Chairman Gort: Jack, excuse me a minute. Could you put it on the side here because there
are people sitting in the back would like to see it. Thank you.
Mr. Luft: They're seeking something that would fit with a historic neighborhood in Belle Meade
and Morningside. But the objective is to set a standard of quality and design that will hopefully
become a model for how many different kinds of uses, multiple uses, can come to the boulevard
and provide a service. We're suggesting that we can add a mixed use here. We've suggested a
coffee shop, something like a Starbucks, that would be a little more relevant to the local service
needs; brick sidewalks, pavers, tables and chairs, awnings, a presentation that is more in keeping
with the retail environment on the street. Canopies. We did not want to have a car lot — typical
lot sitting on Biscayne Boulevard, with the fences. Totally inappropriate. We've extended the
fagade of the building across into an articulation of columns and lintels, with canopies and cover.
We've safeguarded on lighting. We've reduced the signage. We've added show windows at this
158 January 25, 2001
point, with the cafe at this point. We think that there is plenty of opportunities on the boulevard
for taking retail uses and services for the community and reshaping them in a way that we can
invite investment and improvement. Right now the boulevard is in a difficult environment.
There are many activities on the boulevard today that are discouragements. Most of the new
investment that's been coming in is drive-in, fast food. My daughter lives two blocks from here,
in Belle Meade. We're very familiar with this corner. She lives on 75th Street in Belle Meade,
and I know exactly what's going on up there. Did all my Christmas shopping at Cry Baby and
Dr. Einstein's. But I took on this effort. I volunteered — didn't volunteer. I agreed to help Lucia
and the applicants because I felt, if we could reach for an image, an architectural style, and a
level of quality, there are many opportunities to do retailing along the boulevard that could work,
and we're hoping to have the chance to come back and present this, show it to you, how you can
do it because I think the opportunities for a use to come in here that doesn't require approval,
that is an as-of-right, offers frankly some risks for a number of things to come in that wouldn't
meet the standard, and we're hoping we could show the neighborhood and the community that
this is the kind of image that will work for the boulevard. So, I think that's about three minutes.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, respectfully, if any member of the public has
any specific question? If we could just limit it to two questions, as it relates to this plan.
Mr. Talvitie: if I could make one comment on it. Again, Heikki Talvitie, president of the Upper
Eastside Miami Council. We looked at the plan. The plan is going in the direction, what we said
in the master plan, but still it's a used car lot. And used car lots have disadvantages in
neighborhoods, so we have to work with those used conditions, whether the applicant has agreed
on negotiating (unintelligible) so maybe we get it all done. Thank you.
Dwight Danie: Hi. My name is Dwight Danie. I'm the president of Bayside Residents
Association. Bayside extends from 61St Street to 72nd Street, abutting the boulevard. And we
have not seen this new plan and, actually, I thought we were here because of an appeal on a
decision that the Zoning Board made. And we would like — we're of the position — my
neighborhood is of the position now, we would like you to uphold the decision of the Zoning
Board and deny what was presented. We are willing to meet, but no one has approached my
neighborhood association and invited us to any of these negotiations or any of this — any of this.
Commissioner Winton: Well, that's what they're doing now.
Mr. Danie: I realize that they're doing that now, but we'd also like you to uphold the decision of
the — this all has to go back to Zoning, right? So, really, what is here — what we're here for is an
appeal to a decision that the Zoning made previously, is that not right? Am I mistaken there? I
mean, we would like you to uphold the decision of the Zoning Board.
Michael Moschett: My name is Michael Moschett. I reside at 760 Northeast 82nd Terrace. I am
the president of Shorecrest Homeowner's Association in the Upper Eastside, and just for the
record, nobody has ever approached our homeowner's association directly about any of the
plans. The plans have been shown to a select few, and I'm in agreement that a town hall meeting
has to be held so the property owners can see it and make an informed decision on the issue.
Thank you.
159 January 25, 2001
Ann Carlton: My name is Ann Carlton. I live at 743 Northeast 80th Street. And I think all of
you know exactly how I feel about this because I voiced my opinion once before. I don't want it
on Biscayne Boulevard. Everybody's talking about cars, Biscayne Boulevard, but no one is
saying anything about the people who live in back of it or around it, and that is wrong.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Deborah Mitchell: Hi. I'm Deborah...
Commissioner Teele: Are you for it or against it?
Vice Chairman Gort: Teele didn't get the message yet.
Ms. Mitchell: Hi. I'm Deborah Mitchell from 7530 Northeast 8th Avenue in Belle Meade. One
of my concerns and the concerns that was brought up at the Zoning Board hearing is the test
driving of these vehicles that they're planning to sell through residential neighborhoods. They
tried to assure us in the last meeting that the test driving would be done solely on Biscayne
Boulevard, but with the changes that the Florida Department of Transportation have in the works
for Biscayne Boulevard, they will be putting medians down the middle of the streets. I'd like to
know where these cars are going to turn around, except by going through the residential
neighborhood. I also question the brick sidewalks and if that is going to be in the same planning
that the Florida Department of Transportation has for that area. The Belle Meade neighborhood
is strongly opposed to this project, and we would like to go on record for that to be known.
Thank you.
Commissioner Winton: And, by the way, the FDOT's (Florida Department of Transportation)
plan for Biscayne Boulevard, we're going to be looking very hard at that whole plan here.
Sal Patronaggio: My name is Sal Patronaggio and I live at 921 Northeast 72nd Street. The
Zoning Board has denied it, 7 to 1. The residents that live within 375 feet have been notified,
through registered letters, and they also denied it — I believe it was 6 to 1 that was in favor to it. I
can't see anything that they could do to it that would change my opinion, and I'm hoping that the
Commission upholds the Zoning Board's denial. Thank you.
Bill Keen: Hi. My name is Bill Keen. I live at 7500 Northeast 5th Avenue, which is directly one
block behind the property in question. And I'm a new resident of the neighborhood, as of one
month. The home that I purchased had over a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in liens and
violations against, and was cleared with the city so that I could go ahead and purchase this place
and bring it up as if — as the rest of the neighborhood is coming up. My greatest concern is that
my nieces and nephews, the other kids in the neighborhood, the kids that play football on my
block every single day, which are already interrupted by the people trying to get off of Biscayne
Boulevard and cut up 5th Avenue through our neighborhood, will now have to dodge and weave
around people who are doing test driving at a used car lot. I recently went to the car lot on 20th
and Biscayne to look at an automobile for myself and test drove it, and the first thing we did was
go behind the car lot, in the neighborhood, and test drive it. Pull over in front of a house, look at
160 January 25, 2001
the panel, feel the braking — and this is exactly what you're proposing happen in front of my own
home.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Rosemary Fisher: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Fisher. I live at 880 Northeast 69th
Street. I'm here because we already have a couple of restaurants in the immediate area. We
have a caf6 that is opening up about — I think it's at 75th Street and the boulevard. It's the
northeast corner versus where they would be the southwest corner. Besides that, this is not in the
plan to bring up the historical neighborhood, and the thing is that once you make an exception
and let this used car lot go in, if you do — and I hope it is forbidden — then anybody else can come
along with a used car lot, and maybe not have as nice a place, but it would still be the — you
know how this country goes by precedent, and the precedent would be set for a used car lot in the
area. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Janna McConnell: My name is Janna McConnell. I reside at 722 Northeast 72nd Street. I have
one question, perhaps, that you could answer for me. If this is remanded back to Zoning --if you
decide to move to remand this back to Zoning and not do anything with it today, will they — I
assume, even now, they're under no obligation to meet with us. It's strictly a courtesy that they
are agreeing to a town hall meeting. Would they still be required to meet with us or could — once
it's remanded back to Zoning, can they just go to Zoning and forget us?
Vice Chairman Gort: The request in front of us is deferral in order to have an opportunity to
meet with you all and present the plans and see if you're in agreement or not, and then they will
have to come back to the whole procedure again, where it would have to be presented to us.
Ms. McConnell: OK. But if you moved to send it back to Zoning, does that preclude any
meeting with us? Can they just — you see what I'm saying?
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, what I'm saying is — the idea today is, if you all agree and the
Commissioners agree to go back, they have to make a presentation to you all. If not, it was not
valid. I mean there's no real reason why it should have been deferred.
Ms. McConnell: All right. And the other thing I have is just a comment, and that is that they
may improve the quality of the aesthetics of the design, but there's still a quality of life, which is
intangible, to be considered. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Next.
Mr. Maxwell: May I...
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
161 January 25, 2001
Mr. Maxwell: ...just expound on that statement for one moment, Commissioner? You're
sending it back or you may not send it back, but any meetings — I think I hear you're saying that
any meetings with the neighborhood — between the neighborhood — the neighbors, rather, and the
appellants would be purely for purposes of trying to — for them trying to work it out, but your
decision would not be based on that at all.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. Makes sense. All right. There are certain...
Jose Caraballo: My name is Jose Caraballo. I'm sorry.
Vice Chairman Gort: ...technicalities that we have to follow, so you can understand that
Mr. Caraballo: My name is Jose Caraballo. I'm a resident and a homeowner at 670 Northeast
71St Street. I'm newly moved into that Bayside residence. And my area of expertise is actually
marketing and advertising, and by looking at this plan, I can tell you that, if they propose to put a
used car lot, your design just has a huge flunk because it will look like a used car lot. Therefore,
I foresee in the future what I would call an evolution onto what you can find on 79th Street when
you come off 95, which is the big banners and the big sign. I don't see anybody actually driving
by and saying, "Oh, look, there's a used car lot." They're going to say, "There's a coffee shop."
Well, why don't we just put a coffee shop then there? I don't see anybody would driving by and
saying, "you know, look, it's zero down, 9.99 a month." That's what a used car lot looks like,
and if they build this, that would be nice; however, they will not sell cars. They're in business to
sell cars. I see an evolution to what a used car lot looks like in the future and, again, I want to
ask to — the Commission to just uphold the motion and do not grant the permission for this.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Donald Wilson: My name is Donald Wilson. I reside at 7460 Northeast 5th Avenue. I'm one
block directly behind this proposed car lot. I think the biggest conflict that we have here is the
difference between the past views of what Biscayne Boulevard used to be and what the future of
Biscayne Boulevard should be. I lived on Miami Beach for 10 years. I sell real estate. I was a
developer. I've done a lot of different things and I saw a lot of mistakes that the City of Miami
Beach made. I hope that the City of Miami will not follow suit. We need to realize that there's a
very minute — small percentage of actual commercial properties surrounded by very large
residential neighborhoods. We're going to be putting a business — we're proposing putting a
business here that's going to take a valuable corner where -- in a neighborhood where many
services are missing. I think it's a valuable piece of property. It could be used for many other
things that the public would gladly back up. Thank you.
Cindy Haralson: My name is Cindy Haralson. I live at 715 Northeast 70th Street in Bayside.
And the people that have spoken before me, I agree with. I feel strongly that the SD -9 Overlay
was put in place for a specific purpose, to bring up the boulevard. I teach at the Cushman
School, which is also in the area. Parents that don't live in the area have been commenting how
much nicer the boulevard looks. This is what we're working for, trying to have a neighborhood
feel, a nice place for our families, and I just feel very strongly that we — that even though it's a
162 January 25, 2001
more aesthetically -pleasing used car lot, it — we have enough used car lots on 79th Street,
between Biscayne Boulevard and I-95. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Kate Smith: My name is Kate Smith and I live at 7600 Northeast 7th Avenue, just across the
street from the proposed used car garage. Oops, sorry. What it is, is the nature of this business
that disturbs me, it is a regional business. We, as residential area, in promoting the residential
area, would like to focus on businesses that are servicing the residents, not the region. This is a
nature of business, which services the region, used car, new car, any car lot, it doesn't matter. It
services its regional business. We would like to see a business that services us, the locals.
Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK. Anyone else? Well, Johnny, you heard the — yes, sir.
Mr. Maxwell: I need to clarify a point, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Teele: Did the public hearing close?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: And it's just one point. I said that it would — that if you sent this back to the
Zoning Board because the substan — because the modifications that you were about to accept
were so substantial that you wanted to send it back, it wouldn't come back to you automatically.
This was an appeal from the Zoning Board.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Mr. Maxwell: So, it...
Commissioner Teele: It would — look, it would come back — I apologize. Go right ahead.
Finish.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah. It would only come back to you if someone appealed it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Appealed it, right. OK.
Commissioner Teele: And, trust me, somebody's going to appeal it. I mean, it's no...
Mr. Maxwell: No. I just wanted to make that clear.
Commissioner Teele: I mean — you made it very clear. Mr. Attorney — Commissioner Winton,
this is your district, and I think what they're proposing is substantial, and in that it is so
substantial, I believe that we should remand this back to the Zoning Appeals Board, as we've
outlined. However — I yield.
163 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: This whole car lot business on Biscayne Boulevard is something — and
I've talked to staff about it. I've been greatly bothered by the concept from the get -go. I thought
it was — it's not good public policy to have car lots on Biscayne Boulevard, in that section where
we're trying to radically change the scope and the nature of the neighborhoods up there. In fact,
we're striving greatly to create greater sense of the neighborhood on the west side of the
boulevard. The east side has really take off. The west side has really struggled. And we had a
goodly number of people come up here tonight that are on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard,
helping rebuild these neighborhoods, which is absolutely fabulous. And I think that — you know,
when the suggestion was first made to take this back to the neighbors, I was in favor of that idea
because I'm always in favor of the development community going back to the neighbors and, if
they can work something out and it still meets public policy kind of issues, then I'm going to be
in favor. If it doesn't meet public policy — real public policy issues and the neighbors are still
opposed, I'm — you know, that's — my job is to pay attention to the public policy part of it. In
this particular instance, however, we kind of opened the door here, and I think the community
has spoken very loudly and very clearly. They've had a chance to look at this and think about
this kind of concept. I am bothered by used car lots on there, and I think the community
comments are one hundred percent accurate, in that the cars coming in and out of that car lot are,
in fact — many of them will go into that neighborhood. I spend a lot of time up there. I think
there is real risk there and, as a consequence, I'm going to move to uphold the Zoning Board's
denial.
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Commissioner, may I make one — make a comment, first of all? I have
submitted a covenant to the — Mr. Heikki and Mr. Flanders that would prevent any cars from
going into the neighborhood and only allows them to go on Biscayne Boulevard. But let me just
say this to you. I did not bring a presentation. I haven't made a presentation. I did not do it. I
don't even have my files with me. So, I'm kindly — if you deny this appeal, it is without me
making a presentation at all because I had an understanding with the president of the association
— of all the associations that they were going to agree to this continuance. And, at this point, I
have to ask you to continue this matter or refer it to the Planning Board. Let us meet with them.
I think that we have an exceptional design. I simply have not made a presentation on this
hearing.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele, the attorney is being consulted.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman —
Vice Chairman Gort: Commissioner Teele.
Commissioner Teele: -- as a matter of right, this Commission cannot, without a very dirty record
going to the court, double cross the applicant, who had the appeal. And I think the attorney — I
happen to be a lawyer, but I'm not speaking as a lawyer, but I think the City Attorney, if he is
clear, would not allow this just on the — would say that there is clearly an issue as to whether or
not the fundamental rights of the applicant have been double crossed here, and that's not your
intent. It's not the Commission's intent. But if there were to be — because they have not made a
164 January 25, 2001
hearing. They only put on the record what we asked them to. And if you want to go into that,
we could probably order them today, probably, to put forth a full record, but, clearly, they have
not put forth a record. They have not given us anything on what's before us right now. What
they did is put something new on. So, I don't want you or the Commission to get mislead by
what members of the public because they heard this discussion. I mean we did this as a courtesy
to the public, so that they could have some full input as to what was being talked about in case —
so everybody could leave here knowing, at least, what to think about. But if, under the guise that
we asked them to put on at least a demonstration as to what it is they're going to be changing to,
we've now double crossed them. We're really, you know — I mean, that's fine for the citizens to
say that, but we are in a quasi-judicial — this is not a Commission meeting. This is a quasi-
judicial body, and it would be offensive to every sense of fair play, no matter how you feel about
it. And I'm going to tell you. I'm not inclined to support what — based upon what I've heard,
but I am always going to be for fair play, so...
Commissioner Winton: And I couldn't agree with you more. I think that's absolutely right. I
mean, I hadn't thought about that piece of it. And there was certainly no intent on my part to be
double crossing anybody, and I didn't think about that piece of it, but that's absolutely right.
Everybody knows what my feelings are, but I think process is very important at all times, and I
would allow the same and see to it that the same due process went the other way as well. So, I'm
going to withdraw my motion.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: What is your motion then? Yes.
Commissioner Teele: I would move that the item be remanded back — Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Maxwell: I would suggest that this item be continued, Commissioner.
Commissioner Sanchez: So move continuation.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Continued to when?
Mr. Maxwell: To — is there a particular date that the applicants want or are we talking about to
the next P and Z agenda?
Vice Chairman Gort: Next meeting, February 22nd
Ms. Dougherty: Of the next P and Z agenda.
Commissioner Sanchez: February 22nd
Vice Chairman Gort: February 22na.
165 January 25, 2001
Ms. Dougherty: And would you also authorize the Planning Board — I mean the Zoning Board to
consider this at the next meeting as well?
Mr. Maxwell: Well, the Zoning Board doesn't have jurisdiction at this point. This has been
continued, so it's still before the City Commission right now.
Commissioner Sanchez: Call the question.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, but hold it. I thought we also were going to mandate — part of the
commitment we made to the public was we were going to mandate that there be a public hearing
in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Winton: Right.
Commissioner Teele: And I think that's just as much a part of our commitment in this process.
Commissioner Winton: Well, that's absolutely crucial.
Commissioner Teele: So, I would ask the maker of the motion on the continuance, if he would
add in the requirement that the applicant hold a hearing and place notices in, you know, the
Herald or wherever it's appropriate, to allow the public to be aware of such a meeting.
Commissioner Sanchez: So accepted with proper...
Commissioner Winton: Absolutely.
Commissioner Teele: Is that satisfactory to you all?
Lourdes Slazyk: Do you mean before the Zoning Board or...
Vice Chairman Gort: No, no, no.
Commissioner Winton: No.
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Commissioner Teele: The community.
Commissioner Winton: Public hearings for the public...
Vice Chairman Gort: For the community.
Commissioner Winton: ...the neighbors, all the homeowner's associations, interested citizens
living in the area.
166 January 25, 2001
Mr. Maxwell: What you're asking the parties...
Commissioner Sanchez: Proper notification.
Mr. Maxwell: ...to do is to meet — have a meeting and you want it noticed. It's a public meeting
between the parties, and you just want them to properly — adequately notice it.
Commissioner Winton: But it...
Commissioner Sanchez: Maker of the motion accepts.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah. But it is more than just noticing the 375 feet or whatever that rule
is. I mean, this is a...
Commissioner Teele: We want a public notice for everybody.
Commissioner Winton: ...public notice for all of the residents in that Upper Eastside area.
However that works, so.
Commissioner Teele: Or better still, let me do it this way, if it's all right with you, Mr.
Chairman.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
Commissioner Teele: That the applicant will provide notice to the Clerk of the City within — at
least 10 days prior to the — with at least 10 days prior to the — of the time and place, et cetera, and
that the Clerk shall make notice to the public.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Is that...
Commissioner Sanchez: Continuation...
Vice Chairman Gort: ...understood now?
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, with proper advertisement.
Vice Chairman Gort: Now, I want the public to understand that the reason we're going through
this because, unfortunately, there seems to have been an agreement with two individuals,
presidents of the associations...
Unidentified Speaker: Not an agreement. Not agreement.
Vice Chairman Gort: Not an agreement, but...
Unidentified Speaker: (Inaudible) represent all the neighborhoods.
167 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: No. I understand. Not an agreement, but they believe that they could be
better off if they could go back and be presented, OK, and I want you to understand that. All in
favor state it by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-84
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA
ITEM PZ -5 (PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ALLOW
USED AUTO SALES WITH 19 PARKING SPACES AT
APPROXIMATELY 7500 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD) TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR
FEBRUARY 22, 2001; FURTHER REQUESTING OF THE
APPLICANT, IMAD & ABUDL HAMMOUD, TO SCHEDULE
A PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND NOTIFY
THE CITY CLERK WITH THE TIME AND PLACE OF SAID
MEETING AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR TO SUCH
MEETING TAKING PLACE; FURTHER DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION REGARDING
SAID MEETING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
168 January 25, 2001
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -6 is an appeal of a denial
by the Zoning Board for parking variance for 34 Northeast 11th Street. The department
has recommended approval, with conditions, and the Zoning Board denied it. We would
recommend that the appeal be granted, and that the -- which would, therefore, grant the
variance, with the original conditions as specified by the department.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask you a question. I have two requests -- and this is going
to take a long time. I have PZ -8 and PZ -14. PZ -8, I have a gentleman here representing
them, who just had an operation, how long ago? -- And I can see in his face that it's
hurting quite a bit. So, can we have...
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask you if we can take
some of the items where we have public, and PZ -8 will be one of them, and I...
Commissioner Winton: And 14.
Commissioner Regalado: And I -- so, I would ask you to take eight now.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what I'm doing. OK.
Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK.
Note for the Record: Item PZ -6 was tabled.
169 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: PZ -8.
Commissioner Teele: What did we do on six?
Commissioner Winton: We're going to...
Vice Chairman Gort: We're going to defer it for a minute. We're going to hear PZ -8. We
have some -- we'll be coming back. We're not going to leave anybody out. PZ -8. Once
again, anyone that would like to testify on any one item that has not been sworn in, they
need to be sworn in now. Anyone that would like to testify that has not been sworn in?
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED UNDER
CITY CODE SECTION 62-1 TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING TESTIMONY ON ZONING
ISSUES.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -8 And 9 are companion
items for zoning and land use change for the properties located approximately 2225
Southwest 19th Avenue, from single family residential R-1 to office. The department is
recommending denial. It's also been recommended for denial by the Planning Advisory
Board and by the Zoning Board. If you look at the zoning maps that are in your package,
this property would break a very solid and very stable line separating the office zoning
designation from the single family residential in the rear. We would strongly recommend
denial. It's not a logical extension of the office category fronting Coral Way and it would
present a commercial intrusion into a very stable residential area. We recommend denial.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. The applicant.
Frank Rolland: Good evening. My name is Frank Rolland and I'm an attorney with
offices at 1265 West Dixie Highway in the City of North Miami. I am not a lobbyist,
although I thought I was at the last meeting. On careful review of the forms, I recognized
that it does require that you be acting for compensation. I'm not acting for compensation
this evening. I have no expectation of receiving compensation. I didn't act for
compensation at any of the other meetings. As it happens, the applicant, Ron Kurtz, is an
attorney and a dear friend of mine, whom I shared space with for many years, and I am
appearing on account of my friendship with Mr. Kurtz.
Vice Chairman Gort: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to welcome you to City Hall. And Mr.
Frank Rollason (sic) is too modest he's the Mayor of North Miami.
Mr. Rolland: Thank you, and I appreciate that recognition and, at the same time, I know
I will be treated the same as anyone else, and I hope not as bad as some, but we'll see.
170 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: You better believe that, Frank.
Mr. Rolland: Joe, I -- we won't go there. In any event, Mr. Kurtz and his associate,
Albert Bueno, who is a financial consultant and who is here this evening, purchased this
property in -- at 2225 Southwest 19th Avenue, late '99, early 2000, and they purchased it
from Dr. Betancourt, who is a psychiatrist, who operated his medical office here at this
very same property for many years. So, the fact that my clients want to use this property
for an office use is not something that is terribly strange. Mr. Kurtz is not a property
lawyer. He foolishly -- there was no realtor involved or listing service, and he foolishly
assumed that they could continue to use the property in this same way that it had been
used for so long. We're asking you to reverse the Zoning Board and to please permit the
continuation of the office use, which, as we know, was not permitted in this lot, which is
zoned residential. I know that you have considered many requests in many similar
situations. I know that there are a number of homeowners here that have very, very
strong feelings about this particular application. As it happens, this request is not the
same and it is not just like every other request that you've heard in the many that you
have denied, and the majority of the people who are here to speak this evening don't live
within 375 feet, but here out of solidarity, because they're members of a Homeowner's
Association, and I know and I understand that. However, this property is unique and this
is a unique set of circumstances, and I hope that you will look at this case on its own
merits as, indeed, I know you look at every case on its own merits. I've been deciding
zoning matters myself for more than 20 years and I've learned that there are many, many
circumstances when strict interpretation of the Code is unfair and not always best for the
community. This property -- and I apologize for not setting this board up sooner. Oh,
good. Thank you. This property is a transitional property. It sits right across and
diagonal from a large four-story office building. This is the view of the -- if I could pass
up a photograph. This is a view of the office building that you see in the front of my
client's property. So, this property is right next to the dumpster, this home, that my client
has purchased. As I said, it's a business that he purchased, but it is a converted home,
originally. Now, there is a dumpster on the commercial property right behind it. So,
right here, this commercial property, has a dumpster which sits right next to it. Behind
the property to the East is the abandoned rental property. This one right here. And I'll
ask you, Commissioners, if you would take a look and pass it down. So, Mr. Kurtz, in
connection with this property, this is the office building next door -- I mean, across the
street. This is the view toward the street. This view right towards Coral Way. So, my
clients -- they respect their neighbors in the neighborhood. They don't want to change the
neighborhood. They have improved this property tremendously and made it a much
better property, and they certainly don't plan to make any changes. They have a great
deal of pride of ownership and up until now, they have been good neighbors. A
commercial use -- actually, the existing use of this property is more appropriate for use as
an office than as a residence. There are two professionals and two secretaries that will be
using this office if you grant the variance. They would be pleased to agree to any
conditions -- and I offer them now. They will not ever have a sign. When they sell the
property, they will agree to that, it will revert back to the residential zoning. They're not
speculators. They live in the neighborhood. One of them lives eight blocks away. The
other one lives in Coconut Grove. They've lived in the City for a long time. They will
171 January 25, 2001
agree to a six-month parking review because, as I said, there are only four of them. Only
one of them occasionally has clients. I would submit to you that this is a good transition
property to consider and that it is not a good site for a home. And, as an example of that,
I'd ask you to look at the rental property that I passed a photo of, which is an abandoned
rental property. That's the property next door, OK. And when you consider the uses of a
transitional property and what my clients have done to this property as a transitional
property, I think you can see that they have made good use of the property, much better,
and that perhaps it wouldn't be good as a home because it's across the street from a four-
story office building, because 19th Avenue is a cut -through from U.S. 1 to Coral Way, and
there is quite a bit of traffic on it, because the property to the north is an office building.
The property diagonal is the four-story office building. The property behind them is the
abandoned rental house. The property across the street, which is owned by a property
owner who does not oppose and he's not here, you know, to speak against their
application. So, when you look at the surrounding properties and the neighborhood, this
is a good use. It is one that is consistent with the best uses in the neighborhood. It's
about 65 feet from Coral Way, a busy street. It hasn't been used, as I said, as a home for
many years. For many years it's been used as an office, and my client improved it. He
planted a lot of landscaping. They have really made it a nice place. A lot of people
would argue that there is a line, like an imaginary line, and there is a need to keep
residences and businesses separate. That isn't always the case. You have to look at each
instance carefully because there can be attractive mixed uses, and this is an example of a
property that my clients have approved, and it is an attractive mixed use. It's on the edge
of the busy area, and as I said, there are reasonable conditions that we're offering. It is a
reasonable and a good use of the property and, for those reasons, I would suggest and
request that you consider this change. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, and
hope you've all looked at the photos. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Those in opposition? Everybody has been
sworn in. OK. Please. Let's not be repetitious and...
Josefina Sanchez-Pando: Josefina Sanchez-Pando, President of Silver Bluff
Homeowner's Association. I am going to start by telling the gentleman that Dr.
Betancourt, when he lived there, only used one room of that house for his practice in
psychiatry. Psychiatry is something that people don't like to know you're going to a
psychiatrist, and you don't have 10 persons on a waiting line. You go and there's nothing
there. And it was a one -room thing, not a whole building. He was working out of his
house, using less than 25 percent of the property, which is allowed, and this is not a home
with one room being used as a business. This is a business that they want to put there.
To the -- referring to how pretty the house has been made into, shouldn't it be a home and
not an office. The dumpster that he referred is on a property that is situated on Coral
Way and the dumpster is always put at the back of the property, which happens to be
there back to back. So, they have a dumpster there because you're not going to have a
dumpster on Coral Way. As to the house, which he alleges that is not being occupied, it
is under a problem of testamentary, so that's why they are not built there any -- they're not
there at the moment. When he says that if the -- he were to be granted, he would promise
to have something written there as to the property being reversed to its homeowner. You
172 January 25, 2001
know that's harder to get, and traffic on 19th. Right, there is traffic on 19th. That's
precisely what we don't have -- want anymore. So, I would please ask you to deny it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Because then Mariano Cruz gets
mad at me if I let you speak too long. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Of all the residents, I am sure that I'm the one that have lived
more in the Coral Way. I grew up in Coral Way and 22nd Avenue, those apartments
buildings there. When I came out of those camps for children that came from Cuba, I
went to live in Coral Way. I still live one block away from Coral Way. For exactly 40
years, I have lived in the Coral Way area. So -- and I understand what these people are
trying to do, and I understand what they are trying to proffer, but the people of the
Shenandoah area, the people of the Silver Bluff area are very proud of the neighborhood,
and I got to tell you, as a Commissioner of the area, whenever there is something,
everybody gets together and calls my office, whether it be a tree that needs to be trimmed
or drainage that has to be cleaned. By the way, they did clean that drainage. So, I would
like to save time, and I move to deny their request.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? All in favor
state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
173 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-85
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FOR PROPERTY AT
2225 S.W. 19TH AVENUE FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
TO OFFICE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Chairman Gort: Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Welcome to City Hall.
Mr. Rolland: That's OK. Thank you, gentlemen.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Thank you.
(Applause)
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.
174 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item...
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -9 is the companion item.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): You need to address the companion item.
Commissioner Winton: PZ -9 is the companion item?
Commissioner Regalado: Move to deny.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Regalado, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-86
A MOTION TO DENY PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AT 2225 S.W.
19TH AVENUE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY TO OFFICE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
175 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Item 14. Fourteen. As you recall...
Commissioner Winton: And then I got a nasty note because there's someone else waiting
out there wondering why we passed up seven, so -- I said, then I've got to -- you know,
we suggested jumping around here, and then I get a nasty note from someone out there
who wanted to know why they got skipped over, and, frankly, they've got a good point.
So, y'all just remember, they're always putting us in a tough spot. We have to hear all of
these. We have no choice. We sit through all of them. They are long, long, long, long
processes and it's the way the system works, and, so, my apologies to all of you when you
have to wait, but it's the way the system is, so...
Commissioner Regalado: Go to seven now or which one you're doing?
Commissioner Winton: I think we're going to do 14 and then we'll come back and do, I
think, 7, which is the one -- yeah, Item 7.
Commissioner Sanchez: Johnny, take a look on the bright side: they'll get out of here
before we do.
Commissioner Winton: So, 14.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. John Brennan, how are you, sir? Always a pleasure to see
you.
Commissioner Winton: So, are we starting on 14?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Juan Gonzalez: Mr. Vice Chair, members of the Commission. Juan Gonzalez, Planning
and Zoning Board. What you're going to have before you is an appeal of the zoning
administrator 's interpretation. Let me give you a brief history of what we've got here.
This is an existing plastic surgeon's office. There were complaints from apparently
Homeowner's Association to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office. They
requested that we review exactly the nature of the complaint and, basically, it boils down
176 January 25, 2001
to, can they do medical procedures on the property? Originally, we addressed that by do
our determination. However, that determination was rescinded because we believe that
wasn't the proper format. We looked at it and we decided to do an interpretation of it.
The appeal is basically an interpretation of whether the existing plastic surgeon's office is
restricted to not only no surgical services, but also no medical procedures on the site. In
my review of the minutes -- and the reason I went to the minutes was, not taking the face
value of the actual resolution, there was request of whether the resolution was correct
when the Commission, not only very clearly prohibited plastic surgery, but whether they
meant medical procedures completely and only used for consultation. In my review of
the minutes, I believe that there is doubt as to whether the (unintelligible) only was
intended for both surgical and medical procedures. In my opinion, I believe the intent of
the restriction was only for surgical and not medical procedures. As the case may be,
normally an appeal -- Vice Chairman, normally the appellant is heard and the property
owner's representative and if there are any further questions, I'll be here more than glad to
answer that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: The applicant.
Jeffrey Bass: Nice to see everybody again. Jeffrey Bass is my name. Forty -Six
Southwest 1St Street is my address. I'm here this evening representing the Brickell
Homeowners Association, whose address is 195 Southwest 15th Road. Mr. Tory Jacobs,
whose address is 145 Southeast 22nd -- 25th Road; Mr. Norman Minenberg at 1901
Brickell Avenue; Mr. Joe Wilkins at 228 Southwest 23rd. I'll make my remarks as briefly
as possible. At the outset, on housekeeping matters, I'd just like to reincorporate the
records of all the proceedings that have occurred before all the City boards, just to make
sure we're all playing from a full slate here, and let me begin by directing your attention
to the actual resolution, which is the subject of this proceeding. As Mr. Gonzalez stated -
- and I just want to make sure that the procedural context is clear -- we're here on an
appeal from the Zoning Board of a determination rendered by Mr. Gonzalez. The Zoning
Board decided 4/2 in our favor. So, we got more votes, but that wasn't enough votes to
win. That is to say, they voted four to two that Mr. Gonzalez' interpretation was in error
and, in fact, the resolution, as written, should stand. And they were in a very enlightened
position to render that determination because they heard this decision when it first came
through for a doctor's office, and, at that time, they voted to deny it because they saw no
need whatsoever to insert this commercial use at this part of the neighborhood. So, let
me show you the resolution.
177 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: Just out of curiosity, does he pay overtime?
Mr. Bass: Not easy to work here on either side of the dais, so we're going to do the best
we can.
Commissioner Sanchez: We've got to make the best of it. Could you imagine if we
couldn't laugh here? We could go insane.
Mr. Bass: There would be no way to go through this. I've highlighted here the pertinent
language from the resolution, which this City Commission rendered back in 1997, and
the pertinent language is the health clinic (medical office) shall be used only for
consultation relating to plastic surgery. No medical or surgical procedures of any kind
shall be performed anywhere on the property. So, let me begin my presentation by
stating, for the record, that Mr. Gonzalez 's interpretation of this language is totally
unauthorized. Why? Because this is a resolution rendered by the City Commission, and
there is absolutely no authority in your Zoning Code for a City staff person to render an
interpretation of a Commission resolution. They do have the power, under your zoning
Code, to render a determination, and that's what they did. But let me publish for you
what the source of their power was in your Code. Section 904 of your Zoning Code is
entitled "Determination concerning uses or characteristics of uses not specified." And the
Code provides, when there is substantial doubt as to whether a particular use or classes of
use or characteristics of use, not specifically identified in this zoning ordinance, are of the
same general character as those listed as permitted as conditional uses, the director of the
department of Planning, Building and Zoning, upon request from any administrative
agency or on its own initiative shall make a determination in the matter. But that's a
determination as it relates to the Zoning Code, not a determination as it relates to
Commission resolution. The only way to have challenged this Commission resolution
would have been to file a petition in court. As we all know, this is a final action, and you
have 30 days to take an appeal. There was an appeal taken, ironically. We took an
appeal and we lost. But at no time during the appellate proceedings did anybody
challenge this language as being something other than what it is. And I would submit to
you that this language is absolutely clear. It couldn't be clearer. And, as a matter of law,
you don't look behind the intent of language unless it's unclear, and when language is
clear, plain and unambiguous, you stop right there. So, not only is Mr. Gonzalez'
interpretation unauthorized under your Code, it violates a very fundamental precept and
statutory construction. The procedure says -- the resolution says no procedures. It says
"consultation only". During the course of the Zoning Board 's consideration of this
matter, the Chairman allowed me to ask Mr. Gonzalez a question about this language, as
to whether or not Mr. Gonzalez thought there was something unclear here. And I asked
178 January 25, 2001
him from the hearing before the board, "Mr. Gonzalez, is any portion of this resolution
unclear in your opinion?" And he testified, "If you read the exact language, the answer is
no." When you go into the minutes, there is a difference of what the resolution read as to
what the Commission actually did. So, your own zoning administrator acknowledges that
there is absolutely nothing unclear about this, and I would submit to you, once we hit that
hurdle, we're done. The law is very clear. A Commission speaks only through its written
resolution. The comments of specific Commissioners are irrelevant, as a matter of law.
The only thing that matters is what you say here, and this is what you say here. So, it's
not relevant, as a matter of law, to look behind it at the minutes. But even if you wanted
to look at the minutes -- and I'm going to show you the transcripts of the proceedings that
supported this -- you'll see that this language, this limitation to consultation purposes only
is exactly what the Commission intended. Commissioner Plummer was the
Commissioner for the district at the time, and he was also the maker of the motion. And I
got into it with Commissioner Plummer, as I frequently do, because I want to make
absolutely clear what his intent was here, and I said to Commissioner Plummer "This is
going to be a place to perform consultations." And Commissioner Plummer responded
"Only." It's very clear that he considered this to be for only consultations. That's in the
minutes of the record. Also, in the minutes of the record, then Francisco Garcia, who is
staffing the meeting, read back to Commissioner Plummer what his interpretation of the
colloquy was and, at that time, they said this is to be a plastic surgery clinic.
Commissioner Plummer. There is a big difference. There is a big difference. I'll begin
again. Let me apologize. The first condition is that the present uses applied for and if
allowed to be permitted, will be for a plastic surgery office only. Not to have any
surgical procedures taking place on the premises. For consultation purposes only. It's
right there in the minutes. That's exactly where that language came from. It's not some
fiat, some scrivener's error, or any other problem. During the course of this presentation,
unlike the last item before you, the argument was made that just like going to see a
psychiatrist, people don't want to know that they are going to see a plastic surgeon. And
one of the arguments made in favor of taking this house at 1900 Brickell Avenue and
turning it into a plastic surgeon's office was that it would be just that. It would be an
office. Why? Because the doctors admitted to practice in seven different hospitals and
that's where the surgery would take place. This is his office. And in an office he was to
do just consultations, nothing further. If he was going to perform procedures, medical or
surgical, those would take place at the hospitals where he was admitted. This was for
him to be able to discreetly -- this was their argument -- to discreetly treat people with
plastic surgeon -- plastic surgery services without them having to go through a big
medical arts building and be seen and let everybody know that they are having their eyes
done or whatever else it is that they are doing. So, when you look at actually the clear
language of the resolution, your director's own interpretation, the minutes of the meeting
is very clear, that there is absolutely no justification here whatsoever to allow anything
179 January 25, 2001
other than consultations. Lastly, let me focus your attention on the sign on the property
because that's really where a lot of this begins. There is a sign on the property that
advertises a dermocosmetic spa. And at this point in the presentation, I need to take a
step back and just -- it's really unbelievable as to how we got here. We got here because
this doctor applied for a special exception to allow a health clinic. Plastic surgeon offices
aren't allowed in residential zoning districts. Health clinics are. And, at the time, they
convinced the City staff and they convinced the Commission from the district that this
would be a good adaptive reuse to allow a plastic surgeon's office -- a medical office in
under the special exception for a health clinic. Now, they are going one step further and
they are saying, well, we have a plastic surgeon's office. Let us have a spa, too. And I
would submit to you that having a "spa used here" and having a sign advertising a "spa
used here" is so far removed from the underlying predicate of having a health clinic or
even a plastic surgeon's office, that it would constitute commercial spot zoning. If you
want to have a spa -- and Tory Jacobs will talk about that -- you want to go to a spa, you
go to Center Grove. There are several spas there. You go out to Doral. But you don't go
into the middle of a residential neighborhood to have a beauty treatment. You certainly
don't do it under the language of this resolution, and you don't do it under the language of
the health clinic, special exception, which the Commission approved. Lastly, at the time
that we appeared before the Zoning Board here much was made of the fact that the doctor
had applied for and received U.S. patent and trademark protection for the signage that he
had there. The Mesua Dermocosmetic Spa was, in fact, a trademark or protected use of
procedures that he, himself, had a proprietary interest of. When you pull what, in fact,
the goods and services are that are offered by this dermocosmetic spa, you see providing
cosmetological services, namely, performing surgical and non-surgical cosmetological
procedures. Well, that's his document. That's what he filed, performing surgical and
nonsurgical cosmetological procedures. Under the plain language of your ordinance, he's
not allowed to perform any procedures whatsoever. He's most certainly not allowed to
perform surgical procedures, and, under this plain language, he's not allow today perform
medical procedures. A procedure is a procedure and a consultation is a consultation.
And there is absolutely no justification of any kind here to allow these procedures, and
this is important. Because when you look to what the Florida Statutes define as
cosmetology, they say that cosmetology means the mechanical or chemical treatment of
the head, face and scalp for aesthetic rather than medical purposes. The statute, which I'd
like to hand into the record, specifically makes a distinction between aesthetic procedures
and medical procedures. Cosmetological services are related to aesthetic procedures, and
I would tell you that you're stretching logic beyond the breaking point to allow pure
beauty salon type of treatments to be going on under the aegis of a health clinic, which is
the approved use here. So, I'll offer that into the record, and -- what they are basically
asking you to do is to allow beauty treatments to take place here, and I would submit to
you that that's how the integrity of residential neighborhoods begin to disintegrate. And
180 January 25, 2001
as you saw in the last hearing, when people come together to protect a neighborhood
from a residential use growing into something else, their vigilance should be rewarded.
We've challenged this at times and we've lost, but we've been watching this very, very
closely, and we've been watching it to protect the integrity of this portion of residential
Brickell Avenue. There are commercial uses not far away, and they should stay there,
but not in the middle of this neighborhood. The sign has to go. The sign advertises the
use, which is not allowed. It's a purely commercial use, and having a commercial sign
for a commercial use in a residential neighborhood only degrades the neighborhood. So,
with that said, I thank you for your indulgence. I would reserve just a brief amount of
time for rebuttal. I'd like to let some of the neighbors, who are here, address you briefly,
and I'll hand in this for the record.
Tory Jacobs: Good evening. Tory Jacobs, 145 Southeast 25th Road, Miami. I'm here
representing myself and the neighbors, particularly the Brickell Homeowner's
Association members. We represent the majority of the condominium residents from the
Rickenbacker Causeway to Miami River and add on Brickell Key. Some maybe 15,000
odd people and some well -over 5,000 condominium units. I've heard various
Commissioners here say, from time to time, when something happens in the
neighborhood, their phone rings. I remember Commissioner Regalado saying the other
day, when the flooding gets out in the neighborhood, my phone rings. And I know all of
you have had this kind of experience when something happens, your phone rings. Well,
back in January of '97, the then Commission granted a special exception and stretched to
make this plastic surgeon's office a health clinic, and the Commission assured us that the
resolutions in granting this special exception would protect the neighborhood, and we
didn't have anything to worry about. Well, the first thing that caused my phone to ring
was when the -- preparing this, a large hardwood tree in the front yard was cut down and
without a permit. Later my phone started to ring after the office opened. Complaints
about the lack of landscaping. The questionable will taste of the fountain with the nude
there. I think that the plastic surgeon...
Commissioner Sanchez: Tory, the what?
Mr. Jacobs: What?
Commissioner Sanchez: The fountain with the what?
Mr. Jacobs: Nude. I'll show you a picture in just a moment. The -- this little stretch in
front of this house is the least landscaped piece of property fronting on Brickell Avenue
in the residential marked from 25th Road to 15th Road, during those 10 blocks. It looks
like they hired my barber as the landscape architect, like so. It is pretty barren. Let me
181 January 25, 2001
tell you. But when the spa went up in November of '99, boy that phone really rang! Let
me tell you. And that sign where that spa really upset everybody, and it upset them
because the connotations of a spa as a beauty parlor, a massage parlor, various kinds of
spas. There are classy ones like Doral and there are others that are not so classy.
Anyway, we went to the City back in November of 1999 to try to address this, thinking
that all we had to do was point this out, and that these resolutions were so clear that it
would be taken care of. Well, that was November of '99. We're now in January of 2001
and we're finally here in front of you and asking you to give us the protection -- give our
neighborhood the protection that you committed -- your Commission, not too many of the
same folk up here -- but the Commission committed to back in January of '97. Now, I
want to very briefly just show you a couple of charts. Just to give you an idea of -- you
look in the yellow pages for -- under spa and so you can see why our neighbors are upset
when they see a sign that says spa. This is what you see, body spa, coral spa. This is
what's the connotations. Now, down on Brickell, at north of 15th Road, around 1428,
there is the villa. There's a real nice spa. It rightly belongs there. It's a commercial area.
Here's what they do there. They do all these things to make people feel better and look
better. But it's nothing medical about it. It's not a medical sort of...
Vice Chairman Gort: It's a health -- make you look better.
Mr. Jacobs: One would hope so. I've never been there.
Vice Chairman Gort: (Inaudible) never been there, right.
Mr. Jacobs: No. Here is a plastic surgeon's office over on South Miami Avenue. Their
sign is just a neat little thing like that, little professional sign. Here's what it looks like.
That's the end of it. They don't -- they just have their names "Plastic Surgery
Associates", three names, but no listing of spa or stuff like that. Now, here's the building
that we're talking about. Here's the fountain with the nude. Here's the spa -- you know,
no landscaping to speak of And here is the offending sign. Mesua Dermocosmetic Spa.
Commissioner Teele: Could I see that?
Mr. Jacobs: Gentlemen, that's the story. There's really -- I think the language of the
resolution -- going back to January of '97 -- speak for itself. This is what happened. We
ask you to afford our neighborhood the protection that you committed to at that time, and
now, when I turn this over, I'm going to pass out a little brochure from another spa that
just shows you what really goes on at nice spas. Thank you.
Mr. Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman?
182 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: If I may, before too much time passes on the issue. You have -- the issue
before you is whether or not the use that is presently being put to the property is
permissible. It has nothing to do with anything else. The poster -- the picture that was
passed out with the statue is totally irrelevant. Landscaping issues are totally irrelevant.
The City of Miami signed ordinances, by law, are content neutral. So, what they say on
this sign is not the issue either. The issue before you is narrow. That is, is the use that is
being put to that property now permitted? That is solely the issue before you.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Not the landscaping, not the nude statue?
Mr. Maxwell: That's correct.
Mr. Bass: But, clearly, your attorney would agree with me that you cannot advertise a
use which is prohibited in the zoning district where the sign is.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. We understand that. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilkins.
Joe Wilkins: Good evening. Joe Wilkins, 228 Southwest 23rd Road. I'm the
secretary/treasurer of the Miami Roads Neighborhood Civic Association. Our
association -- at the time that this came before the Commission, we took a position in
support of the Brickell Homeowners. We have a long proud tradition of opposing
commercial intrusion in the residential neighborhoods, and this is clearly a case of that.
We have not changed that position. That position still stands. We see no reason to
change it. I might add that I was there that night at the meeting that this decision was
made and I don't have to read any transcripts. It was perfectly crystal clear. There was
no question. The intention was obvious. This was to be a place of consultation only.
People came in, received consultation on what type of services they need, and went
elsewhere for the services. For this to now be considered a spa or anything else other
than a consulting office goes completely against what I heard last -- at that meeting and
what was approved and what is written. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Mac Seligman: My name is Mac Seligman. I live at 2351 Brickell Avenue. I've been a
resident there since 1970. Our area from approximately 15th to 26th is a residential area.
183 January 25, 2001
No commercial encroachments whatsoever. We have some 15,000 residents living in
5,000 living units, and we get more feedback from them on their unhappiness with this
encroachment on our residential area than any other single issue we've had since the
Brickell Homeowner's Association began. We ask you, please, to support our position.
The Zoning Board, last November, supported the position. Medical and surgical
procedures and spa signage not be permitted. Period. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next.
Robert Margnin: Good evening. Robert Margnin, 1581 Brickell. I'm completely
opposed to this encroachment. Thank you.
Michelle Finken: Hello. My name is Michelle Finken. I live at 1581 Brickell Avenue.
I'm also opposing the encroachment. I believe that this issue has already been decided
upon and that the doctor 's office is not following the decision. Please uphold that
decision. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Bass: Just a few moments for rebuttal when they are done.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am.
Lucia Dougherty: Good evening. Lucia Dougherty, 1221 Brickell Avenue, here on
behalf of the owner of the property, Dr. Suarez -Menendez. It was five years ago that he
actually came to my office and he said, "You know, I'd like to buy this piece of property
and put my medical office in this location. Do you think that's permissible?" So, I
looked at the Code and I said, yes, with a public hearing you can put a medical or clinic
at that location. And we went to the City and the City was actually very enthusiastic.
The City staff was. And they recommended to the Zoning Board an approval of a special
exception for the medical clinic, and they did so because it preserves the single family
home; there is less traffic than 28 units, which would have probably 50 cars going in and
out of that one little lot on a daily basis, and it preserves the views for the Terrarium
(phonetic) town house to the north, which supported the application at that time, and I've
passed out letters from that same condominium association, which is in your package
today, the Terrarium Homeowner's Association for the condominium directly to the south
is in your package. They, again, support this project. They support this signage. They
support the use. They can't believe that this is continuing to happen. In addition to that
in your package is a -- there's a letter from the homeowner's association for the Brickell
Terrace Condominium Association, which is the condominium directly to the south of
184 January 25, 2001
this property. Now, this condominium didn't exist when we first brought this before you.
It was a vacant lot. Now, there are 28 units on this site. This condominium association,
likewise our immediate neighbors, supports this application, supports this signage,
supports this doctor because he's a good neighbor. It's in your package. I've submitted it
to you. Back then they had a very good argument when it went to the Zoning Board,
though, and here is what this argument was before the Zoning Board. We don't want this
use because it could be a precedent. Maybe a plastic surgeon's medical clinic is OK, but
we don't want it because any other kind of medical clinic would be terrible there. So, at
the time it went to the City Commission, the City Commission heard this, and you know
what they did? They amended the R-4 zoning district to take out medical clinics on
Brickell Avenue. Every other R-4 district allows medical clinics, except for this one area
on Brickell Avenue. We thought that that would be the end of it. But, no, they appealed
that decision, even though we got a special exception. The Homeowner's Association
appealed that decision saying, "You can't have offices on Brickell Avenue", and it went
to the third district -- I mean, the circuit court and it went to the Third District Court of
Appeals. During the time that this appeal was going on, the doctor bought the property;
he went and got his permits; he got the building permit; he got the Certificate of
Occupancy; he got the Certificate of Use; he got the Occupational License, and I don't
have to tell you how hard it is to go get financing when you're under appeal challenging
the very zoning that you're going to get your license -- I mean, get the financing for.
Nevertheless, he did it, and on January -- I mean, in December of 1999 -- now,
understand this. December of 199 the appeal was finally over and decided in our favor,
and the court said, this is not a commercial intrusion. Court was over. One month later,
one month later, that's January of 1999 -- no January of 2000, the doctor was called in by
Juan Gonzalez and Lourdes Slazyk. They said bring your whole plans. I want to see
your whole set of plans. And we want to see what's going on here. He said, "But why?"
He said, "Because the Brickell Homeowner's Association is concerned about your sign
and whether or not this is a use that's permitted." So, he brings it in. He shows the
permit. He got a separate building permit for the sign alone. Signed off by the Planning
Department and the Zoning Department. So, he goes to the meeting. And they say, OK,
fine. And he leaves. Doesn't hear a thing. Then, all of a sudden, there is a determination
made by the Planning Department. The determination says, the use is permitted,
including the spa -related activities -- and I'm going to tell you what we mean by spa -
related activities. We don't mean a beauty spa. We don't do manicures. We don't do
pedicures. All these things that are listed on this cosmetology things. We don't do
facials, shampooing. Beauty salon. That is not what we do. We do plastic -related spa
activity, which I will describe in a minute. So, anyway, they went to the Planning
Department; makes this determination; they appeal the determination saying the use is
not permitted, and I appealed the determination saying the sign is permitted. The Law
Department said this is ridiculous. Withdraw your determination. This is not a permitted
185 January 25, 2001
thing to do anyway. Juan, you decide whether or not this is a legal interpretation. You
interpret the Zoning Code and, in doing so, look at the resolution and the transcript. And
he did. Now, I want to tell you something. This is never something that we ever
requested. This procedure was brought about by the Homeowner's Association
demanding that they make interpretations so that they can appeal it to get to the point.
And I've got to tell you, this is an abusive process. This is an abuse of all of the City's
processes to -- I mean, I could go and ask for an interpretation on your property or your
property and have them make a written determination and then I'll appeal it. This man is
spending his money. He's not spreading the money around from 15,000 homeowners.
He's spending his own money and has been defending his right to use his property for
five years. Now, what's occurring at the property? He has developed his own anti -aging
products; he's developed them; he's trademarked them; he has patents pending on them,
and he's on the cutting edge of plastic surgery in anti -aging techniques and things to
prevent plastic surgery ultimately. He does laser; he does Botox; he does collagen, and
he does non -evasive techniques. He does no plastic surgery on the premises. And in that
resolution it says you can only consult regarding plastic surgery -- consultation regarding
plastic surgery. It doesn't prevent you from doing any of those other matters. I included
in your package two articles that had just came out recently. First is the Ohio Clinic For
Skin Care, and, remember, dermocosmetic, dermo-meaning skin. Cosmetic -- cosmetic
surgery. That is plastic surgery. We're talking -- what is in the vernacular for a plastic
surgeon nowadays. This spa's profile here, the Ohio Skin Clinic Care Spa, has extensive
skin care -- facial spider vein erasers; unlikely spider veins, (unintelligible) peel removes
blemishes, acne scars, wrinkles, uneven pigmentation, sun damage. He takes off sun -
damaged skin issues, biomedic peel, other exceptions for skin renewal treatment
program, which removes the micro thin layer of the top skin. These are all things that
plastic surgeons do. And this is an accessory use and it's something that is necessary for
a plastic surgeon to be able to offer to his customers. And the other issue here that I've
submitted to you, on page 36, it talks about the spa treatments that are related to plastic
surgery. I mean, this is a plastic surgery magazine. It talks about spa support treatments
before surgery. Once anesthesia becomes -- the anesthesia becomes familiar with the
surgeon's procedures and techniques, they should have consultations with the candidates
for surgery to learn what can be done both before and after surgery, depending on the
skin texture, bone structure, lifestyle, and client's age. So, these are the trends. We're not
talking about spa in the way that we have at the Doral or the Eden Roc or any of those
other spas they are talking about. And Mr. Jacobs, he's a good friend of mine, but, you
know, he thinks this is funny and this is -- what we're talking about is my client's
livelihood and how he has the right to use this facility. He's a very well -- I'm just going
to get to the legal argument. Mr. Gonzalez correctly stated that the only limitation was on
the surgery. That was clearly the intent. We don't do surgery. And let me say this to
you. After the Zoning Board meeting, in which we won, one week later there is an
186 January 25, 2001
anonymous phone call to the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Administrator.
They go out and inspect because they have an anonymous phone call that somebody is
doing plastic surgery on premises. So, they go around and have to inspect. Again, last
week an anonymous phone call. There's surgery being taken place at the facility. That's
just complete harassment of this man. For five years he's had to defend his right to use
this property, and never constantly having somebody go around and trying to inspect the
property. Mr. Gonzalez was correct. The only limitation was on the surgery. If you read
the entire transcript -- and don't take words out of context. It's clear that that's what the
intent was. It was only the consultation as related to plastic surgery, and he doesn't do
plastic surgery. Mr. Jacobs shows the sign of Mr. Gordon and Baker, which is the plastic
surgeon at 15th and South Miami Avenue. I want you to know they do complete plastic
surger�. You go there. You spend the night there. The same thing with the oncologist
on 15' and Brickell. You spend the night in that oncology office. Also, just two doors
up on Brickell, I sent you a photograph of a piece of property that is going to have the
ability to have all kinds of medical offices in it -- I think I have a photograph, and I
submitted it in your package. Because it is declared a historic property. This is a historic
property on Brickell Avenue that's going to have all types of medical and other kinds of
offices on Brickell Avenue because it's so-called historic. With relate to the sign, let me
just describe the sign for you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
Ms. Dougherty: The sign is a registered trademark. This is the name of the facility, as
Mesua dermocologic -- probably not saying it right, but anyway, that is the name of the
facility itself. It is something that -- and, Commissioner Winton, this sign is permitted to
be 40 square feet in size. Forty square feet. It's 15 square feet. He's not maximized it.
It's a very tasteful sign, the one that the neighbors on both sides are actually appreciative
of. This is a very well respected plastic surgeon. He did his residency at Sloan Kettering
in New York. He serves as the -- he used to serve as the chief plastic surgeon in the
Coral Gables, Kendall, Pan American and Hialeah hospitals. He has privileges in all four
hospitals, which is where he does his plastic surgery. We'd ask you to reject this appeal
and stop this harassment. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK. You have a few minutes for rebuttal.
Marilyn Goldaber: I had not intended to speak, so I have not been sworn in. I have to be
sworn?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, you have to.
187 January 25, 2001
Ms. Goldaber: OK. Somebody swear me in.
AT THIS POINT, THE CITY CLERK ADMINISTERED OATH, REQUIRED
UNDER CITY CODE SECTION 62-1, TO THOSE PERSONS GIVING
TESTIMONY ON ZONING ISSUES.
Ms. Goldaber: Absolutely. I hadn't intended to because I really hoped that we would
have a larger group.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Can you give your name and address, please.
Ms. Goldaber: I'm sorry. Marlyn Goldaber, 2451 Brickell Avenue. I've lived there since
1977. Living on Brickell Avenue is really very special, and we appreciate our area and
the beauty and the residential neighborhood and the feeling that we have there. The fact
that this gentleman, who may be with a superb plastic surgeon, came into an area to do
consultations is wonderful, but to make that look like some kind of a ugly commercial
venture, with the sign up there -- I have had visitors come by there and say, "I thought
this was only a residential area. What is this spa that you have here?" And the nude
statue where the fountain, it could be on any strip that is a commercial, unpleasant area.
Vice Chairman Gort: Ma'am, I think the attorney addressed to you that you should
address the issue of the use.
Ms. Goldaber: I'm addressing the issues of the use.
Vice Chairman Gort: The statue doesn't have anything to do in here.
Ms. Goldaber: It is being used -- and the young lady addressed the fact that there are
procedures going on there of all kinds. The use was specified as consultation only, and I
don't think that, as a former English teacher, that I need to be told that procedures going
on there meet the requirements of consultation. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Vice Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Gonzalez: Can I have two minutes for rebuttal, sir? Thank you. Let me make two
corrections first. The first one, this was not a determination, as stated by Mr. Bass, under
188 January 25, 2001
Section 904. This was an interpretation, which is under another section. Only a director
can make determinations. The second item is, the interpretation was not made of the
actual resolution. The interpretation was made whether there was an existing violation
going on the premises for a misuse of what was approved. The other thing I want to
point out quickly -- this is the size of the actual transcript, so the hearing before the
Commission. Mostly this transcript, they go back and forth on the parking and the
landscaping. There are only two parts that actually talks about the contents of what he's
allowed to do. One was what Mr. Bass showed you, where, after his presentation, former
Commissioner Plummer says "only", which is kind of vague. That's all this says here.
Then he say -- goes on to what it should and should not be. And, basically, at the end of
the complete hearing, where basically it goes to -- well, is it a plastic surgery? Basically,
it's a consultation. And going back to what Mr. Bass pointed to former land planner, Mr.
Francisco Garcia, it's very clear. He says, I'll begin again. I apologize. The first
condition, that's toward the end, is that the present use, as applied for and if allowed, if
permitted, will be for a plastic surgery only, not to have any surgical procedures taking
place on the premises for consultation purposes only. And that's after the comma.
Nowhere are you going to find in these transcripts where they address the problem of
medical procedures. It's very clear, in my opinion, that if you -- the way the sentences
are structured, that basically they were talking only about surgical procedures, not
medical or any other type of procedures. And, finally, the question -- I know the City
Attorney asked that the sign is not an issue, but let me read you real quick what the
definition of an onsite sign is, and a definition of an onsite sign is in Section 2502. It
says, on-site sign. A sign relating in its subject matter to the premises on which it is
located or to products accommodations services or activities on the premises. Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Ms. Dougherty: There are some folks who wanted to speak on our behalf, as well, who
live in the neighborhood.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Let's go ahead. OK. Might as well. We're going to stay here.
Ms. Dougherty: And I'd also like to point out that the nude statue as to "Venus de Milo",
which is now in a Louvre and it's 2500 years old.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead; let's not be shy. Come on.
Patricia Malasina: Good evening. My name is Patricia Malasina (phonetic). I live in
189 January 25, 2001
1950 Brickell Avenue. I am a resident of Brickell Avenue and I'm in favor of Dr. Suarez -
Menendez office, located at 1900 Brickell Avenue. He should practice his career like any
other surgeon in town. His office looks like a beautiful mansion of fountain and youth
that enhances the value of the area. I know that the statue is not the issue, but I ask you,
what do you guys do when you go and visit Rome or Athens? It's art or "David" from
Michelangelo.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me, ma'am. You're addressing the Commissioners. Thank
you.
Ms. Malasina: Oh, I'm sorry. Anyway, for my taste, it's a piece of art, what is in front of
Brickell Avenue. Furthermore, I find it very convenient having a plastic surgeon a
walking distance and being able to receive anti -agent treatments and in such medical
clinic. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Next.
Martin Ordonez: Martin Ordonez, 2200 Brickell.
Vice Chairman Gort: Bring the mike up, please, sir.
Mr. Ordonez: Martin Ordonez, 2200 Brickell Avenue. I'm here to strongly support Dr.
Suarez -Menendez practice. I believe that he has the right to practice just like any other
doctor. His anti -aging treatments are phenomenal and the beauty of the property
definitely increases the value of real estate there. Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: Just ask if he's 65 years old.
Vice Chairman Gort: I was going to ask what's his age. Yeah.
Commissioner Sanchez: Hey, where could I buy your products.
Marcela Hurtado -Vargas: Good night. I'm sorry my English is not so great. I'd like to
try my little English to explain how I feel this night.
Vice Chairman Gort: Name and address, please.
Ms. Vargas: Yes. My name is Marcela Hurtado. I live in Brickell and I have my house
190 January 25, 2001
also in Key Biscayne. I represent the church St. Agnes in Key Biscayne. I'm a teacher in
(unintelligible). And I love the art. Outside the house, I have one piece of the art who
take the heart in the persons. The name is Venus, you know, the -- I don't know any
English. I'm sorry. I'd like to try it in Spanish. (Comments in Spanish) for me so
important because one day was an accident. I was queen of beauty in my country. I am
queen international in Los Angeles, and I queen -- I was queen in New Zealand, and after
that, lost my face in one shock in car, and lose my eyes. I'm sorry. My -- eyes, OK, my
nose and my face, and after that, I changed my life so much because love my first face.
Now, it's OK because one plastic surgeon help me, and it's so necessary for us to have
this near our house. If the court need, I have more than one hundred persons who I spoke
with (inaudible) ones, and if you need signatures for him, I can find who represent the
doctor today here because we love your work. We need it, too.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Ms. Vargas: Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. OK, sir. You have a few minutes for rebuttal.
And lets get it over with.
Mr. Bass: If I may, through the chair, just a quick question to Juan Gonzalez, who
testified earlier. Mr. Gonzalez, did you base your determination on the Zoning Code or
on the Commission's resolution?
Mr. Gonzalez: I based my determination or my actions -- I'm sorry. My interpretation on
the minutes of the actual resolution, and of the -- on the minutes of the actual resolution.
Mr. Bass: Is there any authority in the Zoning Code for anybody to render an
interpretation of a Commission's resolution?
Mr. Gonzalez: There is an authority to render an interpretation if there is any existing
violation of any property in the City of Miami.
Mr. Bass: Thank you. Let me respond to a couple of points that Lucia raised. First
regarding this amendment, this amendment that says, "We got ours. Now, nobody else
can get theirs." This amendment, which they said would allow no more plastic surgeon
offices anywhere else in the area. That's the pulling up of the -- what do you call what
goes over a mode? Whatever the hell it is. Draw bridge. Thank you. The effect of that,
however, is to make this property a nonconforming use. That is to say, it is a use which
is not allowed anywhere else in the neighborhood, and what they are saying is, this use
191 January 25, 2001
should be allowed to be expanded to include procedures that were not allowed at the time
that this resolution was rendered, and the expansion of nonconforming uses is prohibited
under your Code. What they're asking you to do is ignore this plain language, and the
cases say you can't do that. When you look at Commission resolution, you can't invent
language that's not there and you can't delete language that is there. And all the
interpretations in the world can't erase the simple fact that this language doesn't allow
procedures of any kind. And let's come back to reality here. We're not saying he can't
have his office here. He has his office here. He voluntarily says, I'm a plastic surgeon. I
want to have a plastic surgery office here, but I'm not going to do plastic surgery there.
One would think that plastic surgery is a necessary and an ancillary use to a plastic
surgeon's office. He said, no, I'm no going to do that, but he's coming back in sideways
and saying, well, I said no surgery, but I didn't say that I wasn't going to practice
medicine here. I'm still going to perform medical procedures. The language is clear.
There has been absolutely no testimony here that there is anything unclear there, so you
don't even get to the minutes. When you get to the minutes, the minutes are very clear.
To allow these types of procedures to occur here would turn this resolution on its head. I
say to you, your job is very easy on this one. You've had some tough ones before you
this evening. This is an easy one and I would respectfully and strongly suggest to you
that the only thing you can do is to reverse Mr. Gonzalez' determination and to declare
clearly for everybody, so we all know what we got, that the only thing you could do there
is sit with people and consult with them, and when you want to take that next step, you do
it at an office where you're allowed to do medical or surgical procedures, and that's not
this office. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. I'll now close the public hearings, and...
Commissioner Winton: Brickell Avenue is one of the most valuable areas we have in the
City, has a huge tax base in support of our entire City, and if you drive Brickell Avenue --
and I've lived on Brickell Avenue for three years -- Brickell Avenue is absolutely
beautiful and what makes it so beautiful is the canopy and the green space and the vistas
that you have there that make it just a magnificent street. I'm reading the language and,
in my mind, that language is clear. And I can't undo anything that was done in the past,
but this -- as far as I'm concerned, this picture tells the whole story. There is absolutely
nothing that this project does that's in keeping with the tone and view of Brickell, and
we've allowed a nonresidential use to come in. That's all right. It's done. Can't do
anything about that. But what we can do is make sure that that non-residential use that's
come on to Brickell Avenue can be maintained at exactly the narrow focus that's spelled
out in this resolution. So, my view is clear on this, and I'm going to move to reverse the
decision of the zoning administrator and the Zoning Board.
192 January 25, 2001
Mr. Maxwell: The Zoning Board's decision was a technical denial. They technically
reversed it, too. So, if that's your motion, Commissioner, it would be to uphold the
decision of the Zoning Board, which reversed the decision of the zoning...
Commissioner Winton: Well, I was using the language that you -- that you gave me, so...
Mr. Maxwell: Am I mistaken on that?
Commissioner Winton: ... get me the right language.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Mr. Bass: The Zoning Board denied it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Bass: Four -two. I'm sorry. Just trying to help.
Vice Chairman Gort: We have an attorney. We pay him. We don't pay you. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: He wants to up hold the decision of the Zoning Board. I stand corrected.
You want to reverse the decision of the zoning administrator, correct?
Commissioner Winton: Absolutely. So -- and how about the action of the Zoning
Board? I mean, do I have to do anything else there? Well, I don't know. I'm waiting for
them to tell me.
Ms. Slazyk: It would be to grant the appeal and to reverse the zoning administrator.
Commissioner Winton: So be it.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Teele: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: Discussion.
193 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: I didn't second it.
Commissioner Sanchez: You said second.
Commissioner Teele: I meant --
Vice Chairman Gort: Give me a second.
Commissioner Teele: -- give me a second.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. It's got to have a second for discussion.
Vice Chairman Gort: I'll second it for discussion purposes.
Commissioner Teele: For purpose of discussion, I'll second it, but I don't want my
second to be -- there are some things I need to have clarified. So, what I'm saying is, I'm
not seconding this because I'm supporting this. I'm seconding it because I'd like to
understand what we're...
Commissioner Sanchez: So, you're seconding it for the purpose of discussion.
Commissioner Teele: For the sole purpose of discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: OK. Discussion. Mr. Chairman, there's -- I mean, my
understanding here, from the City Attorney, is that the only issue here is the use of the
property. So, we could -- everything else is irrelevant. We could put away with the
nudity, the statue, or landscaping, or whatever is intended for that. The language speaks
for itself, and one question that I do have -- and I'd like to ask the owner of the property --
or better yet, I'd like to ask the City: Have they violated this -- the agreement within the
City? Have they performed any medical procedures?
Ms. Slazyk: That's actually the question before you.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well -- but, see, I need to know, have they done that? I mean,
there's been calls and allegations. Have they gone and visited the place and found out
that they're in violation of their -- is there evidence to show me that?
Ms. Slazyk: The hearing board office doesn't have records of any violations.
194 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: No record of no violation. OK. So -- Johnny, wait. Johnny.
And I'll yield, if you want, but let me just finish because I have some thoughts and I don't
want to lose them. One is, so forget everything else. Let's just look at the language that's
ahead of us. Now, let me tell you something. This property -- who owned this property
before, before ...
Ms. Dougherty: It was an attorney by the name of Donovan, I think.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is his home, in any way, under historical preservation? Is this
home -- no? It's a beautiful home.
Ms. Dougherty: It was a law office at the time.
Commissioner Sanchez: Is this home -- no? It's a beautiful home. So, I believe this
gentleman loses -- what's going to happen is, he's probably going to put it up for sale, and
then you may be here six months from today not fighting a so-called spa, but fighting a
developer for high-rise -- that's another thought that could happen. Well, five units or
four units. It's five stories. Five stories. So, that's a concern. That's just a concern that I
have.
Unidentified Speaker: Residential (inaudible).
Commissioner Sanchez: You'll have rentals. It will be rentals. I'm very familiar with the
area. That's a concern that I have. Now, the language that sets forth on this resolution --
and hearing from both arguments -- one is that maybe at the last minutes -- and I was
reading most of the materials you put up -- where, right off the bat, even the minutes
confused me, with one Commissioner -- ex -Commissioner saying it was this and the City
Manager -- ex -City Manager saying, no. So, there's some confusion on that. So, you
know -- there are some things that I still need to look into this. I mean, it's a serious
matter. If we support this and we go ahead and vote in favor of not approving this or
withdrawing what -- the motion you made, Commissioner Winton, I think that what's
going to happen is, you know, he's probably going to have to sell that property and move
on because he can't run his clinic out of there, correct? He can't run his clinic out of
there. Could he run this clinic out of there with the...
Ms. Dougherty: If you do that, all he can do is sit and talk to somebody. He's not a
psychiatrist. That means he could not do all of his treatments, his anti -aging treatments,
and all the other things that other plastic surgeons do, including the one around the
corner, which has surgery on premises. Now, they've inspected that place. There is no
surgical equipment on the premises. He does not do surgery on the premises. That
195 January 25, 2001
resolution talks about consultation regarding plastic surgery. We don't -- we only consult
regarding plastic surgery.
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, that resolution is the law, although I wasn't here.
Ms. Dougherty: And that's all we do. We only consult regarding plastic surgery. We do
all the other things that plastic surgeons do in their clinics and in their offices. That
means we take care of skin problems. If somebody has skin cancer on their skin, we can
remove it. That's what we do at the office.
Commissioner Sanchez: For point of clarification. I want to make it very clear. That
resolution, Resolution 97-73, passed here in this Commission January 23, 1997, which I
was not here. It was passed. It's the law of the land.
Ms. Dougherty: Make no mistake about it. We comply with the law and we do not do
anything...
Commissioner Sanchez: Make no mistake about it. So, we, once again, have to deal
with wrongdoings in the past, so -- but I -- you know, I'm -- Johnny, it's in your district.
I'm going to sit back and when it's time to vote, vote. I'm going to make my decision
based on what the evidence was presented to me by both sides. I think some arguments
on both sides are very valid, and -- there is a second on it, so I'm going to let another
Commissioner speak on it.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Let me understand this drama associated with the determination of
the zoning director. Would you state -- what -- in your opinion -- have you offered an
opinion on this use? Is that what this is all about?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes. It's not a determination. It's an interpretation under use.
Commissioner Teele: So -- and that's what you're paid to do.
Mr. Gonzalez: Under use. Correct.
Commissioner Teele: Have you determined -- what was your interpretation of permitted
uses?
196 January 25, 2001
Mr. Gonzalez: My interpretation that the permitted use...
Commissioner Teele: Was anything in writing, by the way?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, there is. That's why they appealed. My interpret...
Commissioner Teele: A what?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, there is in writing, and they appealed that decision. My
interpretation was that, basically, the content of the way I understood the minutes read,
that the way the language is structured, that this was only for consultation of medical -- of
surgical procedures. Nor in the minutes does it mention prohibition of medical
procedures or any type of procedures in the actual health clinic.
Commissioner Winton: Well, it says that right in the resolution. No medical or surgical
procedures. That's in writing in the resolution.
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes. I believe...
Commissioner Winton: In the resolution.
Mr. Gonzalez: No doubt that the resolution and language is clear; however, I strongly
believe what happened was, when they read that part for consultation purposes only in
there, under the last statement by Francisco Garcia, if you look at it, it says "comma, for
consultation only", and they were referring only to plastic surgery. I think the resolution
is a mistake from the minutes.
Mr. Bass: No, there was no mistake.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, look, it's my question. And, Mr. Director, let me just say
this, as I said to Lourdes and Ms. Gelabert and every profession: we pay you to give us
your professional opinion. We may not accept it, but please don't, at all, be intimidated
or be shy about giving us your professional opinion. That's what we pay you for. I guess
we pay you very well. And, so, I'm not asking this to embarrass you or to create --
because reasonable people can differ, but you are the last authority on that, so -- until it
comes to us, and that's where it is now. But your interpretation is the law of the land on
this matter, unless and until it comes to us.
Mr. Gonzalez: That is correct, Commissioner.
197 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: OK. That's how I read the law. That's how I assume that the law
should work. We can't have everybody interpreting. You're the official interpreter. You
may be right. You may be wrong. That is, we may agree -- three people may agree with
you or three people may disagree with you. We still want you to keep doing what you're
doing. At least I do. And don't be shy or bashful about giving us your opinion. And I
appreciate you answering the question to me. So, based upon your previous
interpretations, having medical procedures were permitted?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: OK. So -- now, let me tell you what really bothers me, what really
got my attention. These...
Mr. Gonzalez: And let me just add. Remember, the whole special exception was
approved, with Commission approval, for a health clinic. So, basically, you take the
content of what a health clinic -- it includes doctors, procedures, and so forth. What they
are trying to say is that, besides approving the health clinic, that the Commission added a
limitation that they couldn't do any surgical, plus any medical procedures. What I'm
saying is...
Commissioner Teele: And you're saying that's a nonsensical interpretation?
Mr. Gonzalez: Exactly.
Commissioner Teele: If you approve a health clinic...
Mr. Gonzalez: Exactly. How can...
Commissioner Teele: Because we didn't need special exception for an office, did we -- a
professional...
Mr. Gonzalez: Well, in that district, they wouldn't have allowed just professional offices.
It had to come in as a health clinic, as the restricted zoning there would only allow health
clinics which, by interpretation, includes medical...
Commissioner Teele: Let me ask you a different question. If this were a psychiatrist
office --
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, sir.
198 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: -- would that be a permitted use in this district?
Mr. Gonzalez: Probably, under health clinic, yes.
Commissioner Teele: But not under health -- as a -- if it were not under a health clinic
and if there were no exemptions for health clinics, could a psychiatrist issue...
Mr. Gonzalez: No, sir.
Commissioner Teele: Sit -on -the -couch kind of stuff?
Mr. Gonzalez: No, sir.
Commissioner Regalado: Got a question. Sorry.
Commissioner Teele: I'll be happy to yield.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. Just -- go ahead. Go ahead.
Commissioner Teele: Go right ahead. No. So, everything that's happened up until today
in this facility has been with your -- with the City's knowledge and the City's approval of
the medical procedures that have gone on in there?
Mr. Gonzalez: That is correct.
Commissioner Teele: OK. Now, let me tell you what really bothers me. Something that
sounds like abuse of power that I don't want to be involved in. If you issue that opinion,
how could there be -- how could Ms. Dougherty -- attorney be complaining so
vociferously about inspectors coming to check and this anonymous calls and all that kind
of stuff?
Mr. Gonzalez: Let me also further my last answer to you. From the very beginning, like
the attorney Lucia was saying, that the...
Commissioner Teele: Her name is Ms. Dougherty.
Mr. Gonzalez: Ms. Dougherty. When we were -- we questioned their -- the doctor came
in to see us. From day one, when we approved the plans and everything, we looked at it
as a complete health clinic, including approval for the procedures for medical. We knew
199 January 25, 2001
very clear that the language says no surgical, and that was the only limitation, as far as
the interpretation goes for that. As far as the unfortunate -- the Code provides that any
interpretation, either by the Director of Planning or the Zoning Administrator, is
appealable, and...
Commissioner Teele: Is appealable?
Mr. Gonzalez: Is appealable, correct. And the Code doesn't give any limitations as to the
context of that appeal.
Commissioner Teele: And that's why they're here and that's -- everything -- I mean, you
know, I don't have any problem with what you've done. I have no problem with what the
neighborhoods have done. I mean, I think we're exactly at the right place at the right
time, and -- I mean, I respect what you're doing. I know Commissioner Regalado has a
question, but I really would like to understand from the NET -- super NET what's going
on here? I mean, if we've got that interpretation, then why are we into this ...
Mr. Dennis Wheeler: Dennis Wheeler, Acting Director, NET (Neighborhood
Enhancement Team).
Commissioner Teele: When are they going to make you a director? OK. It's none of my
business.
Mr. Wheeler: Yes. Mr. Tony Wagner, the Coral Way NET Administrator, has been by
there a couple of times. I don't know how many times he's been by there. Every time
that he has been there, he has confirmed that there are no surgical procedures going on in
that office. So...
Commissioner Regalado: Could you yield just...
Commissioner Teele: I'd be happy to. I'm pretty confused.
Commissioner Regalado: Why, Chief Wheeler, why would the NET Director be going
several times to the same place? I mean, once they determine that there is nothing going
on, should they come back the next day or next day and next day?
Mr. Wheeler: Commissioner, I don't know how many times Mr. Wagner has been by
there. I don't think he goes by there everyday, like Ms. Dougherty said.
Commissioner Regalado: No. Two. Two times. Two times.
200 January 25, 2001
Mr. Wheeler: He's been by there twice.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. I'm saying, two times is more than enough because
-- I mean, if you go once -- I mean, somebody may call. Somebody -- when I got elected,
somebody called the NET Office and said that I had an illegal construction and, you
know, I welcomed the inspector. She went around and have never constructed anything
in my home, so they never came back. So, what I'm saying is, why is this coming back
and coming back? I don't understand.
Mr. Wheeler: In my opinion, I don't think going by there two times is unreasonable. I
think the first complaint -- and it depends on how long it was spread out, over what
period of time. The first time they may have went by there and there wasn't any surgical
procedures. The second time they went by there, there wasn't any surgical procedures. I
do not know how many times Mr. Wagner has been by there.
Ms. Dougherty: I'm just talking two times since the Zoning Board hearing of this appeal.
This is, you know, within a month or so, six weeks.
Commissioner Regalado: Six times?
Ms. Dougherty: Six times in...
Commissioner Regalado: You're saying six times? I mean, that's something very
unusual, would you say?
Mr. Wheeler: I don't want to speak for Mr. Wagner, why he went by there.
Commissioner Regalado: No. I mean, but -- your ...
Mr. Wheeler: In my opinion, the -- if you investigate a complaint and you go back there
two or three times and there's no evidence to any surgical procedures going on there, you
might overlook the next time someone complains to you. So, I'll talk to Mr. Wagner. I
guess the best part of Mr. Wagner going by there, it adds some credence to -- that the
doctor is not doing any surgical procedures there, and every time that Mr. Wagner went
by there, I assume the doctor allowed him to go in there to substantiate the claim that he
wasn't doing any surgical procedures. So, in a way, it's not bad that Mr. Wagner went by
there.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, yeah. But, I mean -- Mr. Wagner went there because
201 January 25, 2001
he's a good worker. I know how he works. But this is beyond -- above and beyond the
call of duty. I mean, don't understand what's going on here, and I suspect that this
gentleman is being harassed, and ...
Mr. Frank Rollason (Assistant City Manager): Commissioner, Frank Rollason, Assistant
City Manager. This goes back, I think counsel was saying, five years or something it's
been going on. When I was the Director of the Building Department -- this issue came on
when I was in the Building Department. The issue came about whether they had the
proper permits for what work was done, et cetera, et cetera, and we researched at that
time and, again, at that time, Zoning was involved. But what you also have to understand
is that different individuals have come into these different positions and to some of these
people, this may be a new issue that's come to them. In other words, I know that the
Coral Way NET Administrator has changed. It's changed in the building department.
And even though you may have been there before, like we have places where complaints
come and say "Listen, they are selling alcohol after the hours that they are supposed to
sell." We go out and we check. We find that it's not happening, but we still -- if we get
another complaint, we send, you know, inspectors to go inspect it. So, if they come
anonymous, we do respond to anonymous complaints because a lot of people don't want
to get involved. But I don't think that our NET Director or I would like to think that none
of our people on this side have some kind of list or some kind of harassment list that
we're out there doing that. I think it's probably initiated by some type of tip or call or
something of that sort and we go out and we check it out. And a lot of times we don't
even have anybody to report back to, other than the fax that we got this. We went out
and checked and it was bogus.
Commissioner Regalado: Frank, I'm very glad that you said that. I'm very glad that you
gave that explanation because three times I have requested that they go by a place where
they are doing mechanical work and only once they went there, and the Manager
responded that -- you know, they went there. The inspector went there and there wasn't
any mechanical work, and -- but be aware -- be sure that the next director in that area will
be on top of that. I, myself, went there and I saw the mechanical work being done, and
just like something that happened this afternoon, thing is that I go places and if we are
going to be preventive in a selective way, it's fine by me.
Commissioner Teele: It's not fine by me.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no. It's fine by me in a sense that, you know, some
people have power. They can do that. But I'm going to fight for my right to have that
guy who's bothering people doing mechanical work be eliminated from my district, and I
will demand that every time that we get a call, we get an inspector or a NET Director
202 January 25, 2001
right there right away. So, I'll tell you, are there any other surgeons in that area, plastic
surgeons, that you know, Juan?
Mr. Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Right in radius of maybe -- there 1900, 15th, about four to five
blocks -- there are other plastic surgeons on 15th Road and South Miami Avenue, and
there are the doctors. I believe they are also surgeons at -- I think it's called the Sugar
Bakers property that looks like a castle on the corner there. One is residential,
nonconformity. The one on South Miami and 15th Road, and I believe the Sugar Bakers
is a historical designation, but it is residential.
Commissioner Regalado: And any inspectors that go by there all the time or -- not that
we know of. OK. Look -- Commissioner Winton, it's your district, but I've got to tell
you, I am not voting for this because I think that something very wrong here. This doctor
is doing what he was told he can do. So, it's ...
Commissioner Winton: Well, I'm going to say one more time. I think you're absolutely
dead wrong. This building -- and that's the reason why you try to absolutely narrow
down the scope of work and follow the letter of the law, and it's written right there. It's
written in plain simple English and this building is absolutely not in keeping with the
residential quality of that neighborhood. And, frankly, if he would have been a better
neighbor, these people might not even be here. But this is awful. So ...
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Roll call.
The Commission...
Commissioner Teele: Commissioner Winton just made a very good point. Sometimes,
you know, you can have the law on your side, but sort of go too far. Is there any
willingness on the part of the applicant to --
Commissioner Sanchez: Landscape?
Commissioner Teele: -- tone down -- I mean, I apologize. My appreciation of art is
limited. I know this is a masterpiece in its original form. This would not be an original,
would it? I don't want to say something that's going to make me look really stupid here.
Ms. Dougherty: It's an exact replica.
Commissioner Teele: I mean, if it's an original, I'll take back everything I'm about to say,
but if this is a copy...
203 January 25, 2001
Ms. Dougherty: This is "Venus de" Milo that is in the Louvre
Commissioner Teele: I understand it's the Venus in the Louvre.
Ms. Dougherty: And it's an exact replica.
Commissioner Teele: But -- and it's an exact -- but this is not the original, right? So -- I
mean, my point is this: Obviously, it's a little much for a residential neighborhood. I
mean, it would be great in the Louvre or some other places, and I'm not trying to impose
my view of art on anybody, but I think Commissioner Winton's point is a point that if you
were a little bit better neighbor about this thing -- it's just a little bit out of scale. Y'all are
looking at me like I'm crazy, but I just think you need to tone this thing down a little bit
so that it really does blend in more.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, what are you suggesting, more landscape or remove the
statue?
Commissioner Teele: I don't know
Commissioner Sanchez: Tone down the sign?
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's not the motion. That's not the motion. And the
Attorney is raising questions that may even be beyond our scope.
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir, I did. I think you might have been out of the room,
Commissioner, when I pointed out...
Commissioner Teele: No, I heard you. But I...
Commissioner Regalado: You can have a statue with arms.
Commissioner Teele: Well, that's not the motion. What was the motion, again?
Commissioner Winton: To reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Jacobs: Can I ask a question so that I can make a comment?
Commissioner Teele: I'll be happy to ask you a question or Commissioner Winton. You
know, I don't want to have everybody -- I mean, this is your neighborhood. We all are
trying to get out of here, but you're going to be there after we leave.
204 January 25, 2001
Mr. Jacobs: Well, thank you very much, Commissioner. I recall the doctor here on
January whatever it was of '97 saying that he was prepared to accept the restrictions; that
he would only do consultation here, and he would not do any medical procedures or
surgical procedures. We expressed at that time a concern about drugs being there and
about -- I mean, some of the neighbors talked about that, encouraging crime and break-
ins, and so on, so forth. We were -- felt we were protected by the Commission, that no
medical procedures, no surgical procedures would be there. Now, the subject has been
brought up about all these inspections. I don't know anything about ordering inspections
anonymously or anybody that did this. However, there isn't any need for inspections
when you have a sign out front that says we are doing things that are prohibited by the
Commission's resolution. So, there is no need to inspect -- to find out that there are
violations if you agree that there are violations, and that says it's a violation. And you are
the only people that can change a resolution that's there, and I don't know what the
procedures are. Well, Mr. Bass is saying, it's -- we do have to distinguish between
medical and surgical and it's meaningless not to distinguish, and they are specifically
there, and we ask you to follow the letter of the law unless and until some procedure is
carried forward to enlarge the scope of the activities there. I think that if that sign -- any
reference to a spa were removed, we wouldn't know what was going on in there, but that
spa is the sticks up there and galls the neighborhood every day.
Commissioner Sanchez: So, Tory, it's my understanding that one of the biggest concerns
that you have is the sign. So, if the sign...
Mr. Jacobs: Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Wait, wait, wait. Let's see if we can come to an agreement here.
If the sign is removed...
Mr. Jacobs: Any reference to a spa or commercial use, yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: Sign -- right. And he landscapes the house beautifully and he
removes the statue, would it be acceptable to you?
Mr. Jacobs: I wouldn't even ask him to remove the statue, even though it's not Venus De
Milo. "Venus de Milo" is armless. That is some other Venus, perhaps, but it's not
"Venus de Milo". It's not the famous statue in the Louvre. It's some other statue.
Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, gentlemen, my understanding, I was the only one that
was here when this was approved. The reason the Commissioner approved it at that time
205 January 25, 2001
is because I personally felt there was a beautiful house in there and I didn't want to see
the house to be lost because of the landscaping and everything that it had. At the same
time -- and we were not told at that time that the resolution was going to be different from
the use that is permitted on the clinic. We should have been told at that time because I
recall that we checked with the doctor and we talked to the doctor. We made certain
conditions because my goal was to keep that house because everybody see that house and
a building in there. We asked the doctor. We only going to be doing consultation. Do
you have any problem with that? He said he didn't have any problem. The only problem
that's been created here, it's been created by the sign. That by putting that sign in there
and saying a spa, it looks like additional service is being provided. I think that's the only
problem you have here. All right.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, counsel, is there any way that you could change the sign?
Ms. Dougherty: Here's the problem. This is our registered trademark. This is what he
has on all of his cosmetic...
Commissioner Sanchez: Does he have to have the set outside?
Ms. Dougherty: Of course. I mean, that's why he buy a house on Brickell Avenue and
that's why you have -- you know, that's why -- how are they going to know? That's why
you have this building on Brickell Avenue.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, did you approve the registered trademark when
this came through? I mean, is that part of the concept?
Commissioner Teele: But I thought the sign ...
Vice Chairman Gort: That's a resolution...
Commissioner Teele: Is a conforming sign in this neighborhood. Is the sign conforming
or nonconforming?
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what's here in front of us today. That's the question that's in
front of us.
Commissioner Winton: That's the question, is the sign conform
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Wait a minute. I want to conduct the meeting, please.
we've still got a lot of items. It's 8:31, guys. OK.
206 January 25, 2001
Mr. Jacobs: Gentlemen, this is
Vice Chairman Gort: What's here in front of us -- excuse me. I'm sorry. It's closed. The
public hearing is closed now, OK? Because we're going to be arguing here all night long.
We have to make a decision. Commissioner Teele.
Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion?
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Unless somebody ask you a question. And the
gentleman have the same right.
Commissioner Teele: I'm not going to ask it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Lucia, pertaining to the name...
Ms. Dougherty: Would -- if we took the word spa off the sign and said dermocosmetic
clinic, would that be something that would be of helpful in your mind?
Commissioner Sanchez: It's not a spa anymore.
Commissioner Winton: (Inaudible) spa.
Ms. Dougherty: It's no spa.
Commissioner Winton: And clinic is right there in the resolution.
Mr. Jacobs: Gentlemen, this is a residential neighborhood. That's a commercial sign.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Excuse me. They're going to ask you a question.
Winton, ask him a question. You can ask him.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, you
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead. He's asking you a question. I have to follow procedure.
We have six other items that we have to listen to.
Commissioner Winton: But -- and I heard his point, and I'm going to answer the
question. The fact of the matter is, y'all let this cat out of the bag five years ago, so he's
got a business there. It's going to stay there. It ain't going away. So -- well,
207 January 25, 2001
Commissioners did originally. So, the business is staying. The question is: are you going
to be able to regulate what the scope of the business is and they're offering up? And the
issue is that we've heard right from the beginning is this use of the word spa in the
signage because it conjures up all kinds of other potential business opportunities, and
they're willing to take spa off and make it -- what did you say?
Ms. Dougherty: Dermocosmetic clinic.
Commissioner Winton: Which seems to me to be pretty darn close to "A" there.
Commissioner Sanchez: And additional landscaping to meet your compliance.
Commissioner Regalado: No, we're not discussing that.
Commissioner Winton: I don't think we're allowed to.
Commissioner Regalado: We're not allowed to discuss landscaping.
Commissioner Winton: We just hope that, on his own, he becomes a better neighbor.
Commissioner Teele: So, what's your motion again, Commissioner Winton?
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Commissioner Winton: I'm waiting for the folks in the front row to answer my question
here.
Commissioner Regalado: Can I ask a question to the doctor? So, doctor, what's -- you
have a trademark.
Dr. Jorge Suarez -Menendez: Yeah. Let me explain to you what the problem is.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me make it a lot easier.
Commissioner Regalado: Mike, mike, mike.
Vice Chairman Gort: Why don't you guys take five minutes and go out for a minute, get
together, and let's see if we can solve this once and for all, OK. Why don't you go out?
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, right. And then come back in and we'll take this back up
208 January 25, 2001
again.
Commissioner Teele: Good idea.
Commissioner Sanchez: That's the best idea I've heard all day long.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Note for the Record: Item PZ -14 was tabled, pending further discussion.
209 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Item 6.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Six and seven, are they companions? Six and
seven are companions?
Vice Chairman Gort: I don't know. I'm -- no, we didn't do six.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -6 is an appeal of a
variance. The department recommended approval, with conditions, of the variance. The
Zoning Board denied it, and the applicant is here asking you to reverse the Zoning Board
and affirm the recommendation of the department.
Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: I don't think there are neighbors here dealing with this issue.
There are only professionals here dealing with this issue. Item 7 has residents that are
here and interested and I would really appreciate it if we would go to Item 7 so that the
residents who are here can deal with this issue.
Note for the Record: Item PZ -6 was tabled, pending further discussion.
210 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Let's go to Item 7.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Item...
Commissioner Regalado: Seven -- don't leave. Item 7.
Ms. Slazyk: Item 7 is a request for a special exception, which requires City Commission
approval, to allow marina retail specialty shops and exhibition space and banquet halls
and restaurants and raw bars for the Grove Harbor Marina Project, the applicant -- the
property owner is the City of Miami. We recommend approval, and it was also approved
by the Zoning Board. Recommended for approval.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, ma'am.
Dianne Johnson: Good evening, gentlemen. This is a joint project of the City of Miami,
and we have entered into a lease agreement with Grove Harbor Marina and Caribbean
Marketplace. The development program has been approved at this point by the City, and
this remains for us to proceed to the next step, with your approval, would be for the
developers to begin -- to prepare for building permits.
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: There is a motion and a second. Discussion? Go ahead, sir.
John A Brennan: OK. For the record, my name is John A. Brennan. I live up at 2336
Swanson Avenue. I've had a boat in the water for about 30 years. Step number one: I
guess you all know that I'm on a waterfront. By the way, my compliments to you picking
Lucia Dougherty instead of me. That was clever. I would have done that myself. If you
listen to the more recent change, it says that to -- the regulation to allow a marina retail
specialty shops and exhibition space and a banquet hall and a restaurant and raw bar.
Restaurant and raw bar, we've heard about before. I never heard about the banquet hall.
I'm sorry. And I've got to say that if somebody has an appraiser who came out and said
that you can make this amount of money with this particular piece of property as a boat
yard, and this is what these people agreed to. You remember, we went through a whole
smoke and mirrors with two other developers. The third one comes up and he says that
211 January 25, 2001
he will make a state of the art boat repair facility. I don't see anything like that. Marina
is not a boat facility -- repair facility. A marina is a place where you store boats, like
Dinner Key Marina. What you need -- what this community -- what the boating people
need is a boat facility. Boat repair facility. That includes a decent sized diesel shop, a
place where you can repair fiberglass; you can do woodwork; you can do the other things.
Now, we didn't make a big issue because the developer came to us and he said, we can do
it. We will make a state-of-the-art repair facility. This is not a -- a banquet hall is a long
way from being a repair facility. That's -- you know, that's the bottom line. Most of the
people in Waterfront Board don't care we have a banquet hall here. That's not what the
community wants. The community needs -- wants and needs a facility to repair boats.
Now, this kind of -- I realize it may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it sort of sounds
like there's not going to be any paperwork done here. All the work is going to be sent up
the river or some place else. It's not going to be done in the Grove. Now, I ask you: has
anybody seen the travel lift that's being installed out at the boat yard? Did you notice
that? Nobody seen it. You know why? There is no travel lift. Now, why, at this stage
of the game, is there no travel lift? I have no idea. I asked (unintelligible) almost a year
ago where the travel lift was and he didn't want to talk to me. I'm going to ask you
gentlemen to turn this down cold. We've been at this over and over I don't know who is
driving this. The City staff never told us there's going to be a banquet hall there. I'm
talking about the Waterfront Board now, and I am speaking as a private citizen. My time
is up. I'm going to ask you to vote it down because they'll nickel and dime us to death.
They've changed this thing a hundred different times. I've seen more plans you can shake
a stick at, but I haven't seen one that shows -- if you open the drawing up, the drawing
says that this is how big the building is. It doesn't show that, as Merrill Stevens used to
do, that this is how big the engine repair shop is. Yeah, honest to God ...
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. And now we'll get it to answer.
Mr. Brennan: I'm going to call you J. L. if you keep it up, though. But I will leave you.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. Yes, sir, you can call me J. L. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brennan: Thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson: For the record, we
Vice Chairman Gort: Go right ahead. No, wait a minute. You answer all the questions
afterwards. Go ahead, sir. Yes. Go right ahead, sir.
Mr. Charles Curtis Tucker: Are you sure? All of them?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. Go right ahead, sir.
Mr. Tucker: Charles Curtis Tucker, 1050 Little River Drive.
Vice Chairman Gort: Can you bring the mike up and speak into the mike?
212 January 25, 2001
Mr. Tucker: Historically, Coconut Grove has been waterfront community and boat work
has been here forever. I've followed this for a little while. I've been here for seven years.
I've followed this project. I would love to see something go over there that's been agreed
to by the -- you know, by the law and by the agreements. What slowly they are saying,
they are going to put all this stuff over there and it's getting smaller and smaller for boat
use and boat repairs. It went from 30 boats in a working boat yard to 12 to 14, the last
waterfront meeting. What they're proposing does not seem possible to have a working
boat yard there with all the things that they have there. Shake -a -Leg, which is an
excellent organization on the other side of this property, is going to be a detriment for
what they propose. More water, wet slips. There is -- as has been stated, how are you
going to take boats out and set them on the ground and work on them? It was stated that
it would be a full service boat yard. And as far as storing boats, there would only be 29 --
28 and a half feet and larger boats stored. Now, where are you going to store them?
Outside, inside, both? Are the racks -- where are these racks going to be stored? Are
they going to be for only 29 foot and larger boats? There is a new building proposed to
be put there. It's not in compliance with the ordinances of the visibility of the waterfront,
right? There is a new building there. What is the new building going to be? It's
supposed to be showers and facilities for boat work in the boat yard, correct? That's what
it read before. Full service boat yard, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, all of this stuff,
carpentry, rigging, hull and engine repairs on the premises.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Next.
Bruce Reep: My name is Bruce Reep. I've been following this since the charrette. Goes
back to 1993.
Vice Chairman Gort: Your address, please, sir.
Mr. Reep: Bruce Reep, 3530 East Fairview Street, Coconut Grove. I've been to about
every meeting you can imagine. Started off with 120 people for the City Planning
Department put on. I followed the hundreds of hours of work that the citizens and the
staff did. I think some obligations of living up to the RFP (Request for Proposal),
Request For Proposal, and the required uses, state-of-the-art boat yard. Full service.
That was quoted by this person -- applicant who's here. He was selected as the third one.
I want him to build this. But I want him to build it as he said he was going to build it.
We had 60 boats in the yard for repair. What they told us they were going to do is have
in the other smaller building that was going to be the market. I have a drawing of their
old drawings, and when I go to the Waterfront Advisory Board, they are new drawings.
The old drawing shows a building out in front and the Bayview corridor is blocked.
You're supposed to have a 25 percent, but we'll go along with that. They said there are
going to be showers, maintenance, laundry, mainly marina offices there. OK. Now, at
the ninth hour they're back here asking for you to give them more retail space. We were
promised that the big hangar at that time was going to be for the boat yard. The boat yard
could have had -- they had said 25 to 30 spaces. You're doing to 12 to 14. At the boat --
at the Waterfront Advisory Board meeting full scale, full service, state-of-the-art boat
213 January 25, 2001
yard has now been dwindled to, not only 12 boats maybe, vessels. The other thing that
it's been dwindled to is the fact that they're saying minor repairs only. Everything else
gets subbed out and goes elsewhere. That's not what their RFP requirements are. I say
you are obligated, on good faith to the Coconut Grove community, to the sailors, there's
over 3200 boats over 28 feet between Black Point and the Miami River, you're going to
tell all these people they all got to go up to Miami River or they've got to step in line for
those 12 little spots? This is not what was promised to us. The RFP says what we were
supposed to get. They're not meeting up to it. Now, they're at the ninth hour asking you
to give them even more, which is not for the marina industry. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Anyone else?
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman, we asked the group to go out and spend five
minutes, come back in. I think we should ...
Unidentified Speaker: We have one more speaker.
Commissioner Winton: Well, no, we don't. We've got all kinds of debate to do here, so...
Commissioner Sanchez: Well, there's a motion and a second on this one.
Commissioner Winton: On which one?
Commissioner Sanchez: On this...
Commissioner Winton: Oh, we do? We have to finish it? Oh, OK. Sorry.
Commissioner Sanchez: Yeah, we've got to vote on it. So, if we're ready to call the
question, go ahead.
Vice Chairman Gort: Anyone else? Anyone else? Go ahead, sir.
Leonard Rosenberg: I'm sorry. I thought you were going to go back to the other matter.
My name is Leonard Rosenberg. I live at 2645 South Bayshore Drive, right across the
street from the proposed development. The developer is asking the board for several
special exemptions -- exceptions in connection with this marketplace. You've heard that
it's -- the marketplace is not in conformance with the RFP. They have proposed more
than 60,000 feet of retail in the marketplace. I haven't heard anyone; I haven't seen it on
TV, on the radio, where they say build me more stores. You have an environment here
on South Bayshore. It's not a commercial environment. It is waterfront environment. A
few restaurants, the marinas. That's what they was supposed to be. As residents here,
we're also concerned for the potential for noise and, specifically, music. For the first
time, two weeks ago, at the Waterfront Board we saw in the plans a stage, but we equate
stage with a -- as a band stand. There is no reason to have a bandstand in this facility. It
was supposed to be a marina. South Bayshore is a unique place. It's essentially
residential suburbia, but with high-rises. A few office buildings don't detract from this.
214 January 25, 2001
They close down at 530, 600, and we're left with the quietude of South Bayshore. So,
when we go home from work, we can enjoy our homes and our families. Our concern
with the variances is that without providing some curbs on the music, on outdoor music,
the Commission will be giving Mr. Lima what he desires. At the same time, tearing
away the fabric, which is South Bayshore Drive. We can't turn off the music if it plays.
We can't hear our own TVs and radios if it plays. We know there are special occasions
in the Grove. We're not talking about those special occasions, like Taste of the Grove,
where they play music. But I heard that music in my house at six blocks away, as though
they were playing it outside my balcony. Think about the soundtrack -- just 30 seconds.
Think about the sound trucks that go around the Grove. If you had those parked in front
of your house for three hours, that's what it sounds to us. We're asking that we be able to
meet with the developer to talk about this issue before you approve the issue. I'm not
sure if you need two readings for this or not, or just one, but for a minor deferral so we
can sit down and talk. I believe that Mr. Lima is a reasonable person, and that we could
work something out along these lines. We're asking that you ...
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rosenberg: OK: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Next.
Renan Nance: Good evening. I'm Renan Nance and I reside at 2645 South Bayshore
Drive. I also serve as president of the Grove Hill Condominium Association, which
represents approximately a 160 residents. Our main concern is that this may be a
potential for, again, late night entertainment. We are bombarded already to the music
coming from Montys' and Montys' does have, I understand, a special exempt from the 11
p.m. ordinance, noise ordinance. If, indeed, this issue is approved, we hope that you will
not exempt this development from the 11 pm noise ordinance. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Next.
Lupe Eyde-Tucker: Good evening. My name is Lupe Eyde-Tucker, 1050 Little River
Drive. I am a member of the yachting community in Coconut Grove, and I agree with
everyone who has spoken against this special exemption and I also urge you to deny it.
And I have read the RFP and I have very specific point that I'd like to talk about, but I
realize that my time is short; although, I know that a lot of people have gotten and passed
the issues have had a lot more time to speak. The primary use of this land, as specified in
the RFP, is to be a boat yard and marina. That's very clear there. In the RFP it says that
there is concession for snack bar for the marketplace and a snack bar for the boat yard. I
don't know how many people present have been in a working full service boat yard.
However, I have, and it's not really conducive to a restaurant ambiance. And they are
requesting special exemption because they want to introduce banquet hall, restaurant and
raw bar. I wouldn't go there personally because I've been in a full service boat yard, and
if that's going to be there, this wouldn't be very appetizing to me. I would just ask that
215 January 25, 2001
you please refer to the RFP and, you know, please make your decision accordingly.
Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, ma'am.
Charles Curtis Tucker: Charles Curtis Tucker, 1050 Little River Drive. Thirty more
seconds, please. We've been here since 3:00 listening to people rant and rave on and on
about all kinds of things, and this is a huge issue for this area. Right next door here. And
what they are wanting to develop is not what they proposed and what was agreed to and
what they're saying, and a special -- you know, a special permission to do one thing is
going to be a foot in the door to do on and on and on. We need out here on the bay to
compete with Ft. Lauderdale and everybody else. We need a working boat yard with full
service. Marina and whatnot. They want to put more slips in over there and everything.
It's just not possible. What they're proposing is not feasible and possible on that land.
And we don't need what ...
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir. I'd like for staff to answer the questions. Go ahead.
Commissioner Winton: I would like to ask the -- I'm caught off guard here, and I have
not had an opportunity to study this issue over whether or not the current proposal is in
keeping with the original RFP. So -- well, I would like to -- for the -- gee, I can't even
talk anymore. This cold. I would like to -- have the maker of the motion withdraw the
motion and continue this to next month so, I can get up -to -speed on this thing.
Commissioner Sanchez: Next month to be placed on the 8th
Commissioner Winton: On the next P and Z, right.
Commissioner Sanchez: February.
Commissioner Winton: Right.
Vice Chairman Gort: The 81h
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): The 8th
Vice Chairman Gort: By the way, we have to change ...
Commissioner Sanchez: Who was the maker of the motion? Was it me or Tomas?
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me.
216 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: I think you.
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): You were.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Clerk?
Mr. Foeman: Commissioner Sanchez moved it.
Commissioner Regalado: Sanchez, and I seconded it.
Commissioner Sanchez: I withdraw my motion to be -- go ahead. Withdraw my motion.
Commissioner Winton: And I would move to continue this to the next P and Z date,
whenever that is. February what?
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): It's the 22nd of February.
Commissioner Winton: February what?
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning & Zoning): Twenty -Second.
Commissioner Winton: All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. So, there is a motion for continuance to the 22nd. OK. Let me
ask you. Question. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Regalado: He wants to know -- he just wants to know a time certain so
they can be ...
Unidentified Speaker: After five?
Vice Chairman Gort: No. Look, time certain -- it's very difficult -- it will be after five,
but it's very difficult to promise time certain. I thought I was going to be out of here by
six today, and I have an emergency at home and I'm handling it by the phone, so...
Mr. Reep: No. I'm just saying not before five so that we could all ...
Vice Chairman Gort: No, it won't be before five. It's supposed to have been a small
agenda.
Commissioner Winton: Right.
Ms. Johnson: I would like to say one thing for the record at the appropriate time.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. I'll allow you to do that but, at the same time, you heard all
the questions that have came up and I want you to make sure that you answer. At the
217 January 25, 2001
same time, this project has been in the planning for a long time, and unless we get this
going, we're not going to start charging rent. Any further discussion? All in favor state
by saying "aye." Being none, all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-87
A MOTION TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM
PZ -7 (PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW GROVE
HARBOUR MARINA PROJECT, A MARINA, RETAIL SPECIALTY
SHOPS, EXHIBITION SPACE, BANQUET HALL, RESTAURANT
AND RAW BAR AT 2600/2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE) TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR
FEBRUARY 22, 2001, BEGINNING AT 5 P.M.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Can we get a seconder, Mr. Vice Chair?
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been seconded.
Commissioner Sanchez: No. I'll second it, but it will be placed on the 22nd of February,
which is the next PZ item, correct?
Vice Chairman Gort: Correct. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
Ms. Johnson: For the record, Dianne Johnson, with the Department of Real Estate and
Economic Development. I don't want the community, who may be watching on
television, to leave with the impression that this project has significantly changed since
218 January 25, 2001
the RFP. All of the uses that were included in the RFP are, indeed, included in the
current project. Not all of those uses require the special exception approval, and we will
be prepared to meet with the Commissioner, as we have with other members of the
community, and we'll make a presentation and bring you up -to -speed on that. Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. One of these...
Mr. Reep: Could the community be invited to that meeting, as well, so we could show
you our past history? We have videotapes and...
Commissioner Winton: No. I don't think that's legal, is it?
Mr. Reep: Well, what can we do to show...
Commissioner Winton: It's not legal, is it? I cannot meet with the -- if it's a
Mr. Reep: Show what was in the past?
Vice Chairman Gort: Hold it, hold it. Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Maxwell: No. No. You cannot be...
Commissioner Winton: Excuse me. Bruce, you're not ...
Vice Chainnan Gort: I'd like to conduct the meeting, please.
Commissioner Winton: Mr. Attorney is it legal for me to meet with parties from either
side?
Mr. Maxwell: No, sir. You cannot meet with him. That's a Jennings violation.
Commissioner Winton: I'm not allowed to because of the Jennings rule.
Ms. Johnson: You can meet with the staff.
Vice Chairman Gort: Jennings rule.
Commissioner Winton: Yes. Because that becomes
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Mr. Reep: I can mail you stuff?
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes. You can send by mail anything you want.
219 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Winton: Yes. Because that becomes -- yes. Anything you want. You
can deliver it because it becomes a part of the public report.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you.
220 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: I need to change the Commission meeting of the 8th. I need to have
it back out on the 8th.
Commissioner Winton: Jason, if you're watching, bring me my calendar, please.
Vice Chairman Gort: Hello. It was already -- it's the original meeting for the 81h
Commissioner Winton: Oh, OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Do I have a motion to bring the meeting back on the 8th
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-88
A MOTION CONFIRMING THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 8, 2001 FOR
THE FIRST REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF SAID MONTH.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Chairman Gort: We were going to have a meeting...
221 January 25, 2001
Mr. Reep: Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Excuse me. Can I speak?
Mr. Reep: I'm sorry.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. We were going to have a meeting on the 8th, a
regular meeting. I was going to have it moved because I had to be out of the country, but
I need to have it back on the 8th. So, the regular meeting is going to be on the 8th. It
doesn't have anything to do with your meeting. Your meeting is going to take place on
the 22°a. OK. Thank you. Bye.
Mr. Reep: The 22°a. Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: So, we didn't cancel the 8th, right?
Vice Chairman Gort: No. We didn't cancel the meeting. It's on regular schedule.
222 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. It's five minutes. What do we do?
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Commissioner, while you're waiting for them
to come in, I have a quick item maybe you can address.
Vice Chairman Gort: They're here.
Commissioner Winton: They're here. They're right there.
Mr. Maxwell: Oh, they're here. Oh.
Jeff Bass: Once, again, for the record, Jeffrey Bass on the behalf of the same people I
was representing earlier. We're here to ask the Commission to keep its word. People are
afraid -- and that's the word.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Thank you. You don't agree. Thank you.
Mr. Bass: And we're -- and it's clear and that's that.
Vice Chairman Gort: All right. What's the motion, guys?
Commissioner Sanchez: No. There is already a motion.
Commissioner Winton: There's a motion on the floor.
Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Clerk, could you please read the motion again, since they were out of
the room, please?
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): PZ -14?
Commissioner Winton: Yes. The motion is to reverse the decision of the Zoning
administrator.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): And to grant the appeal.
Commissioner Winton: And to grant the appeal.
Mr. Foeman: Yeah, the motion was to grant the appeal and reverse the Zoning Board
administrator's interpretation.
223 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a motion? Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: Just the administrator's, not the Zoning Board's?
Ms. Slazyk: Right. The Zoning administrator's interp...
Commissioner Winton: The Zoning administrator.
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. Is there a second? Beg your pardon?
Mr. Foeman: It was to grant the appeal and reverse the Zoning Board -- the Zoning
administrator's interpretation.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right. OK. There's a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Winton: I thought there was already a second.
Vice Chairman Gort: No, there wasn't. I seconded it. Yeah, I seconded it. OK. Roll
call.
[Comments made during roll call]
Vice Chairman Gort: No. I mean, in favor of the motion, yes.
Mr. Maxwell: Motion fails.
Note for the Record: Upon motion by Commissioner Winton and seconded by Vice
Chairman Gort, the proposed resolution in connection with "Dermocosmetic Spa" as an
accessory use to Health (Medical) Clinic for the property located at approximately 1900
Brickell Avenue failed by the following vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
NAYS: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
ABSENT: None
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. OK. What's the next item?
Mr. Maxwell: Could we have a reversed motion? That was a motion to...
224 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: Motion to approve the Director's recommendation -- Director's
opinion.
Commissioner Sanchez: No. Motion to deny...
Commissioner Teele: Motion to denial...
Commissioner Sanchez: -- the appeal and uphold the Administration's recommendation.
Mr. Maxwell: And deny the appeal. Motion to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Sanchez: Motion to deny the appeal; uphold the administration's
recommendation. Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Deny the appeal; uphold the administration's recommendation.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? No? Roll call. Roll call.
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING
THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
INTERPRETATION DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 2000, REGARDING A
DERMOCOSMETIC SPA AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A HEALTH
(MEDICAL) CLINIC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 1900 BRICKELL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
225 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Regalado: What are we voting on?
Commissioner Teele: To approve the doctor's spa.
Commissioner Regalado: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: I'm going to -- my judgment is always that the staff, when they are
issuing these opinions, we need to support them unless there is overwhelming evidence,
but the thing that really tips me on this thing is I don't like the abuse of -- I don't like the
perceived abuse of power by the government, and I'm really concerned. I don't
understand how, on one hand, we can have the zoning administrator's ruling and then the
NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) going in a different direction. I'm voting yes,
but in voting yes, I still appeal to the owner to work with the neighbors and to improve
and review the signage. There is nothing tied to the motion, but I still think you all have
an obligation to work with the neighborhood and to review the signage. And I think it
was unfortunate that the neighbors could not agree to the compromise that was offered
because at least they would have gotten that but you know, they're getting nothing. But
I'm asking you, in voting yes, to please consider being magnanimous in voluntarily doing
that. So, I'm voting yes.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. And I wanted to make clear that neither of my
clients...
Mr. Foeman: Excuse me. Continuing roll call. Vice Chairman Gort.
Vice Chairman Gort: You want to vote or not. I have to tell you, it passed. You have the
three votes. It passed. I will have to vote no, and the reason I have to vote no because
originally when we talked about it, and you were here, there are certain use and I will
hope you continue to keep the promise of the use that you promised to do so. I think
what really affected the people; it was not really what you were doing in the clinic. It
was the sign itself, that's this whole thing. It passed. You got it. So, now, what I'd like,
at the same time -- this is passed. What I'd like to do is -- there has been many
inspections. Let's quit the harassment. And I don't know who makes the phone calls and
226 January 25, 2001
so on, but -- at the same time, I'm following Commissioner Teele's advice, somehow you
need to get together and if you can put some additional landscaping in there, I think the
people in Brickell will really appreciate it. Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty: Thank you very much. And I want to make it clear that neither my
client, nor I were insinuating that the City was harassing. They just are following their
procedure. What I'm saying to you is folks are making these anonymous phone calls, and
they do what they always do when they get a phone call. They don't ask for their names
or if they don't give them, they won't -- you know, so, we're not implying that the City
was doing this harassment.
Vice Chairman Gort: They're doing their job, but -- thank you.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, they did indicate a willingness -- and it's over. But
they did indicate a willingness to offer some compromise by dropping the name spa, and
I'm asking you -- just as one Commissioner from the dais, I'm asking you to please
consider or to -- a magnanimous gesture because you're going to be there and good
neighbors are good neighbors, and try to be a good neighbor.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
227 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: What's the next item? Yes, sir.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): While you're waiting on the next item,
Commissioner, if I may. Back in November of '99 the Commission approved a Major
Use Special Permit for property located at 2101 through 2105 Brickell Avenue, it's right -
- the big project that was to be beside the Atlantis on Brickell.
Vice Chairman Gort: Right.
Mr. Maxwell: That was appealed. The decision of the City Commission was reversed by
the appellate division of the circuit court. It was sent back to the City Commission for --
City for further action. We're recommending that this be sent down to the Planning
Advisory Board for hearings and -- with all proper notice and sent through the process
again from the Planning Advisory Board. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Teele: That's a remand, right?
Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Sanchez: There's a motion and a second. Open for discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
Commissioner Sanchez: Anyone opposed has the same right. Hearing none, passes
unanimously.
228 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-90
A MOTION REMANDING TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 2101-2105 BRICKELL
AVENUE.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
229 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Next.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -6. Again, PZ -6 is an
appeal of a variance that was denied by the Zoning Board. The department has
recommended approval, with conditions. This is for the property located at 34 Northeast
11th Street. This is one of the properties in the newly formed entertainment district for
Park West. This is an order to convert an existing structure into a nightclub, an
entertainment facility. The project is a legal nonconforming structure with no parking on
site. This -- the hardship that was found here was related to the structure on the property.
Without any parking, it can't convert to any other use. It's something that -- whether they
were asking for a club or a restaurant or even a -- anything with zero parking, they're
stuck. That's a hardship, which we agree with. There is sufficient parking in the area to
accommodate the needs. Parking studies were presented at the Zoning Board level, and
we're recommending approval.
Vice Chairman Gort: Let me ask a question. I don't think we have any -- a problem with
that. I don't think Johnny. But at the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) we have
pushed this entertainment district and wanted to bring -- and this used to be the old
warehouse district for the port of Miami, and that's why you don't have parking and those
things in there. My question is -- and this is something I want to ask of the state, because
the other day I really realize -- I was coming from Broward and when I hit the
intersection of I-95, 112, the amount of space that has been taken from the City of
Miami...
Commissioner Teele: The what?
Vice Chairman Gort: Space.
Commissioner Winton: What?
Vice Chairman Gort: Home. When they built all the expressways and all the
connections, so much wasted space there. We are very close underneath the expressways
in there. Can we request parking facilities in there?
230 January 25, 2001
Ms. Slazyk: My understanding is the Department of Off -Street Parking does have leases
with the state for a lot of the under expressway land.
Commissioner Teele: Let me explain something to you. The state has denied everyone
the right -- the request locally was appealed by the CRA (Community Redevelopment
Agency) to Tallahassee. Tallahassee has worked with the CRA and granted the right for
additional parking underneath 395, and that is something that the CRA board has
approved, but this gets to the point, I think, that needs to be understood. Is this NET
(Neighborhood Enhancement Team) administrator here or the -- every time we approve
something like what we're contemplating now, we're creating a demand. I think we're
crazy not to grant this request, for a number of reasons. This is an overlay district. And
the parking of the entire district should be viewed as the common denominator. Now,
that's the theory that I agree with. What we have got to be very careful about as
Commissioners is that we don't let everybody come to us, either individually or in unique
capacities, DDA (Downtown Development Authority), CRA Commission district, and
start trying to create new rules as we go along. Directly behind this -- is this going to be
called Club Fuel? Is this ...
Unidentified Speaker: This is next to Club Fuel. This will be the fourth club.
Commissioner Teele: The fourth club, ok. So, you've got Club Space, Club Fuel, Gold
Rush
Unidentified Speaker: Gold Rush.
Commissioner Winton: That's a club?
Commissioner Teele: Yeah, that's a club.
Commissioner Teele: It's wonderful. Yeah, that's a club. And you've got this club. And
what is happening is this: In conforming with -- in everybody rushing to try not to just
conform, but get the cheapest conformance, you can list all this parking here, but you
know what's happening, Mr. NET Administrator? It's illegal is what's becoming the
order of the day. Illegal parking. And in granting this we need to make sure that we put
certain conditions that there cannot be illegal parking or -- I mean, obviously, that's the
case -- right behind this club that's going in is a City CRA -owned abandoned railroad.
You know what? Every time I drive by there at night, ten dollars ($10), sir, to park, eight
dollars ($8) to park. I mean, that place is going.
Vice Chairman Gort: You're not getting that?
Commissioner Teele: Oh, they're getting all kinds of money back.
Vice Chairman Gort: The CRA is not getting that?
231 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Teele: No. Nobody getting any money because it's technically -- we're
trying to work through all of this. But what I don't want to do -- because the next step is
going to be this: These same fine people are going to be here when everybody else on
that row saying, "Well, grant us the right to close the grand promenade, the railroad right-
of-way back there," and, so, I want to make sure that somehow we attach the condition
that there will be no parking in the abandoned railroad right-of-way, as permitted, and I
think we need to add that to everybody's conditions as they come through because what's
happening now is that everybody is parking anywhere and primarily on City right-of-
ways. There are some streets that have been stubbed off. All those streets that are owned
by the City have become very valuable parking lots to homeless and anybody else -- club
owners and anybody else who's an entrepreneur. We're in that business. We, the City,
are in that business and we should not let -- in granting these permits, to let these club
owners not argue what's on the board here, the various quick parks and the self -park and
the fast park. That's what everybody's presenting, but where they plan to park -- not you
all because you would never do that -- where they wind up parking is on all these parcels
of land that are right-of-ways. And that's what we need to make sure, is that there may be
no parking in public right-of-ways for the purpose of accommodating this. So, I'm very
pleased to move it, Mr. Chairman. I hope you all get my drift.
Unidentified Speaker: Loud and clear.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any -- what is the...
Commissioner Winton: So, the motion is to accept the recommendation of staff?
Commissioner Teele: To accept the recommendation of staff, with the further proviso
that there shall be no parking in public right-of-ways or public -- that park shall be
restricted to approved parking lots, is a better way to say it.
Vice Chairman Gort: Parking lots. Right.
Ms. Slazyk: This would be...
Commissioner Teele: Specifically, excluding the abandoned railroad right-of-way, which
is not an approved parking lot. And Club Space is charging big money, with the City of
Miami Police being the enforcer.
Ms. Slazyk: This would be to grant the appeal and reverse the decision of the Zoning
Board.
Commissioner Winton: So moved.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
232 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Move and second. Any further discussion? Being none, all in
favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT (S), GRANTING THE APPEAL, AND REVERSING
THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING A
VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 9,
SECTION 924.1.3, TO WAIVE 223 OF THE 223 REQUIRED
PARKING SPACES FOR A PROPOSED BAR FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 34 NORTHEAST 11TH STREET,
MIAMI, FLORIDA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON "EXHIBIT A,"
ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF,
CONDITIONED UPON (1) THE PARKING BEING RESTRICTED TO
APPROVED PARKING LOTS, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDING
ABANDONED RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND (2), A TIME
LIMITATION OF TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING
PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
233 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: What else?
Commissioner Winton: I have two items.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Ten and 11 are companion
items for a land use and zoning change. This is first reading for the property at 2974
Southwest 36th Avenue, 3601 Bird Road, from duplex to general commercial. We
recommend approval. It's been recommended for approval by the Planning Advisory
Board and by the Zoning Board.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there anyone
Ms. Slazyk: This is on Bird. This is -- oh, 10 and 11.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there anyone in opposition to this item? Anyone in opposition to
this item? Show there's none.
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Motion.
Commissioner Teele: You're going to let counsel introduce himself for the record?
Vice Chairman Gort: Do we have a motion?
Gilberto Pastoriza: Gilberto Pastoriza. I'm here to answer any questions you might have.
Vice Chairman Gort: And what's your address?
Mr. Pastoriza: 2665 South Bayshore Drive.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you, sir. Staff recommends. It's already being used.
Commissioner Winton: Planning Advisory Board recommends it. So, move it.
Commissioner Teele: Second.
234 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Any further discussion? Being none -
- it's an ordinance. Read it.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
3601 BIRD ROAD (AKA 2974 SOUTHWEST 36TH AVENUE), MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FROM "RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX" TO "GENERAL
COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS AND DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Winton, seconded by Commissioner Teele, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
The ordinance was read, by title, into the public record by the City Attorney.
Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call. Very good presentation, sir.
Mr. Pastoriza: Good night.
235 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Next item?
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Companion ordinance.
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -11 is a companion.
Commissioner Sanchez: So moved.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. It's an ordinance. Roll call.
Note for the Record: The City Attorney read the pending ordinance into the public
record by title only.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENTS, AMENDING PAGE NUMBER 42 OF THE ZONING
AT ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 11000, AS AMENDED,
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 C-2 GENERAL
COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 3601 BIRD ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON ATTACHED EXHIBIT A; CONTAINING
A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AN
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
236 January 25, 2001
was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Winton, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Gilberto Pastoriza: Thank you, good night.
Ms. Slazyk: One more. PZ -12.
Commissioner Winton: One comment to staff, and I've made this comment before. We
get these things in our books. You've got all of these blocks that identified all kinds of
things on this map and the damn subject site is never identified. I search and search and
search this thing. It drives me nuts looking for that little shaded area on these little deals.
Ms. Slazyk: All right.
Commissioner Winton: Make the subject bold here so you look at the map and you see it
right away, and the same with the aerials here.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes.
Commissioner Winton: This is outlining -- I mean, sometimes you can see it and
sometimes you can't, and I hate having to sit and study this thing, trying to figure out
where the subject is relative to all the surrounding uses. Please. Thank you.
Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Understood.
237 January 25, 2001
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): PZ -12 is the second reading
ordinance that would add fees for Traffic Study Reviews for Major Use Special Permits.
So, we can have our own independent traffic engineer.
Commissioner Teele: So moved.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Moved and second. Any further discussion?
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): It's an ordinance.
Adrienne Pardo: If I could just comment on that?
Mr. Maxwell: It's an ordinance.
Vice Chairman Gort: An ordinance. Read it.
Note for the Record: The City Attorney read the pending ordinance into the public
record by title only.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
CHAPTER 32/ARTICLE 6 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED ZONING AND PLANNING,
ZONING AND PLANNING FEES, TO PROVIDE FOR A TRAFFIC
STUDY BETWEEN -- A REVIEW FEE FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL
PERMIT APPLICATION; MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING
SECTION 62-156 OF SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER
PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
238 January 25, 2001
passed on its first reading, by title, at the meeting of December 14, 2000, was taken up
for its second and final reading, by title, and adoption. On motion of Commissioner
Teele, seconded by Commissioner Winton, 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
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 12018.
The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Before you roll call -- yes, ma'am.
Ms. Pardo: Adrienne Pardo with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I would just like
to say one comment on this. I'm not here on behalf of any particular client of mine, but
just for the record, when my clients, who have large projects, file for Major Use Special
Permit application, they pay an application fee already of forty-five thousand dollars
($45,000), then they pay -- if they're in this downtown area, they pay downtown DRI
(Development of Regional Impact) fees that could be anywhere between two hundred to
three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) or more, and a portion of that is supposed to
go toward traffic mitigation. And then they pay impact fees, and their impact fees could
be anywhere between -- four, five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) or more on these
large projects. So, I just want to say, for the record, there is a lot of money there and I
think you need to look into it, and I don't know if it's so fair to charge them another forty-
five hundred dollars ($4,500). Thank you.
Vice Chairman Gort: Question. Adrienne, let me ask you a question. In quick math, that
comes out to a total of what?
Ms. Pardo: The -- you have the 45 -- it depends on the size of the project, but let's say,
for example, the Millennium Four Seasons that's going up on Brickell, they paid the
application of forty-five thousand, and they're DRI fee, they paid 300 -- approximately
three hundred and forty thousand just for their DRI fee, downtown DRI fee, and then they
paid an impact fee. For them, it was probably, I would say, at least nine hundred
thousand.
239 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: So, we're talking about one point two million dollars ($1.2 million)
in permits. So, where does that go?
Lourdes Slazyk (Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning): Well, the DRI fee -- the thing
is, the transportation DRI fee can't be used for something like this because it has to be
used for capital transportation costs. It can be used ...
Vice Chairman Gort: Not for transportation study?
Ms. Slazyk: No. They have to produce a traffic study as part of their MUSP (Major Use
Special Permit).
Vice Chairman Gort: They have to do it themselves?
Ms. Slazyk: Right.
Vice Chairman Gort: We want somebody from our staff to
Ms. Slazyk: The City doesn't have a traffic engineer to review it. There is a cumulative
effect going on with these Major Use Special Permits that we have to be able to do
Traffic Impact Reviews. It's something that the County is charged with, but they're not
going to give us a traffic engineer to do it for the City. We have to hire an independent
consultant to do the traffic engineering -- Traffic Study Reviews.
Commissioner Sanchez: And that's the key word.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Ms. Slazyk: And that was something that came out from this Commission from our
Planning Board, from every board, that if we don't have somebody doing it for us, you
know, the consultant -- their consultants get paid by them, that we need an independent
review, and this is the way to pay for it.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Okey doke.
Commissioner Sanchez: And that's the word, "independent", because in most cases -- I
mean, the developers who hire the traffic study -- I mean, it's almost to a point where I
hate to say it, but it's almost like they're hired guns. So, we want an independent study ...
Ms. Slazyk: This would pay for -- no. This would pay for a traffic engineer to be paid by
the City to review the traffic studies that are being submitted on major projects. To look
240 January 25, 2001
at them in the context of downtown and to do an independent review of those studies and
confirm that the studies are correct and the mitigation actions that are being proposed are
correct.
Commissioner Sanchez: It's a step in the right direction.
Ms. Slazyk: Yeah.
Vice Chairman Gort: Roll call.
241 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Anything else?
Commissioner Winton: PZ. Two appointments.
Vice Chairman Gort: We don't have anything else? Pocket items. We have to -- do we
have to close the P and Z...
Joel E. Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Open the regular agenda.
Vice Chairman Gort: Open the regular agenda.
Commissioner Winton: I have, Mr. Chairman, two appointments. I want to reappoint
Ruth Hamilton to the Code Enforcement Board.
Vice Chairman Gort: All right. Any other appointments?
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Commissioner Winton: Should I do these separately or do you want to do them ...
Vice Chairman Gort: They're different -- yeah, they're separate. OK. It's moved and
second. All in favor of the nomination for the appointments state it by saying aye.
The City Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
AN INDIVIDUAL AS A REGULAR MEMBER OF THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
242 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
243 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: And.
Commissioner Winton: And, Mr. Chairman, this is an at large Charter Review position,
and I would like to appoint Joe Garcia.
Vice Chairman Gort: Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Second. All in favor of the nominations presented by
Commissioner Winton, state it by saying aye.
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Winton, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW AND
REFORM COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
244 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Any pocket items?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, before we go to pocket items, can we finish with
the regular agenda?
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. We have one agenda, the --
Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Item 2A.
Vice Chairman Gort: One item, 2A. I'll be right back, guys.
Commissioner Sanchez: Item 2A that is the Protocol Office.
Linda Haskins: Yes, it is. Linda Haskins, Director of Management and Budget. This
ordinance -- emergency ordinance is brought at the request of the Commission from the
last meeting, to transfer the budget for the Protocol Office from the Office of the Mayor
to the Office of the City Manager.
Commissioner Regalado: I still don't understand why -- I heard explanation of the City
Manager -- of why, in this ordinance, you said that this will not have impact on personnel
or budget. I thought that, when we spoke about the Protocol Office, that the budget was
roughly sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) in the budget process.
245 January 25, 2001
Ms. Haskins: The budget is fifty-two thousand one hundred and fifty dollars ($52,150).
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Was close. So, is there anybody working in the Mayor's
Office with that salary on that position?
Ms. Haskins: No, there is not.
Commissioner Regalado: So, there is not now or was anybody there?
Ms. Haskins: There was a position called Director of Protocol or Chief Of Protocol.
There was that position. At the conclusion of the budget process last year, there was no
one in that position. That position was reclassified to community liaison in this fiscal
year, so there is no longer an office called Director of Protocol.
Commissioner Regalado: That's why there are no proclamations for me. I didn't know
that. Well, anyway --
Commissioner Teele: Well, before you leave that issue, let --
Commissioner Regalado: No, no. But anyway -- no, no. No. But seriously, I don't
understand what -- what we're doing here is transferring one office; however, the
Manager and the resolution of the ordinance or whatever says that this will not have any
impact in personnel or budget. So, what we could do is just say the Manager is going to
do the proclamations, but the Manager will not have the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)
to hire a person and do the proclamations.
Ms. Haskins: Excuse me, Commissioner. There was a position budgeted -- there was a
position that was called Director of Protocol.
Commissioner Regalado: Right.
Ms. Haskins: Above and beyond that, there were, within the salary budget, with no
person attached to it, the fifty-two thousand one hundred fifty.
Commissioner Regalado: OK.
Carlos Gimenez (City Manager) I'm assuming that's to cover the costs of the framing and
the other things, the keys and all those other things that have to go along with that office.
So, we need some kind of an operating budget for those items.
Commissioner Regalado: OK. Which was fifty-two thousand --
Ms. Haskins: Fifty-two thousand one fifty, and that's for -- the Office of the Mayor has
used six thousand eight hundred and forty-six dollars ($6,846) of that for protocol items.
So, the remaining balance is forty-five thousand three oh four, which is the amount in the
resolution to transfer from the Mayor to the Manager.
246 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Regalado: That's the money that we could allocate to the Office of the
City Manager, am I correct?
Mr. Gimenez: That's what the ordinance before you has done.
Ms. Haskins: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Teele, you're recognized.
Commissioner Teele: Let me go back to one point. I think, you know -- it's late in the
evening and, unfortunately, you know, again, these things that really relate to us don't
need to go ahead of the public discussion, but I do think we need to just clarify a little bit
about this. I had the opportunity to speak very briefly to the Mayor about this today in
the hall, and he professed absolute shock that any of this discussion was necessary. He
said to me that he was unaware of any of the issues. So, I think what we have are a series
of circumstances that have been compounded into a much bigger issue, but let me just
take two steps back. First, have you read the Anti -Deficiency Act?
Ms. Haskins: Yes, sir, I have.
Commissioner Teele: Have you -- have you read the budget of the City?
Ms. Haskins: Yes, I have.
Commissioner Teele: Are you aware that, when we approved the budget for the Office of
the Mayor, we also approved a Table of Organization?
Ms. Haskins: Yes, I understand that.
Commissioner Teele: Are you aware that the last City Manager here attempted, in
violation of the anti -deficiency, to create a department called the Department of
Economic Development, and while I said it's a direct violation of the Anti -Deficiency,
which it was, and everybody agreed, let's just correct it, but let's don't do that anymore.
Now, the point that I want to respond to is, this Commission approved, in the budget of
the Mayor, not only the budget, but we approved 14 -- 13 full-time permanent positions,
one of which is the Director of Protocol. Now, we're not talking about human beings.
We're talking about positions. The Manager's memo, in my opinion, is either a violation
of the anti -deficiency or it has some confusion involved in it. Because the anti -deficiency
is two things. It's budget and it's organization. It's two things when we approve budgets,
OK. And when we approved the budget -- and, Mr. Attorney, you know we went back
and forth on this three years and we finally got it right two years ago, that we're not just
approving the budget because, again -- you see, my whole issue is that our most
important responsibility is to appropriate money, and we do that without really regard to
247 January 25, 2001
what we think we're doing what the Manager says. So, I want to put that on the record.
You all, to my knowledge, don't have the authority to change the organizational structure
that has been approved under the budget process. Now, if we didn't approve it that way, I
stand corrected. But it was my understanding -- and we inserted -- and I went over to the
attorney personally, before the budget was over and said, have we inserted -- Mr.
Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong -- have we inserted and made an addendum to this
budget, the Table of Organizations of every department, including the Office of the
Mayor?
Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): Yes. That is incorporated by reference, and to the
appropriations ordinance.
Commissioner Teele: So, I just want to be very, very, very clear that neither the Mayor
nor the Manager, nor any individual Commissioner, can delete offices and transfer offices
that are approved as a part of the budget without the permission of the Commission.
That's our authority. That's not the Manager's authority. That's not the Mayor's
authority. So, when you say to us, as a budget matter in the memoranda, that this has no
effect, OK, and then try to clarify that by saying, "Oh, that position has been eliminated,"
-- because I've got to tell you right here and now, whether it's this Mayor or the last
Mayor or the next Mayor, the City of Miami has to have an intelligent, a competent and a
professional protocol function, and it's not about giving out glasses and crystals and the
keys to the City. It's about what I maintain as the one thing that we, as a City, can do for
the law abiding, good citizens of this community, who pay taxes, play by the rules. The
only thing they ever get from us, other than the services, which they are entitled to as a
matter of right -- when we provide services, we're not doing them a favor. But when
somebody has a 50 -year marriage celebration, as I had one request that was denied, or
when someone reaches a hundred years of age, or when someone responds to a request
that I made in the budget process as to what is the best citizens on patrol, and give us a
study, Mr. Police Chief -- Chief of Police, as to what is the best one in the City -- because
I don't think we're doing that -- he gives us a recommendation, and then I forward to the
Mayor's Office the names of some thirty individuals for specific letters of comment -- I
mean, commendation or appreciation certificates, and I get back an answer "We'll do one
for the group." And these are people who pay taxes. They are out there in the night
reducing crime and, yet, we can bring five hundred police officers in here, one by one,
and give each one of them, who are all paid and I don't begrudge them, but the citizens
are entitled to this, and I'm not going to let my district and I'm not going to negotiate,
with all due respect to my colleagues, I'm not going to beg. It is a matter of right that
every Commissioner that represents, as the board of directors of this City, can identify
persons within our district as a matter of right, not of request but as a matter of right, and
the Mayor's job in this role, if he hasn't figured it out or if the Manager hasn't figured it
out, if we haven't figured it out, is ministerial. He doesn't make an independent
determination. It's a ministerial function that he is providing. The Queen of England
cannot turn down the Parliament of the legislature for a knight. When the Prime Minister
says I want to make Joe Blow a Knight, she doesn't have the authority to turn him down.
That's a matter of right. And, so, somebody needs to understand that this is America and
this is Miami in America, and we don't have to negotiate the rights of what are the rights
248 January 25, 2001
of the citizens invested in us as individual Commissioners. I, for one, believe that the
Mayor should sign all proclamations, no debate, no question, no anything. But I think
every Commissioner has an equal right to request proclamations, and that's what this is
all about. And so, Mr. Chairman, I have no big issue about the office. Candidly, having
it under the office of the Manager, I took it as Chairman of the Dade County
Commission, from Joaquin Avino, and transferred it to my office, as a matter of a
decision that I took, and transferred all five people in the protocol office to do it. But let
me just say this. We've got a big problem here. Number one, every proclamation that
I've read has got more grammatical errors in it than you can count. There's not even a
spell check on it. I don't blame the Mayor and I don't hold the Mayor responsible for
that. That's not the Mayor's job. But there is a professional issue here that is missing in
this. Now we find out that there is nobody in the job. Well, you know, I've got to tell
you something. When I approved the budget, along with my colleagues, I ensured that
there was somebody in the job or at least a professional position. And I'm more
convinced than ever that we've got to make some structural adjustment to this Office of
Protocol so that we serve the citizens right now. Somebody said there is a Mario
Dulzaidez, who is he or she, and where is he or she now?
Vice Chairman Gort: Retired.
Commissioner Teele: Huh?
Vice Chairman Gort: He's retired.
Commissioner Teele: Retired?
Commissioner Regalado: No. What he's talking about, he's the guy who used to do the
proclamations for many years during several administrations.
Commissioner Teele: And the person we're talking about -- we're not talking about a
Protocol Office to give out keys to the City. I mean, see, that's what the media wants to
make of this, is that the Commission and the Mayor are arguing about who's going to get
-- there is a professional, technical, competent responsibility of somebody who should be
writing this out. That's why you get these nonsensible (sic) memorandums from staff
telling Commissioners -- and I just got my W2 Form and it said five thousand dollars
($5,000) of salary -- telling Commissioners that we need to write out proclamations.
Well, you know, I've got to tell you something. That's a job of about a 25 to 35 thousand -
dollar person full-time, and any City that calls itself a City, that's got a seal and got a flag,
ought to be able to do it. In fact, the City of Opa Locka does the best job of
proclamations of any city in this County. I'll be very honest. I've seen it in all cities.
Opa Locka does the best job of doing our proclamations, et cetera, the most professional.
And, so, what I believe is that we're going, probably, at this thing the wrong way because
the real issue is not the Mayor versus the Commission. The real issue is, do we have the
ability and capability of turning out professional, competent proclamations and
certificates that can be presented in a timely manner? And the answer is obviously no.
That's the answer. And everybody has got their own story. I had no idea that everybody
249 January 25, 2001
had a story. I've been told today by the press that the Mayor has said, on the record, that
not one request for proclamations has ever been turned down, and I have at least five here
that are in writing that were turned down, but I don't want to get into he's right, I'm
wrong or who did this. What we should do is say what is the best way to fix this? I
believe that an ordinance, on first reading, not an emergency ordinance, is the best way to
address this thing, and then let's all agree not to take any action for 60 days and see if we
can get this thing worked out with the Office of the Mayor. But I'll tell you this. I cannot
accept an answer or a statement that nobody knew it was going on because we all know
that we have a problem with the quality of proclamations, and I want to say on the record.
I don't think the Mayor of the City of Miami or any Mayor should be responsible for
vetting and editing and writing and rewriting proclamations, and we allocate money in
our budget. We did our job. If the job hasn't been filled, then we need to do it. And one
way to do that is to transfer the function to the Office of the Manager. But just say -- let
me understand this. If it were transferred to the Office of the Manager, assuming there
are three or four votes here for that -- because I'm going to tell you right now, the Mayor
is going to veto anything and, you know, it ain't no secret. So, if you ain't prepared to
override a veto, you know, we need to pack it in. Because the fact of the matter is, is that
the Mayor is going to override it. But the problem is not the Mayor's Office. The
problem is that we have not ensured -- and when we approved the budget, we ensured
that. And I just want to be on the record, did we or did we not approve this Table of
Organization that reflects a Chief of Staff, one position, a Budget Liaison, one position, a
Communications Director, one, F/T (Full -Time), an Intergovernmental Coordinator, a
Spanish Media Coordinator, one, a Press Director, one, a Press Director in addition to the
four administrative staff and one Protocol Director. Is that --
Ms. Haskins: Yes. That was the Table of Organization in the budget book.
Commissioner Teele: And this was an amendment to -- this is an --
Commissioner Regalado: Or the Sister Cities. Sister Cities.
Commissioner Teele: Sister Cities is also in here as well. But this was a part of the
budget document, right?
Ms. Haskins: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Teele: So, I think you all -- I think the Manager and you and the staff
need to take a close look at this memorandum that we have before us, because it raises
some very real questions about the ordinance that we passed that ensures that this doesn't
happen.
Ms. Haskins: I think there -- if I may speak on that. I think there -- this is a position that
was reclassified, and reclassification of positions happens frequently within the City. So,
there may be a difference in interpretation. Our understanding from the anti -deficiency
ordinance, number one, was we couldn't go over the total positions in the T/O. Number
two; we also have an opinion from our legal staff that these certain provisions of the anti -
250 January 25, 2001
deficiency ordinance, which this would include, do not cover the Mayor and the
Commissioners or the legal department.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Attorney, you need to clarify one thing. And we only have
one lawyer here. Was the Table of Organization added to this budget that was approved
by the City of Miami Commission?
Mr. Vilarello: Yes, Commissioner.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes.
Commissioner Teele: And does the anti -deficiency say, once the budget has been
approved, it may not be changed without permission of the Commission?
Mr. Vilarello: Well, we're mixing issues. The anti -deficiency ordinance, limits the
expenditure of funds or the funds, which may exceed a budgeted amount. The item that
you're talking about, Commissioner, is part of the Budget Appropriations Ordinance
itself, which limits the dollars, as well as the budgeted positions, and ties it to the
organizational chart.
Commissioner Teele: Does anyone have the authority to change positions and
departments, as we've discussed before, once the budget has been approved?
Mr. Vilarello: The City Commission has the authority to change departments and the
Table of Organizations. However, the Budget Appropriations Ordinance allows the
Manager to reclassify positions within departments.
Commissioner Teele: I understand that. But once we create a division, such as the
Office of Protocol, an office -- I'm not talking about a position. Once we create that
office, can it be eliminated or changed?
Mr. Vilarello: If it's departmental in nature, no. If it's a position itself, the Manager does
have the authority not to fill positions, to reclassify positions.
Commissioner Teele: Well, the point here is this. We approved a position called
Protocol. In a different line item or organizational box, and I don't want to get into
semantics here, but it's pretty clear to me that you can't eliminate the Protocol Office and
make it a community liaison function without the permission of this Commission, at least
that's certainly the intent.
Mr. Vilarello: And, Commissioner, let me just clear up one more point. The anti-
deficiency ordinance does apply to the Mayor and to the City Commission. There are
certain exceptions, within the last quarter of the year that it does not apply to the Mayor
and City Commission, the City Attorney, and City Clerk.
Commissioner Teele: The Commission, in approving the budget, has never limited the
251 January 25, 2001
Commission to staff positions. That's one of the things that she may be referring to.
Because, specifically, in our budget process, we said that we were not going to limit the
Commission to staff because of the amount of money. In other words, there is no Table
of Organization that was approved for Commission, but we specifically approved it for
the Mayor because the whole debate was on the Sister Cities, and the -- what's that other
office? The whole debate was on the Sister Cities and on that other office -- the other
thing. But the point is simply this. Whether it is or it ain't, you know, you all can work
that out. What I'm suggesting, very strongly, is that the City of Miami must have a
competent professional to administer the functions of protocol. Now, if -- you know and
I know the problems in any political office, whether it be the Office of the Mayor or
Commissioners, and that is people serve at the pleasure of -- so they come and they go.
But, generally, in most professional mayors' offices, the protocol person is a career
person. It's a Vivian Mandu (phonetic), God bless her, has been the protocol person.
You'll never see her. You'll never see her name. She's probably going through the floor
right now. She's been doing that for twenty years at the City -- at the County. You won't
see a protocol that come out of there that doesn't have ten word checks and spell checks
and two or three different people looking at it, so that's what we're really talking about
here, in addition to the fact that we need to be able to get these proclamations up and out.
Commissioner Winton: So, how are you suggesting we do this?
Commissioner Regalado: Can I say something?
Vice Chairman Gort: Pass it on first reading.
Commissioner Sanchez: Everybody has something to say on this.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was good that Commissioner
Teele decided to sort of defer this discussion because this is very embarrassing, especially
for what I am about to say. And I think that this cannot be taken as a personal problem
between Regalado and Teele and the Commission and Mayor, but it's the attitude. Just
yesterday, Tom Daschle, the leader of the minority in the Senate, praised George Bush
because he went to the Congress and started talking to the members of the Democratic
Party, the same party that has called his election illegitimate. And that's America. That's
America. But, you see, in October of last year -- and by the way, in the last seven months
I have requested five proclamations from the Mayor. Of those, three have been denied.
Of those three, two are very unique because I requested and Chairman Gort also
requested for the dinner of the Latin Chamber of Commerce, who were honoring the
businessmen of the year or whatever, several of them, and we were requested to bring
proclamations. I did request two from the Office of the Mayor and it was given to me. I
signed it, and they told me that they would take them there. And at that dinner there were
two City of Miami Commissioners, Commissioner Sanchez and myself, and a staff
person from the Mayor with the proclamations, and told the MC (Master of Ceremonies)
and the president of CAMACOL that, according to the Mayor's orders, the
252 January 25, 2001
Commissioners will not participate in giving out the proclamations, and if we do, she will
take away the -- she will take the proclamations. And it happened. As a matter of fact,
the Mayor's liaison was there with a staff person that presented the proclamations.
Commissioner Sanchez: On his first day of work.
Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I think it was on his first day of work. The staff person
was a --
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, wait, wait.
Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no.
Commissioner Teele: Tomas, you know --
Commissioner Regalado: No, no.
Commissioner Teele: You know, I'm going to tell you something. If you let a staff
person --
Commissioner Regalado: Look --
Commissioner Teele: If you let a staff person --
Commissioner Regalado: I was not going to create a scene --
Commissioner Teele: You should have gone up there and wrestled the staff guy down
and rolled on the floor and --
Commissioner Regalado: It was a woman.
Commissioner Teele: Well, it doesn't matter. You should have grabbed -- you should
have gotten her purse and get her with the purse.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, but the fact --
Commissioner Teele: But, I mean, you can't let -- you cannot let a staff person begin --
because what you're doing, Tomas -- if the Mayor does that, what they are doing is, they
are basically reducing the Commission to being beneath a staff person, and no appointed
person, with all due respect to the Manager and the attorney, none of them are higher than
us in protocol, as an elected official.
Commissioner Regalado: And the thing is that I was so embarrassed that I decided to
stay at the table. But I told the Mayor's staff that I thought that it was very rude on the
Mayor's part to do that, and I think that when we -- if we do this or why we want to do
this, it could be perceived as something that the City Commission did because it's in a
253 January 25, 2001
war with the Mayor. It's not. It's in the spirit of eliminating a source of tension. Because
-- well, frankly, you know what I'm doing? I'm doing my own proclamations because I
don't have to -- I don't have to go to read this thing of now the Mayor have not signed it.
He won't be here. We can do it. And that's the way it functions. And I think that the
Mayor lied when he said on the record that we get all that we requested. He lied at 6
o'clock in the TV news, channel 51, when he said that I personally got everything
immediately, when I asked it. That's a lie. The Mayor lied to the press on the record.
And I think that, you know, they doing this is in a way to eliminate a source of problem --
another source of problems with the Mayor because, frankly, leopards don't change their
spots. He's going to do the same. We're going to wait 60 days, and he's going to go after
you and you and you and me because of his personal wars and personal problems, and I
understand that this is very embarrassing and awkward for Manager and the staff, but it's
the truth. I have been denied several times proclamations and, frankly, I'm to the point
that I don't ask. I just do it. I figured that, you know, when I was denied one
proclamation, I went to the event. I was introduced and I said, you know, I was bringing
a proclamation but the Mayor of the City of Miami denied the proclamation because he
feels that I am his enemy, so, I cannot honor you because he doesn't want to. And you
can do that once, but you shouldn't do that always. So, you guys do whatever you want
to do, but I think that this is about working together. This is about doing the right thing
for Miami. And I think that doing the right thing is -- since the Mayor is not going to
change; we better change the office that does the proclamations. So, that's my thinking.
Commissioner Sanchez: Mr. Vice Chairman --
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Yes.
Commissioner Sanchez: -- I'm going to be brief on this one, but I'll tell you one thing. If
anything -- if anybody needs to be responsible, and we need to address the issue, it has to
be on the Mayor's Office. He is the ceremonial office of the City of Miami. He does
hold a ministerial position. He is the one that runs the Protocol Office. The budget is in
his office. And one thing that I'd like to say is that, if we can't point the finger at him -- I,
for one, will speak from my experience, and I think that -- and I've said that very -- in
many cases, I've stated it very loudly -- is that there is bad protocol practice being
practiced at the office. Whether he can't keep staff and he keeps changing staff and stuff
-- you know, when I got the letter you're referring to, Commissioner Teele, to start
writing my own proclamations, you know, I said to myself, that's the last straw, when you
have to -- you're telling Commissioners, "start writing your own proclamations." We've
been up here reading proclamations -- and myself, I have looked at them. There has been
some horrible mistakes, which are -- basically, are embarrassing. Sometimes we start the
proclamations over. But I think that the strip -- one of the few powers or elegant strands
on his feathered hat to give proclamations and be the ceremonial office of the City is a
little bit too harsh. I mean, you don't shoot the horse when the saddle is not strapped
right. You know, I think that we need to send a clear message that things need to change.
He has no authority or anybody up there has any authority to tell me or any
Commissioner up here you can't give that individual a proclamation because, you know,
he had a past bad history or whatever, and that's a big concern. Now, being a little harsh
254 January 25, 2001
to turn over -- one question we haven't asked, is the City Manager -- and I'm not going to
ask you if you're willing to accept it because, I mean, if we turn it over, you have to
accept it -- but are you prepared to take over the responsibility of the Protocol Office?
Mr. Gimenez: I don't have anybody trained to do that, but, I mean, if it's turned over to
us, we'll have to train one, get the stuff with the equipment and get somebody to do it.
Commissioner Sanchez: Now, I can't speak for his office. I have enough responsibility
and my time is limited to look over mine. But I'll tell you one thing. When we asked for
proclamations, we, at times, have had to request proclamations short of five and
sometimes we've even gone beyond the five days and we've gotten calls, "Hey, we're too
busy up here to do it," and really, you know -- in that professionalism, there always has to
be that communication between the Mayor and the Commission. Do we have room for
improvement? Absolutely. There is no doubt that, when we give a proclamation, if it has
a mistake, it looks bad for the City. It looks bad for each Commissioner here. It looks
bad for the Mayor. But I think that -- before we take this harsh step to strip the Mayor of
this responsibility, I think that we really need to basically put some concrete solid
demands on him to try to improve it, give it a certain time to improve. You know, let's
ask for proclamation. If he doesn't come through with that department -- the first thing
he needs to do is go out and hire a very competent person, a professional person that's
going to do a good job, and then we'll take it from there. But right now, to strip that --
you know, let's say next year comes around he, for whatever reason, doesn't win the
election and we have another Mayor comes in the City, we have just stripped something
away from that individual who may do a better job or may run his office more
responsibly, not that I'm saying it's not being run now. But I, too, have complaints on the
Protocol Office and I think that there needs to be room for improvement. But I'm really
not too gung ho about stripping him from that title that he's got, and that's the ceremonial
office of the City of Miami and running in Protocol Office.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yes, sir, Commissioner.
Commissioner Teele: I think there is a terrible -- I mean, I shouldn't use -- there is a very
clear misunderstanding. This ordinance that is before us does not strip the Mayor of the
protocol functions at all. The Mayor would still sign all proclamations. The Mayor
would still give his -- he would still be responsible for presenting proclamations. What
we're talking about is the technical and production. Those are the two -- there are two
functions here. There is a technical function and there is a productions function. To be
very candid with you, protocol could just -- the function that we're talking about could
just as easily be in GSA (General Services Administration) because you've got -- you
know, you've got an office right there. That's an office in the County that functions very
closely with the Protocol Office. It's a GSA function. It's a print shop function that
you're really dealing with. It's the productions of documents. That's -- you know -- and
that's what we're talking about. I have no intent of removing the Mayor's authority to
grant proclamations, removing the Mayor's signature from proclamations, removing the
255 January 25, 2001
Mayor's right to be first in granting proclamations, but listening to what my dear
colleague, Tomas Regalado, is about to do to give away the whole City Commission's
role, we do need an ordinance or a resolution that says very clearly that elected officials
will present proclamations over any other person. I mean, that's sort of "duh". That's a
no-brainer. But if you actually had this -- and I have a hard time believing, Tomas, that
any staff person -- but if I had a proclamation in my district and one of my staff people
were there and one Commissioner happens to show up and I wasn't there, that staff
person had better be fast and in a hurry trying to give you the proclamation and make
sure that you got all the words right because if they don't, they would be fired on the spot.
No staff person ever gets ahead of an elected official.
Commissioner Sanchez: But that's good protocol practice.
Commissioner Teele: But, come on, that's common sense. No staff person --
Commissioner Sanchez: It ain't common sense.
Commissioner Teele: But I just want to clarify what the ordinance is, Joe.
Commissioner Sanchez: If you want to prepare a -- direct a motion like that, I'll be the
second to make the motion. Prepare an ordinance that only City officials should be
allowed to give proclamations or any other City --
Commissioner Teele: See, that's not --
Commissioner Regalado: No. Because -- you can, you can.
Commissioner Teele: Elected officials --
Commissioner Regalado: But if I --
Commissioner Teele: -- starting with the Office of the Mayor, shall give proclamations
and other recognition, in the absence of elected officials --
Vice Chairman Gort: He could appoint someone.
Commissioner Teele: -- the Office of the Mayor or the responsible Commissioner shall
arrange for a suitable appointment. That's just basic. But, obviously, we need something
because, I mean, we're dealing with something that I've never heard of.
Vice Chairman Gort: Gentlemen, I think the -- it's been overstated; we discussed it. I
think we should go ahead and pass it on the first reading. And the problem is, we stated
before, we need professional drafting and help with it. And I agree with Commissioner
Teele. In no way have we taken anything from the Mayor because he's going to sign all
of them. Now, Commissioner Teele, the one -- my understanding, Commissioner, in the
County, when you have a proclamation -- and the reason I've asked for this is -- all 13
256 January 25, 2001
Commissioners sign it?
Commissioner Sanchez: No.
Commissioner Regalado: No.
Vice Chairman Gort: No.
Commissioner Teele: There are numerous proclamations that are signed by 13 or all five,
but that's the rarity, as opposed to the exception. What normally happens would be -- you
know, and Steve Clark -- God bless the dead. I don't understand why any Mayor or
elected official, for that matter, would not be willing to sign proclamations from anybody.
Steve Clark signed proclamations -- I mean, you could have had Bugs Bunny Day, and he
would have been happy to sign the proclamation and gone and given it to Bugs Bunny
himself because he knows, underneath that Bug's Bunny costume was a live, human
voter. This guy never missed a bat mitzvah, a wedding, anniversary, or anything. Why
any Mayor would not want to sign a proclamation, I can't figure that out politically. But
the fact of the matter is, is that what we're talking about is not taking away his authority
to sign proclamations. We're talking about the production of proclamations.
Vice Chairman Gort: That's what we're discussing; to make sure they get signed and get
the right proclamations. OK. Do we -- the ordinance is on first reading. It's not an
emergency ordinance, am I correct?
Commissioner Teele: I would not move it on emergency. I would move it for the
purpose of a first reading, with the understanding that, if the Mayor does not veto it, that -
- it would happen for at least -- that we would not take it up for a period of at least 60
days.
Vice Chairman Gort: What happens in between when there is a request --
Commissioner Teele: Well, we would work with the office of the Manager and the
Mayor to get more resources and more support. I have two resolutions that I think would
be very helpful as companions to this, if we pass this. But, I mean, I have no interest in
even taking the office of the protocol, but they need help up there.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Read it. Roll call.
Note for the Record: The City Attorney read the pending ordinance into the public
record by title only.
Mr. Walter Foeman (City Clerk): Mr. Vice Chairman, we need a seconder. It was
moved by Commissioner Teele. We need a seconder.
Commissioner Regalado: Second.
257 January 25, 2001
Mr. Foeman: OK.
(Comments made during roll call)
Commissioner Winton: Well, because there -- it's coming back for second reading, I
can't think tonight -- I can't talk tonight, so I get another bite at this apple next go round.
I don't know how I will vote next time. I'll vote yes now.
An Ordinance entitled —
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 11970, THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS ORDINANCE,
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2001, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF ADJUSTING SAID APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN CITY DEPARTMENTS, AS
MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN; CONTAINING A
REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
was introduced by Commissioner Teele, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, and was
passed on first reading, by title only, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: Commissioner Joe Sanchez
ABSENT: None
The ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose to take Commissioner
Sanchez at his word. "A resolution of the City of Miami establishing a procedure
whereby any City Commissioner may timely submit a request for a proclamation,
commendation, or a certificate of appreciation or like decree to either the Mayor's or the
office of the City Manager, and that the City Commissioner may require that the
requesting Commissioner 's name be affixed to the same; further requiring that if the
request is made through the City Manager's office, the City Manager shall insure and
expedite the preparation of a said proclamation; and (2), if the request is made of the
Mayor, the Mayor shall not decline such a request, except based upon timeliness." And
what this says is essentially, if there are Commissioners who don't feel that they can work
with the Mayor's Office -- and, for the record, I'm going to work with the Mayor's Office
-- but if somebody wants to make the request through -- to the Mayor through the
Manager, the Manager is then responsible for the interfacing, getting it done so that we
258 January 25, 2001
can have a record -- so that our records can be established as to whether or not the
proclamation was issued or wasn't issued, and that's the purpose of this resolution.
Vice Chairman Gort: All right. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sanchez: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and second. Discussion? Being none, all in favor
state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES
WHEREBY ANY CITY COMMISSIONER MAY
TIMELY SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR A
PROCLAMATION, COMMENDATION, CERTIFICATE
OF APPRECIATION OR LIKE DECREE TO EITHER
THE MAYOR OR THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
MANAGER AND THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONER
MAY REQUIRE THAT THE REQUESTING
COMMISSIONER'S NAME BE AFFIXED TO SAME;
FURTHER REQUIRING THAT (1) IF THE REQUEST
IS MADE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, THE
CITY MANAGER SHALL INSURE AND EXPEDITE
THE PREPARATION OF SAID PROCLAMATION,
AND (2) IF THE REQUEST IS MADE OF THE
MAYOR, THE MAYOR SHALL NOT DECLINE SUCH
REQUEST, EXCEPT BASED UPON TIMELINESS.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
259 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you. Any other pocket items?
Commissioner Teele: And the third -- the second resolution gets to the technical issue,
and this is a resolution of the City Commission directing the City Manager to include in
the Table of Organization, a position, whose job description for an individual whose
responsibilities include the preparation of proclamations, commendations, certificates of
appreciation, in like decree, and that the performance of related technical and
professional positions, such positions shall be a part of the classified service and therefore
shall be assigned at the discretion of the City Manager and available to the Mayor, the
Commission, and the administration. I would so move. And I want to give you a little
bit of history just for the purpose of discussion.
Commissioner Sanchez: Second for the purpose of discussion.
Commissioner Teele: The person that we're talking about and where this real breakdown
comes -- and I know what happened in the Mayor's Office. This is a burden when they
come in. When a proclamation request comes in, it's a burden. If your background is not
English -- and what's the word they use for -- the old English word they use for writers?
Mr. Vilarello: Calligraphy scriber -- scribe.
Commissioner Teele: No. No. Calligraphy. If your background isn't English in
calligraphy, every proclamation is a nightmare, and so it wind up being in the mindset of
people -- these political aides up around here that they are doing somebody a favor.
Well, they are not doing Commissioners a favor. These proclamations are going to
individuals. Where the breakdown is that there is not a career person somewhere in this
government who's trained, who goes to calligraphy school -- and, by the way, with
computers today, you don't even need to go to calligraphy school.
Vice Chairman Gort: Yeah, it's all computerized.
Commissioner Teele: It's so -- it can be so computerized, and what really needs to
260 January 25, 2001
happen is, the Manager's office ought to sit down and try to work with the Mayor's
Office and to provide them with GSA and resources, looking at proclamations and
looking at that stuff because it's never really been done. But there needs to be a person
who is not serving at the pleasure of the Commission or the Mayor, but a career
professional whose job it is to support the Police Department, the Fire Department, the
Mayor's Office, or whatever. Now, whether that position is in the Mayor's Office -- I
would hope that it would be in the Mayor's Office. I personally would. I can tell you
one thing. If it's in the Mayor's Office, it will last exactly 300 days, if they are lucky.
But the fact of the matter is, this should not be about a political appointment or an exempt
position. We are a mature City. We're the largest City in Miami, and it is a shame that
we don't have a professional who speaks -- who has the ability -- a technical person who's
got a degree in English or at least a background in English, who understands this
function, because that's what this is all about. Somewhere along the line -- everybody's
hiring press aides and Spanish speaking aides, according to this organizational chart, and
Sister Cities aides, and all of that and nobody's taking care of the reading and writing and
production. And, so, this motion is designed to ask the Manager to work through this
process -- I could tell you this. The Fire Department, at least Dade County Fire
Department, has probably got eight people on staff doing just this. Because that is a PR
machine, so he could probably get somebody detailed over from Metro -Dade Fire
because they've got at least eight people that do this. But the fact of the matter is, we're
not talking about a person going out presenting keys. It can be, you know, anybody. It
doesn't have to be some, you know, dashing young, up star beautiful man, beautiful
woman. We just need somebody who can do the job and can do it. And that's the intent
of this, is to ask the Manager to work with his staff, with the personnel office, with GSA,
the -- the person could even be -- one good place would be an agenda coordinators office,
but it could be anywhere. I don't care. We just need a technical person around here that
can help the Mayor's Office that can help the Commission office, that can help various
departments, and that's the intent of this.
Vice Chairman Gort: All right.
Commissioner Teele: And, by the way, the Mayor's Office, I understand, supports -- is
this a correct statement, Mr. Manager? Because I told you what I was going to do, and I
asked you to get some input. The only thing the Mayor supports that I've done thus far
would be this position, is that right?
Mr. Gimenez: That's correct.
Commissioner Teele: All right.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by
saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
261 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY
COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
INCLUDE IN THE TABLE OF ORGANIZATION, A
POSITION, INCLUDING A JOB DESCRIPTION, FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL WHOSE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE THE
PREPARATION OF PROCLAMATIONS, COMMENDATIONS,
CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION, AND LIKE DECREE,
AND THE PERFORMANCE OF RELATED TECHNICAL AND
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS, SUCH POSITIONS TO BE
PART OF THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE AND TO BE
ASSIGNED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER
AND AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR, CITY COMMISSION
AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the resolution was passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
262 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: Pocket items. Anyone?
Commissioner Sanchez: I have a pocket item and it's going to be very brief.
Vice Chairman Gort: I thought it was going to be a short meeting. This is the shortest
agenda we've ever had. Don't make anymore short agendas.
Commissioner Sanchez: All it is is just information on the Miami Development Summit
2001. I provided you a package that includes what's going on, and I would also ask the
City Manager to include this as a discussion item at the next Commission meeting. First
of all, let me tell you that we have worked very hard with the Real Estate and Economic
Development Department and various local developers to put this together. It's a two and
a half days symporium (sic), which will showcase the cosmopolitan community to
national/international development professionals, service providers, lenders, and end
users. The Miami Development Summit 2001 will be held on April 4th through the 6th
at the Intercontinental, Miami. At this time, I respectfully request the opportunity to
discuss and just provide you more information. There is an invitation currently inviting
you to attend the pre -summit reception Wednesday, the 31st, 2000, at the Terremark
Center, 2601 South Bayshore Drive. The reception is at 6:00. The press conference will
be held at 5:00. I just wanton the record that I personally invited all the Commissioners,
City Manager, any staff member that wants to attend, and also the Mayor's Office. It also
provides you with a program schedule. The program is just about 60 percent completed,
thanks to Dianne Johnson, who is doing an excellent job, and I commend you. Thanks to
the administration for their support. Chip, thank you so much. This is just an agenda that
breaks down on what each committee is doing, and we are about 50 percent raising the
funds. This City has committed to sixty thousand dollars ($60,000). The rest will be
coming out of the private sector. So, once again, I look forward to seeing you at the press
conference and the reception on the 31s` at the Terremark building. Thank you.
Commissioner Regalado: Is that sponsored by MSEA (Miami Sports & Exhibition
Authority)?
Commissioner Sanchez: No, MSEA is not sponsoring that.
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman?
Vice Chairman Gort: There's a motion. No, there's no motion. It's just information.
Commissioner Teele: I would second the motion that the item be placed on the agenda
for the next meeting. But as one discussion item, I would strong -- I would recommend
that -- and I don't think this ought to be spread out, but I do think that the DDA
(Downtown Development Authority) should be a co host on that, if you can get...
263 January 25, 2001
Commissioner Sanchez: If I may. We have set down with everyone, including the CRA
(Community Redevelopment Agency), the DDA, the International Trade Board, and
everyone -- as a matter of fact, the DDA is very involved in our planning organization
and in our committee. Dianne, do you have anything you wanted to say?
Ms. Dianne Johnson: No. You've really said it all. We have made considerable outreach
into all of the City agency, and they are all partners in this event.
Vice Chairman Gort: Go ahead.
Commissioner Teele: The only thing -- and I don't think this is about the International
Trade Board or the CRA or whatever, but the one thing that we've heard from the public
is that they want -- the downtown business community wants a little bit more play in the
development, and I really do think it would be helpful if a DDA representative were there
to welcome, as well.
Commissioner Sanchez: Read the package, my friend.
Commissioner Teele: Well, I did. You saw the Mayor of the City, but I didn't see the
DDA being welcomed. That's all that I'm saying. I just think that that ought to be a part
of it. If you can work it in. If you can't, don't.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK. All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Sanchez, who moved its
adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-96
A MOTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SCHEDULE A
DISCUSSION ITEM AT THE NEXT AGENDA IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MIAMI DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT 2001.
264 January 25, 2001
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the motion was passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
265 January 25, 2001
Vice Chairman Gort: I have a pocket item. It's from the Manager. A resolution of the
Miami City Commission authorizing the City Manager to approve the placement of
promotion banners on Florida Department of Transportation, FDOT (Florida Department
of Transportation); control right-of-ways for events sponsored, cosponsored by the City
of Miami; further authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney with FDOT and event to co-sponsor for safe
purpose.
Commissioner Winton: I didn't understand it.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: I didn't either, so don't feel bad.
Commissioner Teele: Second the motion.
Vice Chairman Gort: All in favor state by saying "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): "Aye."
266 January 25, 2001
The following resolution was introduced by Vice Chairman Gort, who moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 01-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE
PLACEMENT OF PROMOTION BANNERS ON FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (`FDOT") CONTROLLED
RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR EVENTS SPONSORED AND CO-
SPONSORED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, WITH FDOT AND EVENT CO-SPONSORS FOR SAID
PURPOSE.
(Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.)
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Teele, the resolution was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Vice Chairman Gort: Do I have anymore -- any other items, discussion? Thank you. Do
I have a motion to adjourn?
Commissioner Teele: Mr. Chairman, I would so move.
Commissioner Winton: Second.
Vice Chairman Gort: Thank you.
267 January 25, 2001
The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Teele, who moved its adoption:
MOTION NO. 01-98
A MOTION TO ADJOURN TODAY'S COMMISSION MEETING.
Upon being seconded by Commissioner Winton, the motion was passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Vice Chairman Wifredo Gort
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
268 January 25, 2001
There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
10:11 P.M.
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
City Clerk
WIFREDO GORT,
Vice Chairman
269 January 25, 2001