Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1986-11-25 Minutes2 a mIA rm r INDEX MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA November 25, 1986 ITEM SUBJECT LEGISLATION PAGE NO. NO. 1 REVIEW OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED R 86-946 1-2 BY ZONING BOARD PERMITTING TWO 11/25/86 DRIVE-IN TELLER WINDOWS AT 701 N.W. 57 AVENUE (RED ROAD). 2 DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL DISCUSSION 2-3 OF REVIEW OF ZONING BOARD'S 11/25/86 DECISION TO DENY APPEAL OF CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSITIONAL USE OFFICES NOT SELLING MERCHANDISE AT 2100 S.W. 33 AVENUE. (SEE LABEL 5). 3 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE FOR PRESENTED 3 SISTER CITY PROGRAM. 11/25/86 4 PERMIT CHARLEE PROGRAM FACILITY AT R 86-947 3-39 1640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. 11/25/86 5 UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF R 86-948 39-57 CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 11/25/86 TRANSITIONAL USE AT 2100 AND 2101 S.W. 33 AVENUE. 6 AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ORD. 10182 57-60 PLAN AND ADDENDA AT APPROXIMATELY 11/25/86 3427-3523 S.W. 22 TERRACE - CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -MODERATE t DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL. 7 AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ORD. 10183 60-62 , PLAN AND ADDENDA AT APPROXIMATELY 11/25/86 3591 S.W. 22 TERRACE - CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL. 8 BID ACCEPTANCE: DANTZLER LUMBER & R 86-949 62-66 ' r EXPORT, INC. - 500 PILES FOR 11/25/86 �- MIAMARINA RENOVATION AT $71,000. r 9 ALLOCATE $10,000 TO MIAMI POLICE M 86-950 66-72 ATHLETIC PROGRAM. (ALSO SEE LABEL 11/25/86 #30). 10 ALLOCATE $4,500 TO INTERNATIONAL R 86-951 72-73 ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT 11/25/86 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE. s { 11 EXECUTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH R 86-952 74-fri CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORP. FOR 11/25/86 DEVELOPMENT OF PARCEL 37 - PHASE 1 OF SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVF_I.0FMF1,7 SUP.7FCT TO APPRAISAL. 12 ACCEPT DONA.71011< FROM MOTOROLA M 86-953 i8=86 COMMUNIC/.TIONS AND FI.FCTRONICS, 11/25/86 INC. FOR 0.NF R00 M H Z RF.FEATER AMPLIFIER, 13 FILM INDUc7RY DECLARED IMFORTANT R 86-954 80-82 PART OF MIAMI'S ECONOMIC FUTURE; 11/25/86 EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH FILM SOCIETY OF MIAMI, I1IC. TO MARKET/PROMOTE MIAMI AS AN INTERNATIONAL FILM CENTER. 14 ABOLISH THE PLANNING AND ZONING ORD. 10184 82-83 BOARD'S ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. 11/25/86 15 DISCUSSION REGARDING COST OF CITY- DISCUSSION 83-84 WIDE ADVERTISING. 11/25/86 16 RECOMMEND THAT DEPARTMENT OF OFF- R 86-955 85-87 STREET PARKING GRANT REQUEST FOR 11/25/86 WAIVER OF RENTAL AND PARK114G FEES FOR USE OF GUSMAN CE14TER FOR "THE 197 MISS MIAMI SCHOLARSHIP PAGEANT, INC." 17 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF DISCUSSION 88-89 COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN. 11/25/86 18 ALLOCATE $50,000 TO UNLIMITED M 86-956 89-91 REGATTA AS SEED MONEY FOR THE JUNE 11/25/86 13-14 EVENT, 19 AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR M 86-957 91-92 CITY TRAVEL - EXCEPTING MEMBERS OF 11/25/86 THE CITY COMMISSION. 20 ESTABLISH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT R 86-958 93-94 DISTRICT IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA 11/25/86 TO USE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TO FUND TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. 21 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED DISCUSSION 95-96 ORDINANCE PLACING A TIME LIMITATION 11/25/86 ON RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS MADE AT THE PRIOR MEETING. 22 ELECT AND APPOINT COMMISSIONER J. R 86-959 96-97 L. PLUMMER, JR. AS VICE -MAYOR TO 11/25/86 SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM. 23 DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED DISCUSSION 97-102 REFINANCING OF CITY BONDS TO LOWER 11/25/86 DEFICIT AT CITY OF MIAMI CONVENTION CENTER. 24 REQUEST AMPHITHEATER ADVISORY M 86-960 103-104 COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FEASIBILITY OF 11/25/86 PLACING USS SHANGRI-LA NAVAL SHIP ON THE F.E.C. PROPERTY. 25 AMEND ORDINANCE 9500, SETTING ORD. 10185 104-106 HEARING DATES, NOTICE, ETC. - 11/25/86 DESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS AS AGENCY TO SET DATE FOR HEARINGS ON 26 AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD FIRSTr�� PLAN - CHANGING DESIGNATION AT READING APPROXIMATELY 3960-3998 W. FLAGLER 11/25/86 STREET FROM MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDEh'TIAI, TO GENERAL• COMMERCIAL. 21 AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 FY ADDING A FIRST NEW SFCTIOI.- 1614: "HC-5: READING COMMERCIAL.-RFSIDF1yTIAL• HERITAGE 11/25/86 CONSERVATIO14 OVERLAY DISTRICT." 28 AMEND ATLAS OF ORDINANCE 9500 BY FIRST llt+ APPLYING IiC-5: COMMERCIAL- READING RESIDENTIAL. HERITAGE CONSERVATION 11/25/86 OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY S.W. 1 STREET, S.W. SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, S.W. 2 STREET AND S.W. 5 AVENUE. 29 AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 SEC. 2017 - FIRST 116-119 "OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS" - READING VALET PARKING; & SEC. 3602 "OFFSITE 11/25/86 PARKING"; AME14D SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIO14S BY ELIMINATING LIGHT PLANES IN SINGLE & TWO FAMILY DISTRICTS. 30A RECONSIDER M 86-950, WHICH HAD M 86-961 119-120 GRANTED $10,000 TO POLICE ATHLETIC 11/25/86 PROGRAM. 30B AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR POLICE M 86-962 119-120 ATHLETIC PROGRAM DIRECTING THEM TO 11/25/86 INSTITUTE A BOXING PROGRAM AT THE VIRRICK GYM. 31 RESCHEDULE THE SECOND REGULAR R 86-963 120-121 MEETING IN DECEMBER FOR DECEMBER 11/25/86 11, 1986 AT 4:30 P.M. 32 DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DEFERRED 121-125 AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500 TO ADD 11/25/86 A NEW SECTION ON OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. 33 AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 - PROHIBIT ANY FIRST 125-130 FUTURE CLUSTER HOUSING READING 11/25/86 34 DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING M 86-964 130 ORDINANCE AMENDING TEXT OF 11/25/86 t'. ORDINANCE 9500 IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF CLUSTER HOUSES IN` THE RS-1, RS-1.1, RS-2, AND RG-1 1t DISTRICTS, ETC. (See label 33) l' r_ MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, FLORIDA On the 25th day of November, 1987, the City Commission of Miami, Flor- Ida, 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 2:06 o'clock P.M. by Mayor Xavier Suarez with the following members of the Commission found to be present: ALSO PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins ; Mayor Xavier L. Suarez Cesar Odio, City Manager Lucia Allen Dougherty, City Attorney Matty Hirai, City Clerk Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Rosario Kennedy An invocation was delivered by Mayor Xavier Suarez who then led those present in a pledge of allegiance to the flag. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTE FOR THE RECORD: The City Commission asked a court reporter to identify himself: Wayne Madex on behalf of CHARLEE, Inc. (Item No. PZ-2) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. REVIEW OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED BY ZONING BOARD PERMITTING TWO DRIVE- j IN TELLER WINDOWS AT 701 N.W. 57 AVENUE (RED ROAD). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: Let's proceed with Planning and Zoning Item 1, PZ-1. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, PZ-1 is before you because this is a financial institution with a drive-in teller. They have a request to have two drive-in tellers and they provide all the spaces, all the requirements called for by 9500. So it is before you, it was approved by the Zoning Board through a special exception and it is before you to be confirmed. E Mr. Plummer: How many stacking spaces do they have for each lane? �r Mr. Olmedillo: Ten per. c j Mr. Plummer: Ten per lane, so that's twenty total. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move item 1. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Is there anyone from the general public that is here to be heard for or against Planning and Zoning Item 1? Let the record reflect that no one stepped forward. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll on Planning and Zoning Item 1. rt/fd 1 November 25, 1986 — The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, Who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-946 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING, WITH CONDITIONS, THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVE-IN FACILITIES AT A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LOCATED AT AFPROXIMATFLY 701 NORTHWEST 57 AVENUE (A/K/A RED ROAD), MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DFSCFJBTD HFFF,Ii:, AS FFR FLANS 014 FILE SUBJECT TO LANDSCAFF. FI_,AN AFFROVAL FY THF. FLANNING DEPARTMENT AND All, DTDICATIOP, AS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC WOR,Y'S DF.FARTI,FNT AN'D Zr, RFSOI_ TTION NO. 108-86; ZONED CR-2/7 C011NEPCIAL RESIDENTIAL (C01,1VLNITY). (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner. J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Miller Dawkins Mayor Xavier. L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Commissioner Rosario Kennedy ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE FOR THE RECORD: At this time, Item No. PZ-2 is deferred for a full Commission. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. DISCUSSION AND TEMPORARY DEFERRAL OF REVIEW OF ZONING BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY APPEAL OF CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSITIONAL USE OFFICES NOT SELLING MERCHANDISE AT 2100 S.W. 33 AVENUE. (See label 05). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning Item 3. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-3 is an appeal of a decision by the Planning Director to disapprove a Class C petition request... Mr. Dawkins: Pardon me, sir, where is the gentleman, the applicant, Mr. Antonio Cardet? Mr. Olmedillo: Applicant Item 3, please. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, while the applicant is coming up, the applicant's attorney, Paul Steinberg, called me yesterday and suggested that he would be coming here this morning and this afternoon and asking for a continuance to a date certain on this item. Mr. Plummer: That's not what's of record, just for the record. According to the agenda, the attorney of record is Stephen Helfman. Mayor Suarez: I think --teve is on another item, isn't he? Mr. Plummer: Is this not item 3? Mr. Steve Helfman: Yes, it is. My name is Steve Helfman with the law firm of Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England with offices at 2401 Douglas Road. We had filed the appeal on this matter, we have withdrawn as counsel because of a conflict, and my understanding is that Mr. Paul Steinberg is representing Mr. Cardet here and would be requesting a continuance or a — deferral to a date certain. rt/fd 2 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: I'll entertain a motion to that effect if that is what the ... Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, are there any people in the audience that wish to be heard on the matter? (unintelligible responses from audience) I'm glad I asked. Mayor Suarez: Flease, go ahead and approach the mike, sir. Tell us your name and address and if you represent anyone. Mr. Charles HaspelFr: My name is Charles Hasseler, I represent the Coral Gate Homeowners' Association. I have about. GO people here today. We can't afford continuances. If this p.entleman isn't. prepared t.o go to bat today tell him to fold up. Mr. Moshe Cosicher: Mr. Mayor, Vice-F;ayor, members of, the Commission, my name is Moshe Cosicher. I am the architect for Mr. Antonio Cardet. Mr. Plummer: Are you a registered lobbyist, sir? Mr. Dawkins: Where is Mr. Cardet7 Mr. Cosicher: Mr. Cardet is here. Mr. Dawkins: Well, Mr. Cardet will have to be the one who comes down here. Mr. Cosicher: We're still waiting for Mr. Steinberg. He has not yet arrived. Mayor Suarez,: Do you expect him? Mr. Cosicher: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Within a reasonable time? Mr. Cosicher: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Okay, we'll take up Planning and Zoning Item 3 in a few min- utes. We will wait a reasonable amount of time - which is to say not too long. 3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE FOR SISTER CITY PROGRAM. A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to Daniel L. Stickler, Edward Rosasco and Ronald M. Barron for their contribution to the Buenos Aires Sister Cities Program. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy entered the meeting at 2:15 P.M. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PERMIT CHARLEE PROGRAM FACILITY AT 1640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE. Mayor Suarez: Okay, Planning and Zoning Item 2. Mr. Olmedillo: Mr. Mayor, this is the appeal of the CHARLEE House and the Zoning Administrator is here. Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Mayor, the appellant should proceed first on this. Mayor Suarez: The appellant is CHARLEE House. Can we hear from representatives of CHARLEE House? I recognize School Board member Janet McAlily, good to have you. rt/fd 3 November 25, 1986 =4p Firs. Kennedy: My partner in the treasure hunt. Mr. Gary Brooks: Mr. Mayor end members of the Commission, my name is Gary Brooks. I`m an attorney, Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block and England. We are unc,Frtr-king representation here on a pro bono basis, we are not compensated for our services. Mayor Suare2.: Would you give us the address of your firm, just to have it for the record-, Mr. Brooks: Currently, 777 Brickel.l Avenue. We represent the appellants here which is CHARLEF, Inc., which is a nonprofit Florida corporation; and we also represent, as we did in the proceeding below, the house parents, and to the extent, that they are the custodians of the five children who are the foster children who reside in the subject home, we are here on their behalf also. The issue before the Commission at this point in time pertains to whether or not a single family residence requires some sort of public hearing in order to be able to use by CHARLEE as a foster home for five children. I would like to incorporate into this record the factual matters which were presented to the board below, they were quite extensive. Rather than repeat them or have the same people come forward, we will attempt to summarize the factual information that was before that board. We know that you are probably very familiar with the factual background of this matter. The issue here, with respect to whether or not this home requires a further permit we believe hinges on three legal issues more than any factual issues. First., we believe that this home qualifies under the City of Miami ordinance as a foster home and that, therefore, no permit is necessary. Second, as we have already pointed out on the record, we believe the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies here, namely this home has been used for over one year now. Extensive time and monies have been put into this home. We relied upon a City of Miami determination as to whether or not we could use this home for this purpose, and in reliance we bought the home and placed our children in that home. Third, we believe that these children have a constitutional right to live in this home regardless of any local regulations. I would like to deal with the primary legal issue that has been presented to you which is the local ordinances. Under Section 3602 of the Code of the City of Miami, a family is defined in two different ways. One relates to blood relations and second is "a group of not more than eight children, in addition to foster parents residing in a home caring for foster children, with the total number of children including natural children of the foster parent provided that such home is approved by appropriate State and/or local agencies". There is no question but that we qualify under this definition. There are five foster children in the home, CHARLEE only puts a maximum of six in a home, there are two biological children in this home. We have been approved by H.R.S. as a foster home. The current City Zoning Administrator has reached the conclusion that we fall under Section 2034.1 of the Code which defines a community based residential facility. Quite clearly, when you read the definition of such facility we might technically also fall within that except for the fact that when you read it, it quite clearly seems to apply to institutional type care rather than single family care. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Commissioner Joe Carollo entered the meeting at 2:35 P.M. Mayor Suarez: You quoted from an ordinance where, counselor? Mr. Brooks: This is City of Miami ordinance. Mayor Suarez: And what is the number? Mr. Brooks: 2034.1 is the Code Section of the ordinance. The law in the State of Florida is clear as to how you resolve conflicts like this. Our own Third District Court of Appeal in a case called Litman v. Commercial Bank and Trust Company has applied to two rules of interpretation, where you have one ordinance which seems to encompass a category of things such as this CPRF ordinance does, and then another ordinance which defines at a later point in time a subcategory such as the foster home provision. In that case,the court, and I'll read the headnote which is a summary of the decision in the case itself: "Where statutory provisions are irreconcilable, generally specific statutes on a subject take precedence over another statute covering the same rt/fd 4 November 25, 1986 subject in general terms." The first headnote the court points out, "that where you have a general statute or ordinance that is passed and then at a later point in time a more specific statute or ordinance is passed which deals with the same subject matter, a presumption exists that the legislative body," which in this case vould be the City Commission, `knows abot.it the existence of the other ordinance and is attempting to carve out an ef.certion or an exempt. ion. In this case, the ordinance v'hich C�rfines ln.Ftitilt, lon.Sl care, Section 2011, CFRF, Cnm. T1Snity Fased Fesident jai Facilities, is a broad based _ ordinance which was passes, prior in time to the definition of a foster home. Therefore, under the clear law of this State, clearly it wrs the intention of the intention at the time it passed the definitional ordinance defining a foster home, to exempt from administrative procedures a foster home that's been approved by a St -ate agency, where the maximuT number of children is only eight. We have only sir,. Therefore, we believe that the Zoning Administrator made a mistake, by trying to rectify what appears to be a conflict by giving priority to the general and previously passed ordinance, rather than applying State law, which requires the exact opposite result. I'd like to tell you briefly something about. CHARLEE. I won't belabor the record with a half-hour of testimony previously given. This will only take about two minutes, and I appreciate your time constraints. Our home is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida, H.R.S., as a foster family home, as defined by our City ordinance. It is owned by CHARLEE, a not -£ or -prof it corporation, founded by a coalition of local and broad -based civic groups. CHARLEE is a member of the Menni.nger Foundation Family Care Network, a world-famous foundation, which does studies with respect to children and how to care for children. This program exists throughout the United States. It has been eminently successful. It has been hailed by people who deal with child care, not only in the United States, but by the Chief of our own Division of Courts which deals with the care of children, Judge Gladstone, with the State Attorney Janet Reno, and virtually every single official who deals with the care of children, as being the most effective means of providing foster care. And not only that, it's the cheapest means of doing it, because the cost of the home is undertaken not by the State, not by the County, or the City - rather, by private individuals who contribute to the corporation and enable it to buy the homes. Therefore, there is no economic burden whatsoever upon the City of Miami, or the County or State when CHARLEE decides to buy a home. Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK, let me just clarify a point, counselor, if I may. Who, in this particular case, owns the home? Mr. Brooks: The home is actually owned by CHARLEE, Inc., which is the not - for -profit corporation. And that raises one legal issue, which I will get to, and I know, your Honor, that may be what you have in mind and wish to have me deal with. CHARLEE serves a critical need in Dade County, to provide children from broken homes with a family environment of love, discipline, and understanding. It focuses, not on clinical treatment, or on institutionalized correction, but rather on restoring patterns of everyday interaction that a normal, healthy family enjoys. Children in CHARLEE participate in, and become part of, a family group. CHARLEE selects surrogate parents. These are individuals who are screened by our committees, by professionals, by the State, to live in each of its homes with six foster children. In some instances, such as here, they may have their own, biological children. The children that come to CHARLEE come through H.R.S.; they are recommended to our program as being appropriate for it, and children who can be helped by the program, without posing a burden upon the neighborhood or society. That's how I you get into the CHARLEE program. The surrogate parents in fact become the parents of these children, and both Menninger and CHARLEE provide training and staff support for the parents. The surrogate parents here are Mimi and Fadi Aftimos, who live at the home with their two own children, along with five foster children, age 12 to 16. These children, the foster children, will stay at this home until they can be reunited with their parents, if that is possible. The children attend neighborhood schools, they interact with neighborhood children, as they are supposed to. These are not juvenile delinquents. Rather, they are victims - and we wish to emphasize this. These are the victims of abuse and neglect, of beatings, of sex molestation, neglect and abandonment. That is the only qualification that you have to become a dependent and to enter into the CHARLEE program. Courts throughout the United States have universally been liberal in their treatment of ordinances when determining whether or not foster care programs require governmental regulation. I'm not going to go through all of them, but I will advise you that we have made an exhaustive analysis, legally, of what has occurred rt/fd 5 November 25, 1986 throughout the United States, and I advise you courts have gone so far as to hold that identical types of programs, a CHARLEE-type program, qualifies even where the city ordinance says, "that a family consists of people who are bound by blood." A court has held it. doesn't make any difference. The function provided by this type of foster home is se similar to what an actual family does, that for pl)TPoprs of an oTdinanrC e,'en requiring a blood relationship, it V'as dFfined to satisfy that rr-ai!iJ"ement. We 6on,t rvrr. nerd that. We happen to ha,'e a specific provision that. COntFrn}lates foster Care. The Zoning Administrator- here has made two detFJ"rr;i.nat irr,c which 1'd like to address. First, the Zoning Administrator concluded that H.R.S. somehow did not, consider our home to be a foster care facility, and reference was made to some sort of document or letter that was issued some t ime ago. At the Foard hearing, we presented both the Administrator in charge for H.R..S., .and H.R.S.'s legal counsel, both of whom stat-ed in clear, unequivocal terms, that contrary to how the Toning Administrator read whatever documents he was reading, that the CHARLEE home here does qualify, and is legally and factually recognized by the State as a foster home under the City's own ordinance. Second, the Zoning Director here said that. in order to qualify as a foster home, the parents must own the home. There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for that assertion. There are no foster care programs in the State of Florida which have as a requirement that the persons providing foster care must actually own the home, as opposed to being a lessee of the home, as our foster parents are here. We would respectfully suggest. that to place such a burden upon any foster care program would not be appropriate. There's no logical reason to say people have to own a home, rather than lease the home, to provide foster care. And, in fact, where people currently lease their own homes, and are subject to the vagaries of a landlord, the CHARLEE program, if anything, provides a certain amount of stability with respect to homes that even ordinary foster parents cannot provide, in term of the permanency of the home. So, we believe these two grounds that have been raised are improper. I would like also to point out to you a State statute that talks about policy with respect to child care. Florida policy recognizes that there is a duty to protect and promote, quote, "every child's right to the security and stability of a permanent family home." We focus too much upon the adults; we don't focus on the children. I would very much appreciate your focusing on these five children, and other children. They have done nothing wrong to become dependent. Nothing wrong. They have been beaten, so they've been taken away. They've been abused; they've been abandoned, where their parents literally walk away from them; in some instances they have been sexually molested, so the State has taken them from their parents. The children themselves have done absolutely nothing wrong. They deserve, and they are legally entitled to, live in a home, just like every other child who is fortunate enough to have parents who do not beat them. And there is no basis for making a distinction between a child who has been beaten, and molested, and sexually abused, and needs love and care, perhaps more so than biological children, from a setting where he lives, or she lives, in a middle-class neighborhood, in a nice setting, in a nice house, where they can go to nice schools, and deal with other nice children. The final point is ... really hinges on that. It's a constitutional point. I hope you'll excuse me for some of these legal points; I know you must hear it a lot, but there's a matter of a record that must be made, and sometimes we have to say things in the record that aren't just pure persuasion. There has been a recent Supreme Court decision. It's } called Cliburn v. Cliburn, 87 Lawyers Edition 313. In that case, the United } States Supreme Court recently ruled, "you cannot treat people who have certain types of problems differently from other people, unless you can show that because they somehow are different, they pose a threat to the health, welfare, 1 and safety of the community." That case happened to involve mentally retarded adults. The court held there was no evidence whatsoever to establish that }_ somehow adults who are simply mentally retarded, pose some sort of threat to the rest of us, that justifies government telling the people who have a home for those people that they cannot live in the midst of the rest of us. Now, that idea's time, I think, has come to pass. There are no facts whatsoever that were presented to the Zoning Board, there are no facts that the Zoning I' Administrator has cited, that indicates in any way, shape or form that a child i that is placed in the CHARLEE program poses some sort of risk to the neighborhood or society, that somehow government has a right to dictate where that child may live. We have presented statistics and testimony of the most knowledgeable people in Dade County, indicating that the statistics, the incidences, the occurrences where somehow government involvement is required, + is indeed lower than that of children who live with their biological parents. The health, safety, and welfare of a community is not threatened simply because six children who have been beaten and abused by their parents, and are rt/fd 6 November 25, 1986 brought together with two people who are dedicating a substantial part of their lives to giving love and affection, happen by circumstance, not to have the same blood ties to those parents, and the United States Supreme Court, has now made that the law of the land, and that case is directly applicable here. I want to ask the Commission's indulgence, if I get a little excited about the subject, and a little emotional... Mr. Dawkins: You have some more? Mr. Brooks: 1'd like to get you, Commissioner Dawkins, a little excited. Mr. Dawkins: OK, before you get any further, I said that my mind would be made up here today, which it will be. Madam City Attorney, if I choose to make a motion that this be deferred to a court of law, because it appears here now to me, t.hrt all I am hearing is a lot of legalities, of which I :m not familiar with, or which I am at a loss to even attempt to understand, so if I chose to move that this be continued until a judge settles it, could I make such a motion? Mrs. Dougherty: The answer is no. Mr. Dawkins: Ma'am? Mrs. Dougherty: The answer is no. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Mrs. Dougherty: The zoning code provides a method of review of the zoning administrator's position. That method of review is to the Zoning Board first, and then to this body secondly to review the facts, to see whether or not, in your mind, the facts justify this house as a foster home or as a community based residential facility. Mr. Dawkins: Well, in your opinion, that I am being presented with as to lower cour.t's decision, as to so and have on a court of law, since... Mr. Plummer: That is... what then, would all these legalities the Supreme Court's decision, as to a so's decision, what outcome would that Mr. Dawkins: I mean, no, wait a minute! Mrs. Dougherty: He has indicated that he is giving you these legalities because he wants to include them within the record that would finally be reviewed by a court of law. Mr. Plummer: If... Mrs. Dougherty: If it does. Mayor Suarez: Can you translate them into something understandable by this Commission? I think it... into a standard that we must apply today that is understandable to a lay person? Mrs. Dougherty: The standard, as I would synthesize the court, is that zoning laws make distinctions between uses and not individuals who use the facilities, so when you are taking legislative action, such as this, you must make a distinction, or there must be a difference between the distinction, in other words, you can't say... of if the use is exactly the same, you must treat them the same, so if the use is a foster home, and in fact, it is the exact same use that Charlee House is, then you have to treat them alike. If there is a distinction, that is, if the use that Charlee is applying to that home is different than a single family as defined in our code, which is no more than eight children with a foster parent,. then you can treat them differently. Mr. Brooks: d d If I may, Commissioner, I agree with your counsel. I am a resident of this City, and my firm, I think is rather well known for its civic involvement, I really, on a personal base, perhaps, would like to have the City on my side on this issue if there has to be litigation. I think this is th i h id d f hi Ci e r g t a e, an I am very prou o L. s ty an we are coming a long, long way in the eyes of this country, and I'd like to have, if there is going rt/fd 7 November 25, 1986 .j to be litigation, the City of Miami on the side of children, and doing the right thing by children, rather than our having to be in an antagonistic position. This is something I had requested the Zoning Administrator to consider ... Mr. DFwkins: Put, I. don't think, sir, I don't think you are correct to stand up there and point yourself out as the only one in this room, especially among Comrnissicners who is concerned that the City of Miami not be pointed as some bad ogre who is definitely against the rights of children, and that you want to be sure that we do not come out as such, and you want. to present an emotional issue, so that we tap here will not do that. I have grandchildren, I have children, and I've seen abused children. I get. very disti.irbed when they are abused, and I think that if we do not protect the. youth and the children, see, something is going to happen. You could put me in a room full of crack, and I would not touch it, because in my lifetime as a child, I was taught character, And I was ta+?ghtt what was right and wrong, and that was one of the things they told me not to do ghat was wrong, so we have to get, back to whether it is A foster home, whether it, is the real home, we have got to get the children to understand that. we love them, so thatwe can build up a bond, a trust bond, I am with that, but I am a little ticked off with you when you _ stand up there and try to point... I mean, and not try, and point out that you, the savior of all the children in 11jami, are concerned and only you, OK? Mr. Brooks: Well., I don't think my statements... what I was saying to you, sir, is, I'd rather not be in a posture where at this point the matter was sent to court and we were in an antagonistic position with the City. I don't want to be placed in that situation. I don't pretend to be the savior. If I had it in the power to be the savior, I'd think each of you would like to do it. Mayor Suarez: Certainly your last argument that you gave was the most emotional of the ones that you presented, and could be misinterpreted. What, if I may ask you, what is the permanence of the foster parents... I can't think of any other term to apply, I must confess that I can't think of any other term to apply to the parents. From what I know of the Charlee House, the foster parents, how permanent are they, and secondly, how permanent are the children in this home? Mr. Brooks: We have both the president of the corporation, and the home administrator, and I have actually concluded what I have to say, which was essentially legal and some other points. We do have people here from the program who would be very willing to answer your questions. Mayor Suarez: How many people are intending to speak on behalf of the Charlee House, to praise them, in generic terms like that? Mr. Brooks: We have petitions, we have a ton of people in the neighborhood. I don't think that is legally relevant. Mayor Suarez: How many plan to speak in opposition? You represent, some of you might represent associations, I presume? No?... OK, individuals. OK, well let's hear as quickly as possible. Mr. Brooks: Nan Rich is the president of the corporation and she could step forward to be sworn in to answer your questions, Mr. Mayor. t Mr. Walter Pierce: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Thank God we don't swear them in just yet, Counselorl Yes? i' Mr. Pierce: May I, just for the record... the issue, to try to restate the issue, the issue is whether or not this program is a foster family, instead of i a C.B.R.F. and it has nothing particularly to do with this particular locations. There are other Charlee locations which are similarly affected by j this appeal. There are probably other programs other than Charlee which could be affected, and that address on Bayshore is just coincidentally involved, but the issue is really the appeal of the Administrator's decision... the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Plummer: Well, may I, Mr. Mayor, strongly suggest as normal procedure — around here, that we hear now from the person... excuse me, answer the Mayor's questions, but normal procedure is, we would hear from now the Department, as { to what he based his denial upon, and I think that would be a... ld 8 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: Please, yes. Ma'am, before you speak, go ahead, Walter. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Genuardi, is present and will be happy to do that, sir. Mr. Plummer: No, go ahead, Nan, go ahead and answer, the Mayor had tvo questions. 1 have no problem with you answering the questions. Ms. Nan Rich: Aran Rich, J am president of the Charlee Board of Directors, and I have been involved with the program since its inception in 1.982, and I believe the question was regarding the longevity of the foster parents. Mayor Suarez: And of the children, too, what kind of turnover, if I may use that term? Ms. Rich: OK, we have four homes in the City at this time, and we have had an exceptional low turnover rate of: house parents in the 13ayshore home, which is the one in question. We opened that home a year ago July, and we have the same wonderful house parents there, that we have had since the beginning of the program. I would like to mention however, that there is a possibility of turnover of house parents if for some reason, either our director does not feel that they are appropriate, or they wish to leave themselves, and I think one of the beauties of the Charlee Program is the support system that these children have in addition to the foster parents. We have an executive director, we have social workers who are involved with the children, and who are responsible for making sure that they are doing well in school, and are in the correct education program, so I believe that we offer even more stability than what you would call the "traditional" foster home that would just have the parents there, and not another support system to go along with it. Mr. Plummer: Well, excuse me, I still didn't hear the answer of the five children that are there presently. Have those five children been there the year, or has there been a turnover of the foster children? Ms. Rich: We have... I'd would like Doris Capri, our executive director to answer that. Several of the children have been there since the beginning. This is a long term residential program, and most of our children are with us for a period of two to three years. It is not a heavy turnover situation. Ms. Capri: Yes, sir, we have... Mr. Plummer: For the record, you name. Mayor Suarez: Why don't you give us your name and address. Ms. Doris Capri: My name is Doris Capri, I am the executive director of the Charlee Program. We opened up our home in July, with Mr. and Mrs. Aftimos, as the house parents, and we still have three... Mayor Suarez: July of what year? Ms. Capri: Of 1985. Mayor Suarez: OK, because I remember the two of them made a presentation way back in 1985, so I didn't think you meant 1986. Ms. Capri: No, I am sorry, 1985, and we have still three of the children who began with us at that time. We .have since added additional children to the program and in fact, as recently as several weeks ago we had just put in a sixth child, an eight year old girl, but the children are permitted and allowed to stay with us for as long as they need be. We work, the social workers and the family work towards reuniting them with their natural parents, if this is at all possible, and is respected by the courts that we should work towards this goal, but the majority of our children do not have healthy homes to return to so that we provide, and our preparing most of them for independent living, when they reach the age of 18. Mr. Plummer: So, your answer then, is I assume, that the average stay is two years? Me. Capri: Yes. Thank you. ld 9 November 25, 19:86 Mayor Suarez: Thank you. Joe, do you want to try to explain to us your recommendations in terms that we can absorb here? Mr. Joseph Genuardi: I'll try. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Joseph Genuerdi, I Pm Zoning Administrator for the City of Miami. First, let me say that I think the Charlee Program is a much needed service in estFblishing holies for neglected Fn ;:bused children that are hard to place in foster ho-e-, My opinion is that the Charlee Program is not a. foster home program, but. a community based residential fRcilit.y, or specifically, a home for dependent children, Fs described in the Toning ordinance, Section 2034. Let me read what 2036 says: "A community based residential fFcilit:y provides room with or without board, residence service, and 24 hours supervision. Such a facility functions as a single housekeeping unity, and is licensed or approved by authorized regulatory agency. This category includes adultcongregate living facilities, residential facilities for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, for developmentally disabled persons, for persons with mental health problems, and for the dependent children, and juvenile and adult residential correction facilities, including halfway houses." Now, I first became aware of the Charlee Program's existence at 1640 South Bayshore Drive in May of 1985, and my first impression was that children were being placed with a family residing at the address, as foster children. However, when I. began to get calls questioning whether this was in fact, a foster home, I asked my staff to investigate and obtain more information about the actual operation. After reviewing all the material about the program, and discussion with staff, I then concluded that it was a C.B.R.F. A letter was sent to the director of. the Charlee Program on August 26, 1985, signed by the Chief Zoning Inspector, Juan Gonzales, confirming telephone conversations with Judy Miller, the zoning inspector, stating that it was necessary to apply for a special exception as a C.B.R.F. Now, my decision was based on several facts. One, what is a foster home. The zoning ordinance does not give a definition of foster homes. The definition in the zoning ordinance is the definition of a family, and it says you can have up to eight foster children, so I went into the Florida Administrate Code to find the definition of foster home, which is used by H.R.S. That states: "Foster family homes is a residential placement for dependent children with families that provide care in their own homes for no more than five children between birth and 18 years of age." Next, I reviewed the Charlee brochure, which was sent to the Department on May 14, 1985. Up to that date, we hadn't seen a copy of the brochure. Mayor Suarez: When you read that, "in their own home", you understood that in their home to mean that they must own the home, as opposed to renting? Mr. Genuardi: Well, I think it means that it should be an established family in a neighborhood that would like to take care of some foster children. Anyway, what the brochure says, it states that: "It provides an ultimate care system for children who have become society's outcasts..." indicating it is an alternative to institutionalization of these children. �. Next, I got copies of licenses issued by H.R.S. for other Charlee facilities, and each one indicated that the classification was a residential child caring • facility. In fact, foster home, was crossed out on these forms, and that the j� ages were from six to eighteen. I bring up these ages, because as you know, the fosters home will take infancy to eighteen. Charlee Program doesn't have that. In a narrative by Miss Lois Rothman, Human Service counselor, and Miss Peggy Ann Seigel, also Human Service counselor supervisor, they state that Charlee is a program of residential child caring homes to provide a less: institutionalized method of caring for children who would benefit by a setting other than private family foster care. Six children allows us... I think it is six children, from ten to seventeen. Also, application submitted by the Charles Program indicates that it is a group care for children. I think you have all those forms in your package. A letter dated October 7, 1985, from Luisa P. Maurer, Senior Resource Program Manager, to the Building and Zoning Department, states that the Charlee Program does not provide service to children care and facility, but meets the criteria of a therapeutic foster r 1d 10 November 25, 1986 :_ Ll home. Now, if you go into the H.R.S. definitions of a therapeutic foster home, it stEtes: "these Pre homes which provide community based, mental health services in P faTrily setting for one or two emotionally disturbed children, or Pdolascent, with extensive supportive mental health services and training prcviced to the foster home parents, and the natural parents." Well, after I got all this inferTrr-tion, I had further discussions and meetings with representPt.i,,•Fs of Charlee £rngrFTr and H.R.S. Mayor SuPrr7, ?oG at snore Foint, before you finish your presentation, would You explPin the letter cf �upilst. 26, 1983, by the City, which apparently purported to spy thPt the Charlee foster homes were under our category of family% Did we chPnge our minds from that moment? Mrs. xennedy: I am glFd you brought it out, Mr. Mayor, because I wanted an explanation of this. This is done, it is a letter that the Chief Zoning Inspector, then Richard K. Weisberg, saying... it is addressed to Carl Vernon, the director of Charlee rt. Dade County: "Dear Mr. Vernon: Enclosed is the excerpt from the zoning text that Judy Miller referred to over the phone on August 23, 1983. Charlee Foster Home falls under our category of family, a group of no more than eight children, in addition to foster parents residing in a home caring for foster children, etc. As such, the City of Miami does not require a public hearing." Mr. Genuardi: That was a decision made by the Chief Zoning Inspector at the time, based on the information that was given to him. As I mentioned, we never saw a brochure on the Charlee Program until May of 1985, so we took their word saying well, we are placing children in homes, and it is a foster home, and Rich Weisberg wrote that opinion at that time. Mr. Plummer: Do you have a copy of the brochure? Mr. Genuardi: Yes, I do. Mr. Plummer: May I see it, please? This is a brochure issued by Charlee? Mr. Pierce: Yes, it is in the package. Mr. Carollo: Let me go back to the statement you just made. Are you stating that a little over a year ago, when they submitted their request to the City, that the zoning inspector at the time approved. Mr. Genuardi: At that time, he said that they fell in the category of foster homes, based on... Mr. Carollo: So, that is in the record that the City stated that they Mould fall into the category of foster homes. Mr. Genuardi: Yes. Mr. Carollo: Now, Madam City Attorney, whether this Commission votes upon a that they do, or they do not, if indeed, as has been stated to us now, the former Chief Zoning Inspector, at the time, stated that they were a foster home, that they fell into that category, and Charlee, in good faith, went ahead and spent whatever they did on that residence, wouldn't they be grandfathered in, regardless of what decision this Commission would make today? Mrs. Dougherty: The legal concept is not grandfathered, but equitable y estoppel... Mr. Carollo: Exactly. Mrs. Dougherty: ...would apply if they relied to their detriment in good faith upon the decision of the Zoning Administrator at the time. The problem, as I see, and I don't know the facts intimately, or I don't know what the Mr. Genuardi, or Mr. Weisberg knew at the time, or whether he should have known, or investigated. What they are saying is, we didn't know, because they didn't _ provide us the information enough to know, so, if that is the case, equitable estoppel may not apply. Mr. Carollo: Well, it would seem to me that if they came before the appropriate City of Miami body department to request that they would be granted an approval. The burden should fall upon that City department to request whatever information they would need before they would make a final decision. If they gave that, final decision at that time, that yes, they could go ahead, and thR CitS• did not request any additional information, that is not the fault cf Chr-rlea or rn:-one Flse. Mr. Dawkins: ►'aciam City Attorney, the zoning inspector says that once he inspected, then he requrr ted additional information, and upon review of this information, he determined that the information presented to him, was in error. Is that a correct. statement? Mr. Genuardi: tdell, with the additional information, I determined that it was in fact, not a foster home, but a C.B.R.F. I wasn't involved in the 1983 letter, and as Zoning Administrator, it wasn't brought to my attention at the time for an interpretation, but. I did get involved in 1985, when the new Charlee House was about. to open. Mr. Dawkins: So then, Commissioner Carollo is right when he said then that _ someone in the Department dropped the ball in that they did not follow through, then it is really and truly the Zoning Department's fault that we are in this mess then, is that what. you are saying? Mr. Plummer: You are not going to get him to admit that now! Mr. Genuardi: We based our decisions on the facts that we have, and at that time, based on the facts that were given to us, that was our decision. Mr. Dawkins: And that is what I just asked you, you just said no. Mr. Carollo: Well, it would seem to me that the law is the law, and we don't try to interpret whatever law we have, depending on the circumstances, and I think this is what is happening now. Back in 1985, or whenever, when Charlee submitted this request, there was one opinion that was given, and I think the opinion was given based on the law. Now, we have a situation that another opinion is given, and the reasons are, well, the City didn't have certain information at the time. Well, this is why we pay these administrators the salaries that we do, so that they, before they make a final judgement on something, decide if they have all the information on which to make their judgment on. That is just like, say Miller, you were going out, you want to build a house somewhere, or make a small addition to your home, and you go and fill out whatever forms have to be filled out. You go before the appropriate department, you pay whatever fees you have to pay, they request of you whatever drawings, blueprints, whatever, you hand them in, and then after you build your home, or after you make an addition, a year and a half later, then come to you and say, "We didn't request this of you, therefore, you have got to tear down the whole structure." In effect, this is what you are saying here, because you didn't request something of them over a year ago, that now they should be closed down. That is not fair! Mr. Genuardi: Well, I think you are bringing up a legal matter now, because the question now is, this new facility, which was not present at the time that the decision was made, if we made a wrong decision in 1983, and we discovered the error, I don't think we can continue to approve something that is wrong, and the decision made at this time, in 1985, was that it was not a foster home, but a C.B.R.F. Mr. Carollo: The law states however, that when you make an error of that j nature, you have got to live by it, and I don't see how in the world, even if this Commission would agree with your definition of a foster home, and C.B.R. facility, that we could force the present locations of Charlee, that have been approved, they bought and paid for, and remodeled, to be shut down, and I think what this Commission has before it today are really two different questions, one is a question of, are they a foster home, or not? But, even before we decide on that question, I think we have to decide on whether based — upon the facts that we have heard here today that I think are quite clear, that Charles acted in good faith when they went and bought those homes, and spent money and remodeled them and so on, on whatever decision we make, should affect them whatsoever. Id 12 November 25, 1986 e Mr. Genuardi: I think the attorney should then... that I think, brings up equitable estoppel. Mayor Suarez: Well, let... Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Well, may I... you made a comment on the application to the State, thatyou stated, as I recall, that they were not shown as a foster home. Mr. Genuardi: Correct. Mr. Plummer: May I see that, please? Mr. Pierce: Mr. Plummer, on page 24, is the October 7, 1985 letter, from Luis& P. Maurer, Senior Human Services Program Manager for H.R.S. On page 101, is an August 29, 1986 letter from Sylvia Williams, Senior Human Services Program Manager of H.R.S., and attached to that is a memorandum from Leonard T. Halfand, who is district legal counsel for H.R.S. The two letters conflict, but they are dated about a year apart. Mr. Genuardi: If you also look at page 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44, that the forms that were submitted for the other Charlee Program houses. Mr. Plummer: Did you say I will f ind there that the wording of foster homes was crossed out? Mr. Genuardi: On page 40, up at the top, where it says, residential child care, and underneath was foster home, and that was crossed out. Mr. Plummer: Well, I can't see that, because obviously, the crossing out... Mr. Pierce: On the next one, on page 41, I think you can see it, Mr. Plummer. You see some of the word, foster. Mr. Plummer: Yes, OK. Let me go back a minute. May I ask the counselor, Mr. Brooks, sir, you made comment to the fact... first of all, let me compliment you on sticking to the legal point. I think you did a good job, and I understand what you were doing. You made a comment, sir, that this house is leased to the parents. Mr. Brooks: It is not owned by the parents. Mr. Plummer: We understand that, but you are using the terminology that this house is leased to this couple who presently reside there. May I ask how long the term of the lease is, and do you have a copy of the lease with you? Mr. Brooks: When I use the term, lease, I'm using it in the broad sense that they are not owners, they are there pursuant to an agreement with the program, that is, so long as they are performing their rolls as the surrogate parents, they have a right to live in the home. Mr. Plummer: So there is ... i 4 r 1: Mr. Brooks: Do we have a writing on that Nan? Is there a writing with the parents that defines their rights in this respect, to live in the house. There is no written document. Right. Is there is a written contract with the parents that defines their duties? This is an oral agreement. Mr. Plummer: Is there any kind...; Mr. Brooks: They receive a letter that in effect, sets forth what they do, and their right to live there, and technically... Mr. Plummer: That they can reside there. Do we have a copy, sir, of any kind of a contractual arrangement that Charlee has with these parents? Mr. Brooks: We have never been asked for one. We would be very happy to provide you with the letter agreement that... Mr. Plummer: Is there anything... when this couple, or any other couple, not this one in particular, when they in fact, move into this house to become the t parents of a CHARLEE program, do they sign any kind of an agreement with Charlee ? ld 13 November 25, 1986 Mr. Brooks: These people do not sign anything. They are provided with the materiel that defines what they do. They are given a letter, and they take their position pursuant to the letter. Technically, yes, that is a contract. Is it legally a written contract? No. Is it a contract? Yes. They act upon writings that are provided to them. The moment they accept and move in, there Is a binding contract. Mr. Plummer: OY, the other question that I had... Mr. Brooks: Fxcuse me, there is a written agreement with H.R.S. Mr. Plummer: By these parents, or with Charlee? Mr. Brooks: Yes, people sign. They are licensed... I am sorry, see a lot of this material was brought out at the board, and I am not really sure what is the most pertinentthing you are interested in. It is in the record that the house parents obtain a license from H.R.S. as foster parents. They have to be licensed, and they have an agreement in effect, with the State of Florida to perform these services, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: All right., sir, are these people, in fact, paid a salary? Mr. Brooks: Yes. Mr. Plummer: They are doing this for a living. Mr. Brooks: No, they don't do it for a living. In most instances, one of the two parents has a profession or occupation aside from serving as a foster parent, and the other person is full time into the home, providing the care. Mr. Plummer: And for that, they are paid a salary. Mr. Brooks: Yes, they are paid a fee, or salary. Mr. Plummer: And what is that salary, sir? Mr. Brooks: Doris? Mrs. Kennedy: And could you also tell us the profession of the Aftimos? Mr. Brooks: I am sorry, I...? Mrs. Kennedy: The profession. Mr. Brooks: Oh, yes, would you tell the Commissioner who these people are, their qualifications, and how much they get paid. Ms. Capri: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Aftimos had been hired by the Charlee Program at a salary of $9,000 a year per parent. The house mother is a registered nurse who is not employed at this time, but is providing the care for the children. Mr. Plummer: $9,000? Mayor Suarez: You said $9,000, right? Mr. Plummer: $9,000. Ms. Capri: Yes, $9,000. Mr. Plummer: Now, in addition to this $9,000, they also receive something per child. He. Capri: No. Mr. Plummer: They do not? Ms. Capri: They receive an allowance. The rent is paid by Charlee, Inc., and all the utility bills, they receive an allowance to provide for the clothing and the food and recreation. Mr. Plummer: From Charlee? Id 14 November 25, 1986 Ms. Capri: From Charlee, for the children. Mr. Plummer: OK, the State does not pay anything per child? Ms. Capri: The State pays Charlee, Inc., per child. Mr. Flummer: All right, and what does the State pay them? ... to itiuch per child? Ms. Capri: The State is paying $53 per day per child. Mr. Plummer: $53 per day? Ms. Capri: Per child, and that covers all administrative costs, as well as the care for the children. Mr. Plummer: In other words, that $53 per child, per day, goes to Charlee. Ms. Capri: Yes. Mr. Plummer: And then in turn, Charlee gives it in the form of allowances to these house parents, or if that is the proper...? Ms. Capri: Correct. Out of the $53 per day, we pay the rent, or the mortgages and the utilities, and we pay the salaries of the social worker, the administrator, consultant psychologists, all of our expenses come out of that $53, so it is not given for each child in turn to the house parents. Mr. Plummer: OK, can you tell me, after one year of operation, this particular locale, how many dollars it has received in, what I would call, operating and maintenance expenses? Ms. Capri: That the house parents themselves receive? Mr. Plummer: Besides the $9,000, yes, Ma'am. Ms. Capri: They receive, biweekly, with six children, is it $590...? They get a check for $590 every two weeks, in which they are reimbursed for expenses, and they are budgeted so much for money, so much for travel expenses, so much for allowances, so much for personal hygiene. Mr. Plummer: So they receive a $1,018 per month, is that... Mr. Dawkins: Per child? Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Dawkins: Per house? Mr. Plummer: Per house. Ms. Capri: Per house. Mr. Plummer: OK, then... we are getting too many numbers here! Mr. Brooks: I wish to point out that the State of Florida pays the same amount per foster child, so whatever entity cares for a dependent child, in some instances it is, you know, a foster parent, in a more traditional setting, and other instances it is an institution. Where the government saves money is that the infusion of private capital enables this care to be provided without the state having to build new facilities for foster care, because there aren't enough people willing to take in foster children, particularly in their teenage years, so that they, the State has been required to build institutions to house them. This program has been so warmly accepted by the State of Florida and H.R.S., for the reason that it saves the State of Florida money. All that State of Florida does is pay that per diem, per child amount, rather than have to be concerned about building halfway houses, institutional facilities, etc. And I do wish to point out, with respect to these questions, especially the points raised by Mr. Genuardi, that whatever letters you may have read, as I pointed out, whatever his personal interpretations are, we suggest to you that those are not relevant. We have with us, as was did at the ld 15 November 25, 1986 board, Me. Burkowitz, who is the local administrator for H.R.S., Mr. Helfand, who is the legal counsel, both of whom have testified under oath at the prior hearing, indicating that, the zoning administrator's interpretation is simply wrong. He made a mistake. It is an honest mistake, we don't fault him in any sense for making that- mi st rke, but it wr-s a mistake, and they hr-vp testified directly t.het we are a fester home. Ve Gtrplify under the local ordinance as a single family residence, -nd that`s the is'ry they treat us, and that is the way they consider us. notuithsl -ndin& anvilhing rlsr- that may fippPfir in some writing F Omrwh r- r rf P nd they are hPrP. prepared to answer this type of Question, find to Pr,sver rev other Guest ions on this iFs1?r. Mr. Plummer: l,ay I further inquire sir... according to my figures based on six children, the per diem comes out to $9,51,Q a month. You are indicating to me that the Charlee program in turn, returns a monthly allowance of roughly $1,018. Now, my question is, where does the approximately $8,500 go7 Mr. Brooks: Well, tor. Plummer, if that were an issue before you, I am sure we would be very happy to prepare a presentation... Mr. Dawkins: Well, it is! We are going to make it one right now. Mr. Brooks: Well, I... Mr. Dawkins: We will make it one right now. Mayor Suarez: Well, you have forgotten... Mr. Brooks: Well, we would be very happy to have Doris come up and answer all your questions. Mr. Dawkins: No, I will defer this until he can answer the questions. I move that this... Mr. Brooks: We will answer the questions. I am just saying you have to understand this issue is not one that has ever been raised on the question of whether we are a foster home. Mr. Dawkins: All right, but see, that your interpretation! You don't know what we want up here! Mr. Brooks: I think the people should be happy, now we are also middle class, and we can buy nice clothing too. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Plummer, may I... Mr. Plummer: May I further inquire, sir? Mr. Brooks: I can't give you that permission, Mr. Plummer. Mayor Suarez: You have given us by the way... from the figures you have given us already, we have got $12,000 a year, plus two salaries. Mr. Carollo: It is about $95,000 a year. Mr. Plummer: How much? Mr. Carollo: About $95,000 a year. Mr. Plummer: Well no, plus it is... Mayor Suarez: You have given us $12,000, plus $18,000 that I know of, but I don't think it is relevant, but just so you... Mr. Plummer: It is more than $95,000 a year. Ms. Rich: Well, I think there is a confusion... Mr. Carollo: Well, based on five children. Ms. Rich: I think you are duplicating some funds here, because the program at r_ $53.00 per day per child, with four houses, with 24 children, runs a�deficit. F ld 16 November 25, 1986 Mr. Carollo: Ma'am, excuse me, let me interrupt you for a minute. I think we are getting to an area here that is really not whet we are here to discuss today, and I vent to make Fure, you know, following legal procedures. Madam City Attorney, is this Commission within its right, in order to consider this item ... Pre ve within our rights to get into these financial aspects of it, or not.? Mrs. Dougherty: It. is not necessarily the issue, but you are in the right to ask eny questions you want. Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mr. Carollo: OK, now... Mrs. Dougherty: It is not necessarily the issue before you, but you can ask whatever questi.ons... Mr. Carollo: Could any final decision that we make, be prejudiced in the courts, if we were to get into the area of how much they make, in each child, where they spend the money at, or not? Mrs. Dougherty: The answer is, in the courts ... the courts will decide based on whether or not you had a rational basis to make a distinction, not whether or not you asked these questions. Mr. Carollo: OK. Mr. Plummer: May I further inquire. Ms. Rich: OK, I would just like to indicate that our budget is audited, that is a requirement of our contract with H.R.S., so that each year, we submit, we have an auditor that comes in, we pay for the audit, and then we submit that audit to N.R.S., and we have to account for every dollar's worth of the State funds that we receive. Mr. Plummer: No one is indicating, nor is my line of questioning, indicating, in any way... Ms. Rich: And, if I had known, I would have brought an audit with me, because it shows that the funds that we receive from the State of Florida do not cover the expenses for this program, and that we have to go out, and fund -raise in the community, the community foundations, businesses, organizations, to make up that deficit. Mr. Carollo: May I submit the final proposal to my colleagues? If the amount of money that they have per house and the expenditure of those monies is the question here, I think it is only fair that we give them the opportunity to bring the audit and whatever financial documentation you all might request. This is impossible for these people to be asked all these questions now, which there is no way in the world they could recollect everything. - Mr. Plummer: Well, I would like to ask another question. Nan, if you could, to the best of your knowledge, my thinking of a foster home has always been people, a married couple, who live in their home, and who take children in to care for them as the Charlee Program is doing, and I have got to tell you, I think the Charlee Program is doing a fantastic job, so let's put that for the record. The question that I have, under normal circumstances, where H.R.S., and I guess maybe they should be asked, but maybe you can answer it, under normal circumstances in a foster home, it was always my understanding that H.R.S. paid a per diem, per child, per day, and I assume in a traditional foster home, that's what they pay, is the $53. Me. Rich: No, there are different... J j Mr. Plummer: Levels. Ms. Rich: ...rates and different amounts that they pay for different programs, depending on the services that are provided, and... Mr. Plummer: Well, the point I was trying to make, is the fact that they did not pay a person to serve as a salaried employee. That is the point I am rj trying to make. Now, getting into all of the rest of the background, I think p ld 17 November 25, 1986 1 that Commissioner Carollo has a good idea. I think we have got to look at it. Is in fact, this... Pnd I have a block in my head, and I have to admit it, this does not fall under what. I consider, and as I told you in my office, the traditional of P foster home; these people are there today, they don't own the home tomorrow, they could be gone tomorrow, and who knows where we Pre getting into, or who we Pre getting in to take over that progrPm, and I will stipulate they will probPblc be good people. but 1 think it speaks to the stability of a single fmily residence, that people who own the home, they can choose aif they want to be foster parents today, or tomorrow, if they decide not to, they decide not to, Fnd it is r.,o Ionger, ane. 7 think. this is the - thing that has to be determined. Is this being done to mPke P -living, and I don't think S9,000 for P nurse is P sizable salary, but 7 think it is a point in Gur.-stion. The other point. that I made to you before, Pnd I still will sPy again today, what we are really arguing about )Mere today, if it is an argument, and I think it has been a fruitful discussion, is to whether or not this shokild go to a hearing in which this Commission would sit as a judge, as we are here today, and the only reason that. I told you that. I would want it to go to a hearing, was for the fact that, we could then place conditions, as we have done in so many of these cases. Now, I realize people don't. like conditions placed. They want a free hand to do as they want, hut. for example, one of the conditions that I would like to see apply is that we have a one year review, as we do on many other circumstances, and I see nothing wrong with having a one year review. I think that we have to have some control. If we do not go — to a public hearing, this Commission loses every sense of control, and as far as I am concerned, I don't want to lose that control. What is today there, is a model. It is working, obviously well. I don't know what tomorrow, or next year will bring. It might not be what we would like to have in a single family residence. The only way that I can have any control as a Commissioner, or as the City, is to go to a hearing in which controls are placed, and that you must live up, and within those controls, or you then take the chance of losing your application, and that is the only reason, as I told you in my office, I would not vote anyway but to go to a hearing. It seems like... the question that I want, Nan, obviously, that you can't answer, and I... is there someone here from H.R.S.? Ms. Rich: Yes, Linda Burkowitz. _ Mr. Brooks: I would like Linda to answer the bulk of your questions. Mr. Plummer: Yes, oh good. Hi, OK, the question that I really have is under the normal, traditional foster homes, are either one of the parents paid a salary? Ms. Linda Burkowitz: By the State? No, they are not paid a salary. They do get a payment per child for room and board and other expenses. Mr. Plummer: And how much is that? Me. Burkowitz: It could range up to $417 per month. Mr. Plummer: How much a day? What is the maximum? } Ms. Burkowitz: That is $417... no, we pay by the month. We don't pay.. !' Mr. Plummer: Well, I will do the math. Me. Burkowitz: You can do the math. Mr. Plummer: $400, that is a little over $10 a day. Ms. Burkowitz: If I can... Mr. Plummer: Whoa, excuse me. Ms. Burkowitz: Yes, if I could make a couple of points. I'd really like to address the issue. Mr. Plummer: Besides the $413 per month, is that what you are saying, per child? Me. Burkowitz: That is the maximum. ld 18 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: Maximum, OK. Ms. Burkowitz: That is an enhanced board rate. Mr. Plummer: You do not pay beyond that? Ms. Burkowitz: No, we do not. Mr. Plummer: Anything for... OK, so what we are looking at then, is thirty... Ms. Burkowitz: Except in Charlee. Mr. Plummer: OK. but that's the point I am trying to make, you see, Mr. Genuardi says "except. Charlee" is an exception! That's the point! Ms. Burkowit7.: Well, but an exception for whom, I think is the question. Mr. Plummer: I am losing something now. Somewhere along the line, if you are paying $53 a day per child in the Charlee rrogre.m, you are only paying approximately $14 maximum, you spy, per child, under normal foster care. Ms. Burkowitz,: Commissioner Plummer, I must freely admit to you that I was not prepared to discuss with you board rates today, because that was not an issue that was raised at the Zoning Board meeting that I attended, and it has not been raised to my attention before this. I am here to speak as to what the State of Florida considers the Charlee Program to be. Does it consider it to be a foster home, or does it consider it to be a community based residential facility. Mr. Plummer: OK. Me. Burkowitz: And since H.R.S. is the licensing authority for the State of Florida, I think that we have some grounds on which to speak. _ Mr. Plummer: OK, I don't disagree with you, and I surely would want you to have that right. The point that I am trying to establish, that there is a big difference, from what you are saying to me, without going into numbers, that in a Charlee Home, the parents there are paid, $9,000 a year to do this work that they are doing. In a traditional foster home, you are telling me that they do not received compensation, they only receive up to this number, which you used, and they do not receive a salary for it. It is more, as I understand it, a reimbursement. Ms. Burkowitz: And that is why traditional foster homes, as you perhaps think about them, are quickly disappearing because of the State of Florida's rate structure. Charlee gives us the opportunity to continue a foster care program for children who desperately need it, in times that are changing, but overall, the State is not changing with the times. I would like to make the point, that the rate of $53 a day is a rate set by a very fiscally conservative legislature. It is set in the Appropriations Act. It is a recognized rate for this type of foster care home. a Mr. Plummer: Why the big difference between the Charlee home at $53 per day, and the traditional, as you say, foster home at $14 a day? Ms. Burkowitz: Because the Charlee Program offers foster children a different range of services than traditional, as you refer to them, foster homes do. The Charlee Program provides social workers for these children that H.R.S. is not capable of providing, because as most people who know anything about H.R.S. know that we are under staffed and under funded, the Charlee Program... Mr. Plummer: Oh, no commercials, please. I've heard you... Ms. Burkowitz: I feel obliged to get that in whenever I cant Mr. Plummer: I have heard that statement so many times from you on T.V.1 Mr. Dawkins: Yes, but are you saying to me, Linda, that the children in the Charles House need much more than the ones in the other homes, so therefore you are going to pay $53, so the hell with the ones in the $14... Me. Burkowitz: No, I am not saying that they... Id 19 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: That is what you are sayingl Mr. Burkowitz: No, I am not saying they need more. Mr. Dawkins: Well, that is what I am interpreting you to says Mr. Burkowitz: No, no, wait, I Pm not saying... Mr. Dawkins: I hear you saying, L.indal Mr. Burkowitz: Commissioner Dawkins, let me answer. Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, you let me ask you, and then you answer. Mr. Burkowitz: OK. Mr. Dawkins: OY., what I heard you say, if I am wrong, I will stand corrected. You are saying thRt the Charlee House gets $53 because it offers a range of services that the other youngsters do not get in the regular foster homes. Now, all of them need the same services. Ms. Burkowitz: They do all. need the same services, and that is what I was going to correct you. Charlee does not get an enhanced rate because their children need it, and our other dependent children in our other foster homes don't need it. Most of them all need it. We are very fortunate that the legislature has chosen to recognize Charlee as a model program and provide an enhanced rate, so that those additional supportive services can be provided, that the legislature has not seen fit to provide statewide in general, for all children in foster care. That is certainly not the children's fault, that is certainly not the Charlee Program's fault, that is certainly the fault of the State Legislature. Mrs. Kennedy: You know, I think that is... Mr. Dawkins: No, wait a minute, just a minute, let me finish, please. Who is in charge of the Charlee Program? Mr. Plummer: Nan. Mr. Brooks: Nan Rich is the president of the corporation. Mr. Dawkins: All right, beautiful. Mr. Plummer, 4110 Woodridge Road, Miami, Coconut Grove, is that an affluent area, or not? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, it is? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Now, how many other Charlee... Mr. Plummer: By whose standards affluent? It is a nice neighborhood. Ms. Rich: It is a middle class neighborhood. Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right, no problem. All right, I will rephrase my question. Is that a nice neighborhood, Mr. Plummer? Mr. Plummer: I think it is, yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: OK, how many Charlee Houses... Mr. Carollo: Well, you have a couple of people in there, that it is questionable) (LAUGHTER) Mr. Dawkins: Good, have them to move out. How many Charlee Houses do you have? Ms. rich: We have four. L ld 20 November 25, 1906 'k Mr. Dawkins: OK, of that four, how many directors are Black or Latin? Me. Rich: How many directors? Mr. Dawkins: Or, whatever you call the persons inside who run them. I don't care... directors, social workers, house maids, or house madams, I don't care. Ms. Rich: One of our social workers, one of the two social workers is Black. Mr. Dawkins: Hew many people who live, OK... that live there, these four houses? Ms. Capri: No, house parents. We have a Black set of house parents... Mr. Dawkins: Where? Ms. Capri: Excuse me? Mr. Dawkins: At which one of these places? Ms. Capri: Our first house, which is 674 N.B. 72nd Terrace. Mr. Dawkins: In Belle Meade. Ms. Capri: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: You have got a Black? Black what now? Ms. Capri.: Black house parents. Mr. Dawkins: Black house parents, OK, go ahead. Ms. Rich: And at 1795... and we also have a Black social worker, and that is... Mr. Dawkins: In which house? Ms. Rich: The social worker works for all four houses. Mr. Dawkins: How many social workers do we got for the four houses. Ms. Rich: Two. Mr. Dawkins: One Black and one What? Me. Rich: Correct. Mr. Dawkins: One Black and one What? Ms. Rich: Correct. (laughter) Oh, I kept saying... I thought you were saying "White". Right, one Black and one White. Mr. Dawkins: All right, now, of the 24 children in these homes, how many of them are Black? Ms. Rich: How many of the children are Black? We have four. Mr. Dawkins: Four, out of 24, OK. Ms. Rich: Out of twelve. Presently we have 22 children. Mr. Dawkins: Ma'am? Ms. Rich: Twenty-two children, presently we have in the program. Mr. Dawkins: Twenty-two, and four of them are Black? Me. Rich: Correct. Mr. Dawkins: OK, how many of them are Latin? Me. Rich: We have around 40 percent are... 40... 14 21 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: You lose me when you give me percentages and I ask tot tftj&bet6j you lose me. Ms. Rich: Well., I'd have to sit and figure it out in... Mayor Suarez: Out of 22 would be 8.8. Ms. Rich: I st.snd correctec, eye hive five Black children. One in the Grove House is Black, we just put him in this rummer. Mr. Dawkins: So they are about evenly disbursed? Ms. Rich: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Dawkins: No problem. Thank you, that is all I need. Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just say something. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. Mayor Suarez: And we have to hear from opponents, and we have to handle other matters today. Go ahead, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, it is going to be, if it is appropriate... Mayor Suarez: Yes. Mr. Plummer: I was going to make a motion, or Commissioner Carollo, based on his statement, as to making a deferral until such time as they could proffer the statements. I think it is in order, and you know, that is whatever you want to do, whether you want to hear it, without it. I think that it is very pertinent, and so whenever you are ready, that's... Mr. Carollo: That is not quite what I meant, but I tell you, I am beginning to wonder if they qualify under our criteria, now. They don't have any American Indians in the group! Mr. Dawkins: But, we need them there, because they are catching hell in the Everglades. It is not the Indians fault that we don't have them in here. We just don't have them in here! Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Plummer, that is not in the form of a motion, right? Yet? Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I said I am not, but I was going to... if you want to go into... Mayor Suarez: You are trying to test the waters? f Mr. Plummer: That's all. Mayor Suarez: All right, Commissioner. i i Mrs. Kennedy: I think that, you know, we are hearing a lot of cold, technical terms, and we could argue Mr. Genuardi's definition of a C.B.R.F. You know, 24 hour supervision, well that is provided whether it is one child or six children, and licensed by the State. You know, every facility is licensed by ! the State. Dependent children... well, what is a dependent child, you know, - he is not, or she is not a runaway. If you were sexually abused, perhaps you would be a dependent child, also, I think we are really going way, way beyond the issue here. -'1 Mr. Plummer: Well, Rosario, I make basically two points, and one other. The ` two points to reiterate mine, are number one, is the stability of the single j family residence, where it is not owned. Number two, is the fact that this is in a way, is being done for a living. It is being paid. They are paid, -;; salaried people. Now, you know, for the life of me, I cannot see the harm in -<� going to a hearing. By going to a hearing, this Commission would retain control, and after a year and review of this situation, this Commission might deem, that in fact, it is a good situation, there have been no problems, and we lift that control. That is the only reason we are going to go to a ld 22 November 25, 1986 hearing, and that is why I wanted to see this thing go to the hearing. You know, not that it is important, but if all of the people that are here speaking for Charlee, how many of you live within 375 feet of that residence? Three. OK, you see, now that's the people. Mr. Brooks: Ve have a petition, sir, with many, many others. Mr. Plummer: I bare the copy of the petition, sir, and I have a copy of the anti -position, paper. Mr. Carol.lo: Can we ask the same question in reverse, of the people that are opposing it7 Now many live within 300 plus feet of the home? Mr. Plummer: Joe, to the best of my knowledge, they all are. Mr. Brooks: Could we... Linda is, the reason we asked her is... Mayor Suarez: Let me order into the record both the petition for and the petition against. Mr. Brooks: Linda, we called her up, because you had asked about the stability factor, Commissioner, and that is a. very valid question, and we would like Linda to respond to that, because that is an area she made a previous statement from. Ms. Burkowitz: If I could just make a couple of points. I don't have a prepared statement. I would like to address a couple of things that have been raised, some by Mr. Genuardi. One of the things that Mr. Genuardi raised was a letter from Louise P. Maurer in the fall of 1985, which said that Charlee was not a foster home. I feel compelled to tell you that Ms. Maurer at the time had been an employee of H.R.S. less than six months, was greatly inexperienced in child welfare in Florida, and was only employed with H.R.S. for a period of six months. Mayor Suarez: Who said this? Ms. Burkowitz: Excuse me? Louise P. Maurer. That is a letter that he cited. She was very new. Mayor Suarez: Well, what does this have to do with the proceedings? Me. Burkowitz: She made a... because one of the things that he said he based his new decision on, was Louise P. Maurer's... Mayor Suarez: Oh. Ms. Burkowitz:... letter, because she was representing H.R.S. I must say that I am the licensing authority. Ms. Maurer's interpretation was incorrect, and that has been verified by my district legal counsel. Mr. Plummer: See, that is the same thing that Mr. Genuardi is saying. Ms. Burkowitz: Yes, and I freely admit that. Mr. Plummer: The same thing. Ms. Burkowitz: Yes, and I freely admit that we had made a mistake. Mr. Plummer: Well, he said he... Ms. Burkowitz: And that we have corrected it, right. Mr. Plummer: He said that they made a mistake, and now he is trying to correct it. Mr. Burkowitz: But... Mr. Plummer: But, they did it, based on information they had at the time. It seems like your brochure... not yours, theirs, their brochure is what brought in further additional information, and that is when he based his decision on making a change. Id 23 November 25, 1986 • �r Mr. Burkowitz: Well, again the goal of the Charlee Program is to provide a normal, healthy, home environment for abused and neglected children who are in the temporary custody of the nepertment of Health Fnd Rehabilitative Services. That is the goal of foster c¢re. One of the reFsons vhy the Department support the Charlee Frograrr Fs much Fs it does, is because it offers children stpbility that often timrs is missing in the trFdiiioral fcstrr homes, because on mara occFsions wr hnFp foster parents cFll t,p and Pry: "I don't 4•Fnt this child, l dcr't vant to be F foster pFrpnt anymore. the hoard rates are too low." chFriep Frrgram dces ret do thFt. if a particular set of foster parents IpFrFp. we crn rely on the chFrirr rrogrFrr, to bring in a rew set of foster parents. Fr the way, yr license the parents. We do not license the Charlee Frogram to bring in a new set of foster pprpnts who are licensable by this Pepartmpnt, Frd thFt prevents us from hAvine to disrupt the home life of these children by reoving th;m, and often separating them from others with whom they have lived -Yid established emotional bonds with, so we think that the Charlee Program is a foster home in the very best sense of the word, and in the concept of whet foster homes were meant to be. Mayor Sucre:.: Wait, wait., and that is the ultimate question we have to decide, if we allow you on the proponents side to go on endlessly, we are going to have to allow the opponents to do so, and we will be here all day. I, for myself, I am disposed to vote on this matter, and I have my own views. I would like to hear from the opponents first, but unless you are still answering a specific question from Commissioner Plummer, I am going to have to cut you off and begin with the... OK, anyone that wishes to be heard in opposition to the granting... actually, it is not a granting of anything, it is the interpretation that this is a foster home, not subject to hearing, and other procedural requirements. Mr. Andrew Haig: My name is Andrew Haig, and I live at 1635 South Bayshore Drive, directly across from the Charlee House, where it exists now. I am in the unique position in that I am a supporter of the Charlee organization. I believe that it does serve a very needed function in the community. My background is in physiology. My major was in development physiology, and I worked in similar type facilities, although they were more institutional in nature. The main complaint that I have is that Charlee does not go far enough, and I will explain that in a second. The primary issue before the Commission today is whether it is a community based residential facility, or whether it is a foster home. We heard from Mr. Genuardi already, about the definitions of each, and he referred to one portion which said that a foster home is a residential placement for dependent children, with families who provide care in their own homes for no more than five children between birth and eighteen years of age. The representative from Charlee has already stated that at present, they have six children placed in that home, and by definition alone, that would take this particular facility out of the definition of a foster care facility. As to whether or not it is a community based residential facility, by definition of that, and you heard that already, is that a community based residential facility provides room, with, or without board, resident services, and 24 hour supervision, and such facility functions as a single housekeeping entity, and is licensed, or approved by an authorized regulatory agency. This category provides adult congregate living facilities, ' residential facilities for alcohol and drug rehabilitation, for developmentally disabled persons, for persons with mental health problems, and for dependent children, such as we have here, and juvenile and adult residential correction facilities, including halfway houses. The Charlee facility, and I think it is beyond question that they provide room, with or without board, they provide residential services as the Charlee organization r has already stated. There is 24 hour supervision, and it does function as a single family housekeeping entity. And again, the category includes dependent children. That definition of a community based residential facility fits the Charlee organization right down the line, every step, it fits into that category. There can be no question that it is, in actuality, a community based residential facility. The difference I think is, and one of the things that came to mention earlier was, is there equitable estoppel against the City now saying that, no, you cannot operate the way you are operating. Charlee has made the representation that it came in with clean hands and relied on the information they received in letters in 1983. I think that the communications which apparently, from the discussions, have been included in the record, indicate that, either Belle Mead home, for example, which was their first one, we just heard about the Belle Mead home, originally was recognized as a foster home. That was crossed out. It was changed to a child caring facility, whatever that is, and now they want to come back and say, no we are not a ld 24 November 25, 1986 child caring facility, we want to be a foster home again. And I submit to you, the reason why that is, is because that is, if they are recognized as a community based, residential facility, that. is a lot more restrictive. If they are reccFri^ed aF that community hosed residential facility, they have to meet certair rFot}irfiner.tc in crcFr tr all alifl' for the spFCial exemption. Those spFCial thirRs, thnFF rcrttjlFmerIF that ihry hare to meet, and are reauirPr! 1-y lay to R;eFt are that they }�,e the lcratinn. It c=n't he within I,82 fFFt of tnOt!ifr similar fCrilit't }rrr;V the anFwFr to that, whether there iF another me within that distance or not, How Mercy qualifies, Or the Percy CnT,}ley qualifies, that_ I cannot answer. The second one is that there is a LtndF1 20 � i2 a retreat ic,rn Open space, and that requires that there he 700 equare feet for Fch resident under ig years of age, and thatthere he 150 square feet for each resident over l8 years of age, and that woilld regUire 1,100 square fEet. of open recreational space for a community based, residential facility. In addition, all recreational spaces shall be appropriately landscaped and buffered for the comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of the res4dents, with due consideration to the adjacent properties, and I r-uJ)mit to you that ghat portion of the requirements was also put in there so that. they could assure the safety of not only the children that are living at that, facility, tut the neighborhood as a whole. I have some pictures, I don't know if. the Commission wants to see them now, which demonstrates... those pictures are taken from South Bayshore Drive, and I know that each member of the Commission is fully aware of. South Bayshore Drive, and the type of roadway it is. It. is a highly congested roadway. Those pictures show, among other things, the front entrance to the Charlee House, it demonstrates that that is the recreational living space that they would need to have for this program, it is grossly inadequate. It is often completely filled with cars, which leave no recreational space whatsoever. Mayor Suarez: You should see my houset I've got a lot of neighbors, a lot of visitors with a lot of. cars. Mr. Haig: That brings another important point, because this is a facility which is monitored by the State H.R.S., and it must be more scrutinized than the .... I mean, the State has a greater interest in the operation of Charlee. They can say, your kids must go to school, they can say your kids must have adequate playing space, whereas, the State does not have the ability to say that in everybody else's home, but the State has a greater interest in the Charlee organization. Also, the requirements, if it is a community based residential facility, is that it have adequate parking, one parking space for each parent, one parking space for every four children that occupy the home, and then one parking space for each staff member, and if it were a community based residential facility, they would need to have at least eight parking spaces, because they have psychologists and school counselors, directors, etc., and I think what is happened, is the Charlee organization, first thought, well, let's be a foster home. Then they realized, well, that is not a good idea, let's... Mrs. Kennedy: Excuse me, they thought, no. They were told by the City of Miami. Mr. Haig: Well, if you go back to the original letters for the Belle Mead home, that was before the letter from the City of Miami went out, that was established before 19.... I don't know what the date was, but that was way before the establishment of the Charlee Home on South Bayshore Drive. That originally was called a foster home, and then on the licensed application, that was changed to a child caring facility, not by accident, but due to deliberate acts. They decided they no longer were a foster home, and now, I believe what is happened is, they do not want to have to follow regulations as set forth if they are recognized as a community based residential facility. I have no problem with Charlee being located there. My concern is for the kids themselves, the children that are there, and having inadequate play space, so they run out into Bayshore Drive and get hit by a car, or the fact, as viewed in the pictures, you have cars parked up against, and across the bicycle path, which causes joggers and people riding their bicycles in the designated bicycle path, having to go out in the streets, which is in either case, the possibility of a serious accident exists. As far the (Unintelligible), the neighbors are against, you know, the depreciating property values. That is not one of my concerns. I have lived in that house for 18 years. I am going to die in that house. I paid my income taxes today, and I would love to see the property values go down somewhat, because it would lessen my taxes. My question is, I want to see if those children are in a proper facility. I want ld 25 November 25, 1986 to see that if the house on Bayshore Drive be brought up to code, or to the regulations, so that they meet the requirements as set forth by statute. I think that it is, in order for children to grow- up in a healthy environment, they need tc h>ve rdFquatF plfv sptcp, tr.d not A poking lot in their front yard. The other ctlest.ir)n is. t.!- rp is a Pon] in the hack yard, ;nd again, one of the rFGtliTemrnts is th:-t t!'rrr is to tpprcpriAte I,.,ffpr t,rtwpen that house and the hnusps in the nF ►-:rlac_r is rry (-jr-sr t^ c`thrr houses in the npighhorhood, --nd th-rris nc f',,ffrr tt-- krrr, r:cTsp r.'t. Also, the pool does not meet thr safety cos'— for Pr-T-3riF, i-yrvrntinr (hilerrn from going in the pool w'hFn they - Tr nrt c;lpPr,Prd t_O, trr is far as t'pinQ we disciplined, I think that this St .ate ought tc Pc rut 3nJ7,c r)cw wFl l scrutinized the children Are, when there are incidprts whprr a child is sppn Jumping off a roof into A pool. That is anothFr very dangerous and very hA;,,Ardous type event to hAve. happen. Mayor Suarez: toy kid dogs it All the time, And I don't have a pool. It is a real problem, you know, I'vp get to kFFp ari rvp on him. Mr. Haig: But, I think that C!;ariFF did not come in here with clean hands, as is suggested. They have flap flopped t>Ack and forth from being a foster home to a child caring facility, and now back to A foster home, because it fits their needs, and the ultimate question of t!;e Commission should be, what is best for the children, And I think in this instance, what is best for the children is being sure that adequAte safety precautions are taken, and again, it is... the location does not. bother me As much as the lack of safety precautions being taken, is what bothers mc-, but I have come before this Commission to let you know my feelings so that. when something does happen, I think it is just a matter of time, and A matter of severity, At least. I will have a clear conscience. I think that the Comm union is familiar with Bayshore Drive, knowing what a busy street it is, knowing the location of the Charlee House, what type of a hazard that that can create, and egain, I don't mean to come up here and say Charlee is a bad program. It is a good program, and a needed program, and again, I just wanted to speak my piece. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: May I ask a quick question. Linda, do you have a definition in your H.R.S. State statutes, relating to a community based residential facility? Is there a definition in your code? Ms. Burkowitz: (INAUDIBLE, OFF MICROPHONE) Mr. Leonard Helfand: The definition would be... Leonard Helfand, district legal counsel, H.R.S.,... would be as you heard, it is a family that takes care of dependent children in their own home, it is as simple as that. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, sir, I am speaking of a community based residential facility. Do you have that terminology in the State? Mr. Helfand: No. Mr. Plummer: If so, do you have a definition? Mr. Helfand: The term that we have is a child caring facility, which would be a broader term. Mr. Plummer: Is that a difference than a foster home? Mr. Helfand: Well, that would encompass any facility that cares for people, but foster home would be an exception to it, similar to your City Code, where foster home has a more specific definition, so it is not licensed as a group home, or community based residential facility, or child caring facility, which would be facilities that are larger in nature, that are run by organizations that are now the... Mr. Plummer: But there is a difference between, in your State definitions, between a foster home and a child caring facility. Mr. Helfand: A child caring facility would be a broader definition of any facility or institution... Mr. Plummer: But are they different, sir? You have two definite definitions. Mr. Helfand: The license is definitely different, yes, and distinct. Id 26 November 25, 1986 a Mr. Plummer: OK, and you did in fact, according to these documents which we have, the Charlee Programs elsewhere, are child caring facilities, rather than as crossed out, the foster homes. What I am saying is, you do make a distinction between the two. Mr. HeIf.and: Yes, we licensed the Charlee foster homes as individual foster homes, and there is no question from the point that we license the individual foster parents. 1 think the only reason there might have been confusion at one time, is the question arose, what should Charlee be licensed as, or what was Charlee licensed as, which is an organization, but. once you look, at the individual parents, and you license them, which they, are licensed at the present time as family foster homes, and there is no confusion or question of that. When we had some confusion or differentiation on the part of Ms. Maurer, or where it was referred to in the licensing study by 11s. Rothman, they were questing what the Charlee Frogram as a whole would be characterized as, not what the Aftimos, or other individual foster parents would be licensed as, and that is what we are talking about, the licensing of individual foster parents, which could only be licensed in that category. Mr. Plummer: Sir, once again, I thought I asked a simple question with a yes, or no. There is a distinct difference between a foster home, and a child caring facility? Mr. Helfand: Yes. Mr. Plummer: OK, and the licenses which we have in front of us, clearly state that they are child caring facilities. That is the point I was trying to make. So, you, in the State, have made a distinction between a foster home and the Charlee Home. That is the point. Oh, yesl Hey, I have got it in front of me, Linda. Mr. Helfand: Their current licenses definitely state foster homes. I don't know what material you have might have been... Mr. Plummer: No, no, what I am stating for the record in the application, or excuse me, the granting of the license, the word is, is residential t child caring. The word, foster home, has been struck outl The State then, has made a distinction between the two, and you are telling me that the State does make a distinction between a foster home and a child caring facility, and that is the only point I am trying to make. The application was obviously made, the one I am looking at is Belle Meade, and licensed as a residential child caring center, the same thing. That is why I don't agree with Mr. Brooks of the estoppel. That doesn't even come into play here. These applications were based on a residential child caring, not on a foster home. This license is not issued on a foster home. You make the distinction. He is now making that distinction. I still come to the same conclusion. I don't understand for the life of me, the fight of allowing this Commission to retain control. Mr. Helfand: They are all currently licensed as foster homes and not as child caring facilities. Mr. Plummer: Sir, I can only go based on what is in front of me, dated 10/6/86. It says here by the license 1183-33, and it is by your agency, it is residential... would you like to see it, sir?... residential child caring. Foster homes has been stricken from the document. You are now telling me that the State does make a distinction, and exactly what the Zoning Administrator is saying. There is a distinction even by your own standards. Mr. Helfand: The licenses all say foster homes, and I have seen them personally. They do not state child care... Mr. Plummer: Sir, I am going from your document, not mine. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner, just to clarify, I don't know if this really clarifies anything, but it seems like the City has done one sort of somersault here, and changed its position in one direction, the State has changed its position in the opposition direction, which makes it that much more interesting for us, I guess, but anyhow, by date of January 12, 1986, I see, and I introduce into the record, presumably this applies to the application in question, a Certificate of License for a foster family group home, and I am ld 27 November 25, 1986 not saying that that contradicts what you have got, the one thing supersedes the other. Mr. Plummer: Sir, it is not a matter of contradicting, it is a matter of the record. Mayor Suarez: I don't know the legal interpretation of all of this. Correct, exactly. That is also in the record, I presume so. We have to deal with the complete record. Mr. Plummer: May I inquire, has there a license been issued for the 1640 South Bayshore? No, this license here, that is the same. That is it. Me. Rich: Excuse me. The Certificate of License that Mayor Suarez just... Mr. Plummer: OK, may I see the work sheet then, the same as this, on the 1640, whatever you call this, if there is a form number. Me. Rich: Could I see that, Commissioner Plummer? Mr. Plummer: Sure. May I see the same work sheet on 1640 South Bayshore Drive. It is obviously, by intent, or by design, it is absent from the backup material. Mo. Burkowitz: If you could give me a moment to check to see if they have that file. Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mayor Suarez: Mr. Helfand, let me just ask you briefly a question, while we _ get that established, and just very simply, since August 19, 1986, when I guess you gave the opinion that this facility at 1640 South Bayshore Drive was, under the State's interpretation, a foster home, have you changed your opinion on that facility since then? Mr. Helfand: No, and this was also concurred with the general counsel of H.R.S. in Tallahassee, Steve Huss, who agreed with that opinion, statewide. Mayor Suarez: Let me ask my City Clerk, just to be absolutely sure, is it already part of the record, all the background materials we have in our... Ms. Hirai: Yes, sir, plus the one you just handed to us. Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Counselor. Commissioner, would you want to take some people that want to be heard on this issue, while you...? Mrs. Kennedy: Sure. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, if they have some points that haven't been made, and aren't going to be repetitious, I think we should have the information. Mr. Mariano J. Cruz: My name is Mariano J. Cruz, I live at 1227 N.W. 26th Street, in the City of Miami, and the reason I am here is because I see a pattern in the City of Miami, concerning the Greater Miami area. We have to take care of all the needs of the Greater Miami, all the County, all the 26 different municipalities. I read the article in the Herald by Carl Hiaasen and then, on October 19th, I read the editorial, "Unfair to Charles." Then there was a letter, I am going to quote from that letter by Mr. Armando Framil. He says: "Why are our neighborhoods being selected by the powers that be as the arena for confrontation between child advocates, mental health crusaders, and neighborhood groups. Miami, with a population of 350,000 has more social service agencies, jails, drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers, group homes, psychiatric beds and so on, etc., than all the ` other 27 municipalities in Dade County combined. This Miami based program serves Dade's entire population. Homeowners... I arm a homeowner in Miami should become active in their neighborhood's homeowners associations and encourage the City Commission to take the firm stand by assuming no more than the City's fair share of the social problems plaguing Greater Miami." Id 28 November 25, 1986 And the question I get... I know Charlee per se, because I was a former social worker with the Little Havana Activity Center, so I have been, I know what social problems are, by the seme token, I learned that most of the social problems are located within the City of Miami limits, and in my neighborhood, counting a two mile radius from my neighborhood, 1 hpre counted more than ten jails end correction facilities that Perve the whelp of Tear County, Even H.R.S. has the South Florida Fvpluption Treatment Center, listr recently built, so I would say vhpt, do those people know, even from the lierald, Mr. Merriwesther, Hampton, and so on. Vhat would they say if they had jails, ten jails, within two miles from their homes, they would not, like it, so, I agree with the neighbors. They are right. Tell me, ghat other addresses of that. Charlee thing besides Miami do they have facilities? Because, I work.... Mayor Suarez: In the County, do you mean, as opposed to the City? Mr. Cruz: Yes, in the County, do they have any other houses besides...? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Cruz: Oh, you are in the process, because I work in four cities in Dade County daily. I work in Miami Shores, Biscayne Park, North Miami and the unincorporated part of. Dade County. I haven't seen any C.B.R.F.Is in those areas, even Biscayne Park, and I work almost every day. They don't even have y a business. The only thing they have is one church, and they have one 1 cigarette vending machine in City Hall to take part of that State revenue on the tax on cigarettes, and that is strictly residential. They can go to Biscayne Park too. That is a nice residential neighborhood with nice schools and nice facilities around there. I mean, I have nothing against Charlee. I believe they require all of these things, but, other neighborhoods, other people, because we are servicing all these social groups, all social services that come to Miami. The police protection comes from the City taxpayers, because when we go, and the City Commissioners, when they go to the County, they don't give anything to the City. Even recently on the County budget hearings, they went from City Hall for the Manager, asking for money for rescue, or a different program ... and I don't know if they gave the money, they never gave itt Mayor Suarez: But you know, Mariano, just so you know, the four Charlee homes that are at issue here, at least as far as I can tell, are located, Bayshore, Belle Meade, Shenandoah, and Coconut Grove. You know that the section of the City of Miami that has the most alcohol treatment facilities, A.C.L.F.'s, half way houses, well, you think Allapattah. Check again, it is Wynwood, by far. Mr. Cruz: Wynwood, in proportion to the people, right. Mayor Suarez: If we go to a very restrictive interpretation of what a foster home is, in this particular case, I just have a feeling that we are going to have to somehow provide in our code for this kind of a facility, whatever we call it, to exist in these four addresses that I mentioned. Mr. Cruz: I am not against Charlee. Mayor Suarez: So that they don't end up with all the other, you know, halfway houses, and treatment center and so on, which is Wynwood, and Allapattah, and the other neighborhoods. Mr. Cruz: Right, the only thing, I want to... Mayor Suarez: That is what worries me about going to a restricted interpretation here. Mr. Cruz: I see a lot of bleeding heart liberals, that they want a lot of things, but not in their neighborhoods. I know, that is what I am against. I mean, let's be fair. Everything, for ... I mean ... I have nothing to fear. I have nothing to fear. Mayor Suarez: We all assume that there aren't too many of these in Coral Gables, go ahead. id 29 November 25, 1966 Mr. Cruz: Right, there are no fails in Coral Gables, and when they want to put a jail, they ranted the South Florida Evaluation Treatment Center for the Criminally Tnsene. Fhnt:ever they call it, for ... at the stetion, N.R.S. runs that, but I bet they wouldn't even think of putting thet in Coral Gables, and you know-, vp don't have Pn Pxclupivity on the people who are inmpt.es at those pleceF. I 1-Pt a lot, of pPc�plP come from Corp] Gables, end from ell different placPF! Mayor Sunrpz: This Commission proposed using the Biltmore for a house for the homeless, and it didn't go very far. Mr. Cruz: Sure, Mr. Mayor, I em here today, because it coincides with my rotating day off, Tuppday, no they changed it. Mayor Supre7: That. is ghat I was afraid of, yes. Mr. Cruz: Right, thet is what it is. But, many people in my neighborhood, that they pay taxes that support all these things, they don't come here, because they don't, even know it is going on, but I read Mr. Hiassen in the Miami Herald, I read... Mayor Suarez: That really is a mistake) Mr. Cruz:... the editorial. No, you have to read it anyway. Yes, but that is... Mayor Suarez: At least I got a smile out of him, anyhow! Mr. Cruz: Well, that is true, it changed the whole thing, but I am telling the truth. As far as I'm concerned I think that they dump in some of our neighborhoods, they are being used as dumping grounds that the other neighborhoods don't want. That is the problem of the other neighborhoodsl Right, because... Mayor Suarez: Let me just... go ahead, finish. - Mr. Cruz: I have seen even rock concerts at the Miami stadium, and all of the people that went to those concerts were blond, blue eyed kids from whatever neighborhoods. I didn't see any Cubans, I didn't see any Blacks at those concerts, and they ruin our neigborhoods, doing things that we wouldn't do in the neighborhood, and I was there, because I live right there by the Miami stadium, right in your neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Mayor Suarez: What is your day off again, Tuesdays? Mr. Cruz: No, Mayor, Thanksgiving Day. Mayor Suarez: Make sure we have Commission meetings on Thursdays from now on , as we always do. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Suarez: You come on Thursdays too, that is true, after 5:00 p.m. OK, anyone else that wishes to be heard against? Let the record reflect that no one stepped forward. Yes, sir? Mr. Armando Framil: I am Armando Framil, I live at 45 S.W. 28th Road, and I wrote that article that went to the Miami Herald. I don't think I am against Charlee Program. I have known some of the people that have been involved in Charlee, and I think it is an admirable program. The problem that I have is when we try to bypass the process that we have now in our ordinance where community based residential facilities must go to a public hearing, and I think this is an obvious attempt to bypass that procedure, and I know all of you want to cooperate, and you want to have good programs in the City, and I think we have had a lot of them already, and I think, I don't know, maybe we should have a moratorium until the other cities cooperate and bear part of the brunt that we are bearing, and I don't think it is a laughing matter, I think this is really important. We are paying a lot of taxer. We pay to the City, we pay to the State, we pay to the County, and it all comes back to us in terms of programs for the whole County. And again, there is nothing wrong with Charlee Program. I was a member of the Youth Advisory Board five years ago, when we talked about the Charlee Program. I know Doris Capri, which ld 30 November 25, 1986 probably, I don't know if she recognizes me without a beard, but I have worked as a youth advocate for many years, and I believe that the way to do it is through prevention and trying to... you have to be functional in the community, And for Cod sakes, you kno4•, let's spread it. oiit, you know, everyt.h3ng iF in the City. We have got to put: a stop to it- VP have got to put F limit, either, perhaps in terrors of Fge, you know, let's get them while they are young., we are talking about: up to i8 years of Age, I don't knowl There has got, to be a solution and it is up to you, you are our elected City fathers. We have elected you, and we went you to do something. Mrs. Kennedy: Wait, wait, wait! Mayor Suarez: And one mother! Mrs. Kennedy: Elected City fathers? Mr. Framil: And mother! Still, I think we go out there and we work, and I think we have elected you and we would like you to take care of our business and this is part of it. I know it is a touch decision, and I know everybody wants to do what: is right. I sure don't want to have a program that works kicked out of the neighborhood, but there has got to be a limit, and if you look at the numbers, we are bearing the brunt, there is no way around it, OK? In every single social service system, we are bearing the brunt, that is a fact, and it is inescapable. Mayor Suarez: "We" meaning the City of Miami. I think that is a fair statement. Mr. Plummer: Question of the City Attorney. Madam City Attorney, their actual appearance here today is based on if this Commission agrees or disagrees. If this Commission were to disagree with Genuardi, that makes them automatically locked in as a permissible use, is that correct? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK. If this Commission says no, that they agree with the recent ruling of Genuardi, that does not exhaust their legal procedures, is that correct? They still have the right to apply for a hearing to be issued a permit, is that correct? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Plummer: So, they don't go directly to court. They would have to come back and exhaust that administrative procedure. Mrs. Dougherty: They could go directly to court. Mr. Plummer: They could go directly to court, OK. And yet, is this Commission within its purview, have the right, that any fees associated with that hearing could be waived? Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: OK, thank you. Mr. Carollo: Well, I think the first item that we need to deal with is the question of equitable estoppel. I think that, regardless of how this Commission feels, whether it's a foster home or not, at this point at time, should really be irrelevant, with the particular issue of CHARLEE. These people, based upon the ruling of the City of Miami, went ahead and spent monies to buy property, to remodel property. Let's not kid ourselves. I mean, I know that I've been learning quite a bit about law lately, from a pretty good professor, but there's no way in the world that we're going to win in court. All they have to do, if we deny this, is just go out, file an injunction, which any judge is going to give them, and within a very short time the courts are going to rule in their favor. Now, should I remind this Commission again of an item that some people tried to use at one point in the future - I understand trying to see if they can use it again, to smear this Commissioner - Brickell Bank. And the courts, after studying it back and forth, federal courts, ended up ruling that the City of Miami was wrong, and to the tune of six hundred plus thousand dollars, the courts ruled in the Id 31 November 25, 1986 4P 0 favor of Brickell Bank. Why? Because they had equitable estoppel. Same issue again. Nov-, if we want to spend year after year putting that kind of money out, that's fine. Rut. I think that, let's not kid ourselves. Nov, we all know what the law is, and whether we agree with the ruling or not, of the Zoning Administration, pnd they might ha-e some merits to some of their arguments, they might not. The bottom line is that it. shouldn't apply to CHARI.FF, bec use they hive equitable estoppel. So, if I... Mr. Plummer: 4'ell, let, me —excuse me, when you're finished. Mr. Carollo: Go ahead, 7.L. Mr. Plummer: Let me disagree with you. And I disagree on this point: The letter which they refer to, that gave them somewhat of approval, was not a letter based on 1040 South Bayshore Drive. That letter, as I understand it, was for the Belle Meade residence, and they used that letter as the strength to occupy the South Fayshore Drive. That's what they did. They did not, in fact, come before the Zoning Director, it is my understanding, for any interpretation at this given location. So, there was no permission, really, in effect given, except by a letter st.at.ing, based on that information which had been supplied, was in fact the letter. I think the difference, where it eliminates the so-called estoppel, is based on the fact that when other information was given, namely this brochure, it is at this time, as I heard Mr. Genuardi say, that a reconsideration and a reversal was given. Now, all I'm saying is, and I continue to say, is that if we grant, or grandfather, this location or any other one in, we lose control. And I see nothing wrong with this Commission having the right of review. To have that review is nothing wrong. We can waive all the fees and all of the requirements, as far as the cost is concerned,... Mr. Carollo: I agree with what you're saying. Mr. Plummer: ...and keep the control. What is there today is a model. Tomorrow, unfortunately, we have seen things changed, and it might not be! And this Commission should retain unto itself that right to say "Yes, you're doing a good job and you can continue," or "No, you have not done what we felt that you were going to do, and for that reason we wish for you to move." Mr. Carollo: I agree with what you're saying. The whole point being is, that on this particular case - cases - we should have made that determination at the time that the issue came up before the Zoning Department. Therefore, we have waived those rights. That's the point that I'm making. I'm in full agreement with what you're saying, but legally - this is what I'm basing my opinion on - we waived those rights. Mr. Dawkins: You're saying we've waived the rights to have control over what they do in the City of Miami, Joe? Mr. Carollo: We waived the rights to put any further stipulations on them, that are not in the books now. Mr. Dawkins: OK, I have to...I mean, I respectfully disagree with you. And the reason I disagree with you is, that I sit here, Commission meeting after Commission meeting, and I see special interest groups come down here and raise hell for their issues, and they get what they want. Yet, when I say that I've got a drug flea market operating between 59th Street and 61st Street, from 15th Avenue to 17th Avenue, I don't get any support. I'm just out there, OK? When I say that I've got enough jails in my neighborhood, I don't need any more - nobody comes forth to help me. You sit back and say, "That's their problem." When it comes to public housing in my neighborhood, nobody comes forward to say, "You know, they are saturated. So, let's go help them. Let's fight with them and see that no more public housing gets put in their neighborhood." Now, I'm going to bring the biggest bomb to you that you're going to hear today. The City of Miami tells the Camillus House, "We don't want you downtown where we are going to rebuild fabulous houses to rent, so you have to move." So, then, some great, benevolent person gives the Camillus House some land on 3rd Avenue and 5th Street, right in the heart of the ghetto, in the Black neighborhood, and now Camillus House wants to build there. Now, if I'm against Camillus House, then I'm a hypocrite if I'm not against this, but yet, none of you are out here fighting to help me keep Camillus House out of my neighborhood. See? But all of you hear now, when I say today that I sympathize with everybody. I sympathize with the kids, fd 32 November 25, 1966 because the kids are being discriminated against, and are not being allowed a fruitful life. But I also can sympathize with the neighbors, in that I've had stuff shoved in my neighborhood that I didn't want. See? So, unless, and the only way I will vote for this, is that this Commission retain the rights to review and mFke recommendations. (Applause) Mayor Suarez: Please. Commissioner Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes. Let me tell you where I stand, and what I think of this. As a resident of the north Grove and a neighbor of Mima and Fa.di Aftimos, I've been approached by a lot of you complaining about the CHARLEE program. One day, I met Janet McAlily and she told me that there was no reason to complain. Then I read Carl Hia?sen's article in the Miami. Herald, and it showed me that there was another side to this, so I decided to find out for myself. I called Ray Asmer, a prominent member of our community, who knows Mime and Fadi, and both of their parents as well. Well, tie couldn't, tell me enough nice things about them. I talked to Gloria Charte, board member of the CHARLEE program; I talked to Frank DeVarona, Area Superintendent of the school system; I met with Maria Valenzuela and Rosa Cramat.i, and Eddie Stevens, teachers of these children at Coral. Gables Senior tiigh; I talked to Julia Lopez, the principal of the school, and then I decided to pay a visit to the house and see for myself. Well, when I got there, all I saw was a house, a very neat house, with two caring parents and children who did their chores, did their homework, made their beds, and took care of their brothers and sisters. All I saw was a house full of caring and love. And, you know, today I hear all of these cold and technical. terms. These kids pose no harm to our community. These kids are not drug addicts, they're not delinquents. These are kids who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by their own parents. And, you know, the ideal society would be one in which all the children were properly cared for and loved, but the practical and sad reality is that it isn't. And who are we, the neighbors, to turn our backs to these children? You know,... (Applause) Mayor Suarez: Please, please, please, please. OK, Commissioners. Are you going to speak, briefly? Mr. Pedro Rivera: Yeah. I'm Pedro Rivera. I live at 3501 West Glencoe Street, in back of the CHARLEE home. I am here just to say that I agree with Commissioner Dawkins. I mean, here we are, we have a program that supposedly is the right program, supposedly they have the right process to take care of all these kids. What I have seen, since living in back of them, actually their backyard on me, I have had no problem, since ... then I am not there on weekends, however. however, I have been approached by many of the neighbors that have been living beside them and very close to the proximity of the 375, and I would say that maybe 90 to 100 percent of them are against it. Now, the reason is, have we been victimized in the area, or our area, of Bayshore, through numerous programs, or lawyers, or doctors, and this kind of facility, that are actually invading our neighborhoods. I mean, do we have residential neighborhoods in Miami? - that actually the people can really say, you know, can oppose these kind of programs? Mayor Suarez: No, we're... Mr. Rivera: Obviously. Now, what I'm trying to say here... Mayor Suarez: Let me just tell you one thing, that the Commission - since you got into the issue of offices, and so on - I think are so far pretty committed to the concept of maintaining Coconut Grove in the present zoning, and not changing it and not allowing it to become any more dense, or more office, or more commercial activity than it already has under our zoning code. So that... Mr. Rivera: Exactly... Mayor Suarez: But that doesn't necessarily apply to foster homes. Mr. Rivera: Exactly to the point that I'm trying to make. The point is, you know, we're actually parents. We're not, you know, like the Herald portrayed us to be, like, you know, we're against you children. I am a father of two fd 33 November 25, 1986 IF P little children, too. You know, I mean, how, obviously, can I be against the children? What I've been trying to do is, or ectually, what. I have worked in a year and a half on this - you know, with the neighbors, is thst we have a right, like, for a program like CHARLEF, to specify, and give us some assurances, of what kind of a program they are, which they h€vp not done that, and I can specify on that. This is the issue. You xncw, we have no guarantees, we trFVF no issue whatsoever there. That's all I'm spying. Mrs. Kennedy: Well, I hepr... Mr. Rivera: We're respectable people. We have a judge in front, of us. They have ... you know, we have members of the community. I mean, we're parents, we're grandparents, and we're decent people too. I mean, we're not the wolf, like you ... ye;;h, like the Herald and some of the people have portrayed us to be. And actually, if you take a look a_.t this situation, none of the people of the CHARLFE. program, you know, live within our vicinity. That's the issue. Mr. Dawkins: I'd like to enter into the records a petition, Madame Clerk. It has where we called - my staff called - individuals, and you'll see that these people do support it, and where there are X's, those individuals have unlisted phone numbers. Mayor Suarez: OK. Mrs. Kennedy: I would also at this point... Mayor Suarez: So ordered into the record. Commissioner Kennedy? Mrs. Kennedy: ...put into the record, Madame City Clerk, I'm not going to go into the individual letters, but several organizations who have shown support for this program: the Comprehensive Crime Prevention Project, the Ransom - Everglades School, Rabbinical Association of Greater Miami, Junior League of Miami, Residential Child Care Association of Dade County, and Miami Lakes Properties, Inc. Mayor Suarez: So ordered into the record. You going to speak against? Ms. Maria Elena Valdes: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Make it brief. Give us your name and address, please. Ms. Valdes: Yes. I just want to make a short statement. My name is Maria Elena Valdes. I live at 1716 South Bayshore Drive. And I wasn't going to speak until Mrs. Kennedy made the statement about going and meeting the parents and meeting the kids, and going to the schools and getting all the... you know, the "thumbs up" on the people that are in there now. Now, I've been coming to these meetings with the neighbors, and first of all, I was told that there seemed to be a lot of deception by CHARLEE, a lot of crossing out, saying they're one thing, saying they're not. It seems to me that they were trying to sneak in, to avoid a public hearing. Now, my point is, that these parents are OK, these kids are OK. But Mr. Plummer mentioned some kind of control. I don't know if the next parents are going to be OK. I don't know if the next kids are going to delinquents - 19 - or if they're going to be six and seven year -olds. Now, can we have some kind of control, on a regular basis, not just a year from now, and then everyone else forgets the CHARLEE story. I plan to live in my neighborhood. I've been there five years, remodeling a house. I'm about to do some more extensive remodeling, and I plan to die in that house. And I want to know that that neighborhood is going to be the same. Mayor Suarez: This has to be the most stable neighborhood in the City of Miami - everybody's going to die in their houses there. Mrs. Kennedy: That's a good one for you. Mayor Suarez: That's a great... (Laughter) Ms. Valdes: Well, every —every woman that... Mrs. Kennedy: See, his earn perked up when you said that? fd 34 November ZS, 1986 r P Ms. Valdes: Every woman that has lived in the house... Mayor Suarez: He's going to have a lot of clients over there. Ms. Valdes: OK, but.... Mr. Plummer: I'm around to do the burying, not to die. Ms. Valdes: You know, I don't want. to ramble on and on, but I am a neighbor, and I just want you to hear s neighbor's point of view. Give us some controls. That's Fill we're asking for. Mayor Suarez: That's the most compelling argument I've heard against, as Commissioner Plummer mentioned. I just have no doubts that we can impose whatever controls we want:. But. go ahead, ma'am. Ms. Thelma Freedman: This is for. Some will be repetitious, I'm afraid, but some is not. Is CHA.RLEE house... Mayor Suarez: Try to excise the repetitious stuff, because we heard from the applicant for quite a long period of time. Ms. Freedman: OK, OK, I will. OK, OK. Children housed there are typical, normal... Mr. Plummer: Could we have your name? Ms. Freedman: Thelma Freedman, 3575 West Glencoe, around the corner from the house. Children housed there are typical, normal, children, who attend traditional public school. Their only crime is being abused and neglected by their adult parents. Are we, the residents of this area, going to add to their neglect and abuse by evicting them from our neighborhood? Would we be a good example to all children, our families, and South Florida? Let's do what's right and just. If we don't, others will certainly judge us even worse than the abused and neglected children's parents. Question: when do our rights as adults or landowners supersede the rights of others, whether they be adults or children? Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your statement. At your own risk - you know about losing momentum around here. Ms. Sara Herald: Now, Mayor Suarez, we only wanted to point out two things that you all seem to question in terms of the rebuttal. There are twelve licensed group foster homes in Dade County, only four of which are in the City of Miami, so that you're aware that there are some... Mayor Suarez: That's a valid clarification. Ms. Herald: ...outside the City. And the other point is ... My name is Sara Herald; I'm with the same firm as Mr. Brooks. I also wanted to point out that your opinion that this kind of interpretation, that it's a child -based residential facility, would be very detrimental, because if you accept Mr. Genuardi's argument, any foster home within the City of Miami would have to get a special exception, including my own, because I'm a licensed foster parent. And it certainly seems to me that the reason that you created a distinction for foster homes with less than eight children, was to exempt them out of the rule for child -based residential facilities. You can't possibly expect every person that wants to open their home to a child that's been abused or neglected, to come to a public hearing to get a special exception for their use of their home as a foster home. And there's no distinction in the license that they receive, even though the house is owned by CHARLEE, and the license that I receive, or any other license a foster parent receives. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: That's the most compelling argument in favor, from my perspective. (Applause) Please. I just don't see any way of making a distinction between a regular foster home and what we've got here, and that would create all kinds of problems for us. Commissioners? Mrs. Kennedy: I'm ready to make a motion to uphold the appeal. But I also think that for future references, the definition between a community -based fd 35 November 25, 1986 residential facility and a foster home, Madame City Attorney, should be better clarified. Mrs. Dougherty: We'll do it. Mayor Suare2: Can we instruct you to get an ordinance back to us that ve might reviey, that would clarify that distinction? Mrs. Poughprt.y: ThiF would be a resolution affirming the decision of the ... excuFe me, reversing the decision of the Zoning Board... Mrs. Kennedy: Right. Correct. Mrs. Dougherty: ...and the Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Kennedy: Correct, And I so move. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Carollo: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Mayor Suarez: Any discussion from the Commission? Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion, under discussion. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Carollo: Excuse me, Miller. Real quick. still be a male and be a Charlie's Angel. (Laughter) Mr. Dawkins: Joe, that's a low blow.. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins. See, Commissioner, you could Mr. Carollo: She's always saying, you know, when people call "gentlemen." Mr. Dawkins: Yes, um-hmm, right. Commissioner, is that without the provision that these facilities be reviewed periodically by the Commission? Mr. Plummer: That's the problem. You can't place provisions. That's the problem. Mr. Dawkins: Well, what the hell are we sitting up here for, then? People elect us. We can't ... what are we supposed to do, then? Madame City Attorney, tell... Mayor Suarez: We can pass a whole new ordinance, is what... Mrs. Kennedy: Madame City Attorney, could... Mr. Dawkins: Madame City Attorney, tell me, as an elected official, on the City Commission, what can I do when citizens feel that they are being done wrong? Mrs. Dougherty: In this case, you can follow Commissioner Kennedy's advice, and try to pass legislation that will assist you in the future, but in this particular case, this procedure is to decide whether or not this is a foster home, as opposed to a community -based residential facility. If you classify it as a foster home, that means that there is no public hearing; there is nothing else than any other family with eight children would have to go through. There is no restrictions, there is no provision other than any other family, and that's the definition of the foster home. Mr. Dawkins: Then if I were to make a motion to defer this and bring it back with some ..I mean, for it to go back to the zoning commissioner, and that they bring back something that allowed the City Commission to have control, would that be out of order? fd 36 November 25, 1906 r P Mrs. Dougherty: Yes, air, for this instance, yes. Mr. Plummer: In this case, yes. Mr. Dawkins: But., all right, can I, at a later date, after Ime6iftg thist t)ssi an ordinance or a resolution, stating... Mrs. Dougherty: yes, t hpt 's vfiat: she is suggesting. Mrs. Kennedy: That's vhpt I said. Mr. Plummer: But. it doesn't_ rpply to this case. Mrs. Dougherty: It.. will not apply to this one. Mr. Plummer: you can't retroact. Mrs. Kennedy: But it will to future dates. Mr. Dawkins: Well, then, you mean it will apply to none of these four. Mrs. Dougherty: That's correct. Mr. Dawkins: OK, all right. Mrs. Dougherty: Any more than you can apply... Mr. Dawkins: But any others that... Mrs. Dougherty: ...to any other family in the City. Mr. Dawkins: Any other... Mrs. Dougherty: Family. Mr. Plummer: They're grandfathered. Mrs. Dougherty: They are considered a family, and therefore are a permitted use in the single-family residential district. Mr. Dawkins: But anybody else who comes in and applies, we have the right to say whether they are or not. Mr. Plummer: If you change the ordinance and are clarified. Mrs. Dougherty: If you've changed the law, which is what she's suggesting to do. Mr. Dawkins: Hmm? Mrs. Dougherty: If she's suggesting that you change the law for the future, and that's what we're going to try to assist her in doing, and you... Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute. When you assist her in changing it, then three votes make it legal. Is that's what you're saying? Mrs. Dougherty: That's correct. That's correct. Mr. Plummer: That's another action. Mayor Suarez: OK. Any further discussion from the Commission? Call the roll. fd 37 November 25, 1#86 r P The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, *hd moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-947 A RESOLUTION REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THUS, REVFFSiNG THE DFCISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE CHAPI,EF FPO =RAIj FACILITY LOCATED AT 1640 f-C)M'I-1 FAySF,0RF FiRIVF IS A COM►riLINITY BASED RESII)FNTIAI. FACIIITY (CFFT) AS FFP THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING OFi)INIMCE 9500, AS UBSECTION 2034.1 THEREOF: CONTAIIjINC- A PFFFA.L,F_P FPOVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CI..AUSF. (Here follr,ws body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being secondFd by Commissioner Carollo, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Posario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez Commissioner Joe Carollo NOES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. ABSENT: None. COMMENTS MADE DURING ROLL CALL: Mr. Plummer: I will not relinquish this Commission's right to protect the neighborhood and to protect the ordinances, and I have to vote "no." I feel that the CHARLEE does a great service to this community, but I don't think that they have right to do carte blanche without this Commission retaining control, and so I have to vote "no." Mr. Plummer: I would hope, Mr. Mayor, a motion would now be made by Commissioner Kennedy, and if she doesn't, I'll be glad to, that we ask the City Attorney to ... instruct the City Attorney to come forth with clarifying language, and review for this Commission's approval, at its earliest convenience, as to make clear-cut delineations, if nothing more than to keep us out of a three-hour hearing at a later time. Mrs. Kennedy: That's what I ... I already instructed her to do that. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. Mayor Suarez: The distinctions are awfully tough to make, that's for sure. Mr. Dawkins: But, Madame Commissioner,... Mrs. Kennedy: It has to go through the... Mr. Dawkins: Would you make that for the next Commission meeting? Mrs. Kennedy: Wait, wait, wait. I just want to know whether it has to go... Mr. Walter L. Pierce: Mr. Mayor. Mrs. Kennedy: ...through the Planning and Zoning medium. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. Mayor Suarez: Walter? Mrs. Kennedy: Boards, rather. Mr. Plummer: That's fine. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. fd 38 November 25, 1986 n 0 Mr. Dawkins: Walter wants to clear up something for us, Madame... Mr. Pierce: That would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance, and as such has to be prepared and gone through by the Planning Advisory Board, then come to the City C'ommiFFion. Mrs. Kennedy! 0K. Mr. Plummer: That's fine. Mayor Suarez: Do it with all deliberate speed. Mrs. Kennedy: That's fine. Mr. Plummer: Fine. (Applause) Mayor Suarez: No, please. 5. UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S DENIAL OF CLASS C SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRANSITIONAL USE AT 2100 AND 2101 S.W. 33 AVENUE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning Item 3. Mr. Guillermo Olmedillo: PZ-3. Mayor Suarez: Three. Have just a little bit of quiet in the chambers as you leave, so we can get on to the next item? We gave you almost two and a half hours on the prior item, so, would appreciate just ... Thank you for being quiet as you walk out. You can have the entire parking lot to make all the noise you want out there. Guillermo, proceed. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, this is a Class C, which was denied by the Planning Director on August the 26th. The Zoning Board upheld his decision on October of 1986, by an eight -to -one vote. The case is a transitional use. You're very familiar with this type of case, that you have offices in residential areas which are abutting the commercial areas. This area is also very well known to you. You approved a major use permit for the Miracle Center project. Mayor Suarez: That was, now... Mr. Olmedillo: Coral Way and 33rd. Mayor Suarez: Just for the purposes of the people who are here, that was right abutting on Coral Way, right? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: And between what avenues and what avenue? Mr. Olmedillo: That's right on 33rd Avenue. Mayor Suarez: Well, but between what avenue and what avenue is that project? Mr. Olmedillo: It's 33rd and the Coral Gate entrance. Mayor Suarez: Which is what avenue? Mr. Olmedillo: It's about 35th Avenue, air. Mr. Plummer: Isn't this the one that was before us, with the Miracle... Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. Mr. Fill —or: ...Center, that they wanted to put the two offices in? (AUDIENCE REACTION) Excuse me, you all don't work for me. fd 39 November 25, 1986 Mr. Olmedillo: Yea, air. Mr. Plummer: And this had been denied? They wanted to put in the offices in the two residences. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. In the three residences. Yes. As you remember, traffic wes the main issue on the Miracle Project. Mr. Flummer: V cw, that really wasn't the main issue. Mr. Olmedillo: Well, that was... Mr. Flummer: The main issue was, before us before, was whether or not to close the street. f,nd if you, in effect, close that street, you would, in effect, t.ak.e away the transitional use of them having an office in a solely residential when you close the street. So, I think that's the real key issue. Had that street been left open, or temporary closed, would have given argument to the fact that. it would be office, and that it would not in any way injure the residential area. With the street closed now, it is not. a way of getting out of there, except through the residential street. So, to me, that was the key point, which really was not decided at this hearing, but. really at the previous hearing. Mr. Olmedillo: l.et me backtrack. One of the main issues on the Miracle Center project was the impact through the traffic, to the residential neighborhood, and one of the provisions that you requested was to close the street,... Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Olmedillo: ...or barricade it, so that traffic could not intrude into the neighboring area. The Planning Director, following ordinance 9500, looks at section 2305, which states, and I quote, "City agents, agencies, or boards charged with decision concerning special permits shall be guided by such considerations and standards in their decisions as to issuance of permits, with or without conditions and safeguards, or denial of applications." And then it goes through the different items that he must look at, and he looks at ingress ind egress, off-street parking and loading, refuse and service areas, signs and lighting, utilities, drainage, and, most importantly, control of potentially adverse effects generally. And it says, quoting again, "Due consideration shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the City, or the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale, or manner of operation," end of quote. When the request was presented for the Class C permit, the project included... Mr. Pierce: The appellant should go first. Mr. Olmedillo: I've been advised that the appellant should go first there. I'm sorry. Mayor Suarez: Well, you know, the order's really not going to decide, necessarily, either the outcome here or in any other court, so if you're trying to finish some kind of a thought, go ahead, Guillermo. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, the project, as it was presented, showed us 46 parking spaces in the three lots, which is, in fact, out of the character of the neighborhood, which is a residential, one single family per lot per 5,000 square feet. You can see the difference between three lots being residential and the three lots being office. The findings were that it did not fit within the neighborhood, and therefore the Planning Director denied the Class C permit. Mr. Paul Steinberg: Mr. Mayor, my name is... Mayor Suarez: Counselor. Mr. Steinberg: My name is Paul Stein... Mayor Suarez: And former State Senator, I might add. fd 40 November 25, 1986 f f Mr. Steinberg: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is... Mr. Plummer: Paul, for your own protection, are you registered as a lobbyist? Mr. Steinberg: Yes, I em, Mr. Flummer. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, my ne.me is Fpul Steinberg. My office address is 300 - 71st Street., Miami Beech, J Pm the attorney for the owner of the three lots, Antonio Cardet, and a cor-porpte Entity that Mr. Cardet also has Fn interest in. At the outset of this meeting today. I'd Jike to cpolopizp for heinc a frw minutes late, but the City Attorney, J have been infcrrn�d, mentioned to the Commission that the owner Mould ppprecirtr- this matter being deferred. The rerson we, ask for a deferral: the attorney for Mr. Cardet.., until yesterday, F-,=r- Stephen Helfman, law firm of Finp, Jacobson, et pJ. They were representing the owners of this property before this Commission, appealing the decision of the Zoning Board. On Friday of Jpstweek, the owners were advised that, their attorney had a conflict. of interest. He did not, realize that their firm also was involved in the Miracle Center project.. Mr. Plummer: Faul, hold a minute. For the purposes of legal, so that in a court of law you can't say that you didn't have a quorum present, I think we should... Mr. Dawkins: I'm here! Mayor Suarez: OK, we got a Commissioner in the room. Go ahead. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Dawkins: I'm here. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mayor Suarez: I even recognize that voice anywhere. Even behind that... Mr. Plummer: The voice out of the wilderness. Mr. Steinberg: As I said, the previous counsel, on Friday apparently realized that he had a conflict of interest, in that their firm also has an interest in representing some entity involved in the Miracle Center project, which is adjacent to this, and that there may be a conflict between the rights of the two clients. Therefore, they advised the clients late last week that they should get new counsel. I did not meet with Mr. Cardet until this afternoon, before the hearing. He was out of town till yesterday. Therefore, I spoke to the City Attorney yesterday, and asked her if it would be possible to defer this matter, so that I would have a chance to really familiarize myself with this matter, and the appeal of the matter from the Zoning Board. There's also, of course, another question involved, that this City Commission is going to be dealing with the transitional use ordinance in early December, which also could affect the outcome of our presentation before this body, because we are relying on the current transitional nature of this particular location, this piece of property having been purchased by our client in excess of a year ago, being adjacent to, at that time, a large commercial property, the boarded -up Grand Union or Grandway store, and where this property normally would fit in the normal parameters of a transitional use property. After my client's acquisition, the Miami Center project came into being, which is now a 500,000 square foot project which backs into my client's property. Mr. Plummer: Miracle Center. Mr. Steinberg: Uh... Mr. Plummer: Miracle Center. Mr. Steinberg: Miracle Center, excuse me. Miracle Center project, which backs into it on Coral Way and 33rd. Therefore, there are certain pro's and con's of the transitional use that now backs into, not just a shopping center, but a 15-story building, which abuts my client's property. Commissioner Plummer mentioned the road being closed, or not being closed. As far as I know, the road, 33rd, is open. If it was closed, it would fit my client's new plan for the site, because we would be on this side, on the Miracle Center side of the wall, and would not be a problem for you, Commissioner. fd 41 November 25, 1986 _Iv v Mayor Suarez: I think we built in a temporary closing, and the issue was whether it was going to be permanent or temporary, wasn't it, Walter, when we approved the Center? Mr. Steinberg: As far as I know, there is no clos... there's no closing. Mr. OlmedilIo: That was permanent, but the City's working out... Mr. Pierce: That was discussed, but no action could be actually taken on it that day. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, it was. Part of the thing was that it was to be permanent, with a one-year review. Now, but, Paul, let me just state for the record. It was indicated clearly on the record that the wall, the barricade, would go here, and that the ... at the cost of the developer of Miracle Center, was going to have to put in a cul-de-sac, and so the traffic could make a curlycue around. Rut that actually would be at, the zoning line, and that would not deviate into the residential at all. Mr. Steinberg: Commissioner, I do not know how the Miami. Center... Miracle Center is going to redesign, but the architect had informed me that that closing, where it was placed - not at the corner, a continuation of the existing wall. - may not be proper, and I do not know if eventually it will be built. And, so... Mr. Plummer: Well., let me say this,... Mr. Steinberg: I haven't ... I'm not familiar with it. Mr. Plummer: If the developer... if you're speaking of the architect for the Miracle Center,... Mr. Steinberg: No, I'm talking to the architect for Antonio Cardet. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. Mr. Steinberg: And that's what... Mr. Plummer: That might be a discussion at a later date. Mr. Steinberg: OK, right. Mr. Plummer: But I can tell you that the discussion with the developer and the residents, that it was to be at the zoning line, which would, in effect, not penetrate the residents at all, and that was what was trying to be protected - that you did not penetrate the residential area at all. Mr. Steinberg: OK. Well, as I started out, that's —as I say, Commissioner, it apparently...I have not had a chance to review those records. I did not attend that hearing. According to Mr. Fletcher, who was also retained last week, on behalf of Mr. Cardet, there are some legal questions as to the imposition of the granting of the use given Miracle Center, and how it affects this particular piece of property, as well as the other property along that wall. And I think it would be... Mayor Suarez: Counselor. Mr. Steinberg: ...of this Commission... Mayor Suarez: Let me, before I lose that point now - as far as the closing of a street, how does it affect your petition? If the street were closed, does that give you more right, or more ... does that make your argument stronger? Or if the street were not closed - can you explain it to me? Because I'm still at a loss. Mr. Steinberg: OK, if the... Mayor Suarez: It seems to me there... Mr. Steinberg: Depends where the street is closed. If the street is closed at the curb line now, between 33rd and 21st Street, which is where we would prefer to close the street, rather than in the middle of the lot, then, of fd 42 November 25, 1986 W course, our property mould be in the Coral Way side of the line, and then, with the new design of our building, opening onto 33rd, and a cul-de-sac to be built by Miracle Center, it would be an ideal use of a three-story building, a buffer to A 15-story building, FS your trAnFitionAl use ordinance is now drafted. I bf,33Fve that that would be F proper p)Fce to birild your wall.. If you're building the wF)) Fnd closing the street at thF derrArcaticn line, the z.oninp 3 ino, I Fhind the lot 1 ins of my c) irn, . then, of course, my client's house could not opervte As A 1ttrinccF 1'rcxtipa the c,nly way to get to it would be through the residentiF) FrFF, and we voiO6 )ose oirr Argument for a trAnsition Al use. So thAt, right now, I hAve to FAy that I wAs unfamiliar with the termF of Commissioner Flum-r r'F motion, or whoever mFdF the motion at the prior hearing, becFuFe 3 was not counsel at that time. Mr. Flummer: Well, I stFnd also corrected. I Am informed, And I do remember, that that which we did with the tliracle Center did not Address the street closure; that, we will hAve to have An additional hearing to determine And set where the line will be drawn. I do feel that it was understood by this Commission where it was going to be, and we did, in fact, somewhat. agree on it; but it did not meet. the legal test that we have to have an individual hearing for that, And I've Asked when that hearing will be, because it is my understanding that the Miracle Center cannot start construction until that has been accomplished. Is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct. That is correct. Mr. Plummer: OK. So, it's got to be before they start. Mr. Steinberg: So, apparently, we were both partially correct. Mr. Plummer: And I stand corrected whenever it's the case. Mr. Steinberg: OK. For that reason, Commissioner Plummer, I go back to my initial statement. I believe that I would prefer to defer the matter. We are prepared to present why we think this is a transitional use, and why we think our building conforms with your normal ordinances, that you ... with the current transitional ordinance, and why we believe that the Planning Director, and then the Zoning Board, were incorrect, and ask you to reverse. But I would prefer not going through a multi -hour horse and pony show, where some of this may be changed by your future ordinances, and whether or not the street is closed, where it is closed, where the line eventually is, which could affect the decision today on our piece of property. So,... Mr. Plummer: You do have another alternative. Mr. Steinberg: Yes, sir? Mr. Plummer: OK? And the concern that you, and, of course, your applicant, have is the concern that if you were to lose here today, you're at least one year off before you could be reapplied. Mr. Steinberg: That is correct. Mr. Plummer: All right. The alternative that you can do, if you so wish, is to withdraw the item. You have that right, at any time, to withdraw it. And at such time as the determination is made as to where the line will be drawn, you could reapply. Mr. Steinberg: No, I cannot. I've been informed that since this was an appeal of the Zoning Board, which had to be filed within 30 days, if I... Mr. Plummer: Am I wrong again? Mr. Steinberg: Yeah, I think I can't. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. I was looking for the information, but,... Mr. Plummer: I quit. Mr. Steinberg: OK. I think that the only way I can do it... Mr. Olmedillo: The year restriction is for ... not for that one. fd 43 November 25, 1986 Mr. Steinberg: OK. The only way I can do it, Commissioner, is what I've asked, which is just, please defer it. We'll come back when it's appropriate, and not bother doing it today. You know, I mean, that's the bottom line. Mr. Flummer: I underertAnd your request. (SOUNDS OF YPOTEST FROM A.iT1;)JT TCE) Mayor Suarez_: No, wFit, gait, wait. OK, we're going to get to hear those in opposition to Fny motion here. OK. Is that pretty much the... Mr. Steinberg: well, right. now, I'd like to ask for a deferral, as a...and continuance, whatever you want to call it. I believe it would be technically a deferral, so the matter is still alive, and that we can...We've also tried to meet with the Coral Gate people. My client has asked, and they've said they'll meet with us after Coral Gate... (SOUNDS FROM AUDIENCE) Mayor Suarez: Please, please. Do not interrupt, please. Go ahead, counselor. Mr. Steinberg: After January we'll be glad to meet with them. We believe what they are ... is being proposed, and as I said, I only was retained yesterday, so it's very hard to be completely familiar with this matter. It is in keeping with other things in this area. Of course, if Commissioner Plummer is right, and you build the wall where it is, then our whole application is moot anyway, and we'll have to keep them as single-family houses, the three houses that were bought for transitional purposes. OK? Mayor Suarez.: OK. Thank you, counselor. Mr. Steinberg: So that's why I say I'd like to defer the matter. Mayor Suarez: Now, on those who are generally opposed to this application, and specifically opposed to deferring, how are we going to get you organized here, so we don't have to hear from every single one? OK, great. We hear from you again, as we did last time, on the ... Another neighborhood that gets organized - Coral Gate. Go ahead. Mr. Chuck Hasseler: Mr. Commissioner? Yeah. You want my name and address, and all that good stuff again? My name's Chuck Hasseler. I live at 1810 Southwest 33rd Court, and I'm president of the Homeowners - the Coral Gate Homeowners Association, Incorporated. Here we have an attorney for the client, who doesn't know who his clients are. I find that rather hard to swallow. Then we have another high-priced attorney coming up, saying he's not prepared. I'm appalled that a man who's invested 250 grand in three houses in our neighborhood, knows about a meeting for two weeks or more, and comes to this Commission unprepared, and that a group of homeowners from Coral Gate can operate out of their vest pocket and come prepared. We're tired to come to these meetings, bringing 80 people who object to it, and more at home, and I imagine you've gotten some telephone calls. We want this discussed now, and if it isn't discussed now, we want denial of this appeal now! Does everybody agree? (Applause) Mayor Suarez: Please. You don't need to clap. A show of hands usually has the same effect to tell us how you agree. Do you have anyone else that wants to make any presentation on that issue? We don't have any motions to defer pending, so we're, in effect, hearing. Mr. Hasseler: OK, we have presentations we want to make, yes. If we're not going to defer, we're ready to take it on. Mayor Suarez: It looks like, unless some Commissioner makes a motion to defer, or continue. We're going to hear the matter, Paul. Ms. Graciela Valansadegui: Sir, my name is Graciela... Mr. Plummer: Pull the mike down, so we can hear you. fd 44 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: Wait. Let me just see. Mr. Steinberg: Should we go forward, then, as the applicant? Mayor Suarez: Yes, go ahead. We're going to hear from you, but they're going to go shead and present. their side of the case on the merits, and then we'll get to hear from you. (FAITSE) Guillermo's pretty good at standing there like this, you knov-. (FAUSF-) A good-looking e.^sei, here. Mr. Steinberg: Mr. Pryor, members of the Commission, as I said, my name is Paul Steinberg. The applicant., Antonio Crrdet, ov*ns three lots and has an option on one other, at the intersection of 21st Street and 33rd Avenue. If you take a look at the large map on the v-all, the area that is msrked CR-3/7, is the area that - right., that just passed - that's the area, on the right- hand side of that, which is now going to be. the 1.5-story plus, Miracle Center shopping mall/apartment. complex, approximately a half a million square feet. Directly north of that property, and abutting it, on the corner, are three lots. Those are the subject of the application. Mr. Plummer: Paul, could I stop you, because we might be on more of a technical. legal point than I ... and I've been wrong so many times, I'm scared to ask a question, but I guess, here goes. Did we not, ,.i the back of that Miracle Center application, leave a five-foot buffer? Mr. Pierce: No. Mr. Olmedillo: A ten -foot. Ten -foot buffer. Mr. Plummer: Ten -foot buffer. Mr. Dawkins: You left a one -foot buffer. Mr. Pierce: Ten foot ... No. No, no,... Mr. Olmedillo: That was a ten... Mr. Pierce: ...ten -foot landscape buffer. Mr. Plummer: OK, we left a ten -foot buffer unzoned. Mr. Pierce: No, sir. Mr. Olmedillo: No. Mr. Dawkins: No, one foot. Mr. Pierce: Zoning was not before you. Mr. Olmedillo: No, there was no zoning involved in the Miracle Center project. That was a major use... Mr. Dawkins: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Mayor Suarez: We're thinking of the other side of Coral Way, where we left that one -foot strip. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, you... Mr. Pierce: Right. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, because if that was not changed, then there is no transitional use. But obviously, if we did ... what you're saying is, that we left only a landscape buffer, not a zoning change buffer. Mr. Olmedillo: Right. There was no zoning change in that. Mr. Pierce: The question of zoning was not before the Commission. Mr. Plummer: That would even be a legal point for you. Proceed. Mr. Steinberg: The three lots in question are indicated, and as I mentioned earlier, my client acquired these three lots, which normally would come under fd 45 November 25, 1986 the current ordinances of the City of Miami Beach, relative to transitional zone. They abut commercial property, they are within 1.00 feet, and the Proposed project normally would have been one that would have been approved, or could have been approved, by the Planning Director. If you follow 21st Street to its west, there wAs a transitionF) use granted on that corner, backing into the Same type of commercial Free, or commercial ^.onir•g, thRt is evidenced of Mliami Center. +hF4 is the �eFrs store. It is F multi -story store, not of the sise end scope of N,ire.c)F Center, hut. F similar commercial. faciIity. F-o, there is P transitional :one use. Cl Fps C use, granted on the same street, Ft. A intersection backing into it. MN, client acquired the property, met wit.h...before they required the property, they met with the staff of the 171Fn.ning Department of the City. They said, "We've got commercial, closed -up building, cerFIic.t building, cars on the ro2d, junk cars in the parking .1ot., it's closed up. What can we do with these three houses? And they were advised the Planning staff, thrt. it would be subject to transitional zoning, end they could put a small office complex there. They acquired the property, and started designing a set of two buildings, 10,000 square foot. each, that. would face 23rd Avenue, looking as three-story residential buildings, which meet the normal criteria of the height. of houses in the area, not a 15-story building, which is now going to abut them, these private homes, end proceeded with the conditional. ..the Class C special use. Before the matter was finally determined by the Planning Director, staff having moved for approval, Miracle Center came about, a monstrous project, a very large and, I see, beautifully designed project, which is now backing into these residential area. That project went through this Commission with little or no opposition. I don't know why the other homeowners did not object, that have the wall facing Miracle Center. Our clients did not object, because they were proceeding with a transitional use, feeling that the appropriate buffer between a 15-story building and a residential community is not a thin wall, which I think is about four or five feet high, then into single-family homes. As your ordinance has said, in the 100 feet between this commercial area and the single-family homes, you should have a transitional area of non -stores, offices, as your statute provides. The original plan, which the Planning Director turned down after staff approved it, is not the plan before you today, because the entrance and exits at that time were through 21st Street, into the residential area. The architect now has redesigned the project, so that the entrance and exit to the project is on 33rd Avenue, and we have closed the street at its logical end, at the 21st Street area, rather than closing the street where Commissioner Plummer says the City may close it, here along the demarcation line of the zoning. So, if you close the street at this end, and build a cul-de-sac, you have a legitimate transitional use between the two. Otherwise, what the City Commission has done is, right at this wall, allowed a 15-story building to be built, with the garbage dumps looking back into this single-family house, garbage pickups, which will definitely destroy the value of my client's property as single-family horses on that particular block. That's the way the building is designed. We believe that our client would have an adverse effect, and that the City granting the major use permit for the Miracle Center has had an adverse effect, not only on our property, but on all the property in this particular area. A lawsuit was filed last week against the City and the Miracle Center project, by John Fletcher, attacking the validity of this City's ordinance to granting the Miracle Center, and a copy of this, I assume, has already been served upon the City, as well as the owners of Miracle Center. And I believe the lawsuit, which is on constitutional grounds, could... Mr. Plummer: Who was he representing, Paul? Mr. Steinberg: What? Mr. Plummer: Who was Mr. Fletcher representing? Mr. Steinberg: Mr. Fletcher was representing my client, Antonio Cardet. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK. Mr. Steinberg: As well as - this was filed on Friday - Thursday or Friday - as well as, I believe, homeowners who may not have been happy with the decision of Miracle Center coming into their backyard. They did not object. We didn't object, because we felt that it was tied into the transitional use. But I would...I cannot understand why homeowners today, in this particular residential community, would be happy with a 15-story building abutting their backyard, and would not be happy with a three-story building, small office fd 46 November 25, 1986 } It 0 1. O-K building, serving as a buffer between the two. I know the community represents not only the homeowners that touch the well, but those homeowners who are in two or three blocks, and I believe that the proper coning is as this City hoe done before with trAr.eitionPl use in the com. -unity. what I'd like to do is Fsk a young lydy who IF associate", with Mr. CarcPt, Miriam %dyer, tt5 explain the nature c f the j'rriPCI , P-ri F-}zyt h.zs }.ear? er.,r,a 1-V Mr. Cardet, which I beliFrP - ill cnmc rf the ov_:octir,r,c ra5Fe0!i I,y the PlannrnQ Puts- tr,y-, frr k'P `{ ) ike t r chrw 1'r'11 cnn,e Tirsc j k'hat this area looks li1P tcda�', and tNr- rtl r' tr nc7t)C>r 1 cr_e tF, t this Cn-rriccion has granted in this area, wl-ich ve tiel7c-c t1}ic t"ilil ir'[, tt?�t we fire T-rrrnsing, is an eXample of in the ;:rF;:, ac CTT<5cer; tr P r!cgatit'e impact Ms. Miriam N,iyar: l"'r name is Mir iarr Niy.r. I'm r re;:! epta-tr brc}'er. My office is at. 3400 Coral dray, in the City of Vifirr,i, are, I'm rr�t a lobbyist. I have some pictures here of prevjc�us transitional :cning fipprcvre- I'y the City of Miami within the code, and there fire 3ittlP tuildirgs, IiYr cur building. One is a three-story building, the one thfit. Mr. SteSrbrrg referred before, on 21st. And 37th, which is A three-story next to a Tamil} tome. As fi real estate broker, I understand that. A 15-story t�uildirg next to a little house won't do any good to It. When we went. to City of flirmi for this project, like my first time I went. there was two years Ago, I went there find they told ma I can't build these Iitt.IP buildings there, because there war something called transitional zoning; and we went through all the paperwork, the p)AnningF, and working with the City, And we were back and forth with the architects, And we spent a lot of money in our plans, to sstisfy what they want us to do. And now they are disapproving that.. I don't understand how could they disapprove a three-story little building that will serve As a buffer to the residential neighborhood, and they just. Approved A 15-story building next to little houses. Little houses next. t.o 15-r,tory buildings have what is called "appraisal obsolescence," "locational obsolescence," that. it means they depreciate in value. If they don't approve our lots, they Are going to depreciate in value, because as residentials, they are not As desirable as the ones who are in the middle of the neighborhood. I don't know if the neighbors that live next to the wall are aware of this. I don't know if they are real well-advised, but I don't believe that a ten -story wall, or a ten -feet tall wall, and a $500 landscaping, will do any good for their value of their property. They should have been economical compensated more, because as residentials living next to a commercial, their value will depreciate a lot. And as depreciated now as it is, imagine with a 15-story in it. We would like to talk to the neighborhood association, and that's why we are asking for the deferral of this, because we will have to have time to talk to them, and, bring appraisers, and maybe they can see what we are talking about. I'm going to show you now another project that has been approved all around Coral Way. They are smaller than Miracle Center, and you can see how a little house looks to a ... I think this is an eight -story building, and you can see how this little house looks next to that. That's ... this is backing this project, here. This is the house that this lady didn't want to sell to the developers of Omni. This is a two-story home, and you see how small it looks to a high building; so, imagine how it will look, these houses that they were bought with the understanding that they were on transitional zoning, that we could build our building there, within the code. We did everything they'd like us to do, and now they disapproved that. Thank you. Mr. Plummer: These two houses, or three houses, are owned by your son-in-law? Ms. Miyar: Um-hmm. Mr. Dawkins: OK, just a minute, before you leave, please. Go ahead, J.L. Mr. Plummer: By your son-... Me. Miyar: Yes, one. One. Mr. Plummer: Do you, personally, have a financial interest? Me. Miyar: In one of them, yes. Mr. Plummer: OK, thank you. Ms. Miyar: Um-hmm. fd 47 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins- Before you leave, how ... what are those lots, that you may will depreciate, what ere they zoned for now? Me. Miyar: They are zoned residential, and they are what is called a transitional zoning. Mr. Dawkins: They are zoned residential. Ms. Miyar: They are zoned what is called... Mr. Dawkins: So, now, if they remain residential, how will they depreciate? As a realtor, will you explain thPt to me, please. Ms. Miyar: I beg your pardon, Mr. I7awkins7 Mr. Dawkins: OK. If they're zoned Residential, and we retain them as Residential, how will they lose value as residential lots? Ms. Miyar: Because ... My architect says that he can answer that question. Mr. Dawkins: I don't want him to answer it. He didn't make the statement. Ms. Miyar: OK. Well, let me explain to you. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Ms. Miyar: Do you think that a home can be used as a residence, and you can enjoy the life of a resident next to a 15-story building? Mr. Dawkins: No, I don't. All right, see - but the individual who buys the lot, he will not buy it at a loss in order to put a residential neighborhood. I agree with ... No, I want you to understand, I agree with what you're saying as a realtor, in that technically, if I can put a multistory building there, then the land will increase, but in the event that I don't, the land will remain as what it is, one single-family residence. Right? (Applause) Mayor Suarez: Please, please. Mr. Dawkins: OK. And the other thing is, I'd like to just say... Ms. Miyar: Yes, but if you build a 15-story building next to the residential, it won't be as good as a residential anymore. Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, but if the ... I have no problems with that, and I say it here every day, because the individual who sold his house, to put the 15-story on, that's who the neighbor should be angry with. See, don't get angry with me. Ms. Miyar: I'm not angry with you. Mr. Dawkins: No, no, I say the neighbors. You see, the neighbors... Ms. Miyar: There is no house there. Mr. Dawkins: ...are the ones who have to stop them. But anyway, that house down by the Omni - the reason that that house is there, the lady refused to sell it. Ms. Miyar: I know, I know. I just brought this because I want you to see what a two-story home will do on a tall building. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, I see. I guess...Oh, OK, OK, all right. Thank you. Mr. Steinberg: Commissioner Dawkins, I think the key is, and your question is, I don't know how many of those existing homeowners, who may be represented or not represented by this particular body of the association, are homeowners along that wall, who will find, very shortly, because the existing property that has been now zoned for Miracle Center, which was in a unique type of zoning, without restrictions, and you could Master Zone that site, have woken up to the fact that their single-family neighborhood now, and the wall behind fd 48 November 25, 1986 V 51 their houses, will look up at a 15-story building abutting them. I don't know how many of these owners of those houses would not prefer selling those lots as transitional zoned areas under your current code, and having a buffer created on that Fide of 2lFt. Street:, which would have an economic lip for them, as opposed to an economic down of this thuildinR that is now their neighbor. And that for those people who live across the street_, and further into Coral Cate, to here a buffer of a three-story comrnprcial building, in this case facing 33rd - fin entrance on 33rd - rat. her then the house, no-, which will have little or no valua t>ecause of the bi.si)ding ; whereas my client, who owns the houses, reali..es the economic impact of this J5-story building. I do not know how many of the other people here, who are members of this gentleman's association, supported the building of this building next to it; and if they would have rea3i7.ed the size and the scope, that there Y-ould be a )5-story building looking down on their backyards, rather than a two-story or three- story Crand Union, or Crandway, whatever they used to call that, particular store, would not have been here, the same 60 or 90 people. When Miracle Center came, according to the records, I think there were three people that spoke against it., and eight people that spoke for it. I cannot understand how the homeowners represented by this gentleman were not called into a mass meeting, when this building is being built on the other side of a wall that's only this high. I would have been there. Now, maybe they didn't know it, OK? I don't know - how many people didn't know it was going in? Mr. Dawkins: All of them. (COMMOTION IN AUDIENCE) Mr. Steinberg: They knew it? Mr. Dawkins: OK, hold it, hold it, hold it. Mayor Suarez: Please. Mr. Dawkins: Hold it, please. Mr. Steinberg: OK, see, I didn't know. Mayor Suarez: We... no, we can't ... we can't... Mr. Steinberg: Apparently there's a decision... Mr. Dawkins: All right, let me say this. Mr. Steinberg: ...difference, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: All right, let me say this... Mayor Suarez: Direct... First of all .... first of all,... Mr. Dawkins: OK. Mayor Suarez: Let me just say, first of all, direct... Mr. Dawkins: Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Mr. Senator, direct all questions to the chair, please, otherwise. Don't direct them to the opponents, who we're going to hear from, I guarantee you. Mr. Dawkins: OK, now... Mayor Suarez: All right, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: I look out there, and I see people in my age bracket, OK? Mr. Plummer: No, they're not that old. (Laughter) Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, well, I'm 61. Well, I see some people near my age, OK? Now, and if they're near my age, I have to assume that they purchased their homes around the same time I purchased mine, OK? Now, I got a $2,000 mortgage fd 49 November 25, 1986 on my home, and the reason I don't pay it out is, it's five and a quarter, OK? I'd be a fool to pay out $2,000 at five and a quarter when I can buy a C.D. and get eight percent. Now, those same individuals, I think, have the same equity in their home thpt 1 have in mine, so they're not About to sell their homes, at my Fgp around my age, J.L. - and go out and assume a mortgage for 30 yeprp. co 7 eon't...1 rnpan, the reason they're here now is to stop us from destroying t.hpir neighborhood... (Applaupp) Mayor Suarp^.: Please. Just because he's younger than you doesn't mean you have to clap for him. Mr. Dawkins: But see, Mr .... and that's why they're here, and I don't think ... All of those out there who would sell your house and then assume a mortgage, a 30-year mortgage, raise your hand. So that's why I say the value's not going anyplace. OK? Mayor Suarez: We're going to get a clarification on statements that were made, Walter, Guillermo? Go ahead. Mr. Ol.medillo: Yes, yes, Mr. Mayor, please. We have, first of ail, the transitional question; you know, that transitional is a permissible use, it's not a right that somebody has. That is the first thing. The other thing, counsel for the applicant, for the appellant, has stated the Planning staff approved this particular project. I must say that I've been acting as the Land Development Division Chief for the last year or so. This is the division through which these special permits are processed. That I've had a meeting with staff, and as a matter of policy, the Planning Director is the one that approves the Class C. No one is authorized in any manner to tell an applicant that a permit is going to be approved, unless the Planning Director approves it. And that was stated in the meeting, and none of the people who work with me in that Land Development Division said that they had said anything as to the effect. The other thing is that the cases to which counsel has pointed out, there is one case on 37th Avenue and 21st Street - that has a particular condition, that it's in a situation, in a cordon situation, on Douglas Road - 37th Avenue - which is heavily trafficked road, and behind the Sears and Roebuck site. That has a different condition of development than this particular request has, because this one is into the residential neighborhood proper, not on the corner of 37th Avenue. Mayor Suarez: The other one's right next to Douglas? Mr. Pierce: Right on Douglas. Fronts on Douglas. Mayor Suarez: It abuts on Douglas, right. Right. Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir, it fronts on Douglas Road. The other cases that they have, for which they have pictures, on 32nd Avenue, it's the same case. They have the address 3675 Southwest 24th Street, and 3692 - 24th Street. They are corner conditions, into heavily trafficked road. The one on 22nd Avenue and 22nd Street, we have no record of. I cannot recall what process that went through. I couldn't speak to that particular case. The other case that was brought up is that people, when they buy these properties, they expect these changes to come through - that is, the transitional changes. And that people do not know what's going to happen on the other side of the fence, the fact is that the zoning on the Miracle Center site has been there for quite a long time, and people do know about zoning, and they know that there is something that's going to be there in the future or... you know, nobody knows when, but the case is, that the expectation is there, that there is going to be a project or a development on a site which is classified under CR- 3/7, which is probably the highest classification that we have, aside from downtown and Brickell areas. This is just to respond to some of the... Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager. Do they give transitional uses in the County? Mr. Odio: My experience over there, no, sir. Mr. Dawkins: OK. For the meeting we're going to discuss transitional uses, would you prepare for each Commissioner, and get to us in writing, the procedure of what's done over there, because we're going to...I think we're going to discuss not allowing them, and I need something to look at. Could you do that for me for the next meeting? fd 50 November 25, 1986 P Mr. Plummer: For the meeting when it comer up, you mean. Mr. Dawkins: Huh? Mr. Plummer: Tor the meeting when that comes up, because it's going through the Zoning Roard. Mr. Dawkins: Right, Mr. Fierce: That will be on the Commission Agenda of December llth. Mr. Dawkins: YeFh, OK, well, can you get us something before that? Mr. Pierce: WP'll prepare something, sir. Mr. Flum+r,er: 1 see from the newspaper that a lot of pocketbooks that we're squeezing are now mounting opposition, to be in opposition to that proposed change. We must be squeezing somebody's pocketbook. Mr. Pierce: Sergio was only upset about his photo. Mr. Dawkins: Go right ahead, counselor. Mr. Steinberg: OK. Mr. Mayor, I'd lika to ask Moshe Cosicher, the architect of the project, to give you just a few words, and then that would be the end of our presentation. Mayor Suarez: Thank you, counselor. Mr. Moshe Cosicher: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. My name is Moshe Cosicher. I'm the architect for Antonio Cardet. I'm not going to belabor as to why is it that this project should be considered a transitional zoning, because my client, when he bought the property over a year ego, bought it under the zoning classification - I'm sorry Mr... Commissioner Dawkins is absent, because he addressed this question previously. But one of the issues here is that, as well as the Miracle Center has the CR-3/7 zoning, and the CR-3/7 zoning has different zoning uses and allowances under its envelope, provided that they have X amount of square feet of land, the same conditions we found in the zoning book when my client bought the property a year or so ago. Now, when the property was bought, the Miracle Center was never contemplated. My client bought the property for the purposes of getting a transitional use. Now, we went down to the City, and we confirmed that this property did not only have the permissible status of using it as a single-family, but it also contained the provisions that we can apply for a transitional zoning, and so we did. We went and prepared a set of plans, brought them before the Zoning staff, reviewed it, they made certain comments relating to our plans. They felt that, because of its general ration, a glass box, as provided in another transitional zoning, granted by a means of a mere letter - that's the one that is located on 21st Street and 37th Avenue - that type of architecture was going to be offensive to this neighborhood. Subsequently, we revised the set of plans over a period of months, going through the review again with Zoning staff, and we submitted it, and reviewed it, and got it approved by the Zoning Department. Soon after, we went through the Planning Department, had the same review, and by the flick of a pen, the Planning Director felt that it's not compatible with the neighborhood, and turned it down. That's why we're here today. Now, my client went ahead and bought the property, based on preceding elements. The element was that other transitional zonings granted by this City, by just the use of writing a letter to the City, and saying, "We would like to have transitional zoning, since we, in fact, abut a commercial district. We would like to have an office space located in this particular lot." Mayor Suarez: Let me ask a question on that, just for my information. When was that granted? Administratively, I gather; it wasn't by the Commission. The one he keeps referring to, on Douglas and... Apparently it was done administratively; apparently it never reached this Commission, right? Mr. Plummer: Douglas and what? Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: That was a Class C permit, and it was granted, I would say, at least one and a half years ago. fd 51 November 25, 1986 Mr. Pierce: It's right behind the Sears property. Mr. Rodriguez: You're referring to the one that is on Douglas Road? Mr. Pierce: Yeah, that's where it is. It's right behind the Sears property. Mr. Plummer: Oh, oh. There's en office there? Mr. C: Let me see a copy of the contract, please. Mr. Pierce: It's a tv-o-story architect's office, fronting right on Douglas. Mr. Olmedillo: Just south of the Sears building. Mr. Pierce: YeFh. Another situation. Different situation. Mayor Suarez: The reason that never reached the Commission is that it wasn't appealed, presumably. Mr. Cosicher: Mr. Mayor, this contract, that talks about these particular lots, was executed by buyer and seller December 4th, 1984, a year ago. Close to a year ago. Mr. Plummer: Two years. Mr. Cosicher: Two years ago. I'm sorry. Now, at this time, at the same time that this property was executed, for this intended purpose, my client went ahead and started his application a few months after. Hired his architect, hired his attorney, and went through the normal procedural methods that any developer would go through, through their research and putting the program together, as what is more viable for these particular lots. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me for one minute. Are you a registered lobbyist? Mr. Cosicher: No, I'm not. Mr. Plummer: You're appearing here for a fee? Mr. Cosicher: Yes. I am an architect. Mr. Plummer: For your protection, sir, you must fill out... Mr. Cosicher: I'm getting a fee as an architect. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but you're getting a fee to testify here, as part of it. Mr. Cosicher: No, no. Mr. Plummer: OK. I'm not going to make that determination. Mr. Cosicher: No. Mr. Plummer: Madame City Attorney? It's for your protection,... Mr. Cosicher: Yes. Mr. Plummer: ...and it's so that you don't get convicted and sent to jail for 4,000 years. Mr. Cosicher: I don't get any additional fees if they win or lose. j Mrs. Dougherty: That's irrelevant. You're here, and you're lobbying on behalf of your client, and therefore you must register. Mr. Plummer: That's for your protection. All you have to do is sign a little slip of paper. s: I Mr. Cosicher: I'll be more than happy, Commissioner. x Mayor Suarez: Yeah, we can complete your testimony. Take a few minutes to fill out the form. That's a... that would be... f. r fd 52 November 25, 1986 Mr. Cosicher: May I go ahead, proceed? Mr. Plummer: And this is something new, so... Mr. Cosicher: OK, I'm sorry. Mayor susrez.: Rut do it ... don't complete your presentation; do it now, so that Then you were advised of the requirement, you went ahead and proceeded to fulfill it.. That's for your own protection. Mr. Cosicher: Very wFll, Vr. Mayor, I will do so. To continue, my client... Mayor Suarez.: 1 would recommend you do it now, I would think. Mr. Cosicher: Now. Mayor Suare`.: We can hear i.t. Believe me, we've got to hear yet from...yeah, we're going to hear from the opponents. OK. Hopefully represented by one, once again. You want to go ahead and make a presentation, on the opposition? He's got to fill out his registration form. Mr. Cosicher: Should I stop now? Mayor Suarez: Yes, please, Moshe. Yes, Sergio? Mr. Rodriguez: Could just I clarify something for the record? Once again, that the first time I met with Mr. Cardet was in August, and at that time... Mayor Suarez: August of what year? Mr. Rodriguez: Of this year, 1986. I believe it's about August. And we told him specifically that we were not recommending approval of this application. I asked my. ..he mentioned the same thing he has mentioned here before, that based on the directions, or information, that he received from the staff, he has bought the property, and he had proceeded to go with it. And I asked specifically, right there, if anybody from my staff has indicated that we're going to give approval of this in any way, and I found out from my staff that nobody from the Planning Department has said so. Mr. Plummer: Once again, for me, if you would. You made a statement before that a transitional use is a permissible, but it is not a right. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: Explain that again to me. Mr. Rodriguez: There is a difference between permissible and permitted. When you have a permitted use, you, by right, apply, go to the Building and Zoning office, get a building permit, and you go through. Mr. Plummer: So a transition, then, is a permissible, but not permitted. Mr. Rodriguez: It is permissible by a special permit, and there are different kinds of special permit, among them... Mr. Plummer: OK, I just wanted to clear the record, that's all. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: What is all this you're giving me? Mr. Pierce: I want to show you, off of the record. Mr. Rodriguez: So, to clarify, when you say "permissible," it means that you have to get a special permit, you have to go through an extra process that might require, in some cases, hearings. Mrs. Kennedy: Sergio, let me make reference to something you just said. You mean to tell me that Mr. Cardet went ahead and spent all this money, without getting any indication from our City that this would be approved? fd 53 November 25, 1986 Mr. Rodriguez: He didn't get any indication that I know, in writing, that this was going to be approved, which is the same argument, by the way, that I mentioned to him. I find hard to believe that you're going to buy a property, you spend that much money, without getting any letter from the City saying that it'F OT( to do so. hnd Fs far ps I'm concerned, my department. has not even given them any verbal indication t}pt it F•s--s going to he approved. Mr. Flummer: fire we going to tFYr F treat% Cr is he finished" Mr. Podrigtaea: Something thpt maybe !*rind by also included in the record is that, as part of the process that we hp-'e in the City Fdminis.trpt.ion, in the Building and Zoning office - Fny time there is a case for p building permit, it is €ent. around to different offices, and then each one of the offices initials those permits, saying that they have reviewed it; doesn't mean that they com...t.hey don't agree with it, they are not approving it, just reviewing it, indicating that they have seen it, and then when the time comes for the process, they will be told what they have to do afterwards to make sure that they will comply with the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: May proceed. Mr. Cosicher: I signed it already. Mr.. Plummer: You're now legal. Mr. Cosicher: Be giving it to you in a second. Mayor Suarez: You're now legal, as Commissioner Plummer likes to say. Mr. Cosicher: OK. Mayor Suarez: Doesn't necessarily mean you're right, you're just legal. Mr. Cosicher: We'll try. OK. I'm sorry, I was not following your Planning Director's testimony, so I cannot... Mayor Suarez: All he stated is, we just clarified that, as far as anyone could find, there was no correspondence or any other indication, that we could determine, that this particular use would be, in fact, allowable, and there was a clarification of what "permissible," as opposed to "permitted" use means. Mr. Cosicher: Very well, I will continue, then. On December of 1985, I contacted the office of Zoning, I spoke to two different individuals, Mr. Genuardi and Mr. Juan Gonzalez, and I immediately went through the process of the application, and filled out the application, as well as bring the plans for approval. I was advised at that time that the mere process - the mere process - of this Class C permit was to go through the Building and Zoning, then follow with the Planning Department by a letter of request, and that if it met all the mandatory conditions, as applied in the zoning ordinance, and by review through the Planning Department, we would be granted this Class C permit, as it has been done previously. Now, these were the representations that were made to me. Now, let me read to you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. "Application for Class C special permit." This is the executed copy. It reads: "This project has been reviewed by the Building and Zoning Department and has been found to be in conformance with all zoning requirements." Now, with all due respect as a paid professional, as an architect, my duties to my client and to this City is to make sure that I comply with all zoning regulations as given to me under the program requirements. I have the program requirements given to me by my client, and I have a set of rules given to me by you as a legislative body. If I comply with all these conditions, I should swim through my goal and get my trophy. Well, so, I felt I did. I went through Zoning, I went through Planning, and _ by the flick of the pencil of the Planning Director, he felt it would be incompatible with the neighborhood. Now, mind you, our property was not facing Douglas Road, it wasn't behind Sears, and it was not behind a so-called Miracle Center. This property was purchased without the approval of the Miracle Center, and based on the recommendations given to me by your legislative body and the zoning ordinance, I went ahead and tried to comply with all the requirements. This application did not contain any variances whatsoever, and it went through all the uses that are permissible under the zoning ordinance. History tells us that we could have done this a year ago, fd 54 November 25, 1986 _a! applied through a letter form, and once we successfully complete - and I reiterate, once we successfully complete - our review process, through the Zoning Department as well as though the Planning Department, we would get the approval. There was no need to notify any local residents, as stated here in your packRt. It says, 'that the applicant was courteous enough to send the statemPnt.s to the local r,eighbcrs, and notify them of ghat vp were doing." Courteous, to &et this response. )`,embers of the Commission, Mr. 14Fyor, I respectfully seek your apprcvFI on this pro act. I seek Sour Fpproval because these properties, right now, are inhabitable by residents. The garbage pickup for this Tiiracle Center is to be located right behind these single-family residents. The garbage, and 3'm not talking about trash like you normally compile in an office building, which is papers - we're talking about food, we're talking about smelly trash. Were talking about deliveries at 4:00 o'clock in the morning - milk, bread, etc. These residences are not habitable. This is a taken. These homes, that were intended for the purpose of transitions) use, if you roll it back - and I consider it to be a rollback - if you roll it. back to a single family, these people can't even open up their windows, because there are flies going to be...are flying all over their place. The smell and the noise will be atrocious. Ladies and gentlemen, we're talking about a half a million square feet abutting these properties. There is contemplated fifteen hundred cars. We had three opponents on the Miracle Center and, again, it is hard for me to believe that, on the Building and Zoning, on the Zoning Board, we had over 75 residents opposing these two little projects, that have... (AUDIENCE PROTEST) Please, be courteous... that have no more, no more than 40 cars, versus a project abutting their property, that has over fifteen hundred cars, with noise. You know, we're talking about how careful we have to be with a shadow ordinance. Can you imagine the shadow of this 150-foot building, casting on these properties? And we were so careful that we had to set back, on the last story, we had to set back eight inches so we would not cast the 60-degree projection onto the westerly house. Members of the Commission, Mr. Mayor, there's a certain unfairness here, and I leave it to you. We have done everything we can to be compatible with the neighborhood. We have addressed ourselves with the type of residence and architecture, and I bring it to you, so you can see the meaning behind what our work is all about. We're well known in the community,... Mayor Suarez: It's a very nice -looking design. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, I saw it. It's gorgeous. Mr. Cosicher: We're well known in the community. We have been very sensitive to the problem. We have been very sensitive to the neighborhood. We have been wanting, Commissioner Dawkins, we've been wanting very hard to meet with the neighbors, explain to them. But we can't help it, they... Mr. Dawkins: Don't want to listen, huh? Mr. Cosicher: They don't want to listen, no. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: You don't need to... if you need to make a clarification, go ahead, but I don't see what has to be clarified. You've clarified everything, and we need to hear from the opponents and get on with this. Mr. Rodriguez: The only thing that I want to clarify for the record, and to make it easier for the record, I'm just going to relate to the page. On page 14 of your package, on PZ-3, Mr. Cosicher read only a portion of the form, and in the form, he said, "this project has been reviewed by the Building and Zoning Department, and has been found to be in conformance with all zoning requirements." He failed to read the part right before that, and the part behind that. The part right before that says, "Any project requiring a Class C special permit must first be reviewed by the Building and Zoning Department, second floor, to ensure that each project conforms to all zoning requirements. Therefore, this form roust be signed by the Chief Zoning Inspector before the project will be considered by the Director of the Planning Department." And then after that, it says, "The Director of the Department of Planning shall be solely responsible for consideration of application for Class C special permits." One point. The other point that he made was that they offer a courtesy notice to all the property owners. We actually require that from the applicant. It's not in the ordinance, but it's an administrative requirement fd 55 November 25, 1986 of the department. And the third point is, the appellant refers to the Miracle Center. That was a different project that was before here, a project in which there was no zoning change, no special variance required, etc. That's ell T have to say. Mayor SUPTP7- Thank you. OK, we'll hear from the opponents. Mr. Fierce: For. T!ayor, while they're coming up, just for the record. Those displays - those drevings end photos - are required to be submitted into the record and left. with the City. Mayor Suarez.: We're going to need those, Moshe. Mr. Cosicher: No problem. Mayor Suarez.: Thank you. Go ahead, proceed. Ms. Graciela Valansadegui: Good afternoon. My name is Graciela Valansadegui. I reside at 3620 Southwest 20th Street. I just have a few points to make. Number one, the rezoning of residential lots to commercial lots is unnecessary in the City of Miami., because, according to Reynald Ramos, Herald staff writer, in an article about the Miracle Center, which appeared in the ldovember 13th edition of the Neighbors, Brickell Avenue offices are only 70 percent occupied, and Coral Way offices are only 65 percent full. In addition, Madison Circle, which is located on 32nd Avenue and Coral Way, is only eight percent full. More office or commercial encroaching upon the few truly residential districts left in Miami would not serve your Honor's purpose to preserve and improve the quality of Miami neighborhoods. Finally, the 45 lots of parking would be inside the residential neighborhood. Wherever the access to the parking lot is, those cars will still be in our. neighborhood. And, last thing I want to say about Miracle Center: Miracle Center fronts on Coral Way. Coral Way has been commercial as long as I can remember, and I've been in the City since I was four years old. Mayor Suarez: Please, please. Ms. Valansadegui: In addition to that, anything on that lot is better than the graffiti facade of that old Grand Union. Thank you. Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor. Me. Katy Hasseler: My name is Katy Hasseler. Mr. Plummer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry - Commissioner Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, have you set a time limit? Because I'm ready to make a motion that should save everybody a lot of trouble. I mean, if the... Mayor Suarez: See, we have a saying around here, you know, that if things are going your way, you may want to not speak too much, otherwise you might lose your momentum, so the Commissioner's... Mr. Plummer: Let me try this on for size, Mr. Mayor. I move that the Building Director be upheld. I so move. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (OFF MIKE): Planning Director. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mayor Suarez and Mr. Plummer: Planning Director. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Mr. Plummer: I call the question. fd 56 November 25, 1980 Mayor Suarez: We're going to take a vote on this. Theoretically, you have a right to be heard on it, but so far you have a motion going your way, so you might want to... UNIDENTIFIFP SFFAF;FF (OFF MIKF): Vhat is the motion? Mayor Suarez: Thr- motion iE tO deny the appeal. (APPLAUSE) Please, please. Any discussion from this Commission% Gall the roll. The following resolution wes introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 140. 86-94.8 A RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE ZONING BOARD'S AFFIRMATION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS, FILE NOS, C-66-516 AND C-86-517, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE ESTAPLTSHt,ENT OF TRANS]TTONAL USE OFFICES NOT SELLING MERCHIJ;DISE ON THE FREMTSES AT 2100 AND 2101 SOUTHWEST 33RD AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND ADOPTING AND INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS OF THE FLANNING DIRECTOR. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Plummer: 'Bye. Mr. Dawkins: You can go home. a Mayor Suarez: 'Bye-bye. I have a feeling we're going to hear from...(APPLAUSE)... from you again, in court. --------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- 6. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA AT APPROXIMATELY 3427-3523 S.W. 22 TERRACE - CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i. Mr. Dawkins: Come on, go to 4. Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning Item 4. On your way out, do us one more courtesy and let us continue to the next item, please, and in the parking lot you can talk all you want. Mrs. Kennedy: Madame City Clerk, can you record my vote as a "yes" vote also, for the record? I was outside. Ms. Hirai: Voting "yes"? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes. Ms. Hirai: Thank you. Mr. Olmedillo: Now we're dealing with the south side of Coral Way. i Mr. Dawkins (OFF MIKE): Go ahead with 4. Go ahead. a # fd 57 November 25, 1986 s j Mayor Suarez: Go ahead, Guillermo. Mr. Olmedillo: This is on the south side of Coral Way, and this is the item that you bed referred to before, that was approved. It's before you again because it yFs not ... the comp. plan amendment was not approved for the... Mayor Strare<.: This is a second reading? Mr. Olmedillo: No, this is for the proposed Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Pl.sn, the one that. you just approved on the last meeting. Mayor Suarez: Right.. lt's a second reading. Let me see if there's anyone here that wishes to be heard apai.nst the granting of PZ-47 Let the record reflect, that no one has stepped forward on PZ-4. Is that correct? Mr. Anthony O'Donnell: Fir. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Yes, counselor Mr. O'Donnell: We need one clarification, which we've discussed with the Planning Department and the Law Department. On the Section 2, legal description of the one -foot elimination, it should be the southerly one foot of lots 23 through 29. Mayor Suarez: That is definitely a southerly one -foot strip. Mr. O'Donnell: Yes, and the other is a scrivener's error from the record before. I think we've discussed this already. Mayor Suarez: What have we said before? Mr. O'Donnell: Well, that's what was said at the hearing. It's now being drafted in this particular ordinance as "also the easterly and westerly one foot of the in lots." Mayor Suarez: Should be the southerly one foot. Mr. O'Donnell: Should be solely the southerly one foot of lots 23 through 29. Mayor Suarez: You want to make that correction? Mr. Plummer: Well, that was the intent of the Commission? Mr. O'Donnell: Yes. Yes, sir, that... Mayor Suarez: Yeah, because that... Mr. Olmedillo: That was in the conversation, in the discussion of the item at the last time. Mr. Plummer: You agree with that? You don't have any problem? Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. No problems with that. Mr. Plummer: OK. This is Item 4, right? Mr. Olmedillo: That's Item 4, yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Which is second reading? Mr. Olmedillo: Second reading. Mr. Plummer: Is there any one of the public wishes to speak against Item 4? Mayor Suarez: No, I already asked. Mr. Plummer: I move on second reading. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any further discussion? Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Mayor Suarez: Discussion from Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: This is the one -foot buffer... Mr. Olmedillo: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: ...that we are supposed to have set up. Mr. Flummer: Yes, sir. Eliminates the transitional use. Mr. Dawkins: I'm going to voice my same concerns. I think that if we ever go to a court of law with the people south. of 22nd, and a judge asks, you know, "What was the intent7", and we just got one foot, I really don't think that we're going to be on safe grounds, but it's no sense in opposing it any more, so I'm going to vote in favor of it., but I still feel that one foot is not sufficient. Mr. Olmedillo: If I may explain, sir. The one foot is to prevent, for the zoning to jump on the other side of the street. Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Olmedillo: And the buffer, which is provided in the covenant that the applicant provided us... Mr. Plummer: Did you hear him say he was going to vote for it? Mr. Dawkins: Call... Mr. Plummer: What are you trying to do, double jeopardy, or...I mean... Mayor Suarez: Read the ordinance. (At this point the City Attorney began reading the ordinance in the public - record) Mr. Pierce: Excuse me. Excuse me, Lucia, Lucia. Would you please instruct us to go back and correct the record from the last one that's a scrivener's error? Mayor Suarez: Yes, so... Mr. Plummer: You'd better do it, or... Mayor Suarez: ...so instructed and built into the motion that has been made. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (September 1985) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3427-3523 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY 1- CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW -MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; AND, CONTAINING A - REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 23, 1986, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote- ij is y: td 59 November 25, 1986 i A"mal Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez ti0$S : None. ABSENT: Commi « Toner Joe Carollo t THE ORDINA►NCE VAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10182. { The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced thst copies were available to the members of the City Commission and { to the public, Mayor Suarez: Let's go to the items that were scheduled for 2:30, and see if we can get through those. We have the Consent Agenda, composed of Items 1 i through 4. i Mr. Olmedillo: Mayor. Please, if I... i Mayor Suarez: Is there any Comiss...We're going to hear from you again? I'm going to throw this thing at you. Yeah. 7. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND COMPREHENSIVE, NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA AT APPROXIMATELY 3591 S.W. 22 TERRACE - CHANGE DESIGNATION FROM LOW -MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TO COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-5 is the one down the street, the second reading. Mayor Suarez: Oh, we have to Hake a motion on that, too? Mrs. Kennedy: Move PZ-5. Mr. Al Cardenas: Thank you. Mr....Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor Suarez: Wait. Mr. Plummer: Wait, what is this? Mr. Dawkins: Five. Hold on, what's five? Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-5. Mr. Olmedillo: It's the site which is at the corner. Mr. Dawkins: You...rather, staff recommend it? It's roe... it's being denied —it's recommended to be denied. Mrs. Kennedy: This is second reading, isn't it? Mr. Pierce: Yeah, but you already approved it on first reading. Mr. Olmedillo: Yeah, you already approved it on first reading. This is second reading. Mayor Suarez: OK, this is the other site, that is just like this? OK. We had previously approved it on first reading. Mr. Plummer: Well, wait a minute, wait, wait a minute. How did I vote on that issue? It doesn't... Mr. Cardenas: In favor, Mr. Plummer. Mr. Pierces You moved it. Mr. Plummer; Excuse me? fd 60 November 25, 1986' Mr. Pierce: You moved it. Mr. Cardenas: For the record, I'm Al Cardenas, the... Mr. Plummer: If my Agenda doesn't ... hold on, this is fiv'e7 t*fh i6ttt, Mayor Suarez.: FZ-5, right. Mr. Cardenas: For the record... right. Mr. Plummer: Thank you, sir. Mr. Cardenas: OK. I... Mayor Suarez: It's not really a companion item. It's a different item, but we're going to take it up if it's... Mr. Cardenas: It's down the block. Mr. Mayor, just one observation. For the record, I'm Al Cardenas, the attorney for the applicant. Mr. Dawkins: You're going to lose ... you're going to lose my vote. You're going to lose my vote. Mr. Cardenas: Well, we have a scrivener's error also. I just wanted to bring it for the record. Mayor Suarez: We'll build that in. Is it also on the description of the one - foot - I don't want to call it a buffer, but I guess that's the only word we can come up with. Mr. Olmedillo: We don't know what it is about, sir. Mr. Cardenas: Yes, it's on Section 2, the same as the previous item. Instead of the easterly or westerly one foot, it's the southerly... Mayor Suarez: The southerly one foot. Mr. Cardenas: one foot. Everything else being the same, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: With that built in, I'll have a reading of the ordinance. Do we have a motion and a second? Mrs. Kennedy: I moved it. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. And we'll read the ordinance, right. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3591 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM LOW -MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL - RESIDENTIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; AND, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 23, 1986, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote- fd 61 November 25, 1986 ABSENT: T Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez None. Commissioner Joe Carollo THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE 140. 10183. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 8. BID ACCEPTANCE: DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT, INC.; 500 PILES FOR MIAMARINA RENOVATION AT $71,000. Mayor Suarez: Item 1. Mr. Plummer: Item 1. Mr. Mayor, I've got a concern, and I want to express it to the Commission. As you know, you have designated me to work with the charter boat captains. Mr. Mayor, if you're not aware, and the other members of this Commission, I was the one who brought to this Commission that the City should take over the operation of Miamarina, that I thought that it was going to be a profitable endeavor. Unbeknownst to me, the administration is proposing that quite possibly two and a half million dollars worth of improvements are going to be made. Now, that is what the RFP is talking about, as far as the construction is concerned. I am concerned that if we pay almost two million dollars to Rouse, which that... it's 1.6 plus interest, we pay two and a half million dollars for the improvements - there is absolutely no way that that can ever show a profit. Now, I am concerned, because here we are now, ordering 500 piles at $71,000, to go into this Miamarina setup, and at no time was it ever conceived by me that we were going to have to spend two and a half million dollars in improvements to operate that marina. I don't think anybody in the private sector would spend two and a half million, plus two million for pay out Rouse. There is absolutely no way that you can be competitive with rates, that in fact are going to show even a break-even point at any time. I think this Commission needs to re-evaluate its position. Either tell the administration that we're not going to spend two and a half million dollars to renovate that place, or something, because we are facing an absolute financial disaster, based on the RFP that the administration is ready to go out with. And that's why I pulled this item, because this is the first step, and unless I can be assured that whoever would be the successful bidder in an RFP selection basis, was going to reimburse the City for this money. I Want to tell you, I doubt seriously that anyone, including Rouse, at this particular point, would want to take over that operation if they've got to spend two and a half million dollars to fix it up. Mayor Suarez: What about that, Mr. City Manager? Is this item...approval of this item going to lead us to that? Is that where we're headed? Mr. Odio: Not this one. This one... Mr. Plummer: No, the RFP. Mr. Odio: This has got nothing to do with what Commissioner Plummer is talking about. Mr. Plummer: No, sir, I disagree with you. These are the pilings that will be used... Mr. Odio: The pilings for the... Mr. Plummer: ...in the Miamarina. fd 62 November 25, 1986 t i i Mayor Suarez: Well, that's what he's saying. He's saying this is thi beginning of... Mr. Odio: This is the beginning of... Mayor Suarez: ...whet is going to be a major investment by the City. Do you have an answer to that? Mr. Plummer: This is S77,000 of two and a half million. i Mr. Odio: Rut I me:-n, he's talking about ... I thought, and let me correct myself, he vas Fsking whether we should run the marina ourselves, or we should go out to the private sector. Whatever we do, we need to repair the marina; it's not safe. The pilings are not safe. They have to be replaced. Mr. Plummer: Well, but they could be replaced by whoever is the successful bidder of an RFP. Mr. Odio: Well,... Mr. Plummer: We have not - we, the Commission, have not seen those numbers or those figures. Mr. Odio: Commissioner... Mr. Plummer: I have only been... Mayor Suarez: Why should we do that as a... I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Odio: If you remember,... Mayor Suarez: Why should we do this as a separate item from the entire renovation of the marina? Mr. Odio: It's only the first step to the renovation of the marina. The pilings come first, and then when we're ready for the rest, it will be done in phases. Because if we don't do this, these pilings are unsafe at this moment - that's what I was told. Mr. Dawkins: Well, who's using it? Mr. Odio: The problem...In fact, I wanted to withdraw this item, and they told me... Mr. Dawkins: Who's using the marina now? Mr. Plummer: Nobody. Mr. Dawkins: Why are they unsafe? Mr. Plummer: Well, the problem is that the Miamarina will be opening April the 8th at noon. Mr. Odio: We need... And the other question... the problem... Mr. Plummer: But there's not necessarily, at this particular time, an operator. We, the City, have indicated that we wanted to go in there and do it. At no time, at that ... you know, let me say to you, the only reason that I have this information, and the rest of you don't, is because it was brought to the committee on the charter boat situation. So I had that information. I think this City needs to have an absolute balance sheet as to whether or not those two and a half million dollars, first, are necessary, and second, whether or not this City still wants to proceed under that obligation. I doubt very seriously you're going to get a private company who would bid on a four - almost a five - million dollars on a marina, that he doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of ever recouping his money. Mr. Dawkins: Where would the money come from if we decide to spend it, J.L.? Mr. Plummer: If we decided to spend it? Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, the two million. fd 63 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: My understanding is, it's from the Port Boulevard settlement. Mrs. Dougherty: Didn't the last Commission action, tell the Manager... i Mr. Odio: That's right. i Mrs. Dougherty: ...that he was to operate the marina? Mr. Plummer: Yes, we did. Mr. Odio. That's right. Mr. Plummer: We told...we made a decision to tell the administration that we wanted to operate it. Mrs. Dougherty: So we have to repair it. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Odio: And I recommended at the time, Commissioner, that we go out... Mrs. Dougherty: We have to improve it. Mr. Odio: ...on an RFP.... Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Odio: ...to the private sector, to let them do it. Mr. Plummer: At that particular time, you never told thia Commission, Mr. Manager,... Mr. Odio: Yes, I did, sir. I'll look at for the... Mr. Plummer: ...of two and a half million dollars worth of improvements,... Mr. Odio: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: ...plus the two million dollars to Rouse. Mr. Odio: I mentioned that we had to pay... Mr. Plummer: I think we need to take another look, OK? Mr. Odio: Get me a copy of that record. Mr. Dawkins: Well, make your motion, and let's go on, because it's S M. Or 6:00 o'clock. Mr. Plummer: Well, as long as it's a ... look, my motion is to go ahead and approve 1. It was the only way I could ... to get this interje... Mr. Dawkins: Approve what? Mr. Plummer: Approve number 1. Mayor Suarez: The expenditure for piles. Mr. Dawkins: Well, why are you going to spend seventy ... why are you going to spend the $75,000? Mr. Plummer: All right, listen to me, and I'll tell you. We spend the money with the clear-cut understanding, if the City goes out to an RFP and does not operate it itself, that the person who is the successful bidder has to pay the City back that money. Mr. Dawkins: But J.L., you just finished telling me that we're going to spend $75,000, then we're going to end up spending two million dollars,... Mr. Plummer: No, sir. No, air. fd 64 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: ...and you say that we can't recoup the two million, and nobody else in the City is going to assume this two million dollar debt, so what are you telling me? i Mrs. Kennedy: Yeah, but the 71 is part of the two million. Mr. Odio: Now, Rouse ... let me say this. Mr. Dawkins: Wait, wait, wait a minute, now, let me finish with the undertaker. Mr. Odio: Well, I wanted to point out to you that Rouse indicated to us that they will. bid on the marina. They are interested in running the marina, and they are willing to repair the marina. And we would save a lot of money. Mr. Plummer: See, I guess the point that I'm making at this time, is the ipoint that says that I don't agree that we have to spend two and a half million dollars. Now, yes, we've got to make any improvements in that i facility, based on safety factors. But I want to tell you that, even though i I've not had the opportunity to go extensively into whatthose improvements are, hell, I could build a brand new marina twice that size for two and a half million dollars. Mayor Suarez: OK, so you're afraid of letting the cat out of the bag by approving this without sending a clear signal that we won't necessarily approve the rest of the package, and I think that's a very valid point. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, what I'm doing is alerting this Commission that we need, on the next Agenda, to have a complete review as to whether or not we want to proceed in operating that ourselves, or not. Mrs. Kennedy: Absolutely. Mr. Dawkins: Ooohhhhhhh. Mr. Odio: That's the best thing... Mayor Suarez: Fine, we'll be ... I'm not saying that I'm going to agree with that, but we'll be happy to take that up. Certainly, the concern would be that we would not get any bidders if we spent all kinds of money fixing it up, and then require them to pay us back. But $71,000, according to the City Manager, must be spent... Mr. Plummer: I agree with that. OK? And I'll move Item 1. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? And I guess we're sending a pretty clear signal here that we're very concerned about any major expenditures of the size that you're talking about for that marina, because we may never get the return on the investment there. Mr. Odio: No, Mr. Mayor, I still think that we need to discuss it fully, and we need a policy from the City Commission., Mayor Suarez: We all agree on that. Mr. Odio: And I'll bring it back. Mrs. Kennedy: Under discussion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Manager, what are you doing to attract women -owned firms to bid? Mr. Odio: I have sent you a report. As a matter of fact I just signed it, to show you what we have done in that matter. Now, I cannot create women -owned companies, ma'am. Mrs. Kennedy: There are plenty out there. Mr. Odio: That I haven't been... fd 65 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: Call the roll, before we get into... Mr. Odio: I just sent a report to you on that. Mrs. Kennedy: OK. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummert who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-949 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BID OF DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF 500 PILES FOR THE MIAMARINA RENOVATION PROJECT AT A TOTAL PROPOSED COST OF $71,000; ALLOCATING SAID AMOIRdT FROM THE MARINAS ENTERPRISE FUND A14D FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE CHIFF PROCUREMENT OFFICER TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR SAID PURCHASE. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 9. ALLOCATE $10,000 TO MIAMI POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. (ALSO SEE LABEL #30). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: Item 2. Commissioner? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I nulled Item number 2. And the reason I pulled Item number 2 is, that this basically is a boxing program, and it's a fine program. When we asked the question whether or not those funds could likewise be used for the Virrick operation, we were told "no." Now, I want to know why. Why the City of Miami Police Department can operate a boxing program, and the monies come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, and the Virrick gym, which operates a boxing program under the guise of the City of Miami, cannot. Mr. Dawkins: Because I made the motion that the whole boxing program should go under the Miami Police Department, that's why I voted against it, I don't know about nobody else. Mr. Plummer: Well, OK, no, no, no, excuse me. My question is, why is it permissible for one and not for the other? Mayor Suarez: Is this somehow limited to capital improvements - is that part of the problem? Mr. Dawkins: No, in law enforcement funds. Mr. Odio: No, no, it's limited to crime prevention. Mr. Dawkins: Law enforcement funds can only be... Mr. Plummer: But why is a boxing program in the City Police Department an acceptable use, but a boxing program in Coconut Grove is not? Mr. Dawkins: Because we got police in it, it's law enforcement money. fd 66 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: No, well, I don't agree with that. Mr. Dawkins: And we don't have any policemen in the Grove. Mr. Odio: I'm sorry to tell you, I didn't go to Howard University. Mr. Plummer: Howard, or Harvard? Mr. Odio: Howard. Mr. Plummer: Oh, Howard. Mr. Plummer: No, I guess the point I'm raising is, if it's either... Mayor Svere7: T think, you're thinking very creatively, because if there's any possible way to figure out a way to use some of those Law Enforcement Trust Fund monies for Coconut. Grove Ceres, by however... Mr. Plummer: Or, let me give you another one, to comply with both you and Dawkins: Why can't the Police Department expand their program at Virrick gym? Mr. Dawkins! That's right. Mr. Plummer: And give a hundred thousand for that one. Mayor Suarez: That's right. Mr. Dawkins: Oh no, hell not Mr. Plummer: Well, they're asking for... Mr. Dawkins: No, not no $200,000, J.L. Mr. Plummer: OK. Pat, you can't speak for the Police Department. I don't want you to. Don't want...don't get your foot in any kind of a problem. The problem, the question that I still raise: Why is it right for one, and not for the other? Mayor Suarez: Has Coconut Grove Cares ever indicated that they would have any objection to the City taking over... Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mayor Suarez: ...some of the aspects of that program? Mr. Plummer: No. Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Odio: Yes, Mr. Plummer: No, because the City... Mayor Suarez: Boy, we got a real disagreement. Why don't we... Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, they don't want... Mayor Suarez: ...propose that as a suggestion? Mr. Dawkins: They don't want to give it up. Mr. Odio: Wait. At one time, the City was going to take it over, and they declined. They wanted the funds, to run it themselves. Mr. Plummer: And I'm not proposing that they take it over. I'm not proposing that the Police Department or the City take over the boxing program at Virrick gym. I'm saying, let these people come in and run it. They've shown the expertise. Mr. Odio: Well, then... but, fine, but then we remove Coconut Grove Cares from there, is that what you're saying? fd 67 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: No,... Mr. Dawkins: No. Mr. Plummer: ...you can do it in conjunction with. They do it in conjunction now. Mr. Odio: I don't know. You need to tell me if we can do that. Mr. Plummer: Fat, what is the total budget for this program at the present time? Annual budget:. Sergeant Fat. Rurns: It, was $65,000, but those funds have been expended. Of course, I've implemented a second program, and now going to a third program. That's why I'm here before you today. Mr. Plummer: Rut what is the total cost of this program? Sergeant Burns: A hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Plummer: That's for a year? Sergeant Burns: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Does that include salaries? Sergeant Burns: No, sir. Mr. Plummer: flow many people are involved in the program? Sergeant Burns: In terms of use, or...? Mr. Plummer: No. No, no. Mr. Dawkins: Staff. Mr. Plummer: Personnel. Staff. Sergeant Burns: I've got one, two, three — six. Mr. Plummer: Six employees in the program. Sergeant Burns: Five. I'm sorry, five. Mr. Plummer: Five employees in the program. Sergeant Burns: Yes, sir. Mr. Plummer: Which... and are they all policemen? Sergeant Burns: Yes, sir. No, one's a P.S.A. } Mr. Plummer: So you got four policemen. - Sergeant Burns: One P.S.A. Mr. Plummer: And one P.S.A. Sergeant Burns: And we have two programs. Mr. Plummer: And two programs. Sergeant Burns: Overtown and Wynwood, and in the process of implementing another program in African Square Park in Liberty City. ' Mr. Plummer: Why couldn't you operate one down here? Sergeant Burns: I'll have to talk to the Chief about that. I can't... Mr. Plummer: OK. Hey, look, this is...you know, it's just such a tremendous program down here, and if you guys could operate it, and in conjunction with $:: fd 68 November 25, 1986 - Coe... look, all Coconut Grove Cares does down here at this program is raise money for theta. When they could - they've not been able to here recently. But I think this is an opportunity where you could keep this program going, you guys could run it. Mr. Dawkins- 11re been saying it. ever since I've been here. I've been saying that ever since 1've been here. Mr. Odio: 09, OV, 1'11 bring it, back on December 11th. Mayor Suarez: l think there's got to be a way to do it, somehow to create a merger, somehow, thrt.... Mr. Plummer- Coconut. Grove ... all they do down there, they don't make any money off this damn program. They go out and they beg for rings, they beg for equipment, they beg for this, and I just ... I... Mrs. Kennedy: Yeah. Mayor Suarez: It's a classic program to be run by the City in some way or another, really. Mr. Plummer: Well, the question is now, Mr. Mayor, do we hold this as leverage until we get the right answer, or do we approve this and let it proceed? Mr. Odio: OK, if you add $25,000 to what we're asking here today, I will run this one here. Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Odio: That's what we would need to run... Mr. Dawkins: Well, hell, we may as well give $25,000 to Miss Virrick. Mr. Odio: Well, you said you wanted to in... Mr. Dawkins: Oh, come on. Mayor Suarez: Well, except that we would be adopting as our own program, and the City would be... Mr. Plummer: In conjunction with Coconut Grove Cares. Mayor Suarez: In conjunction with. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Dawkins: You know what? I've told you this last week, the last meeting, and I'm going to tell you this meeting. Every damn time you need some money, you find it. Mr. Odio: No, I didn't say that. Mr. Dawkina: Now you just found a hun...you just found $25,000. Mr. Odio: Sir, I'm reply... Mr. Dawkins: You see, I mean, and you're getting to me with this. You know, every damn time I look up, you find some money! Mr. Odio: Sir, that's... Mr. Dawkins: Now you got $25,000 to give the boxing program. See? Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I move that this item be deferred until the next meeting. It's not that long off. Mayor Suarez: So moved. We have a second on the motion to defer? Mrs. Kennedy: Pat, what kind of impact will this have in your program, if we defer it? fd 69 November 25, 1986 Sergeant Burns: I'm out of money right now. Mr. Plummer: Well, do you have money currently, to operate on? Sergeant Furr,c: No, sir, I don't. I ran out about a month ago. Mr. Flummer: I'll change my motion. I'll change my motion, that we grant, at this time, S10,000, with the remaining portion to be approved at the next meeting. Mrs. Kennedy: Would that cover? Mr. Plummer: Well, obviously,... Sergeant Burns: Well, if we're going to go that route, I guess it'd be better for me just to gait. I'm in the middle of... Mayor Suarez: you borrow the $10,000. Sergeant Burns: I'm in the middle of tournaments, and I've got so much coming up in the next couple of months, that I either...I got to go for this package here, or however you giant to work it out. I'll have to get with Chief Dickson on it. Of course, with implementing Elizabeth Virrick Park, I'm going to have to speak with the Chief about it. Mr. Plummer: No, not the park; not the park - the gym, here. Mayor Suarez: The boxing program, yes, sir. Sergeant Burns: If you were just consid... In other words, we're just considering this, what I've brought before the Commission today? Mr. Plummer: No. Do you have one for Elizabeth Virrick Park in this package? Sergeant Burris: No, sir, I don't. This... Mayor Suarez: No, no, the gymnasium is what he meant. Mr. Plummer: We're saying the program in the gym here, not Elizabeth Virrick Park. Sergeant Burns: At Gibson and Wynwood, is what you're saying. Mr. Plummer: No, what we're... Mrs. Kennedy: No, no. Sergeant Burns: I misunderstood you. Mrs. Kennedy: Elizabeth Virrick Gym. Mayor Suarez: Yeah, we're considering that as a way of somehow joining up the two programs. In the meantime, he is proposing to give you $10,000 to function for the next month, until we can... Mr. Plummer: No, less than a month. Mayor Suarez: Less than a month. Mr. Plummer: Two weeks. Mayor Suarez: You're not going to turn down $10,000. Sergeant Burns: No, I'm not going to turn down $10,000, no. Mr. Plummer: I'll move that we allocate $10,000 at this time, with the remaining portion to be allocated. — considered allocation on December 11th. I'll so move. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Going to die this time? I'd better second that, otherwise we're never going to get out of here. I second. fd 70 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-950 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOCATE $10,000 FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND TO COVER EXPENSES IIJCURRED PS THE MIAMI POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAMS; FURTHER STIFL;L,ATIIJG THE COM,M'SISSION WILL. CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF THE PALA_1dCF OF THEIR REQUEST ($90,000) AT THE NEXT CITY COItfIISSIOMI MEETING. Upon being seconded by Mayor Suarez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo ON ROLL CALL: Mrs. Kennedy: I would have liked to go for the whole amount, but I'm afraid it will die if I vote "no," so, for the time being, "yes." ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE FOR THE RECORD: This motion was later reconsidered by Motion No. 86- 961 - See Label #30. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: Make sure it's put on the next Agenda, please. In the meantime, why don't you work with the ... just to see how you could somehow merge the two, in a way that satisfies the Commission - the Commission's feeling that... Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Mayor, it would... Mayor Suarez: ...Coconut Grove Cares should allow us to be involved in their program; otherwise they're not getting any funding from the City, which is what I'm hearing here from the Commission. Mr. Dawkins: I've spoken with him, and we've talked con... we've talked about going in there, attempting to bring that program on into the Police Department. Haven't we talked about that? Sergeant Burns: We've taI',ed about implementing programs, yes, sir,... Mr. Dawkins: Um-hmm, nothing new. Sergeant Burns: ...and there are other areas of the City, too. There's just certain guidelines that I fall under, and statutes I fall under,... Mr. Dawkins: Sure, there's no problem. Sergeant Burns: ...legal ramifications that I've got to check into. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Mayor Suarez: I mean, it is a worthy program, that's been going on for so many years,... Sergeant Burns: It's an outstanding program. Mayor Suarez: ...we want to do this, we have monies from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund - you know, let's just solve it. fd 71 November 25, 1986 Sergeant Burns: Yes, sir. Right. Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Pat. Sergeant Burns: OK, thank you. 10. ALLOCATE $4,500 TO INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR IT ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Mr. Dawkins: I pulled 3. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins, Item 3. Mr. Dawkins: And we said, and I'm reading from the minutes, that the $4,500, "the amount to be allocated being conditioned upon the matching of funds by Miami Beach and Metro Dade County." Did you receive the money from Miami Beach and Metro? Mr. Julio A. Fanjul: We received money from Metro, and we're expecting to receive $1,500... we received money from Metro Dade County,... Mr. Plummer: How much, sir? How much? Mr. Fanjul: I think to $5,000. Mr. Plummer: OK. And how much from Miami Beach? Mr. Fanjul: We have not received from Miami Beach. We expect to receive in about $2,000 from Miami Beach. Mr. Plummer: Well, you understand, on a matching situation, air, you cannot get any more from this City than what they give you. Mr. Fanjul: It was an either/or situation, as I understood it. Mr. Plummer: Well, yeah, but this wording's got to change. Allocating $4,500 - not to exceed $4,500. Mr. Odio: And it's subject to matching fund, period. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. Mr. Odio: Yeah. We know. Mr. Plummer: If they don't... if they get $1,500 from Miami Beach, that's what they get from us. Mr. Odio: That's what they get. Mr. Dawkins: That's right, and the affair's being held on Miami Beach. Mr. Plummer: Exactly. Mayor Suarez: Well, how about... Mr. Dawkins: We shouldn't have to...I mean, we're just helping them to support their activity. We're not going to put it on for them. Mayor Suarez: I£ they got a little bit more from the County, wouldn't you make it subject to their getting ... I mean, they would get up to one-half of the total amount that they got from the County and Miami Beach from us? Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Plummer: No, matching grants have always ... Mr. Mayor, you know, in effect, this is really a lot of unfairness to us, because Miami Beach is... fd 72 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: Well, the reason I say it is, this is a double matching grant requirement you've got here. You're saying "You've got to get this amount from the County, and this amount from Miami Peach, and then we will match that." That's a little tougher than 8 single matching grant. Mr. Dark ing: Vhat I'm Paying to yov, though, Mr. F�ayor - if you can show me any grant that the C.,ity rf MjFmi Pr-pch gave us, to help us, then I won't mind going along with it. Mayor Suarez.: Yeah, th2t's the problem, is that we don't see Miami Beach making their... Mr. Dawkins: That's all I'm saying. Mayor Suarez: ...fair contribution. Well, you hear the Commission. I mean, I have to follow the consensus here. Mr. Plummer: As modified, I second the motion. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Or seconded, rather. Modified. Did we move and accept the modification? Who moved that, Madame City Clerk? Mr. Dawkins: I did. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner Dawkins, do you accept the modification? Mr. Dawkins: Yeah, um-hmm. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded, with the modification. I think we'll all help to lobby City of Miami Beach to make sure that they give you a little bit larger amount. Any further discussion on the motion? Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-951 A RESOLUTION ALLOCATING NOT TO EXCEED $4,500 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS, CONTINGENT FUND, IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR ITS SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 1-5, 1986 IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID ALLOCATION BEING CONDITIONED UPON MATCHING OF FUNDS BY BOTH MIAMI BEACH AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) } Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote-- r F AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins - Mayor Xavier L. Suarez _ `...- NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo a. !d 73 November 25, 1980 11. EXECUTE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORP. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PARCEL 37 - PHASE 1 OF SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO APPRAISAL. Mr. Dawkins: I pulled 4, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Jt.em 4. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Bailey, Mr. Manager. This says 350 rental units. Are they going to break ground, and build 350 units at one time, or is this going to be done in interN,als7 Mr. Matthew Schwartz.: The 350 units will be built at once. They anticipate starting construction in April. It will be built in one phase, all 350 units. We have a 1T.J).A,G grant. Grant for this project. Mr. Dawkins: t*ore 4. Mr. Plummer: Question. Mr. Dawkins: Go ahead, Mr. Plummer, go ahead. Mr. Plummer: Question. Is there a time limit attached to this? If they don't start or break ground by a certain date, they lose their rights? Mr. Schwartz: I believe we could add it to it. I believe that... Mr. Plummer: You better. As many jams as we've been in before. And, hey, I want a reasonable time limit. You're saying April. I'll give them until December 31, 1987. But I think we've got to have in there that if they don't break ground... Mayor Suarez: Some time limitation there. Mr. Schwartz: I think by June 30th would probably be more realistic, to force them. They are actively pursuing this... Mayor Suarez: He was going to give you till December 31, 1987, until you said that. Mr. Plummer: No, no, no, no, no, he likes to talk, and I'll listen. Mayor Suarez: Until you said that. Mayor Suarez: All right. Mr. Plummer: That it be modified, that they must break ground, and be into construction prior to June the 30th, 1987. Mr. Dawkins: I see the developer with a very strange look on his face. Mayor Suarez: (Laughing) The developer! Mr. Dawkins: Maybe we need to hear from him. Now th3 voice of wis... Mr. Plummer: You got Mr. Bailey turning colors there. Mr. Schwartz: There was one —we have one tenant we're trying to get out of... it's not on this block, it's the block north of there. This block is cleared, ready to go. Mr. Dawkins: So what's that got to do with it? Mr. Plummer: Well, if there was a tenant... Mr. Dawkins: face. So, that means... but, no, he's still got a strange look on his fd 74 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: Herb, you've been called the developer, and you've been given, as part of this motion, a proviso that construction has to begin, or at least groundbreaking, prior to June 30th, 198... Mr. Plummer: No, no, o, no, no, no, not groundbreaking. No, no, no - construction. Mayor Suarez: OK, construction... Mr. Plummer: They can break ground and never do anything. Mr. Dawkins: I'm so glad you said that, J.L., because I got a police station that we broke ground on - when7 Mr. Plummer: During your election. Mayor Suarez: Can you live with that, Herb? (Laughter) Mayor Suarez: We've got to break ground on that project December 31, 1986, but that's another issue. Can you live with that, Herb? On Can -American? Mr. Herb Bailey: Just may I ask a question, Commissioner? What's the magic of the June date? Mr. Dawkins: The magic of the June date, Mr. Bailey, is that we need to eventually get some housing started and completed, that this Commission can point to and say, "Look, we have done something." And all we're saying is that we keep getting starting dates, and nothing gets started. So, all this Commission is saying is, we want something started immediately and completed. That's all; that's the magic in it, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Plummer: And this is a marriage between the private and the public sector, and all marriages take place in June. Mr. Bailey: June marriage. Have a June wedding, huh? Mr. Dawkins: Now, can you live with that, Herb? Mr. Plummer: Yeah, traditionally divorces are in December. Mr. Bailey: On this particular parcel, we perhaps can meet that date, but, you know, if you've sort of been observing what is happening in this project, something... whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. We feel that, in fact our timetable indicated we'll perhaps start breaking ground sometime in April, and that's what we're shooting for. June is an acceptable date. I liked your first suggestion, as of December 31st, 1987; however, we're not going to try to, you know, go for that date. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, but your boss said June the 30th. (Laughter) Mr. Bailey: Yeah, yeah. And if there's some reason now that we can't reach June 30th, we'll be back to you, but I'm pretty sure that this particular developer will break ground prior to June... by June 30th. Mr. Plummer: Super, but let me tell you something, Herb. Every one of them that you come up with in the future, this City has found itself in a bind in some cases, where we didn't put cutoff dates, and that was the reason I #! interjected that, was to make sure that it doesn't run infinitum. 41 Mr. Bailey: I would like to suggest, Commissioner, that if for some reason :{ and another we know in advance that there is some impediment to the June 30th date, we would like to have the opportunity to come back and explain our case. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me... Mr. Dawkins: As long as it's our... as long as it's the City of Miami's fault. Mr. Bailey: Well, we would like to come back and explain... ai fd 75 November 25, 1986 73: Mr. Dawkins: OK, but if it's the developer's fault, no. Mr. Bailey: Right. We would just like to come back and explain... Mr. Dawkins: I mean, I don't know how the rest of us feel, but theti6 h6ii t feel.. Mrs. Kennedy: Right. Mayor Suarez: Can't wait forever. Mr. Plummer: Cen I do it a little differently? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, go ahead, J.L. Mr. Plummer: Let me try this one on for size. That every contract that you bring us for Southeast Overt:own, that it has a one-year time limit from the time of approval. by this Commission. Mr. Bailey: A one-year... Mr. Plummer: And that. applies to all of them. Mr. Bailey: All. contracts. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. In other words, that would give you more than June the 30th. That would take you until December 1st of next year. Mr. Bailey: We could live with that. And as I say, if any time during this process we find there's something that we need to come back before the Commission, we'll come back, as we always have. I've just ... Matty's informed me that we have removed all of the tenants. You know, each one of those tenants have an 18-month time to move, and sometimes they're a little difficult to get out, and then we have to get the property demolished. But I would agree to a one-year time frame on any contract that we bring to you. Mr. Plummer: One year is fine. Mr. Bailey: Fine, all right. Mayor Suarez: OK, so moved. Commissioner? Mr. Plummer: And now you don't beat Matthew. Mr. Steve Helfman: If I may, Mayor, just quickly. Mayor Suarez: At your own risk, yes, Steve. Mr. Helfman: Steve Helfman. Fine, Jacobson. Mr. Plummer: Are you a registered lobbyist? Mr. Helfman: Yes, I am. We represent the developer. We have worked in good faith on this project. This is the first lease to come before you, of all the RFP's awarded. Mayor Suarez: The first one or the second one? Mr. Dawkins: You'd better quit while you're ahead) UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (OFF MIKE): Second, second. Mr. Helfman: Second one? OK. Mr. Dawkins: You'd better quit while you're ahead! Mr. Helfman: We pledge to move quickly on this thing, but there may be some unforeseen problem,... Mayor Suarez: We gather that. fd 76 November 25, 1986 Mr. Helfman: ...and we mould reserve the right to come before you. Mr. Plummer: That's fine, and at the end... Mayor Suarez.: And that pledge can't be taken to the bank. Mr. Plummer: And Ft the end of that twelve months, if there are, and this Commission deems that it's not your fault, that,'s it's other faults, we'll then do it. Rut you seP, u-hatIs happenpd to us in the past., is that we have issued contracts with no termination dat.p, or no Amen date, Fnd some of these...likp with the, barge, over on Virginia xey. That, guy had for inf.initum to raise the money. He hPd Pn cption on that property. 13ow, what_ we're saying is, we're not going to do that any more. you got a problem at the end of the year - or before the end of the year -- you come before this Commission, we'll listen to you, and maybe wE will, anal maybe we won't., agree with you. Mr. Dawkins: Well, I'm not going to agree with you, and I'm going to tell you, I told you to quit. while you were ahead. This is the parcel of land that you guys took from Cruz Development, the parcel was the pet project, and you all took it. So, now, if you don't come up to your expectations, I'm going to take it back from you and give it back to Cruz, that's all. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, I'm... who made the motion? Mr. Plummer: I made it. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Mrs. Kennedy: Let me just ask - did we any local developers to bid on this, Matthew? Mr. Matthew Schwartz: The City made a major effort to get local developers to bid on these projects. It went through review selection. There were... one local developer was selected, Indian River, but there was very little interest in the local development community in this project, at that ... 1984. Mrs. Kennedy: It's a pity we didn't get more. Mr. Dawkins: But, Madame Commissioner, he's not telling you the full facts, OK? We put these out for bid - OK? - and we had minority contractors that came in with major contractors, and for certain parcels. This parcel, a Black firm by the name of Cruz Construction, out of Boston, came in, and Marty Fine(?) and some of these others came down here, and convinced this Commission to take this parcel, which is the choice parcel of land, away from Cruz Construction, and leave him the three lousy parcels. But, now, I don't feel sorry for him, because I told him at that time he had to do one of two things: either tell us to give him all four of the parcels, or give all four of them to him. Now he's ... Mr. Cruz is running around saying he don't have enough money. Every time I come, he's in here with his hands open. So, I want them to understand that I understand where they are. And the reason we do not have the...a Black minority firm building this parcel of land, is because this group had three votes on this Commission that gave them that choice parcel of land. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from the The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, Who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-952 A RESOLUTION AITTHOR177NG AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IVUTH CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION, IN A FOR►', ACCFFTAP1T_ TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE DFvFI�Ort4F!j- of FARCFT; 37 OF THE PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA OF TFIF. SOLTTHFAST OVFRTOWNd/FARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT FRO.?FCT SiBFCT TO A, SATlSfACTORY APPRAISAL. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in tho Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Joe Carollo 12. ACCEPT DONATION FROM MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC. OF ONE 800 MHz REPEATER AMPLIFIER. Mayor Suarez: Item 5. Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. . Mr. Ron Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mayor Suarez: At your own risk. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, nol I don't want this one. You need four -fifths, I'm going. Mr. Williams: If I may. I need... Mr. Dawkins: J.L. left too, so you don't have nobody. Mr. Williams: I need to advise the Commission of something. Mayor Suarez: I don't even have three -fifths right now. Mrs. Kennedy: No, we don't have everybody here yet. You have to wait. Mr. Williams: OK. ' Mr. Dawkins: This needs four -fifths, Ron. It won't help you any. And the next one we plan to... Mr. Williams: Well, that's part of what I need to say to you. i .. Mr. Dawkins: Here he is. i R, = Mr. Williams: If I may, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to advise the Commission of... Mayor Suarez: Yes, Ron, proceed. Mr. Williams: ...of recent happenings involving this particular item. fd 78 November 25, 1986 a a Mr. Plummer: Which number? Mr. Williams: Item number 5. Mr. Dawkins! Fire. Mayor SuPre7: Item 5. Mr. Williama: Along with... Mr. Plummer: Let me ... let me... Mr. Williams: Along Fith...I'm sorry. Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you, Mr. Mayor, I'm willing to go along, OK? I want to tell you, as I did before, and I'm going to put it on a record. Is that what he's going to announce? Mr. Williams: Yes, I need ... I need to make... Mr. Plummer: OK, I'll shut up. Mr. Williams: OK. Thank you, Mr. No, along with representatives of the Police Departments and Fire Departments, a meeting was held at the Miami Police Department on Saturday, with the chief executive officer of Motorola Electronics Corporation, and out of that meeting, you know, we had the opportunity to express to the chief executive officer a number of concerns that the City has involving the project, and of particular concern the fact that the company was coming to us after signing an agreement for such a major project, with minor add-ons. The result of that session was that the CEO offered to the City of Miami, at no cost, a resolve to the Jackson Memorial problem. Given that, I would like to change my request to you for action on this item, and 1 have recommended language here that I would request that you would pass... Mayor Suarez: What's the basic change, Ron? Mr. Williams: The basic change is that I would probably need a motion, I believe, to the City Attorney. Mayor Suarez: Don't worry about the procedure - what's the basic change? Mr. Williams: Approving the offer... Mr. Plummer: Here, here. I make a motion that we approve the fine and generous offer of Motorola, and that we accept their donation of this equipment. I so move. Mrs. Kennedy: I second. Mr. Williams: OK. That's exactly what I need, thank you, Commissioner Plummer. Mayor Suarez: Moved, seconded, thirded - all in one shot, without you even have to explain it. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-953 A MOTION OFFICIALLY ACCEPTING DONATION FROM MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS, INC., OF ONE 800 MHz REPEATER AMPLIFIER INCLUDING ASSOCIATED HARDWARE AND INSTALLATION FOR USE IN CITY 800 MHz TRUNKED SYSTEM FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $13,969. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote- fd 79 November 25, 1986 LA ATUt Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Williams: If I mFy, Fnd Commissioner Plummer, you can tell me, we have needed to bring to you the issue of the independent consultant that we've discussed. You vFnt. to Fsk Commission direction on that at this time, or do you want to coo that Ft some other time? Mr. Plummer: Well, the only thing I would like is that you would come back with a list of companies that would do such a job, and with an approximated cost as to what it. would cost. Mr. Williams: I have that information, if... Mr. Plummer: Well, furnish it to each Commission, and we can get back in touch with you. Mr. Williams: OK. Mr. Plummer: They have not gone to testing yet, right? Mr. Williams: No, and that's part of it, as you well know. Mr. Plummer: Yeah, I understand. Mr. Williams: We had that clock out there, regarding ATP plan, and... Mr. Plummer: No, no, no - we got the clock. Mr. Williams: We - the City; we've got the clock, yes. Mr. Plummer: Yeah. They don't have the clock. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Tick, tick, tick. -------------------------------------------- 13. FILM INDUSTRY DECLARED IMPORTANT PART OF MIAMI'S ECONOMIC FUTURE; EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH FILM SOCIETY OF MIAMI, INC. TO MARKET/PROMOTE MIAMI AS AN INTERNATIONAL FILM CENTER; Mayor Suarez: Item 6. Mrs. Kennedy: Madame City Attorney. Mrs. Dougherty: Yes. This is Item 6, and we would ask that you substitute for the item that's before you, which is a sole source procurement, and r, instead the resolution that we've passed out to you, authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional service contract of $50,000. And we would ask, by interlineation, that we substitute the word "solely" in the City, so to make it clear that all of the projects and all of the activities will take place within the City of Miami. And we will also correct the scrivener's error of the title of the president. Mrs. Kennedy: Move it. Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Dawkins: It's moved and second. Second, under discussion. td 80 November 25, 1906 Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Under discussion. Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Under discussion. How much did you say? Mrs. Dougherty: This will be a $50,000 professional service. Mr. Dawkins: All right.. Now, I'm looking at the budget here that was submitted with this, and I ii.ast don't see, if we're sincere here, now, how $50,000 is going to do this. Now, somebody tell me, you know, how you're going t.o... whore you're going to cut. UNIDENTIFIED SrEAKF.R: nK. Uh... Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, no. You don't have a vote on this. I'm talking to the Commission up here. Mr. Plummer: Well, Mr. Dawkins,... Mr. Dawkins: Um-hmm. Mr. Plummer.: ...it's my understanding that this will be for the event which will be solely staged within the City of Miami, which, in fact, will encourage the film industry to realize what we are here doing, and what we can do. Mr. Dawkins: Um-hmm. Mr. Plummer: And as far as I'm concerned, that that's all this is speaking to - that the remaining portion of it might or might not later come before this Commission for additional. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, OK, all right, OK. Mr. Plummer: This is for that event, which will solely be staged in the City of Miami, showing and demonstrating to the people what we're about here, and what we want to do. Mr. Dawkins: And if they need more money... Mr. Plummer: They would come back at a later time. Mr. Dawkins: ...and can adjust...and legitimate, that we can get it. Mrs. Kennedy: Right, the reason being that the second part was a sole source bidder, and we thought that there would be, really, no reason why there should be a sole source. We're going to ask the City Manager to go out for an RFP and get some bids. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, OK, I'm with you now. OK. Mayor Suarez: OK, moved and seconded. Do we have a motion and a second, Madame City Clerk? Mr. Dawkins: Yes, I second. Mayor Suarez: Any further discussion? Call the roll. fd 81 November 25, 1986 The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-954 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE FILM INDUSTRY TO BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF MIAMI`S ECONOMIC FUTURE.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO FhFC1TTF AN AGREEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORI*Y, WITH THE FILM SOCIETY OF MIAMI, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 TO HAVE SAID FIRM FORMULATE AND IMPLEMENT A MARKFTJIJG EFFORT FOR £ROMOTING MJAMI AS AN INTERNATIONAL FIL►I ENTER, WITIi MONIES THEREFOR ALLOCATED FROM CITY-WIDE FCONOI;JC DFVFLOPMENT FUNDS INCLUDED IN THE FY 1986-87 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BUDGET. (Here follow body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Comtnissi.oner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE: ABOLISH THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD'S ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mayor Suarez: Item 7. This was a City Manager's item. Mr. Plummer: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Commissioner Plummer. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Mrs. Kennedy: How much are we saving? Mr. Dawkins: Nothing. Mrs. Kennedy: What are you accomplishing? Mr. Odio: It's about a hundred and... if I remember, I think it was a hundred and... let me see, my memory is getting... Mayor Suarez: Simplifies the organizational chart, if nothing else. Mr. Dawkins: That's all. Mr. Plummer: You're not saving anything. Mr. Dawkins: That's all. You're not going to save anything, Commissioner. Just some more mythical numbers. Mrs. Kennedy: OK. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion from the Commission? Call the roll. fd 82 November 25, 1986 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ABOLISHING THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT AND CONSOLIDATING THE FUNCTIONS OF SAID, DEPARTMENT WITH THE BUILDING AND 7014ING DFFARTNF:NT, ALSO FROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER TO THr Ft►ILDING A..ATI) ZONING DEPARTMENT OF FUNDS, FERSO1,TKTI, (FXCFPT FOR THE DIFFCTOR), RECORDS, AND EQUIFmFNT C1TFPT-,NT L.v P:LIDGFTF:D FOR THE FLAwVING AND ZONING FOARDS ADM714ISTFATION PT FAP.Tt'FNT; FURTHER PROVIDING FOR TiTTUFF. RFAFFROFRIATION OF SAID BUDGETED FUNDS AND AITTHORIZING THE FXFENDITURT' OF SAID FUNDS BY THE BUILDING AND ZONING DTFARTNENT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION A14D A SEVFRATSILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, for edopt.ion as an emergency measure and dispensing with the requirement of reading same on two separate days, which was agreed to by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo c; Whereupon the Commission on motion of Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, adopted said ordinance by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo SAID ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10184. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 15. DISCUSSION REGARDING COST OF CITYWIDE ADVERTISING. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, at this time, I'd like to ask the administration to review our present policy. I'm not in any way trying to indicate to eliminate any newspapers. Mr. Manager, I saw an ad that appeared in the paper the other day for the City of Miami, about a hearing. I want to tell you, it was about ten times larger than what I feel that was necessary. Now, you know, we're paying a lot of money for advertising,... Mr. Odio: A special... Mr. Plummer: ... and if what you're going to tell me is that it's to comply with the 9500 ordinance, then maybe we should consider ... How much are we spending right now? Did I hear a figure, somebody telling me that we're spending over $400,000 a year in advertising, or more? Mr. Aurelio Perez-Lugones: My department, two hun...my ex -department, $250,000, or $265,000. May I... Mr. Plummer: And to the Clerk, approximately what are you spending? fd 83 November 25, 1986 11 Me. Hirai: How much was it, exactly? Mr. Plummer: Approximately. I'm not going to hold you to... Mr. Odio: Since we went to the Herald, it's four to one of what we used to spend. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Plummer. Me. Hirai: About $106,000, Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: Well, OK. Now,... Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Plummer. Mr. Plummer: Yes, Mr. Pere7-1.ugones: If I may. Probably that ad that you saw cost, with the Herald, in the neighborhood of $6,000. Mrs. Kennedy: (Gasp) Mr. Plummer: That ... that was... Mr. Perez-Lugones: It costs about $2,000 with Miami News. We have to pay that in response to Florida Statute 166.045, which requires that certain items be placed on a certain type of ad in a paper of general circulation,... Mayor Suarez: You say a certain type of ad. They actually give the length and the width of it? Mr. Perez-Lugones: They break down when you have to place that type of ad. Mr. Plummer: Well, hey, all I'm saying is, that what you're telling me, this City is spending near a half a million dollars a year in advertising, and if what you're, in fact, telling me, that the sake of a bad editorial, that we're spending four to one for using the Miami Herald,... Mr. Odio: That is correct. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Yes, sir. Mr. Odio: Yes, sir. Ms. Hirai: That's right. Mr. Plummer: You know, then I think what we need to do, in the same vein that we're trying to save money all the way around, I think that we need to have the Manager come back at the next meeting, or as soon as possible, and recommend to this Commission a way to save money. I don't in any way want to deny the public their right to know, but when you've got an emblem in an ad, and the emblem is that big, you probably paid about five or six hundred dollars just to have that City emblem in that ad. Now, I don't know that that's necessary, and I don't know the State statute says... Mr. Perez-Lugones: No, it's part of the... Mr. Plummer: Look, I don't want to get into it. All I'm saying is, Mr. Manager, I want you to come back at the next meeting, and tell us if we have to change some things, or whatever we've got to do, in that same vein that you're trying to save monies elsewhere, I think this is a key place where we can try to save monies, as it goes now. OK? Mayor Suarez: I'm pretty sure you'll be creative, and find some way to save some money on that. I just have that feeling. Mr. Plummer: It's...it's just...it's...whewl Mayor Suarez: Item 9. It's just an appointment. Commissioner Kennedy. Table Item 9. fd 84 November 25, 1986 N ILA 16. RECOMMEND 77iAT DFFARTMENT OF OFF-STREET PARKING GRANT REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF RENTAL AND FARUNG FEES FOR USE OF GUSMAN CENTER FOR "THE 1987 MISS MIAMI SC"0T,4RSF-FIF FAGF_,ANIT, INC." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suar-pz: Item 10, Mr. Plummer: Item 10. Mr. Jack Levin: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez;: Miss Miami Scholarship Pageant. Mr. Odio: This item was placed on the Agenda... Mr. Plummer: We can't waive for the Gusman Center. Mr. Odio: We recommend no funding. Mr. Dawkins: No, we can't... Mr. Plummer: No, no, excuse me. Why is this even on the Agenda, is my question. Mayor Suarez: No, I...this is my request. My request. Mr. Odio: Because the Mayor requested that we place this on the Agenda. Mayor Suarez: My request. We have waived, in the past, as to... Mr. Plummer: That was when we had the... Mayor Suarez: ...Dinner Key Exhibit Center. Mr. Plummer: That's when we had the ... no, no, that's different than Gusman. Gusman is a completely different financial arrangement, and when we had the special account, of which we had $100,000 in it, what we, in effect, did we a can't waive it, we paid the money. Now that account doesn't exist. Mayor Suarez: The agency responds to us it can't spend any money on capital improvements without our approval. We have so determined that if the a Commission doesn't want to go along with this, fine, you can make a presentation, but you can see there's three votes up here, and two are against any waiver anyhow, so... Mr. Dawkins: We're not against the waiver, sir. What I'm saying to you is that Roger Carlton is the one you have to go to, to get to waive this. Roger Carlton is the one who's in charge of the Gusman Hall, so he's the one who would waive it. Mr. Lewin: There's already been a letter written to him, and there was no response. 1 Mr. Dawkins: Then that means "no." I guess, I don't know, sir. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, wait - you're telling me that you wrote a letter to the Gusman Hall? How long ago? Mr. Lewin: No, a party that was working with us about a week to ten days ago. Mr. Plummer: Oh, OK, well, that's... Mr. Lewin: Because that was told... Mr. Plummer: Hell, the mail takes four days. Mr. Lewin: Yeah. That's what was told to us... Mayor Suarez: When is the function, December 20th? fd 85 November 25, 1986 W i Mr. Levin: Yeah, it's December 20th. My name is Jack Levin, I'm at 6700 Northwest 186th Street. I'm the president of Miss Miami. Pageant, which is a nonprofit corporation that has been solely formed to hold the local Miss America Preliminary Fageant, which is A scholarship program. We came before you on July lflt:h, and the Commission was nice enough to direct the City Manager to try to find some funds for us. We were looking for a substantial amount at that. time. In fact, it was less than it was approved for a non - national pageant, but anyway, that's beside the point. What we're looking for ... yes7 Mr. Dawkins: Like the Miss Black Collegiate? Mr. Lewin: No, no, it wasn't that, it was a Miss Hispanidad situation. Mr. Dawkins: OK, OK, I just wanted to know. OK, I just would like for you that, when you say things, make them clear. Mr. Lewin. Right, Mr. Dawkins: Don't make innuendos. Mr. Lewin: It was the Miss Hispanidad. Sure. Mr. Plummer: Sir, dial you go before the TIC? The Tourist Industry Council? Mr. Lewin: No, we did not. Mr. Plummer: Well, see, they have about $7,000,000 for these kind of things. Promotion. Mr. Lewin: Right. OK. Well, the reason I was coming before you, to make a presentation, and then I will, you know, leave, because apparently it falls on deaf ears. But I know you, in the past, have helped. What I was asking, and I understand that the possibility of waiving this was not a possibility, but in turn, because it is actually like paying yourself, even though it's another department, if I were to ask to possibly... and this is a funding situation, where I was asking to waive a fee where we, in turn, are going to be paying approximately the same amount of money for union help, to pay for the house staff, etc. One of the things that we're looking for, as well, is to be able N to put on a pageant here in the City of Miami. This year, we did go out and get the contract for Gusman, only in respect that we wanted to have it here. We're bringing in Chris Lemon(?), who may or may not be known to any one of you. He's donating his time. The only thing we had to pay for was a plane ticket to come here. We have national people that are interested in helping us, and we can't get our City to help us do the same thing. Our young lady is out there, even though she is not someone who was formally put on by you, to promote the City of Miami. She has been at functions, she has been by people saying, "I'm glad; you're a great representative of Miami," doing this all on her volunteer time. We are just looking to see if you can help us a little bit, because just the amount that I'm talking about, if this funding could come about, $2,000 is the approximate cost for the house. Two thousand dollars is the approximate cost for my expenses for the union help and the house personnel. I'm more than happy to see if there was some way that you can help me pay for that $2,000, which, in turn, is just going into a City function anyway, and being able to help me take that same money and use it for scholarships. Just to give you an idea, and not that it possibly has anything to do with the City of Miami: the city of North Miami has funded $5,000 a year, every year, for the Miss North Miami Pageant, which is a very similar pageant. They have made the facility, their armory, available for rehearsals, and they have put City personnel to help the particular pageant and put it together. They do that every year, and they do not have ... and it's put on by the Chamber of Commerce, one that could fund it all by themself. We are a nonprofit corporation. I am a real estate broker; my wife works in the fabric trade over on 40th Street. Our other people - one is male nurse at Jackson. We are people who are active in the City of Miami, and we're trying to help the City of Miami, and all we're looking for is a little bit of help from you. Either a waiver, if that was possible, or possibly you might even be generous to say, "Here, we'll reimburse you for what we can't waive." Either way, I would ask for your help in this, and I'll leave it to your decision. fd 86 November 25, 1986 t / � Mayor Suarez: Thank you for your presentation. Just for the record, I'll move the resolution to have the Off-street P.^,rking Authority give you the $2,000. So moved. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mr. PPS°kins: Call the roll, Madame Clerk. Mr. Flummer: The City Attorney wants to know, is that a resolution recommending? Mayor Suarez: It's a resolution recommending to the Off-street Parking Authority. Mr. Plummer: Oh, wait a minute. You're saying you recommended that they make the allocation? Oh yeah, sure. I'd like to see you get. a nickel out of that buffalo. Mayor Suarez: It's our money. We're telling them that all their expenditures have to be approved by us; their budget has to be approved by us; any capital improvements they make, no matter how small, have to be approved by us. It's our agency. Mr. Plummer: Can we send all the rest of them to them also? Mayor Suarez: So, you know, you want to play it that way, we'll play it that way. The following resolution was introduced by Mayor Suarez, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-955 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY THAT THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF RENTAL AND PARKING FEES AT GUSMAN CENTER FOR "THE 1987 MISS MIAMI SCHOLARSHIP PAGEANT, INC." SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 20, 1986 BE GRANTED. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Lewin: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: That cheapskate. !d 87 November 25, 1986 n 17. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN. Mayor Suarez: Item ll. Clare. Ms. Clare Whelan: Hi. I'm Clare Whelan. I reside at 1900 Tigertail in Coconut Grove, Mayor SuarerCould you move the mike up a little bit? You're a tall person. Ms. Whelan: OY.. I'm the chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women, and I'm here today to report on the activities of the Commission. We are your Commission, Commissioners. We are 20 women, of varying ages, bloodlines, and professional pursuits, working together now, as a result of your appointments, and of the mandate which established our Commission in 1973, to serve in an advisory capacity to the Miami City Commission, in respect to all matters pertaining to the status of women. A much wordier description is written in the legalese of our mandate, but basically it says, "represent women, who are now the voting majority, to your elected officials." The Commission on the Status of Women for years operated without even a staff person, until last year, and still has no office of its own. Yet, despite the lack of visibility, the needs have a way of surfacing, and we are your barometer with regard to the well-being of the majority of your constituents. Over a year ago, our response to an Affirmative Action report showing women as the majority people in Miami, yet comprising less than 23 percent of Miami's work force, was to set jobs for women as this year's priority. We held a workshop during Women's History Month, which was sponsored by the City of Miami. Over a hundred women, Miami City employees, attended. Do you know what their major concern was? When asked to identify the greatest obstacle to their own personal and professional advancement, child care won. Or shall we say lost. And the need for adequate facilities became our major focus. We called, at that time, Dade County's Commission on the Status of Women, and found that they were also in the research mode with regard to child care. The result of that phone call and five months of meeting is a strong joint child care task force, which includes City, County, State, and Federal officials. Bobbie Ibarra(?), from our Commission, is a task force cochair. Many of the recently publicized child care issues are the result of women working together on the child care task force. Last week Metro's Commission voted to support child care facilities in Metro Center downtown, and at the Miami International Airport. In addition, we commend all of you for supporting Off—street Parking's efforts to open a child care facility downtown. We also received your support, and won a $25,000 child care grant, as a part of a major downtown development project. We look to you to continue these very positive actions. Abuses in the area, we are just now beginning to address. One of our members, Kate Hale(?), heads the committee which is examining the benefits of our City adopting Broward County's Police Department policy regarding the immediate arrest of an abusive spouse. We will keep you informed of the progress. Another important focus of our Commission is the new Minority and Women Procurement Advi... Mayor Suarez: That was Broward County, you said? Ms. Whelan: Excuse me? Broward County. Mayor Suarez: And they built that into their ordinance, or...a special ordinance? Ms. Whelan: I will get the information to you. Kate... Mayor Suarez: To supplement State law? Ms. Whelan: Kate is examining all the details. Mayor Suarez: Because that's a difficult problem for the police, when it's domestic quarrel, they always want to stay away from it, even though it looks like something pretty nasty happening, you know? Ms. Whelan: Yeah, we know. That's why we're going to give it a lot of research before we even bring it up to you. Weil keep you informed, though, fd 88 November 25, 1986 on it, definitely. Another important focus of Our Commission is the new Minority and Women Frocurement Advisory Council, which you established to involve minority businespes in contrFct opportunities with the City of Miami. Two of our r_+kmbers, Blanca G¢lvez(?) And Vc rnica Silr Wr ), currently serve on the comm3ttee. our month)%- meetings ere Attended by men Fn^ women who express concerns, Fnd FFk tts for !rolutic,ns. VP r-re mendeted to kFep you informed of the issues brought before I.:s. FnCi 47p will do so in regulFr reports. We encourage yeti Fnr, —11r sifff to cr,ntFct us, Ft tend our monthly meetings, and work With us on those FomFn`s issues which Pre brought before you. Thanks a lot for your time. Mayor Suarez: Flow we doing on Bayside, if you know? In terms of the tenants. Ms. Whelan: That I can'ttellr you, the detail of that, but the procurement can... Mayor Suarez: Would you get that from the Rouse Company people, so we know? Because I cFn't give that figure out off the top of my head, unless... Ms. Whelan: Sure, yeah. Blanca Galvez(?) is...they've only had, I think, one meeting so far, and now they're looking for that kind of information, on how the contracts are coming in. Mayor Suarez: And you have to monitor it, because they will be ready to operate in April, so they'll be making a lot of decisions in the next few weeks. Ms. Whelan. Yep. All right, thanks a lot. Mayor Suarez: Thank you, Clare. Mr. Dawkins: OK, thank you. 18. ALLOCATE $50,000 TO UNLIMITED REGATTA AS SEED MONEY FOR THE JUNE 13-14 EVENT. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, may I bring up real quickly, if I may,... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. Plummer: ...a resolution, motion, whatever it is I need. We have been granted dates for the Unlimited Race again this year, if this Commission so seems disposed to accept, of June 12, 13, and 14. It does take an allocation of $50,000 in seed money, which we have not used in the last four years, and the other portion of the monies would be coming from that bed tax, which is now going to the Convention Center. I leave it to the pleasure of this Commission, that I assume you have enjoyed the race and what it's done for the City in the past, and I would move at this time that the fifty thousand seed money be allocated once again this year. Mayor Suarez: The person who has enjoyed it the most is Commissioner Kennedy, who was racing around in one of those little... Mr. Plummer: Oh, yeah. Mayor Suarez: What do they call those? Mr. Plummer: Jetski's. Mayor Suarez: Jetski's. Mrs. Kennedy: After that, I have to second the motion, right? Mr. Plummer: Yeah, right. Especially how you won. Mayor Suarez: Now you said the last four years... Mrs. Kennedy: Second. fd 89 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: ...the seed money had not been used? Mr. Plummer: No, sir. Matter of fact, in the final analysis, we've actually turned beck a profit to the City. Last year vas $9,000. The seed money is what we need tip front, to pay for the sanction, for the insurance - all of the things that ve have to pPy tip front., that ve don't have the cash. Mayor Suare7.: And it's been returning enough to cover all the money that we guarantee? Mr. Plummer: Yes, sir. So, I'll move it, and if you want... Mrs. Kennedy: I second. Mr. Plummer: And it will be June the 12th, 13th, and 14th of this year. Coming year. Mr. Dawkins: I'll second it. Mrs. Kennedy: I seconded it already. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, you did? Mrs. Kennedy: Yeah. Mr. Dawkins: OK, under discussion. Let all of the placards and other advertisements say "Budweiser and the City of Miami's Regalia," and not "Budweiser and J.L. Plummer's Regalia." Mayor Suarez: Got your name on those things, there? Mrs. Kennedy: Run that by me again? What? Mr. Plummer: Not that I know of . Unless I changed my name to the City of Miami. Mayor Suarez: Or is that the guy who does interior decorating? I don't know, you see his name all over the place. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-956 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOCATE $50,000 TO THE UNLIMITED REGATTA, AS SEED MONEY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE JUNE 13-14, 1987 EVENT. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Dawkins: I have two items, but I'll wait until after the meeting, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: Reflect my vote yes, and under the assumption that that was an emergency item, not a pocket item, and given that, I guess, we have to let the people know that we want them next year,... Mr. Plummer: They're waiting for an answer, yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: ...and we must do that now, or whatever. Commissioner Dawkins? fd 90 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: I'll wait till the end of the meeting, thank you, Mr. Mayor. 19. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY TRAVEL - EXCEPTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. ------------_------__.--------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez.,: Item 12.. You went to propo_a an RFP for travel services. Mr. Carlos Garcia: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Suarez: This would not include... Mr. Dawkins: Move it. Mayor Suarez: This would not include ... a motion? We have a motion - do we have a second? Mr. Plummer.: I'll second. Mrs. Kennedy: But do you mean to tell me that the City does not have a travel agent? Mr. Garcia: No, ma'am, we don't. At this time. Mrs. Kennedy: Whh000f. Mayor Suarez: This would not include the Commissioners' and the Mayor's own arrangements for travel? Mr. Garcia: It may or it may not. It's really ... would be up to the City Commissioners to decide that,... Mr. Odio: It's your pleasure. Mr. Garcia: ...and the Mayor. Mr. Plummer: Can I suggest, Carlos, that in your RFP, some of the travel agencies today, if you buy your ticket through a particular agency that offers, at no cost to you, give you a hundred thousand dollar life insurance policy free. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir, we're going to include that .... As a matter of fact... Mr. Plummer: And I think that that... it's being offered, I understand, by American Express, I believe, to the... Mr. Garcia: OK. The Manager also indicated that the travel agent should be located within the City limits, as well. Mr. Plummer: Oh, very definitely. Mayor Suarez: I think it's a good idea, as long as you don't include our own travel arrangements. The reason is, that we need the flax... at least, I need the flexibility, to be able to go to any travel agent at any one point, you know, depending on what kind of service they provide. Mr. Odio: That's your pleasure. Mayor Suarez: Some bring you the tickets right there. Some, you know... Mr. Plummer: It's getting impossible. Mayor Suarez: I've had no problem,... Mrs. Kennedy: How do you buy your tickets? You buy them through your own... fd 91 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: ...and I get extremely, you know, reasonable rates from them. Mr. Garcia: I think we can exclude the City Commission without any problems. Mayor Suarez: with that exclusion, I'd have no protlFm with it. Mr. Plummer: i6`pll, 1pt me tell you one of t.hp problems we're having, to exemplify -- SPrg30 knc,ws, vp o>Fnt to go to the Growth MPnagement the other day, and whFt the City pi-Fsently does is issue flight checks. And now, we went to what we thought_ vps Eastern Airlines, and come to find out they've got a branch which is a commuter line, called Harbor - Bar Harbor? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (OFF MIKE): Bar Harbor. Mr. Plummer: And... Mayor Suarez: Pretty small little plane, huh? Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you - they will not accept the flight checks. And Sergio was standing there, and raised holy hell, and spoke Spanish, and the girl didn't, so she gave him the ticket. I mean... (Laughter) Mr. Plummer: But that's the problem that you're ex... Mayor Suarez: Sergio has the way; I mean, Cesar has the way. Who was itp Sergio or Cesar? Mr. Plummer: Call the roll on 12, huh? The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-957 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO DISTRIBUTE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY TRAVEL SERVICES IN ORDER THAT THE CITY CAN DERIVE LOWER COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH AIR FARES, HOTEL RATES AND CAR RENTAL RATES INCURRED BY CITY STAFF, EXCEPTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and 1 adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. f i--------------------- -------- -------------------------- i 20. ESTABLISH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA TO USE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TO FUND TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER IMPROVFMF..NTS . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: Item 13. i Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: As you know, the City Commission has unofficially expressed support for the creation of a tax increment financing district in Dupont Plaza, to provide the necessary infrastructure to develop that area. Mr. Dawkins: 1�ove it. We've heard this before. Mr. Rodriguez: OK, we have a resolution that we're going to pass. Mr. Plummer: Well., uh... Mr. Rodriguez: The reason why we have this is because tomorrow we have a meeting with the finance committee of the County. Tomorrow morning. Mr. Plummer: Would you see to it that one of these are taken to Commissioner Redford's home this evening? Mr. Rodriguez: OK. Mr. Plummer: Because this is just the finance committee meeting tomorrow. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Plummer: And we'd like to see that that gets moved prior to the end of the year, and the indication is that it might not be moved out of committee tomorrow. And we'd like to see it moved out of committee tomorrow. So, have one of those delivered to his home. Mr. Rodriguez: OK. We're going to be there tomorrow anyhow. Mr. Dawkins: Tomorrow? Tonight. Mr. Rodriguez: That's a resolution of intent, by the way. Mr. Plummer: Tonight. Tonight. Mr. Rodriguez: I know. We're going to be there tomorrow morning. The resolution is a resolution of intent, so that we can be able to tell them that you have support from the Commission on this, and eventually it's going to { come before you, to take an official action on the plan. Mr. Plummer: OK. I'll move Item 13 - well, it's nothing to move. r Mr. Rodriguez: It's a resolution that you have in front of you. Mr. i Odio: You have to pass the resolution. } Mr. Plummer: Huh? i Mr. Rodriguez: You have to pass the resolution. Of intent. Mr. { Plummer: Where's the resolution? Mr. Rodriguez: I just passed it. ti Mr. Plummer: You just passed it. - Mayor Suarez: You're convinced that you can get away with saying that the blighting aspects of this come from "blighting influence," as you define it - here, of "inadequate streets and traffic congestion"? 4 Mr. Rodriguez: It's within the definitions of the Chapter 163. fd 93 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: And "addressing economic development stimuli" in the middle of Dupont Pleas, with an $800,000,000 project, and so on, proposed. OK. Let's hope eo. Mrs. Kennedy: How much do you think the Worth project could generate? Mr. Plummer: Two hundred Trillion, They said the Worth project was going to be, in its final stage, �200,000,000. Mayor Suarez: Four hundred, if they do the whole thing. OK. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Call the roll on the resolution. The followin3 resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 140. 86-958 A RESOLUTION OF I14TF14T TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS FER A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA IN ORDER TO USE TAX INCREME14T FINANCING TO FUND TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo ON ROLL CALL: Mr. Dawkins: I vote yes, and Mr. Mayor,... Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: They declared the Biscayne, I mean... Mayor Suarez: The Omni area? Mr. Dawkins: No, the Dupont Plaza area a distressed area, in order to get money for a bifurcated structure, so I know they can declare this a distressed area. I don't know how they got it through Tallahassee. Mayor Suarez: Is that a "yes" vote? Mr. Dawkins: Yes. fd 94 November 25, 1986 21. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED ORDINANCE PLACING A TIME LIMITATION ON RECOMMENDATION OF MOTIONS MADE AT THE PRIOR MEETING. Mayor Suxre.: OK, Plenning and Zoning item... Mr. Plummer: Wait, but you got four... Mr. Dawkins: No, 14. Mr. Plummer: Fourteen - that's the last item. Mayor Suarez: What have we got on 147 Oh, the reconsideration ordinance. Commissioner Dawkins, this is your baby. I don't have any problem whatsoever with that one. Mr. Dawkins: OK, where is my ... Mr. Parsons? Mr. Huber R. Parsons, Jr. (OFF MIKE): Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Would you come and explain to them why we want...why I want to do this? Mayor Suarez: This would give, or would limit it to one... an item could be reconsidered no later than one meeting after the Commission meeting at which it was first considered, right? Mr. Parsons: Yes, Mayor, Vice -Mayor, and Commissioners, for the record, my name is Huber R. Parsons, Jr., with offices at 799 Brickell Plaza. As I understand it, this particular ordinance passed on first reading on a four -to - nothing vote. It's coming up for a vote at the next Commission meeting. It's a discussion item tonight. I believe that the purpose of this ordinance is to limit reconsiderations, to conform the City code to the standard procedures under Roberts' Rules of Order, which do not currently obtain. The results of this will be to have persons treat the City Commission, probably, with more deference when they make suggestions, when votes initially come up, to increase fees for the City in the event that reconsiderations come up, etc. I understand that there may have been some concern, Mayor and Commissioners and City Manager, concerning the wording of the ordinance, in the sense that, on the second line, it provides "actions of the City Commission, including," and that has been seen, perhaps, as - I believe correctly so - as restricting the parliamentary device of reconsideration for any actions of the City Commission. That's not the purpose of why this was suggested; it's been suggested with respect to land use issues only. And I believe that if the Nord "including" were deleted, and the words "relating to" were inserted in its place, as I have discussed with the City Attorney, that that would eliminate that objection, that some members of the Commission might have, that the City administration might have, and it might be appropriate. I would suggest that this is an item in the interest of good government in Miami, and it's something that you should continue to adopt. I think there are also, probably, various other people that wish to speak affirmatively to the issue. I would be surprised if there's any well-founded opposition to this. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Do we have any more persons wishing to speak in favor of it? Mayor Suarez: This is not going to be the second reading, which will be advertised for... Mr. Bailey: December llth will be second reading. Mayor Suarez: Or has been advertised for December llth. Mr. Dawkins: OK. Um-hmm. Mayor Suarez: You understand that? We will have a second reading of it, and we'll have a public hearing. fd 95 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: OK, the reason that we've got to go back to the next reading, is that legally, we didn't advertise it, so therefore it will be formally passed at the next meeting. Mr. Jahn Green(?): Miller, if you don't want me to speak, I won't. Should I pit dorn? Mr. Dpykir,s: vPll, go ahead. Mr. Green: OK. fly name is John Green. I live at 3158 Florida Avenue in Coconut. Grove, and 7 am for the ordinance. Mr. Dawkins: Thank you. Mayor Suare Thank you. Mr. Dawkins: Well, I think all of us are, and if we are sincere up here, of trying to control the zoning, what have you, then I'm sure that those of us here will be voting in favor of this. The only reason we're not doing it today, is that the City Attorney said that we aid not advertise it, and we did not need anybody coming back. So, we will have a formal reading - when, Lucia7 The final reading? Mr. Plummer: December 11. Mrs. Dougherty: December 11. Mr. Dawkins: December 11. So... Mr. Plummer: Where's the disclosure laws? How come that didn't come back today? Mrs. Dougherty: Because this is the Planning and Zoning item ... Agenda - this is the Planning and Zoning Agenda. Mr. Dawkins: So thank you, all of my supporters, for coming, and we'll see you on the lath. (Applause) Right. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22. ELECT AND APPOINT COMMISSIONER J.L. PLUMMER, JR. AS VICE -MAYOR TO SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM. Mr. Dawkins: OK, now, Mr. Mayor, I have two little items here. Mayor Suarez: Commissioner. Mr. Dawkins: And one is very distasteful. Mayor Suarez: Oh -oh. Mr. Dawkins: And I don't know why I want to do this, but - I've served a year as Vice -Mayor, and we rotate the Vice-Mayorship so that it can go around, and since I have been fortunate enough to serve with a very good Mayor for four years, it's been a pleasure, so now I have to relinquish that chair, and I'm going to make a motion, and I hope that Mrs. Kennedy will not second it,... Mrs. Kennedy: Secondl Secondl Mr. Dawkins: ...but I think that the oldest member in line of time up here should receive the gavel, so that he can't say that we discriminated against his age. So I move that old man J.L. Plummer become the Vice -Mayor. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: And seconded. Now, all those people who are against, would you please all line up, and let's take them one at a time, two minutes each. (Laughter) Let the record reflect that only Howard Gary ... uh, Al Cardenas, Howard Gary,... fd 96 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: Yes, they're pending a hearing, right? (Laughter) Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. The following resolution was introduced by Commissioner Dawkins, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-959 A RESOLUTION EL,FCTING AND APPOINTING COMMISSIONER J. L. PLUMMER, JR., AS VICE-►AYOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO SERVE A ONF YEAR TFPM COMMIENCING FROM THE DATE HEREOF. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 23. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED REFINANCING OF CITY BONDS TO LOWER DEFICIT AT CITY OF MIAMI CONVENTION CENTER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Dawkins: OK, the other one is... Mayor Suarez: That was pretty distasteful. But go ahead. Mr. Dawkins: I've been concerned, ever since we've been here, Mr. Mayor, you and Commissioner Kennedy joined the group with us, that we have a $6,000,000 deficit each year at the Kennedy...I mean the Knight Center garage. So, with that thought in mind, I asked Daniels and Bell and M Securities, and some others, to see if they could find a way that we could unload this burden and sort of relieve the City taxpayers of this white elephant that we are subsidizing at the rate of $6,000,000 a year. Now, Daniels and Bells, M Securities, and others, they came up with a method of issuing refunding bonds for the express purpose of refinancing the remaining bonding. Now, I would like to recommend to the Manager and Mr. Bailey that they meet with Daniels and Bell and M Securities, and others, to see if what they told me is feasible, and it's what we want to do. And if so, I'd like for you to come back and recommend to us, after they touch bases with each of the Commissioners, and explain it to them, that we go into this. Now, the only thing I'm going to put in here that's going to look dirty is, I asked Daniel and Bell and M Securities to do this for me. Now, they did this pro bono, without any cost, and I'm suggesting that if they prove to the Manager that this can be done, that thef be given a contract. And I'm not asking you to do nothing you haven't done before. I remember sitting up here when Cooper and Lyburn went out and told us that they took it upon themselves, pro bono, to determine that we could collect $6,000,000 in sanitary fees, and we gave them the contract. And I say this was looking for money for themselves, and you say it's legal, and we can do it. So, if Daniels and Bells and those show us that they can save us money, then you can...we can... and you gave it to Coopers and Lyburn, I'm sure we can do the same thing here. Mrs. Dougherty: You can... he, if it's over $50,000 in a professional service, he has to consult with three people. Mr. Plummer: Well,... fd 97 November 25, 1986 Mrs. Dougherty: He's already done it. Mr. Plummer: ...first and foremost, I thoroughly enjoy hearing the fact that this City can rave dollars. That's always enjoyable. I brought to the administration, FpproximFtely six months ago, Mr. Homer Marlow, who is a member of the Ynight CFntFr AdviFnry Committee; had indicated to Trip, because he is !rV Fppeint0F tc thFt committer, thrt he felt: that thF rFfinFncing of the bonds at the market level Fs they wFrF todpy, that this City could save a considerFblF pmr)urt of monrv, Fs we have done with some other bonds that were present. You stFted, MlillFr. that it was a $6,000,000 subsidy on the garage. I don't. think that's really what you meant. On the garage, or the total complex? Mr. Dawkins: Total complex. Mr. Plummer: 0111. And let me correct the record. That used to be six million; it.'s now four and a half million, so let me get that correct - the subsidy. I think that it is only proper that if they have come up with some kind of a package, that they can save this City that $6,000,000, I think it behooves the Fdminict.ration and this Commission to listen. The only problem that I have is, how do you avoid the selection process? I don't know that that is legal. I don't. think that. they should be barred from being a part of that process, because they were the ones who devFloped it; but I think that first and foremost, bFfore wF really even gat into that, I think we need to have the administration sit with them, this Commission sit with them, and then come back at another meeting and say "yes," that it is feasible, or "no, they don't know what they're talking about," and then we can proceed from there, if we feel that it is worth while to this City. You know, I would have to bow to the City Attorney as to whFther or not.... Mr. Dawkins: Well, that's what I want to ask the City... Mr. Plummer: And we will at a later date, not... Mr. Dawkins: OK, well, that's what I want to ask. But I want to ask the City Attorney now - how was it legal to do it with Coopers and Lyburn, and illegal to do it now? Mrs. Dougherty: I'm not sure about the relationship with Coopers and Lybrand. I'm unbware of that whole relationship. But the way it is done, traditionally - if it's under $50,000, no competitive bidding is required. If it's over $50,000, the Manager has to talk to two other firms. It's my understanding that he has done so already, in this case. Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Manager. Mr. Odio (OFF MIKE): Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Have somebody research the records, and provide each of the Commissioners with the minutes of how we awarded Coopers and Lyburn the contract, to collect the $6,000,000 in garbage...I mean, sanitation fees, and what -have -you. Mr. Odio: When this happen - three or two years ago? Tell him what happened. Mr. Carlos Garcia: Mr. Vice -Mayor, my understanding and my recollection is that... Mr. Dawkins: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Mr. Plummer: He's no longer the Vice -Mayor. Mr. Garcia: Ay, Mr. Commissioner. (Laughter) Yeah, my recollection is that that contract was for $40,000. Mayor Suarez: Let's reconsider that vote, in view of how eager he was. Mr. Garcia: And, as the City Attorney says, being under $50,000, is not subject to competitive bidding. And also, the City already has a contract with Coopers and Lybrand which has a clause that allows them to do additional work for the City without an additional contract, also. fd 98 Nov6mbesr 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: No, no, no, no, no - they had a clause, OK? Nov, this is the last time I plan to tell you guys that I don't Trent no damn more work with Coopers and Lyburn. Nov, I hope I don't have to explain this to this administration no m^re, Ps long Fa I fit on this Commission. I don't want Coopers and l.,yburn to do no more vorY for the City of Miami. Now, how many times do I hFVF to say th t' c-e7 Mr. Odio: t;rf, they doing— -hrn vvs this done? Mr. Garcia: Fell. no, Commissioner, this happened a couple of years ago. Mr. Odio: That is not this adrrinist.ration. Mr. Dawkins: or,, if it. happened before I was born, it's dead now, OK? Any contracts you people got with Coopers and Lyburn are dead. They moved out of the City of tiiami into the County. They were in the City, paying taxes and rent. They decided to move in the County. We should support any CPA firm that's still within the City, who's pawing taxes and in the City. We should not be supporting that individual who decided he wanted to move to the County. And that's my feeling on it. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask a question. Somebody has said - who it was - that the Manager has already talked to two other firms. Mrs. Dougherty: That was me, because that was my understanding. Mrs. Kennedy: Who are the other two firms? Mr. Garcia: No, the other... Mr. Odio: Let me give you a...excuse me. After.. Mrs. Kennedy: I need some. ..I'm new at this Commission, so I don't know who they are, I don't know who the principals are. Mr. Dawkins: Me either. I don't either. I don't either, Madame... Mr. Odio: After the budget hearings, Commissioner Plummer indicated that he was concerned about the... if we could go out for financing. There was also an Advisory Committee meeting of the Knight Center, presided by Mr. Marlow,... Mr. Plummer: Exactly. He's the man that brought it to me. _ Mr. Odio: ...and Fred Berens. Fred Berens contacted me and told me that he felt that, at the time - it was in January, I think - that we should look into the possibility, since the points were...the interest were low, whatever, that this could be the opportunity to advertise, to lower the deficit at the Knight Center —or the financing. Mr. Plummer: But I got back.. Mr. Manager, I got back a memo from you,... Mr. Odio: OK, let me...that's what...If I may, Commissioner... Mr. Plummer: ...stating that it was not financially feasible to do it at this time. Mr. Odio: The company that we approached, which I forgot the name, said at the time that the interest was so close together to what we had, that it would not be feasible. Mr. Dawkins: So we don't have anything from them. Mr. Odio: No, we don't. Mr. Dawkins: All right, so, now, so we're back - now, who's the other firm? You said we had two. Mr. Odio: The other one, I don't know about. Mr. Dawkins: So now we're still back to one, Madame Commissioner. fd 99 November 25, 1986 Mr. Odio: I only know of one. Mr. Dawkins: OK, you had one. And he said he couldn't do it, So hov, OK, so... Mr. Odio: That's the only one I know. Mr. Plummer: 1 think what Commissioner Dawkins is saying at this time, this administration, as well as this Commission, has an obligation to listen. Mr. Odio: UTe need ... I think... Mr. Plummer: OK? I think that this firm, who —something and Bell, or whatever it i*? Mr. Dawkins: Daniels and Bell, um-hmm. Mr. Plummer: That., whoever they are, they should come make a presentation to you, demonstrating that. they can save $6,000,000 on those bonds, and it's better than the memo 1 got before, saying that it was not feasible. Mrs. Kennedy: That's right. Could you tell us who the principals are? Mr. Bailey: Well, Commissioner, we ... Daniels and Bell, which i.s a firm that's a member of the New York Stock Exchange, minority firm, they're located in New York, and they've done a variety of bond deals with the City of Miami, as co - managers, or the minority partner with some of the larger firms. We have in the audience, with us today, one of the representatives from Dani.els and Bell, that represents Florida, Hector Montez(?), who can respond to... Mr. Dawkins: We don't need no response. Let them respond to the Manager. Mr. Bailey: ...the organization of the company. Mayor Suarez: Yeah, let's have them make the report to the City Manager. Mr. Dawkins: Let them go to the Manager and make the report to the Manager, let the Manager bring it back to us. Mayor Suarez: And we'll take recommendations from the City Manager on it. But certainly, if someone can figure out a way to save ... I'm sure they can't save the six million... or four and a half million dollars a year by refinancing the bonds. If they can, I want to invest in their company. But, certainly, we ought to look at that possibility, Herb, right away, and get back to us with a full report. Mr. Bailey: Right. I've reviewed the preliminary numbers, and there is a saving, mathematically. We have to have a couple of more reports from our financial advisors, and we also want to hear from our own bond counsel, but the preliminary reports that they have shown me in the past two days does indicate a savings. We would like to have the opportunity to have a full review, and get back before this Commission on the llth with a report, after discussion with the Manager. Mayor Suarez: That's exactly what we'd like. I think that's the indication of the Commission. Are we going to be able to get that before the next Commission meeting, Mr. City Manager? I mean, we've got Herb's assurance that we will. Mr. Bailey: We will have it by the lath. Full review. Mayor Suarez: Thank you. On the Coopers and Lybrand issue, I might add that I feel exactly the same way as Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Odio: Can I ask a question on Cooper and Lybrand? Mayor Suarez: I don't know why we extended their contract for two years, if I remember correctly, I don't know. Mr. Odio: Can I ask a question, please? fd 100 November 25, 1986 Mayor Suarez: And the argument was given that they've been doing it all the time, which to me is not a valid argument at all, but that's the argument that was thrown around at the time. Mr. Odio: Well, ae a metter of fact., my philosophy is simple - that we have to distribute the work that 4e have. In the RFF for the MPrri]] 5t.evens property, Ps yov know, Mr. MFror, because you called me on it. I refused to give it to gnothar company because they've been getting all thr Fork, and I went to Fnet.her company that never gets work, of the big eight. Rut. ve have a problem. Ve here a problem in risk management, and thPt.'s %-by I want to ask this question. We have over $15,000,000 in insurance, r-nd I need to review risk management, the policies of the risk management group here in the City, because there is a lot of money involved there, and they had advised me, the Department of Finance, that we should - and Herb - that we should allow Cooper and I.ybrands... Mr. Dawkins: No. Mr. Odio: Wait - that's why I'm asking the question. Mr. Dawkins: Well, I'm telling you no. Mr. Odio: To review immediately the risk management questions, because of the monies that are involved. If not, I can go to another company and start the process all over. Mr. Dawkins: So, what are you telling me? Mr. Odio: But it's the time involved. Mr. Dawkins: OK, let me ask you one question. Mr. Odio: Yes, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Are ,ou telling me that out of all the firms within the City of Miami, the only one can deal with whatever amount of money it is, in risk management, is Cooper and Lyburn? Mr. Odio: No, sir. Mr. Dawkins: Well, then, why... Mr. Odio: It's because of the question of time, and I'm asking the question if we have to go out and try to find, the bidding process, we are going to... Mr. Dawkins: Well, I don't know about the rest of them, but my vote is no. i Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask a question. For Joe Carollo. 1 Mr. Odio: Unless you authorize me to go ahead and do it. Mr. Plummer: Let me ask a question Joe Carollo asked, and I'll ask it. Why can't we do it in house? Mr. Odio: Because... Mr. Plummer: You know, I don't know what we're paying for audit - OK? - but I want to tell you something. In-house is not a profit. Cooper and Lybrand don't work for charity, or any of the other firms. Now, why are we, every year we're spending all of these big dollars to go outside to get outside auditors. Now, I understand, on the City audit, you've got to have an independent. OK, that should be. But why in the hell can't we do the other in house? Why do we have to give somebody a profit? Mr. Odio: Can I be candid about it? Mr. Plummer: Sure. Mr. Odio: My concerns about risk management is that we're throwing a lot of money away in insurance, in self-insurance, that we could save if we had the proper advice, and we need somebody from outside that has the expertise that we don't have. fd 101 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: Why can't we, as Commissioner Plummer said, do it in house, and bring in some outside consultants? Mr. Odio: Well, t.hatFe whet we're trying to do. Mayor Suere7: Well, to the extent thAt you go to outside consultants... Mr. Dawkins (OFF MIKF): if you hAve to give it to Cooper and Lyburn, give Cooper and l.yhurn a big fee to tell... Mayor cuPre7: Right.. Within your discretion or outside of your discretion, having to get. Commission epproval, you've got another vote that says, "Let's go to another firm that's not Coopers and Lybrand." Mr. Plummer: Let's just. give it to the Legal Department. Mr. Odio: What, the... Mr. Plummer: Give risk management to the Legal Department. Mr. Odio: Oh, that's what I want to do, but —but we... Mr. Plummer: That's where it should be. Mr. Odio: No. J.L., I agree, but we needed to substantiate... Mr. Plummer: What? Mr. Bailey: Go ahead ... I just want to respond to your statement about doing it in house. There are some things that we do have experience here, and some things that we can do, but as we have reviewed all of the functions and the concerns involved in risk management, and considering that there is a preliminary decision to transfer that operation to the ... what I consider the legislative branch of government, the City Attorney's office, we felt that - and I'm not supporting what firm - but, we felt that we should have at least a real thorough assessment of all of our problems in risk management, in terms of the function in which we manage and contribute money from the General Fund every year to the fund, whether or not it is cheaper to go out and privatize risk management or not, whether or not we should transfer, maybe, the employee portion of the Health and Welfare part to the Personnel Department. There are a variety of items in risk management that far exceed the capability that, I think, we have. Mayor Suarez: We're not... Mr. Dawkins: OK, yes, but... Mayor Suarez: But that was just something that was mentioned. We're not into what we're going to do with risk management today; we've got other items on the Agenda, Herb. The only thing that was mentioned here is, whatever consultant we use, that sounds or looks or smells like a CPA firm, do not keep using the same CPA firm that we've been using forever and ever. Mr. Dawkins: And another... and let me get on my favorite soap... Mayor Suarez: And that's all the statement that was made. Mr. Dawkins: Let me get on my favorite soapbox, Mr. Mayor. You see, this is why I have no damn minorities able to do this. You individuals who can bring minorities in, and give them the training, the expertise, and let them work with somebody, so that they could come up and do this - every time I turn, you're talking about "We got nobody with the expertise." Well, how can they get the expertise if we don't hook them up with somebody where they can get it? Hmmm? Mayor Suarez: Right. Fully agree. Mr. Dawkins: That's right. I mean, come on. Mr. Odio: We will not go to... fd 102 November 25, 1986 ------- --------------------------------------------------------- 24. REQUEST AMPHITHEATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FEASIBILITY OF PLACING USS SHANGRI-LA NAVAL SHIP ON THE F.E.C. PROPERTY. I -----------------------`-------------------------------------------- --- ------- Mr. Dawkins: OK, I have one more thing. This Shangri-La, Mr. Manager. What's on that, sir? Mr. Odio: The USS Shangri-La? Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Should I ... can I recommend that you just bring us a... Mayor Suarez: I'd like to propose something on it. Mr. Dawkins: Co right Ahead. Mayor Suarez: Since we've had presentations made here, we've had them made to the DDA, and I think there's a standing committee, and I guess it's still standing. Commissioner Kennedy, are you still standing with that committee, that was reviewing Bayfront Park? Is that committee still standing? Mr. Odio: Yes. Mrs. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Mayor, but I don't think it is the intention of this committee to study that issue. Mayor Suarez: Well, I'm going to make a motion that this Commission engage your committee, or ask you to review the feasibility of the placing of the Shangri-La, and other improvements, together with the entire bonding package that's being proposed, on the F.E.C. property, and come back to us with a recommendation. Mr. Odio: Well, Mr. Mayor, I just want to say, until the master plan is concluded in downtown Miami, I don't think we should proceed with the Shangri- La, and see if it fits in the master... Mayor Suarez: We can't wait forever for the master plan. Mr. Odio: No,... Mr. Dawkins: That's your professional advice? Mr. Odio: That's my professional advice. Because, I tell you, I have a personal... in recommending that we park this thing in front of the Bayside project, in F.E.C. property. It has one advantage, the only advantage that I see, is that they will improve the park for us, free of charge, and you can always move that boat. Mayor Suarez: And that if it doesn't work out, they can always take their ship and leave. Mr. Odio: Yeah, that they can always take the ship away, but I... Mayor Suarez: Right. And that it doesn't involve the City's obligation in any way, as they have presented it. If all of that is true, you know, where do we lose by having Commissioner Kennedy's committee look and it and come back to us with recommendations? Mr. Odio: But we should finish the master plan too. If we're going to do the master plan of the area,... Mr. Plummer: We can put it in the middle of Noguchi Park. Mayor Suarez: We're moving on the master plan. The one thing doesn't take away from the other. Mr. Odio: OK. That's your prerogative. Mayor Suarez: I so move. I guess I got to give it to you now. fd iJ3 November 25, 1986 Mr. Dawkins: No, I don't have that anymore. i throw it to you. Mr. Plummer: Is there a second? l Mrs. Kennedy: I can't vote. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Why you can't vote? Mayor Suarez: Yeah, you can vote on your own appointment. Mr. Plummer: Is the motion understood? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Mayor Suarez, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-960 A MOTION REQUESTING THE AMPHITHEATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY OF PLACING THE USS SHANGRI-LA NAVAL SHIP AND OTHER RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON THE F.E.C. PROPERTY, AS MORE FULLY OUTLI14ED IN PACKAGE PRESENTED TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE ADMINISTRATION; FURTHER DIRECTING SAID COMMITTEE TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ISSUE. Upon being seconded. by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mayor Suarez: You do accept, I mean, Commissioner Kennedy? You said you couldn't vote, but I just want to make sure you do accept. Mr. Plummer: I can put it with the charter boats. Mayor Suarez: Procedure in this Commission sometimes gets... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25. SECOND READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500, SETTING HEARING DATES; NOTICE, ETC. - DESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS AS AGENCY TO SET DATE FOR HEARINGS ON APPEAL. ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mayor Suarez: Planning and Zoning agenda item 6. Mr. Rodriguez: This is a second reading that you passed before. It is not controversial, it will simplify the process, and I recommend you approve it. Mrs. Kennedy: Move it. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Mayor Suarez: Do we have a second? Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Plummer seconded, it or no? Mayor Suarez: Did you second Planning and Zoning item 6? Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mayor Suarez: He did? Any further discussion? Read the ordinance. 104 THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY TITLE ONLY. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me ask a question. This speaks to the notices, which I spoke to before, setting hearing dates and notice. Mr. Rodriguez: Right, this to avoid the necessity of having the Zoning Board setting up a hearing date. That could be done by the person in charge of the... Mr. Plummer: I am questioning the word 'notice'. 'Notice' is usually advertising. Mr. Pierce: Yes, but that is not being changed. Mr. Plummer: OK. (INAUDIBLE. BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Plummer: OK, I am just asking. Mrs. Dougherty: No, if you change, J. L., if you change where we advertise, It is probably the best thing to do. Mr. Plummer: Is there three people here? . Yes. Mrs. Dougherty: What I would like to do is... Mr. Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, we don't have a quorum. (INAUDIBLE COMMENT OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Dawkins: Yes. Mr. Plummer: Call the roll. Mr. Dawkins: Call the roll. J. L. moved it, I seconded it. Mr. Plummer: Yes, ask where Don is. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 30, APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BY AMENDING SECTION 3004 OF SAID ARTICLE, ENTITLED "SETTING HEARING DATES; NOTICE", TO DESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARDS ADMINISTRATION, RATHER THAN THE ZONING BOARD, AS THE AGENCY TO SET THE DATE FOR THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. passed on its first reading by title at the meeting of October 23, 1986, was taken up for its second and final reading by title and adoption. On motion of Commissioner Plummer, seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the Ordinance was thereupon given its second and final reading by title and passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Commissioner Joe Carollo fd 105 November 25, 1986 THE ORDINANCE WAS DESIGNATED ORDINANCE NO. 10185. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were R[•ailable to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 26. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - CHANGING DESIGNATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3960-3998 W. FLAGLER STREET FROM MODERATE. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Mayor. Suarez: Agenda item PZ-7. Mr. Olmedillo: PZ-7A and 7B, sir. Mayor Suarez: 7A and 7B. Mr. Olmedillo: This is an amendment to the comprehensive neighborhood plan. The 7A is for the 116 -'86 plan, and 7B, is for the September, 1985 plan. The Planning Advisory Board, when they heard this item, recommended denial of the change, and then went ahead and recommended denial of the recommendation by the Planning Department, which was to have it as a residential office use. What the Planning Department found when we made a survey of the area, was that north of Flagler Street, all of those uses were basically residential uses, and the uses on the south side were offices uses, so that is why the Planning Department has recommended the land use, and remember, we were talking about land use, and not zoning in this particular instance, is that we retain the land uses that are presently there today, both on the northern side and the southern side. Mr. Dawkins: You recommend denial? Mr. Olmedillo: We recommend denial of the application as it is filed, yes, sir. Mr. Al Cardenas: If I may... Mayor Suarez: Counselor. Mr. Cardenas: My name is Al Cardenas, I am the attorney for the applicant. If you will recall, we had a full comprehensive hearing on this matter last month. The Zoning Board had voted unanimously in favor of it. We came to you for first reading. You voted unanimously in favor of it. Subsequent to the first reading, and Mr. Rodriguez approached me and advised me, I was retained just prior to the City Commission hearing that this matter had not gone before the Planning Advisory Board, unbeknownst to both the applicant's attorney at that time, and the Planning Department. As such, the matter went before the Planning Advisory Board after you voted unanimously in favor of it. I was not present, because the scheduled date was in conflict and I was out of town at that hearing, so I could not provide the Planning Advisory Board of the benefits of our presentation, which you heard, but basically, I want you to know what the Planning Advisory Board actually die do. Six of the eight members of the board voted to change the zoning as it existed. Three favored the staff's recommendation to change it to RO-1/4, and three favored changing it to my client's, or our applicant's recommendation, so actually a vast majority of the Planning Advisory Board, as the Zoning Board had, and as the City Coruaission had, thought a change was needed. Half agreed, half of those who thought a change was needed agreed with staff, and half agreed with us, and that's how that took place. Frankly, what I don't believe the Planning Advisory Board properly evaluated, is that both staff and us agreed, that there should be an office use for the existing facility, and that is what we are talking about. The reason why I believe you favored us last time, was one, we proffered restrictive covenants, two, we advised you that staff recommended RO-1/4. That had a 30 foot height limitation. The existing structure has a 34 foot height limitation. As such, to vote in favor of staffs recommendation, would make this a nonconforming use, and second, the only difference in use between what staff has recommended... ld 106 November 25, 1986 a Mayor Suarez: Nonconforming use? Exactly where? Mr. Cardenas: In the height. Mayor Suarez: YeF, but where in thatlocation that you are talking about? Mr. Cerdenps: Oy, what you see here... Doctor, would you indicate the location of the property? The client.`.- property is located on the south side of Flagler Street, If YOU Fill recall, we wFnt. through this full hearing before. There ere 17 properties, 17 70ning 6psignFtions on the .-oath side of FlPgler, bptwFen ?7th end 42nd, sir: commercial properties, nine office buildings, and two residential Fpartment buildings. Our client's property, or our request., is to be in keeping with SO percent or 90 percent of use on that south side of Flagler. StFff agreed that we ought to have office use as to existing structure. The only difference between our intended use, And staff's recommendation, i.- that we vented to have supporting uses on the ground floor for retail purposes, such as a pharmacy. To avoid all of the problems, Mr. Mayor, if you will recall, we had a full discussion on the subject, we submitted... Mayor Suarez,: Yes, what. I don't recall is why we didn't vote on it. Mr. Cardenas: You voted on it, unanimously in favor of our application. The only reason it is before you again, is because it had not... well, it had to go before you on second reading, but because it had to go back to the Planning Advisory Board. This is an anomaly. Mayor Suarez: Why is it before us as a first reading? I remember the... and you even had a picture of the structure nearby, they were quite high, and so on. Mr. Cardenas: I'll explain that. You have had... Mr. Olmedillo: If I may, the issue today before you is the land use. What we talked about the last time was the zoning to be applied on the property. They are two different issues. Mayor Suarez: We voted on the zoning on first reading? Mr. Olmedillo: You voted on the first reading on the zoning. Mayor Suarez: When are we taking up the second reading of it? Today? Mr. Olmedillo: It will be... no, not today. Mr. Cardenas: Mayor, basically, it would... Mayor Suarez: Why wouldn't we hear this item together with the second reading of that at the same time so we can not discuss it twice? I don't get it. Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, December llth... no, these items today deal with the Comprehensive Neighborhood Master Plan. You have already voted on the first reading on zoning, but to get the two in sync, so that they come back before you on second reading at the same time, both issues, we had to bring this one back now. I believe the second reading on the zoning issue would have come before you the second meeting in December, with a schedule for December llth. That is... Mayor Suarez: They are scheduled for the same day, yes. Mr. Pierce: Right, that is when I think all. of these will come back, and we will check on that tomorrow. Mayor Suarez: I am surprised, because usually when we handle a change of zoning, and a change in the Comprehensive Master Plan, we do them at the same time. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It was deferred... Mr. Pierce: Yes, this is one of the early ones. Mayor Suarez: OK, this was one that was being done under the prior procedure. Mr. Cardenas: Right, Mayor, basically you had... this Commission had unanimously epredd to a rezoning of the property as requested by applicant after about a half-hour hearing on the matter, on the merits of the matter, and it e-as a fi.tll hearing, with a full presentation, questions and answers back anc fcrth. fall we are asking you tc do is to cent the same rn'te so that the lend usp plan conforms with tha 7(,niniz cerignation, which yots ha.,e already granted. In ether vrrds, tcc.:er's -,-rte... Mayor Suarp7: I have no problem, I mean, I will announcp it, right. now, I assume there is no onp hear to speak against. it, is there? We are going to be able to get to you on second rpacsing, but if you cunt to give us any reason... ( I:NAUAI PLF P,t CFGPOTTNT C011VEWTS ) Mayor Suarp7.: I mean, I am ready to move on it, but I would like to hear his objection. On second reading, we will have both this item, and the change of zoning, if you want to go ahead and make a statement, sir, make your presentation. Mrs. Dougherty: Mr. Mayor, while he is coming up, I'd like to make the record reflect that we are really talking about item 7B, and not item 7A. 7A amended a comprehensive plan that is no longer in existence, so we are really talking about 7B, Mayor Suarez: Do we need to handle 7A at all? Mrs. Dougherty: No. Mr. Plummer: So 7A is withdrawn? Mayor Suarez: Oh, our Planning and our City Attorney's office are not getting their act together, they are disagreeing and confusing us even more than we are already confused. Mrs. Dougherty: He says what about the 180 days? Mrs. Kennedy: What happened to 7A, Madam City Attorney? Mr. Dawkins: What now? Where are we? Mr. Plummer: Nobody knows. Mayor Suarez: Wow, all the brightest minds in the City of Miami can't agreel Unidentified Speaker: And now I've got to stand by and wait. Mr. Dawkins: You ahead and maybe... Mrs. Dougherty: I think there is a consensus, we are really trying to have 7A and B. Mayor Suarez: Yes, we will... let them have a little caucus here. You go ahead, air. Why should we not do this? Mr. Jim Felton: My name is Jim Felton. Mrs. Dougherty: We are considering 7A and B at the same time. They do the same thing. Mayor Suarez: Fine. Go ahead, sir, Jim. Mr. Felton: I've been around this town and before this Commission for many, many years, even before J.L. Mayor Suarez: Well, that was before I was born. Mr. Plummer: Wait a minute, what was that? Mr. Felton: I have been around this Commission before you were here, back when Randy Christmas... ld 106 November 25, 1986 Mr. Plummer: Yes, that is right! Mr. Felton: Commissioner Kennedy... Mr. Plummer: Yes. Mr. Felton:... and a few others at that time, and I have had occasion, for a multitude of different things from the Republic Bank, Florida Power and Light, and I stood firm in one ground, the a area is a growing area. There is no question about it, but there has been not the concern taken to the people who are within thst. Fverything is for the grandiose and there is not, the concern being laid for those people vho are there. I come out of a little, small five unit motel that I have or have been buying Mayor Suarez: Give us your address. I'm trying to establish a reference to this location. Mr. Felton: That is correct. It is definitely correct, and my... Mayor Suarez: What is your address, I am sorry. Mr. Felton: 4031 West Flagler Street. Just name the Burger King there, and I face it.. That is the simplest way of putting things, isn't it. Flagler and Le Jeune, I am at 41st Avenue and Flagler Street, on the N.E. corner. There are two motels, a church, and then the building there, and that is what it is. And this area has gotten so a person on a bicycle cannot find a place to park their bicycle there anymore and it is overloading density of parked cars, traffic, you have got to beat. Traffic is got to beat .... Mayor Suarez: Your property is fronting right on Flagler? Mr. Felton: 41st Avenue and Flagler, yes. Mayor Suarez: How high are those buildings that you... Mr. Felton: One story. Mayor Suarez: One story? I know which ones those are, OK. Mr. Felton: It has been there since 152. 152 was mine, 153 was the one behind it, and I have battled to try and keep some sense within. The influx, and the loading up of the traffic, not the traffic, you can't control that, it has got to be there, people going and coming, and it is just a case of another situation of an overload of parking, overload of parking! You can't get into your own property if you wanted to. I've got my own parking lot, I cannot even control that, because if I control and have people's cars taken away, next thing you know, I have no tubes in my tires, I have no windshield, minor details like that, and it is just a case of constant aggravation. I am a person who has been here many times and for years and years and years and find out that I get a beautiful new tax assessment this year as usual, but I think that the Commission, the concern of your Planning Advisory Committee, who has seen fit to understand what the area can hold, as far as a density of automotive traffic. There is only one thing that is going to happen is an increase. I have scrambled with a multitude of increases. I dread the day, if it ever occurs, when the bank opens up over here. I don't mean Republic, I mean the Trust... what is it.... Trust Bank? Mayor Suarez: What about that... let me ask a question. What about the issue of traffic? What is this going to do to traffic on Flagler and 42nd, which is already... Mr. Felton: It is not going to do that much to traffic. It is going to do to parking. Mr. Plummer: The concern is parking. Mr. Felton: Parking, that is what my bark is here. Mayor Suarez: Well, but parking they will have to provide. Mr. Felton: Will they provide it within the realms with this new pharmacy that they are proposing to be brought within there, which is an in and out traffic, the doctor's office? This is what I have been talking about. ld 109 November 25, 1986 . 0 0 Mr. Plummer: Well, you are not talking about really, just the Flagler Street. You are talking #bout to every area of this community. Mr. Felton: No, not quite, but this is one of the better ones. This is one of the better... Mr. FIummer: More glaring. Mr. Felton: This is one of the better ones. Well, where I am, every morning, as soon as a car pulls out from the people that lives there, in comes the bank people, and part, in there. By the time you get back there, Burger King at lunch time, you want to pull into the parking lot, I do have a parking lot behind there, I can't. get: into it, for people from Burger King, either across the front of it., or in it.! Mayor Suarez: The traffic in and out of that Burger King is incredible. Mr. Felton: I know, I have been there ever since before it was there, from the time old man Bailey has his little delicatessen up on the corner. Mayor Suarez: It is a great corner to do politics from, though, wave at passersby and stuff like that. Mr. Felton: Oh, yes, oh yes! I am not running for any office, I am not running against it. I am just asking... I'm here to let you people know, that there are those with a concern over exactly what I am bringing forth. Mr. Herrera, over here, he is capable of bringing forth with these One Biscayne Tower lawyers to speak. I am just a little old guy that lives on the corner. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Felton: We pay plenty. Percentage wise, I pay what you pay. But, there is a situation that I am bringing... Mayor Suarez: Everyone in the City of Miami pays a lot of taxes. Mr. Felton: I am bringing this concern to the committee. I try to get to as many meetings as possible. Unfortunately, I was not able to make the one that you made, because the last time I was here, I think you will remember, that I got very uptight about a situation of waiting until 10:00 o'clock at night. I'm a loudmouth, that is me. Hoof and mouth Felton I've been known as for many years! Mayor Suarez: But, we are a lot closer to the time that was appointed this time than we were last time, you didn't have to wait as long. Mr. Felton: Yes, that is true. You never made it, it was two weeks later, and I was unable to attend, I was on a vacation up in the Pocono mountains in Pennsylvania. I wasn't coming down here over night for that. I want to know that I am back here... Mayor Suarez: That is where people go on their honeymoons all the time. M % Felton: I went there on my honeymoon too, so did my parents, so that goes bbsk a ways. I'm older than J.L. Mayor Suarez: I believe that. Mr. Felton: And I just wanted to... Mr. Plummer: (LAUGHTER) I didn't think you would admit that! Thank you very much. Mayor Suarez: It was worth waiting for your testimony, let me tell you. Mr. Cardenas: Mr. Mayor, if I can, just to conclude the presentation, 21 people in this City have already heard our statements, eight from the Zoning Board, eight from the Planning Board, and five from the City of Miami. 19 of the 21 individuals who heard our statement, have agreed that a rezoning of this property, and a change to the Master Plan is appropriate. Unanimously by the Zoning Board, unanimously by the City Commission. We had done the ld 110 November 25, 1986 following, leading up to your decision today. One, we have dropped one and one-half lots, which were zoned residential from our application, that was may back in the process. Number two, we have proffered restrictive covenants to make sure that the type of growth here is protected. Three, we Are not talking about new development, we are talking about Sr, existing building that ie going to be renovptFd, I+astly improved, and made into medicpl offices. Four, we were psked to go into the neighborhood, and we c;id, and ve brought back 20 soma signptt;res of people who lived within p five block area on the south side of Flpgler, saying they were in favor of the project. Sir,, we have Shown you thpt the development, the last few years on the south side of Flagler, between 37th and 42nd, involves a lot of medical offices that have become p major medical office center. Dr. Hernandez owns the building we are about here this Evening, and the building adjoining it, which already has medical offices. He will abide by and prescribe by all of the City's code provisions, including parking, etc. It is a passive use, it will be more trAnquil in the evenings. The existing structure is there, you are not bringing A (hopping center and A Seven -Eleven. We had that full discussion before, And you unanimously agreed with us, and agreed to rezone the property. All we are Asking you to do this evening, is to confirm your previous decision to the amendment of the Comprehensive Master Plan, so there is unison in the decision. Thank you very much. Mayor Suarez: I have no problem voting for it, but all of this, all we are doing is bringing into sync, as Walter used the term, the amendment to the Comprehensive Master Plan, and the actual rezoning of this property. You will have a second hearing, reading of the ordinance to make all the same objections, and at that point it may be that we will change our minds on our initial vote. It was unanimously approved before. Yes, sir. Mr. Felton: You do appoint... you do have a Planning Advisory Board, who comes out and asks the neighborhood, and talks with them, how they feel. Mayor Suarez: Well, it would be nice if they did, they don't always do that. Mr. Felton: We were there, I was there, and with it, they come to you with recommendations, which they feel is what the neighborhood is capable of handling, as it stands, but for some reason, you folks seem to feel that they did not properly do their job, because you are voting against it. Mr. Plummer: Question. Al, what about the transitional use? Mr. Cardenas: We will not have a transitional use. Mr. Plummer: And if we rezone all but one foot, you are agreeable? Mr. Cardenas: Yes, sir. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND STATEMENT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RECORD) Mr. Plummer: On the rezoning? Well, it is going to have to be. Mr. Cardenas: We have... Mr. Plummer: Well, if I vote for this, it has got to be on the second. Mr. Dawkins: OK, well, do I hear Mr. Pierce saying that they no longer deny this? I mean, I've got on my sheet that it is denied by both... Mr. Pierce: No, sir, that is not what I said, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Well, what are you saying? Mr. Pierce: No, we were saying that this was just here for the Comp Plan amendment, and then the second reading on the zoning, and the second reading on the Comp Plan amendments will come back together all at one time. Staff continues to recommend denial of both the rezoning and the Comp Plan amendment. If you do not vote affirmatively on the Comp Plan amendments tonight, it effectively will kill both of them. Mayor Suarez: In the future you will give us both the rezoning and the Comp Plan amendment at the same time. Id ill November 25, 1986 Mr. Pierce: Yes, sir. This wasn't an anomaly. It was one that kind of got left when we were trying to feel our way through this process. Mayor Suarez: 09, so we don't have to go through all this a total of three times. Mr. Cardenas: Basically, Mr. Dawkins, you know... Mayor Suarez: Three. First. reading, Comp Plan amendment, Second reading, three times. Thank you. Mr. Dawkins: i'Fs, go right ahead, Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Cardenas: Yes. Fir. Basically, so that you know there was a vote cast by you all unanimously in favor on the zoning change, and we are just here to amend the process. Staff is for a change t.o office, which is something we have agreed upon. The only differences of. opinion, Fir. Dawkins, between the staff and us, is that we also wanted a change in zoning to office, so we agreed to that. The difference is that we wanted a pharmacy to use by the doctors who use the f.Fcilitirs to refer their patients to on the ground floor, and in addition to that., you know, our building is taller than the zoning staff recommended, or is higher, so it will be nonconforming, but we proffered already a declaration of restrictions to suit any other potential type of use of that particular facility. Mr. Dawkins: How much higher... Mayor Suarez: I'm sorry. How much higher is the building? I know we went through all of this before. Unidentified Speaker: Four feet. Mr. Cardenas: Four feet, I think. Mr. Dawkins: OK, the only thing I am saying, Mr. Cardenas, is that evidently you did not convince staff that what you have done is in the best interest of the City. Is that correct? Mr. Olmedillo: That is correct, sir. When we looked at the area, we saw that the land uses, and remember, we are speaking to land uses, not zoning, land uses there today, were basically for offices, service offices on the south side, and for residential on the northern side. That is why we propose is RO- 1, if we can shift it back to a zoning issue, RO-1/4, all the way on the south side, and the RG on the north side of Flagler Street. Mr. Dawkins: Well, I am just like the Mayor and everybody else up here, I am thoroughly confused, OK? And I would hope that you don't put me in a bind like this where I don't know what the hell we are doing, and just like the gentleman said, we don't know, I mean, I don't know what I am doing, OK. Mr. Plummer: Well then, the usual thing is, you defer. If you don't understand... Mr. Dawkins: No, I... Mayor Suarez: Well, we are bringing this in, we are synchronizing it with the second reading of the change of zoning anyhow, so we are going to have to take up the whole thing. But, if we don't vote on this... Mr. Plummer: The question is got to be, why aren't you doing it all at the same time? Mayor Suarez: They messed up on it. They left it out. Mr. Olmedillo: This particular case... Mr. Cardenas: You will, at second reading, have it all at once, Mr. Plummer. Also, on the time question, if you will recall, and it is kind of a hard luck story, this applicant applied in October of '85. He got unanimous recommendation of approval by the Zoning Board in December of 185, came before you in January 185, and a decision was made to make a study. That was concluded, we came up before a hearing in the summer. We then had to, at that ld 112 November 25, 1986 s Point in time, it got late, and the matter could not have been heard, that is what the gentlemen hgd complained about. We were then deferred until September. Nov, it. is November, and ithFs been lb months since the application vPP originally files. anc; I respectfully on that t-aais, say that this is kind of a hard Iuck story. Staff ani wP are trying to cooperate on getting the thing pot toRPthPr and t-y the time you get it here nPrt month, everything v-i l l ha p�,t t oget her Pnd rcv vi I I V.Prr the, time to rrakp an ultimate decision Ft that time, Mr. Dawkins: 1,10 irflrc.tion on your client et all, but as J.L. said, no place on this agPndA does it spy that next time I vote, 7A and 7B will be combined into one Fgendr- itrm. It doesn't say that on here. Mr. Pierce: That is not ;hat it is going to be. Mr. Dawkins: Peg perdon7 Mr. Pierce: That is not. what it is going to be, Mr. Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins: Well, you said next... Mayor Suarez: Well, the chain... Mr. Dawkins: I will tell you what, I am finished. Mr. Pierce: No, sir, Mr. Dawkins. If I may,one more time. Mayor Suarez: No, let's just assure the Commissioner that the next time we will consider both the amendment to the Comprehensive Master Plan, and the second reading of the change of zoning at the same time on this time, the second reading. Can we be assured of that? Mr. Pierce: Absolutely, that is what will be. Mayor Suarez: Would you come back and restate all your objections and let's go over them at the time, because I am going to want to hear of the parking problems, of the traffic problems, I have been through that, what is it, Burger King, or McDonalds? But, it is a mess over there close to Le Jeune. You are about a block away from the Burger King and I am not going to want to hear all that. Mr. Dawkins: OK, somebody make a motion to do something with this. Mayor Suarez: Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard against approval of item PZ-7A. Can we take 7A and B together? Mr. Joel Maxwell: Yes, sir, and for the record, we were correct in our assessment initially, that 7A was superfluous to at this particular time. It is only necessary for the Commission to consider 7B. Mayor Suarez: 7B. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Mayor Suarez: OK, I entertain a motion on 7B. This one dies for lack of interest. Again, without stating I am going to vote on second reading on either the amendments to the Comp Plan, or the change of zoning, I move 7B. Mr. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: It is your baby. Mr. Dawkins: There is a second down there, it has been moved and seconded. It has been moved and seconded, call the roll. Mr. Plummer: I'm sorry, motion understood, call the roll. Mr. Dawkins: It is an ordinance, read the ordinance. 14 113 November 25, 1986 AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AND ADDENDA (SEPTEMBER 1985); FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3960-3999 WEST FLAGLER STREET (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MODERATE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; MAKING FINDINGS; AND, CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Mayor Suarez and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Mayor Suarez: Come back on that second reading. We want to hear all those arguments again. It is just that we are doing this at three different hearings. 27. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1614: "HC-5: COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT." Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-8. Mr. Rodriguez: PZ-8 and PZ-9 are related to each other. Mayor Suarez: Magic City Enterprises, OK, that is a beautiful project. Mr. Rodriguez: Magic City Enterprises. Are you ready for a motion? Or do you want me to go through... Mayor Suarez: I saw it the other day, and it is a great concept. Mr. Rodriguez: We have the staff from the Planning Department that is ready to make a presentation on this, if you want to. Mayor Suarez: It might even revive Jose Marti Park, where very little is happening right now. There is a story about people driving up and down 95 and looking down there and seeing this pink area, and always wondering what it is, and not being able to figure out how to get to it, unless they live in Little Havana. Mr. Plummer: Yes, you know, on that Jose... Mr. Rodriguez: That is why planning is important. Mr. Plummer: There is a street in front of Jose Marti Park that I was told that was done by the County. There is one section there, between, I think it is between 3rd and 3rd Street, that damn thing has a dip in it, that every z. time you go by, you want to lose your front and of your carl Mr. Rodriguez: That is called the Jose Marti dip. Mr. Plummer: That is the Jose Marti dipl =t Id 114 November 25, 1906 k k Mayor Suarez: Marti dip, I think that has been fixed. Mr. Plummer: Do you get waffle potato chips with that? Mayor Suarez: I think that was fixed, wasn't it? That was in much better shape the other day. Mr. Plummer: No, it was there last week. Mayor Suarez: Is the dip still there? Mayor Suarez: Leaving out... with the proviso that the dip will be repaired, I will entertain a motion on item PZ-8. Mr. Plummer: Sure, why not? I move it. Mayor Suarez: So moved. We need a second. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Is there anyone who wishes to be heard against item PZ-8, or in favor, f,.'r that matter? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 16 ENTITLED "HC HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS" BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 1614 ENTITLED "HC- 5: COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT," PROVIDING FOR INTENT, EFFECT, PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS, FLOOR AREA LIMITATIONS, MINIMUM OPEN SPACE, MINIMUM YARDS, BUILDING SPACING, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, OFFSTRENT PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS= CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOBS: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. Id 115 Novesber 35, 1'90 -: 28. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ATLAS OF ORDINANCE 9500 BY APPLYING HC-5; COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY S.W. 1 ST., S.W. SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, S.W. 2 STREET AND S.W. 5 AVENUE. Mayor Suarez: I entertain a motion on companion item PZ-9, the same project. Mrs. Kennedy: So moved. Mayor Suarez: Moved. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Any discussion? Read the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 9500,- THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPLYING THE HC-5: COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET, SOUTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, SOUTHWEST 2ND STREET AND SOUTHWEST STH AVENUE, (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN); MAKING FINDINGS; ADOPTING AND INCORPORATING BY REF"RENCE THE "DESIGNATION REPORT"; AND BY MAKING ALL NECESSARY CHANGES ON PAGE NO. 36 OF THE ZONING ATLAS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 29. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 SEC. 2017 - "OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIRM48NTSN - VALET PARKING; & SEC. 3602 "OFFSITE PARKING"; AMEND SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ELIMINATING LIGHT PLANES IN SINGLE & TWO FAMILY DISTRICTS. Mayor Suarez: Item P-10. What is this about? Mr. Plummerc I've got a problem with 10. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez: Where? Mr. Plummer: Let me tell you what my problem with 10 is. You are talking about, I assume, restaurants and condominiums, and everything with valet parking. OK, we force people to put in parking for, let's use restaurants, for example, OK? Now, they take about 90 percent of that, and call it for valet parking only, and a lot of people, because of car jockeys and whatever else, don't want to use valet parking, and a lot of cases, they don't want to pay the fee. Now, my problem La, if we are forcing them to put in the parking ld 116 November 25, 1906 " fi r a � and they are not allowing people, except through valet parking to use it, what have we accomplished? Mr. Rodriguez: So, we are saying is... Mr. Plummer: For example, there is a restaurant down the street that says, this area is restricted for valet parking only. Mr. Dawkins: That is Monty Trainer. Mr. Plummer: I didn't say that. Mr. Dawkins: I did. Mr. Plummer: And you can't park in that area except unless you pay the guy to park your car, and of course, that expects a tip, and half of these places, these jockeys get in, they have got to change your radio station, turn your air conditioner, blow out your side view mirrors, use 37 miles off the rubber of your car, now... Mr. Rodriguez: What kind of tip did you give them? Mr. Plummer: The point that I am making is, that we make them put in the parking, but in effect, you can't use that parking unless you pay their fee. I don't think we have accomplished anything. Mr. Rodriguez: Maybe that is an indication of the tip that you give to the person. Mayor Suarez: You can't give them 50 cents anymore: Mr. Rodriguez: Well, seriously, however, I think the point that you are bringing is that required parking will be made available free to the customers, and valet parking... Mr. Plummer: I am also saying... Mr. Rodriguez:... is where they can charge. Mr. Plummers Well, no, no, what I am saying to you is, that I think you need to incorporate into this, that they cannot designate more than "X" spaces, or percentages of their spaces for valet parking only! Mr. Rodriguez: Well, we are that requirement. Mr. Pierces All they do would be free. Mr. Plummer: What? Forget it, that is not the case, free of charge. Mr. Rodriguez: What we are saying with this is, that before they designate valet parking, they have to provide the minimum parking requirements, and then If they want to provide additional parking as valet parking, that is OK. Mr. Plummer: Beyond the minimum requirement. Mr. Plummer: Right. That is the only time where we say that we agree with valet parking. What is not clear in the ordinance, and what you are saying is, that once they provide the parking, whether they themselves convert some of the parking for valet parking... do you understand what I am saying? We ask them to provide the parking that is minimum required. Mr. Plummer: Yea, what you are telling me is, that they cannot use any of the regular parking required for valet. Mr. Rodriguez: No. What I am saying is, that we require them to provide valet parking, over the minimum requirements. After that, they convert sometimes the requirements to valet parking. Mr. Plummer: But, how much of it are you going to allow them to convert? Mr. Rodriguez: point. f' 14 We have never addressed that issue before. I understand your 117 November 23, 1906 Mr. Plummer: Well, then I move that this item be deferred. Mr. Rodriguez: What we can say with this, is that valet... Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mr. Plummer: Hey, you know, I don't think it is right. percent of their parking... or, of course, anythingl Let them put ten Mr. Dawkins: No, J. L., I have to go along with the line of thought that you had. If they are required to have 100 parking spaces, required, I mean, then they should have 100, and then if they want it for valet parking, then let them go buy some more land and put it up as valet parking. Mr. Plummer: I'll buy thatl Mr. Rodriguez: You can say that very simply. Mr. Plummer: Hey, you come back with a thing that says that the only way they can have valet parking, is based on anything beyond what they are required to have. Mr. Rodriguez: We are saying that. Mr. Plummer: No, you are not. You are allowing them to go back and use some of the other parking for valet, once they have done beyond, and you are not saying how much. Mr. Rodriguez: May I say something? Why don't you pass it on first reading, and I will make these changes, which is a minimal change of the language, saying that valet parking will be only allowed, for to be anything in excess of the minimal requirements, and they can only use that area, OK? Mr. Plummer: That is fine. That is fine, I will move it under those circumstances. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Call the roll. Mr. Plummer: Why don't you ask if somebody wants to speak? Mayor Suarez: Oh, that is right. Ms. Albio Castillo: Excuse me, I would like to know... Mayor Suarez: Please give us your name and address. Me. Castillo: Yes, I forget that sir. My name is Albio Castillo, I live at 2386 S.W. 1 Street. Mr. Plummer: Are you a registered lobbyist? Me. Castillo: No, but I have been coming here for 12 years, I should be. Mayor Suaraz: You are not compensated for your appearance here, I know, your presentation. Go ahead. Me. Castillo: I'd like to know who is going to enforce this law, the police, or the Zoning Department? Mr. Plummer: No, Mr. Sergio Rodriguez personally is going to stand in the lot and count them. Me. Castillo: Yes, ever thought of that one? Who In going to enforce it, the police? They can't enforce it. Mr. Dawkins: That is a good question. Mr. Rodriguez: The Zoning Department, by complaints. z:. T 1d i lie November 25, 1986 Ms. Castillo: Oh, I'd like to see that. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND STATEMENT) Me. Castillo: Oh, all right. Oh, you think...? You think they will the cars? Mr. Pierce: Required posting of a sign at the entrance, that parking is... Mr. Plummer: Well, in other words, they can only... what Miller and I are saying, and hopefully, the others agree, they can only have valet parking in that must be in excess of that which is required. Mr. Rodriguez: Right! That is fine with me. Mr. Plummer: That is fine. Call roll. Mayor Suarez: Call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA BY AMENDING SECTION 2017 ENTITLED "OFFSTREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, GENERAL PROVISIONS" BY PROVIDING NEW REGULATIONS AND CORRECTING CERTAIN LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO OFFSTREET VALET PARKING; AND SECTION 3602 BY PROVIDING FOR THE DEFINITION OF "OFFSITE PARKING"; AND BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, PAGES 1-6, BY ELIMINATING PLANE II AND LIGHT PLANES IN SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; IN THE TRANSITIONAL AREA OF ABUTTING DISTRICTS, THE LIGHT PLANS IS ELIMINATED EXCEPT IN COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW PLANE II IN COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. 30. A- RECONSIDER M-86-950, WHICH HAD GRANTED $10,000 TO POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. B- AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM DIRECTING THEM TO INSTITUTE A BOXING PROGRAM AT THE VIRRICK GYM. Mayor Suarez: Do we want to reconsider very quickly the Law Enforcement Trust Fund monies for the boxing programs? Mr. Plummer: I was on the prevailing side. I will move to reconsider. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Do we have a second? (No response) I'll second it. Mr. Dawkins: Moved and seconded, call the roll. November The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-961 A MOTION RECONSIDERING PREVIOUSLY PASSED MOTION 86-950, WHICH GRANTED $10,000 TO THE POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. Upon being seconded by Mayor Suarez, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Plummer: I will move now the amount initially requested for the hundred be granted, and the additional amount to reestablish the Police Department in the boxing program at Virrick Gym. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Seconded. Mr. Dawkins: Moved and seconded. Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-962 A MOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOCATE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED FUNDING NECESSARY IN ORDER THAT THE POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM MAY INSTITUTE A BOXING PROGRAM AT THE ELIZABETH VIRRICK GYM. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 31. RESCHEDULE THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN DECEMBER FOR DECEMBER 11, 1986 AT 4:30 P.M. - --- - - -- - ------------- Mayor Suarez: Before I forget, we need to approve a resolution rescheduling the second regular meeting of December, which is the Planning and Zoning one, to take place at 4:30 p.m. on December 11, 1986. Mr. Dawkins: 4:30 ? Mayor Suarez:... p.m. meeting. Mr. Dawkins: Oh, OK. Mr. Plummer: So moved. In other words, it will be the same day as the regular ld 120 November ZS, 1966 Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: So moved, seconded. Any discussion? Call the roil. The following resolution vas introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 86-963 A RESOLUTION RESCHEDULING THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN DECEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 11, 1986 AT 4:30 P.M. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 32. DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 9500 TO ADD A NEW SECTION ON OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. Mayor Suarez: Item PZ-11. Mr. Rodriguez: PZ-11 is going to be presented by Joe Genuardi from Building and Zoning, but I would like to offer a floor amendment, which is part of your package on page LA, that if you were to approve it today, that these would be effective July 1, 1987. Mayor Suarez: Did you may a floor amendment? Mr. Rodriguez: A floor amendment. Mayor Suarez: Twelve months here, and that is the first time I hear it. That is pretty cutel... floor amendment. Mr. Rodriguez: Cute? Mr. Pierce: He has been watching Mayor Suarez: Yes, Congressional hearings, or... Mr. Rodriguez: I've been watching Los Angeles, L.A. Mayor Suarez: A floor amendment, that's great) Mr. Rodriguez: So that all existing outdoor light installations most all the requirements of Section 2003.9. Mr. Genuardi will make a presentation on this. This relates to our regular complaints from Mr. Ralph... Mr. Pierce: Inquiries. Mr. Rodriguez:... inquiries from Mr. Ralph Aaron, and this was recommended for denial by the Planning Advisory Board, and the Planning Department recommended approval. Y 121 November 252 19#0 .f m Mr. Dawkins: Why did the Planning Advisory Board recommend denial? Mr. Rodriguez: Among the reasons they felt this was no good was because it was difficult to implement, and to follow through. Mr. Dawkins: Well, why do you think it is easy to implement? Mr. Rodriguez: Let me get Mr. Genuardi to explain this, because he is an engineer and he knows more about it. Mr. Dawkins: But, he is the Zoning Director. We pay him for zoning. We pay you for planning. Mr. Genuardi: You get a little extra with me. Mr. Plummer: It is a freebie. Mr. Genuardi: This is a freebie. Over the years we have gotten complains about nuisances from lights on neighboring properties, for security, or for recreation facilities like tennis courts and swimming pools and things like that, and... Mayor Suarez: Are you talking about private recreational facilities? Mr. Genuardi: Private. This is on private property, and we have... Mayor Suarez: We have had a lot of complaints from that? Mr. Genuardi: Not a lot, but we have gotten several complaints. In fact, this year, within the last couple of months, I've gotten two, so it is Increasing, and we don't have anything in the zoning ordinance or in the City Code restricting the over spill of light into neighboring properties, so what we did here, is we have prepared an ordinance which will control the lighting on private properties from spilling over into its neighbor. This can be done by directing your light in a certain way, and also by shielding, by putting shielding on the lights. This is also... let me mention that Dade County has such an ordinance, and has been enforcing it for years, so we are more or less coming in line with the County. Mr. Plummer: Does this exclude Commissioner's homes? Mr. Pierce: Nol Mr. Plummer: Oh, ohl Mr. Genuardi: We will have to check into it. (LAUGHTER) Mayor Suarez: Does this require that the neighbor complain? Mr. Plummer: If I catch you checking my house, you are going to lose more than Charles, buddy! Mrs. Kennedy: The answer is, have you seen her house? Mr. Genuardi: The amendment, which we are proposing to... Mayor Suarez: Was there anything at all in the ordinance before that applied to this whatsoever, to lighting in private...? Mr. Genuardi: No, the only lighting provision we have is for parking lots in the City Code. We have amended that to include restrictions on over spill. Mayor Suarez: Over spill. All light over spills to the next lot and to the rest of the world, probably. Mr. Genuardi: If you have your neighbor's lights... A? Mr. Plummer: I move item 11. Mrs. Kennedy: Second. Mayor Suarez: Moved and seconded. Annette, did you want to address it? 122 November 25, 1966 r Mr. Pierce: Mr. Mayor, just wanted to make sure that the language is on page IA in your agenda package, which reads: "Effective July 1, 1987, all existing outdoor lighting installations shall meet the requirements of 2003.9." That is the part that exists, will address all existing lighting installations and enforcement on this will be on a complaint basis. We won't be out there patrolling, but when somebody complains, we will have to go measure it and enforce it. Mr. Dawkins: Well, let's hear from my buddy, because this must be important for her to come down here. This has got to be important. Mayor Suarez: You were here coincidentally right, you weren't here for this? Ms. Annette Eisenberg: I am honored. My name is Annette Eisenberg. I don't think I have been here for six years, but I will be back. I just heard Mr. Pierce say something about, on a complaint basis. I happened to be one of the people that put up one of these lights because the Police Department suggested that we do, and I have the biggest light on N.E. 86 Street, and I feel very comfortable with it. I can understand it if you told me I can't keep it on after 11:00 P.M., or after 12:00 A.M., or something like that, but it does spill all over my front porch, and my front yard, and I don't want to be told that I can't light that. Mayor Suarez: Well, it is no problem with spilling on your own yard, it is the... Me. Eisenberg: No, but I am sure that it spills on my neighbors too. I don't know how I would keep... Mayor Suarez: How about a time? Is there any time provision for this? Mr. Pierces No. There is no time limit in the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: There In no noise. Mr. Pierce: On noise, there is, but on lighting, there isn't. What we are worried about here In glare. The problem really isn't the light, it is the glare that goes off your property onto the next property. If you are Illuminating your own property, there should be no problem there. No. Eisenberg: Well, I should think the neighbors would be glad that their properties are illuminated too, with the crime situation that we have. Mr. Pierce: If they don't complain, you don't have a problem. If they do, I have a problem, because I just installed three lights on my property, too. Ms. Eisenberg: Well, I can understand that, but I think that if you put a time on when this light has to be extinguished, we would all be a lot more comfortable. You know, you are going to give people a reason to keep complaining and God knows I've complained to you enough about serious problems. Mayor Suarez: You know, we are about to pass an ordinance, that everybody here, so far who has spoken, including Commissioners, Annette, Walter, everybody is violating already! Why are we going to pass it at all? Mr. Pierce: I am not violating itl No, sir, I want you to know, I went in and did mine early. I changed them, so I didn't have to get a permit. Mr. Genuardi: You are allowed a certain amount of over spill, one-half foot candle. What we are trying to prevent is the light glaring into somebody's window, shining into somebody's window, and causing a nuisance, but there is a... Me. Eisenberg: Pull the shade down) Mayor Suarez: And we really have a lot of complaints in this? M fliv:rl..a . Pat i hl an4nnt ahida _ r, ld X ' Mr. Pierce: The problem is, that the complaints really are not that great a number. The problem is, when you get one, it is a real nuisance, one that you can't resolve, and you have got to have some handle for doing it. Mayor Suarez: It sounds to me like the ordinance is a nuisancel Mr. Pierce: We are not doing any great... we are not inventing the wheel here. Mr. Plummer: Well, you know, you are wrong, because, that is where you caught me the other day, OK? If they put a light in, it is going to cost them more than $100, and because of that, they have got to take out a permit. Mr. Pierce: Right. (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Plummer: So, why don't you do it, and handle it there? Mr. Pierce: We will. That is where we intend to catch it, at the permitting stage. Mr. Genuardi: When the light is installed, they get a certification saying that the amount of over spill is less than the one-half foot candle. Ms. Eisenberg: You know, I have to speak on that too. You know, those of us who live in the City of Miami pay an insurmountable amount of taxation, and we are not objecting, but for God's sakes, let us at least protect our property without having to go down and ask for permission to do it. Mr. Genuardi: Well, you have to have permission now. Any installation that is electrical installation, you need permits. You can't do it yourself, and... Mayor Suarez: In excess of, what cost? Mr. Pierce: No, it... Mr. Genuardi: No limit, really, because it is considered a... Mayor Suarez: No, no limitations. Do you need a permit to change a light bulb? Mr. Pierce: No. Mr. Genuardi: No, not to change a light bulb, but to put a pole in, a light pole, and wires... Ms. Eisenberg: Affixing a fixture on a building, you need to get a permit? Mr. Genuardi: Excuse me? Ms. Eisenberg: To affix a lighting fixture on your building, your have to go get a permit? Mr. Genuardi: If you are running electric wiring to it, yes. Ms. Eisenberg: My God, you can make a fortune if you can find all the violations! Mayor Suarez: If it has a battery, you don't, OK. Mr. Plummer: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we defer this item. Mayor Suarez: So moved. Mr. Plummer: Bring it up in 1999. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: to defer this. Id Seconded. Any further discussion? Call the roll on the motion 124 November 25, 1484 Mr. Dawkins: When do you want to bring it up? Yes, I could go run for reelection, 189. Mr. Plummer: I said, 1991 THEREUPON, ON MOTION DULY MADE BY COMMISSIONER PLUMMER AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DAWKINS CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM ON FIRST READING WAS DEFERRED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: NONE ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo 33. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: AMEND ORDINANCE 9500 - PROHIBIT ANY FUTURE. CLUSTER HOUSING. Mayor Suarez: PZ-12. A, or B, or both? Mr. Rodriguez: Both of them. Mr. Dawkins: No, just one. Mr. Rodriguez: No, both of them. Mr. Dawkins: Well, you see, you got me againl On A, you recommend denial, and on B, you talk about approval. Mr. Rodriguez: That is what I am going to explain to you so you can understand what happened. Mayor Suarez: You like B, you don't like A, OK1 Mr. Rodriguez: What happened is this... Mr. Plummer: No, they don't like the fact that A was put in by the Law Department, and B was put in by them) Mayor Suarez: Planning, oh. Mr. Plummer: So this is there way of saying the Law Department doesn't know what the hell they are talking aboutl Mr. Rodriguez: Give it back to them. No, actually, we prefer both of them. Mr. Plummer: I don't want either one of them, I want to tell you. Mayor Suarez: The law making part of the City is what, the Law Department nov? Is that what we heard before? Mrs. Dougherty: This is the ordinance that you asked us to draft, after you could not deal with the fact that the cluster house had approved, that the Class C special permit had been approved for a cluster house some tine ago. You asked at that time, "What can we do about it to stop it?* and my advice to you at that time, vas nothing, you can't stop this one. You can draft the legislation, and that is what I have done. Mr. Plummer: Well, let me tell you where I am at, OK? In single family residence, I'd like to eliminate all cluster houses. L f: :3 Novevber 25, 1986 1 Mr. Plummer: Sir? Mr. Rodriguez: Could I make a presentation on this, and maybe... excuse me, Vice -Mayor. Mr. Plummer: No, no, we might save you the time. Why can't include the so- called cluster housing under a P.U.D., which requires a hearing before this Commission? Mr. Rodriguez: That is what we are doing, if you will let me make a presentation, I think you will see the light, and there is no pun intended. Mr. Plummer: We just deferred the light. Mayor Suarez: It is going to spill over onto this. Mr. Rodriguez: OK, the first item, if I may... the first item, which is the one eliminating cluster altogether, and we recommend denial on that, and the Planning Advisory Board recommends denial. The second item, what we are trying to do is, we realize that limited cluster is good, it is a good technique, but we realize, we, the Planning Department and the Planning Advisory Board, we realize that we have to control it better, and what we are doing is, allowing them In certain areas only by special exception. Mr. Dawkins: No. nol Mr. Rodriguez: Which means, it requires a hearing before you. That is what you wanted. That is what you said before. Mayor Suarez: No, no. Mr. Dawkins: OK, yes, but you see what you are getting into here is... Mr. Plummer: A lot of hearingsl Mr. Dawkins: Those individuals... no, J.L.I ... those individuals who can afford to take the time off to come down here and fight this, you don't no clustered units in their neighborhoods. Those individuals who work all day and are tired as hell at night, who can't get down here, you are going to get clusters in their neighborhood, so now, either we are going to have clusters, or you are not going to have clusters. Mr. Rodriguez: The other safeguards that we have, besides that, is that we have a requirement for an area that will be larger than before, instead of the site that we had before, we are recommending that we have three times the minimum area, and that no nonconforming lots will be allowed to apply. Mr. Plummer: I've got to tell you, I don't like the cluster housing concept, OK? I just don't like the concept. Mr. Rodriguez: In addition to that, we are recommending more parking. Mr. Dawkins: That is right. Here is another vote that doesn't like it. That is two votes up here that doesn't like it. Mr. Plummer: I would like to take and reverse this situation and have you come back to eliminate from our ordinance this cluster housing. Mr. Dawkins: And... that's right, single, family housing, I mean... Mr. Pierce: You would have to pass 12A. Just pass 12A. Mr. Plummer: Wait, wait a minutel I'm told that the first one eliminates cluster housing. Mr. Rodriguez: Right, that is what I mentioned. Mr. Plummer: OK. Mr. Kennedy: The second one is... ld 126 November 25, 1946 Mr. Dawkins: All right, so then what we are saying, is pass one, and junk B, throw B in the garbage? Mr. Rodriguez: If you want to eliminate cluster housing, period, you pass 12A. Mr. Pierce: 12A. Mr. Dawkins: I so move. Mr. Plummer: And I second. Mr. Rodriguez: But...! (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mayor Suarez: Does this mean if we pass A, that there will be no cluster housing in what district, now? Mr. Dawkins: In none of them in Miami. Mrs. Dougherty: In the single family district. Mrs. Kennedy: Nowhere in the City? Mr. Rodriguez: No, single family and duplex district. Mr. Dawkins: Yes, that is right. Mayor Suarez: Now that is single family... Mr. Rodriguez: And duplexes. Mayor Suarez:... and duplexes. Mr. Rodriguez: Right. Mr. Pierce: Which vas the only place they were allowed anyhow. Mayor Suarez: But, it is allowed then in anything more dense than that? Mr. Rodriguez: No, that is it. Mr. Pierce: Those are the only districts they were... Mr. Rodriguez: Those were the only districts in which it made sense. What you are doing this is, not allovii:g small developers to build clusters in a lots which are not... . Mayor Suarez: Well, for example... Mr. Rodrigues: ... as large as the P.D.M.U. You will eliminate... Mayor Suarez: Yes, well what about... let me just ask you a question now. L'Hermitage is just one that comes to mind. What is the difference between that .... Would you be able to do that in a project like that. That is a beautiful project with cluster housing - L'Hermitage. } Mr. Rodriguez: That I believe, that is a larger project. It is larger area. It is a... t Mr. Pierce: P.U.D.; Mr. Rodriguez: P.D.M.U. Mayor Suarez: dive me the initials now, what? 'lam Mr. Rodriguez: Planned Unit Development. .. Ly- r Mrs. Kennedy: Planned Development. Mr. Rodriguez: To do that one... , Id 127 November .23., 194, , l� Mr. Pierce: That was approved with the old ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez: To do that one, you would require a larger tract area. Mr. Plummer: Damn right. Mr. Rodriguez: This is to allow something less than that, in cases where you want to developments in the areas of the City where we want to redevelop. Mr. Dawkins: What it is, you take advantage of the small home owner who can't argue against this, and he lived in his house all his life, single family, and now you are going to come and... Mr. Plummer: Let me give you an example. On the corner of Tigertail and Coacoochee, they just... is that George? Mr. Josh Megler: Yes, it is. Mr. Plummer: They just tore down two residences, so that they can build... Mr. Megler: Not yet, they are trying. Mr. Plummer: OK, yes, but did they take out a demolition permit? That corner, they are planning on building either three or four residences, on a two lot, where they have two homes now. Mayor Suarez: OK, but wait a minute. This doesn't imply that if you have enough property and assemble single family lots, that you can build clusters, and you can do it any... Mr. Plummer: Well, what you have got is, you have reduced the standard that was established, OK? Instead of having a lot, what you could do up this date, If your lot were big enough, on the neighborhood you could resub the lot, OK? This eliminates the need to resubdivide and allows you to put three or four. Let me give you a better example. We had a proposal before this Commission a couple of years ago under this concept, on, you know A. J. Barranco's property? He could put eight houses and still retained the big house on one parcel ofiland. On replatting, he could only put a total of the big house and two others. This concept is nothing but for the developers. That is all it is for. Mr. Rodriguez: But, it is not... if I may on this... Mayor Suarez: But, you keep saying, this concept, and I don't know if that means the passage of this, which deletes... Mr. Rodriguez: What I am saying with this is .... Mrs. Kennedy: No, he means the existing cluster homes. Mr. Rodriguez: What it means through is, this will make it permissible, meaning that they would have to get a special exception and come before this body. Mr. Dawkins: We just said we are going to cut out all special exceptions next meeting! (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS) Mr. Megler: May I speak in opposition? Mr. Dawkins: In opposition? Mr. Megler: Yes, I understand the Commiesion's feeling is to reject 12B. I feel what the.Planning Department is doing, is trying to come here and say... by the way, I am Josh Megler. I live at 1779 Micanopy Avenue, which is an area bounded by three lots where the bank that owns it is planning to'demolish the houses and build clusters. What the Planning Department i■ saying is that the are oin to make it more difficult to build clusters and At revide h this mechanism whereby they are going to be able to build clusters on very ti I 128 November 25, 1060 �� tt small, in very small areas, whereas before, they would have to comply with the Y.U.D. ordinance, requiring them to have much more property. I'd like to know why they are moving on their own accord on this, who is behind it... Mr. Plummer: No, no, that is not true. We moved on it because of the situation that happened over around 24 Avenue and 12 Street, where there was a permit issued. This Commission knew nothing about it and suddenly people were coming down on us like a ton of bricks, and we didn't know from nothing. Mr. Megler: I am also concerned about the potential sweeping after the building of this, where it says, under the intent section, that it is to apply to vacant lots. When do they become vested? Vacant lots now, vacant lots two years from now? If that is the case, every potential homeowner in the City of Miami could be impacted negatively by this amendment to the zoning law, and I don't think the people are aware of the potential effect, and I would urge the Commission to vote against it. Mr. Plummer: Call the question. Me. Hirais It is an ordinance. Mr. Dawkins: It is an ordinance. Read the ordinance. Mayor Suarez: We have a motion and a second on PZ-12A. THEREUPON, THE CITY ATTORNEY READ THE ORDINANCE INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, BY TITLE ONLY. Mayor Suarez: Now, to further limit clusters, we need to vote affirmatively now? Mr. Dawkins: To eliminate, eliminate clusters. Mrs. Kennedy: To do away with them altogether. Mayor Suarez: Well, I keep hearing that there are still ways anyhow. We need to vote affirmatively to limit, or eliminate, or whatever you want to call it? Mr. Plummer: Eliminate. Mr. Pierce: If this motion passes on 12A, you will be taking the first step towards eliminating clusters, period. Mayor Suarez: All right, you said the first step, OK. Mr. Pierce: You have got to do second reading. Mayor Suarez: That is all I want to clarify, that is to restrict more, to limit more, to eliminate, whatever you want to call it, to vote affirmatively on this, because you have thoroughly confused, at least me. OK, call the roll. AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, TIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 20, ENTITLED "GENERAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS," BY DELETING SECTION 2028 ENTITLED "CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE RS-1, RS-1.1., RS-2 AND RG-1 DISTRICTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR ERECTION OF MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED OR ONE TWO-FAMILY SEMIDETACHED DWELLING ON LARGE VACANT LOTS"; RESERVING SECTION 2028 FOR FUTURE USE; AND BY AMENDING PAGE 1 OF THE OFFICIAL SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO SECTION 2028; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVE RABILITY CLAUSE. Was introduced by Commissioner Plummer and seconded by Commissioner '= Dawkins and was passed on its first reading by title by the following vote- 129 NovR,bar 25, -90-4 _ ....�, � � �:�• .. tip= MR I +42 , AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Xavier L. Suarez j;. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo =. The City Attorney read the ordinance into the public record and announced that copies were available to the members of the City Commission and to the public. ----- ------- --- ------ -- ------ ----- -' 34. DENY PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500 IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF CLUSTER HOUSES IN THE RS-1, RS-1.1, RS-2, AND RG-1 DISTRICTS, ETC. (See label 33) Mayor Suarez: Now, do we need to do anything on PZ-12B, or not? Mr. Plummer: I move we deny. Mr. Dawkins: Second. Mayor Suarez: We don't even need that, but let's take a motion as long as you... Mr. Dawkins: That is right. Mayor Suarez:... so we can say we completed the agenda. Moved and seconded? Any discussion? Call the roll. The following motion was introduced by Commissioner Plummer, who moved its adoption: MOTION NO. 86-964 A MOTION DENYING PROPOSED FIRST READING ORDINANCE AMENDING TEXT OF ORDINANCE 9500, ARTICLE 20, SECTION 2028 IN CONNECTION WITH CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT IN THE RS-1, RS-1.1, RS-1 AND RG-1 DISTRICTS, ETC. Upon being seconded by Commissioner Dawkins, the motion vas passed and adopted by the following vote - AYES: Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Commissioner Rosario Kennedy Vice -Mayor Miller J. Davkina Mayor Xavier L. Suarez NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Joe Carollo Mr. Plummer: I hope each and everyone of you Thursday have a fowl dinner! Mayor Suarez: So we did exactly the opposite of what was recommended, huh, on 12A and 12B. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: Mayor Suarez named Bob Floyd as the recipient of the library building plaque. ld 130 November 250 1900 { ks '�6-u....i- r.. .,..., .. ._. ... _.... •. .. ,_ z_.. ,.. .. ., .,. _...a..••tiaw:aS.Vx..�"w..,a._vnz..t.?.s'Zs�Wd.o�iLafi�dhv�`INi� • 77-- 0 I UDIG NO rURTHMt WSIVIRSS TO r M ZRrORR "M CITY r r I ISSION, TM KUTING fts AWOUNUM AT silo P.m. Xavier L. Suarez H A T 0 R CITY OF FAAMI DOCUMENT i)OCtmff lKwirl"Tio" AFFIRM INSTALLATION AT 701 NORTHWEST 57 MIAMI, FLORIDA. MMT1040 DAT• NOVEMBER 25, 1986 NDEX- OF DRIVE-IN FACILITIES AVENUE (A/K/A RED ROAD), REVERSE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THUS, REVERSE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THAT THE CHARLEE PROGRAM FACILITY (1640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE) IS A COMMUNITY BASE RESIDENTIAL FACILITY (CBRF) AS PER THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, SUBSECTION 2034.1 UPHOLD ZONING BOARD'S AFFIRMATION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY CLASS C SPECIAL PERMITS, FILE NOS. C-86-516 AND C-86-517 NOT SELLING MERCHANDISE ON THE PREMISES AT 2100-2101 S.W. 33RD. AVENUE. BID ACCEPTANCE: DANTZLER LUMBER & EXPORT, INC. FOR 500 PILES FOR THE MIAMARINA RENOVA- TION PROJECT/PROPOSED COST OF $71,000. ALLOCATE $4,500 FROM SPECIAL PROGRAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT/ SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE, DECEMBER 1-5, 1986, IN DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AUTHORIZE/DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORP. TO DEVELOP PARCEL 37 OF THE SOUTHEAST OVER - TOWN PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AUTHORIZE AGREEMENT WITH THE FILM SOCIETY OF MIAMI, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000. TO IMPLEMENT A MARKETING EFFORT FOR PROMOTING MIAMI AS AN INTERNATIONAL FILM CENTER. RECOMMEND OFF-STREET PARKING AUTHORITY THAT THE REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF RENTAL AND PAR- KING FEES AT GUSMAN CENTER (1987 MISS MIAMI SCHOLARSHIP PAGEANT INC., ON DECEMBER 20, 1986) BE GRANTED. INTENT TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS PER A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE DUPONT PLAZA AREA TO USE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TO FUND TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. ELECT/APPOINT COMM. J. L. PLUMMER JR., AS VICE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO SERVE A ONE YEAR TERM COMMENCING FROM THE DATE HEREOF. 86-946 86-947 86-948 86-949 86-951 86-952 86-954 86-955 86-958 86-959 i s. '-'OCU!o T1 D X N W E t `i NOVEMBER 25/86 PAGE #2 INUED CONT vi b3fb"o t ibFNtlMAT1oN ALLOCATE FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.00 86-962 FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND TO COVER EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE MIAMI POLICE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. RESCHEDULE THE SECOND REGULAR MEETING IN 86-963 DECEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO TAKE PLACE ON DECEMBER 11, 1986 AT 4:30 P.M.