Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2006-09-07 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com IRATE 11e [ ,, IV Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 7, 2006 2:00 PM SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor Angel Gonzalez, Chairman Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman Linda M. Haskins, Commissioner District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four Michelle Spence -Jones, Commissioner District Five Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 CONTENTS Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting. "[Later...]" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued. 2:00 P.M. MEETING CONVENED ORDER OF DAY Present Chairman Gonzalez, Commissioner Haskins, Commissioner Sanchez, Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Spence -Jones On the 7th day of September 2006, the City Commission of the City ofMiami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Angel Gonzalez at 2:11 p.m, recessed at 5: 51 p.m., reconvened at 6:08 p.m., and adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado entered the meeting at 2:19 p. m. ALSO PRESENT: Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk Pamela Burns, Assistant City Clerk Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're here today to resume the meeting of July -- I guess it was July 27, right? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- July 27, 2006. I had to be absent for this portion of that meeting, of that Planning and Zoning meeting, butt understand that some people gave testimony in reference to these items. Mr. City Attorney, do we have to hear more testimony from those people that already spoke on the item, or how we go about that? Mr. Fernandez: No, Mr. Chairman. These items are continuation. They have already been opened. Items 1 and 2, 3 and 4 have already been opened. You have already taken testimony on both of these, particularly on item 1 and 2, and I will recommend to you that as you open the hearings on these today, that you deal with 1 and 2 separately from 3 and 4, and then you do 5, and then you do 6, in that manner. You open them like that, but the testimony you have already heard has gone basically to items 1, 2, 3, and 4. Chairman Gonzalez: 4. Mr. Fernandez: My understanding is that the applicant made a presentation on 1 and 2, then there was a very lengthy presentation by an opposing party who spoke, and the testimony of that party was applicable to items 1, 2, 3, and 4 today, so if that party's here, that party needs to understand that that testimony is already on the record and it applies to all these first four items. On items 3 and 4, the applicant has not yet made their presentation, so they need to make their presentation when you open up 3 and 4. Going back then to 1 and 2, which is what suggest you now open for continuation, you need to continue taking input or testimony from the public at large, and then, at the conclusion of the public's portion, the applicant has an opportunity to rebut the testimony that has been put in the record so far. You conclude that, you take your vote, and then you move to open 3 and 4, and take it there from the beginning. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. I hope that the different groups -- the best way to conduct this meeting is if the different groups that are in favor or in opposition had a representative speak on City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 behalf of the group. Otherwise, I don't know how long we might be here, and by our own rule, by 9 o'clock at night, we stop the meeting, and we may have to come back then. I don't know when, when we decide to come back with the items, so I'm -- what I'm going to do is I'm going to give each attorney on both sides plenty of time to address the issues, and then the general public is going to have two minutes. Each person is going to be allowed two minutes. Is that all right? Mr. Fernandez: Correct, but however, the Chair should clarify that when you refer to attorneys, in the case of the applicant, you're talking about the attorney who represents the applicant. Chairman Gonzalez: Represents the applicant. Mr. Fernandez: In the case of any member of the affected public, it would be an attorney that has been retained by any segment of that public -- Chairman Gonzalez: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- to represent them, because it could be that a person who represents himself or herself -- Chairman Gonzalez: Is an attorney. Mr. Fernandez: -- as was the case before -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- because he or she is an attorney, would stand up and speak for the prolonged period of time. That's not what the Chair intends. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: The Chair intends to give attorneys equal time when they stand in a representational capacity in front of you, not when they stand in their individual capacity. In their individual capacity, individuals, respective of professions or titles, are limited to the Chair's time requirements. Chairman Gonzalez: To two minutes. All right, let's open -- yes, sir. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Go ahead. Andrew Dickman: For clarification, I'm representing the opposition party. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Dickman: We have an expert here, as well. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Excuse me. Mr. Dickman: Andrew Dickman for the record. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Dickman: We have an expert here and an audiovisual presentation, and realize my clients know that they have a two -minute limit, and we'll respect that, and won't duplicate what they're saying, but if we could have some indulgence beyond my presentation till our expert to testify and give our presentation, and we'll, you know, be very conscious of the time? City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Madam Clerk, would you please do the swearing in -- Ms. Thompson: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- of the people that are going to testify? Ms. Thompson: Just as a point of reference, are we officially open, because we did not do your pledge and invocation and that was on the agenda? Did you want to follow the agenda or not? Chairman Gonzalez: We don't have to necessarily have it, right? Mr. Fernandez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Mr. Fernandez: It's -- no, there is no obligation to do that. Ms. Thompson: OK. If you are here and you're going to be testifying on any of the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items, I need you to please stand and raise your right hand so that I can swear you in. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. You may be seated. All right, we will now open the meeting. PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS PZ.1 06-00379Iu ORDINANCE First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA - PARCEL 1, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-003791u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-003791u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-003791u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-003791u - Analysis.pdf 06-003791u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-003791u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-003791u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-003791u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-003791u PAB Reso.pdf 06-003791u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003791u & 06-00379zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-003791u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-003791u CC FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-003791u Submittal.pdf 06-003791u CC FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Objections.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Plan Overview.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Letter.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Affidavit.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Petitions.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Petitions II.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Memo.pdf 06-003791u Submittal Objectives.pdf 06-003791u & 06-00379zc Clarifying Application Documents.PDF 06-003791u CC FR Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf 06-003791u Application Page 2 Replacement.PDF 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Potential Traffic Impact.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal by Dickman.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Power of Attorney.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal Section 2215.pdf LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza - Parcel 1 [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor of the plan to the City Commission on May 17, 2006 by a vote of 4-3. See companion File ID 06-00379zc and related File IDs 06-003831u and 06-00383zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Herald Square - Parcel 1 Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be DENIED PASSED by the following vote. City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins and Regalado Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sanchez and Spence -Jones Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): To items 1 and 2. Chairman Gonzalez: To item 1 and 2. Is anybody going to address item 1 and 2? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Items 1 and 2, for the record, is the application by 1 Herald Plaza, Parcel 1. It is -- item 1 is the comp plan change -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- changing the designation from general commercial to restricted commercial on that parcel, and then item 2 is the companion item, which is the amendment to the zoning atlas, changing the zoning classification from C-2 liberal commercial to SD-6 central commercial residential district, and that is the item that's being heard. Ms. Dougherty is the attorney representing the applicant. Lucia Dougherty: I am, but I believe what's happened now is I've made my case in chief. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Ms. Dougherty: We're now at the point where the public is speaking, and then I will come back for rebuttal -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- so I believe now the public is speaking on -- Mr. Fernandez: That is what we stated earlier, it's a -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- continuation of the hearing, and it is up now to the public, and if you would line up so that -- well, after Mr. Dickman makes his relatively short presentation. Andrew Dickman: Suggestion taken. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Andrew Dickman, representing --Andrew Dickman, 325 Egret Avenue, Naples, Florida. I'm here representing Loretta Alkalay, who owns an apartment at 555 Northeast 15th Street, the Venetian Condominium, which abuts the 1 Herald Plaza property on the north. Also with me here tonight -- or this afternoon are many Venetia Condominium owners, including Mr. Hal Spaet, who has organized the residents who will follow me with their presentation, and then we also have a traffic expert, who are here to give a presentation. I'm requesting that the record from the June 27, 2006 public hearing also be incorporated. I assume that that discussion indicated that that would be happening. Very succinctly, we are here in opposition to items 1, 2, 3, and 4. I'll make my presentations generally and just ask you all to incorporate those into all four items just to save everybody the time and headache of hearing me do it four times. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We appreciate that. Mr. Dickman: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, for the record, so you're representing one party. Mr. Dickman: I'm retained by one party. City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: That was going to be my question to him. Mr. Fernandez: And the party you represent has not spoken before, is not the party who made the presentation --? Mr. Dickman: She was -- that one party was here. She started her presentation, and subsequently, retained me in order to represent her at these hearings. Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chairman, in full disclosure, the party that he represents was the party that, perhaps, you not being here, you were not aware of the fact that your client did consume the better part of an hour plus, if not more, of the time of this Commission making her points. To the extent that your representation of her would be repetitive of the points that she has already made, then the Chair needs to be guided by those consideration, whether you want to hear repetitive testimony. However, if he's going to be representing that single party on some other elements not raised before, then, perhaps, he's also entitled to do that. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Dickman: That's true. You know, she wouldn't have retained me if she didn't want me to address other issues. Quite frankly, I'm not sure exactly what issues, in specific, what she addressed, but I can assure you that what I will be discussing will be substantive, on point. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Land use issues. Mr. Dickman: On the issue. On -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Land use issues only. Mr. Dickman: -- the issues land use and zoning tonight -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right, sir, go ahead. Mr. Dickman: -- and I'll be very concise. We're opposing items 1, 2, 3, and 4, the future land use map amendments, and the rezonings on the 1 Herald Plaza property for the following ten reasons, and I'll get through those very quickly. Number one, the 1 Herald Plaza property is owned by a single entity, according to the County property appraiser, folio number 0132310450010. The land is approximately 5.7 acres and owned by Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. The legal description is Herald Park Subdivision TractA. I'm going to present -- after I'm finished, I have three exhibits. I won't interrupt my presentation, but I'll provide this to the Clerk when I'm done. ExhibitA is the printout from the property appraiser showing that it is under one ownership. Even the applications for the amendments and rezoning at page 2 demonstrate that the property is under a single ownership. I also noted on the agenda tonight, it clearly shows that there is one owner for both parcels 1 and 3. Yet, Citisquare LLC, as contract purchaser, has brought forward applications for Parcel one, which is 4.5 acres, and Parcel 3, which is 1.1 acre. No one, quite frankly, is sure where Parcel 2 actually is. I assume that it's somewhere between Parcel 3 and Parcel 1. Because of this entire - because of this, the entire TractA, will require replatting, according to Stephanie Grindell, the City's Public Works director, which I'm putting in as an exhibit; this is a serious problem that I'll get into in a moment. Number two, there is one building on the property consisting of the Miami Herald's parking, offices, and printing press. This is one structure, approximately 605,000 square feet -- adjusted square feet. It is not two buildings, according to the County property appraiser. This building is about 42 years old, and was constructed before the present zoning atlas and schedule of zoning district regulations were adopted by Ordinance 11000, Zoning ordinance of the City of City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Miami. Today this building could not be constructed on this property under the new zoning because setback, lot coverage, and other performance standards are very different and much more stringent today. The building, therefore, is a legal nonconforming use right now. As stated previously, the property must be replatted to accomplish the developments being requested for it. The replat -- to replat the property, the new zoning requirements must be complied with. All existing nonconformities will have to be addressed at that time, perhaps through demolition, perhaps through unity of title, or perhaps they will even seek variances. Section 1101.3 of the City's Zoning Code says that the intent of the City's nonconforming use rules and regulations is - - and I quote -- "not to encourage their survival, " and that is essentially what nonconforming uses mean. Ultimately, you want them to not survive. If more than 50 percent of the structure, under your own rules, is demolished, then the building must not survive. If a unity of title cures the nonconformities, none of the property can be sold without removing the unity, and therefore, the underlying nonconformity. Finally, to obtain a legal variance, a property owner would have to demonstrate a hardship, which must be particular to the land and not created by the owner. In the recent Auerbach (phonetic) versus on Onyx 2 case, the district court was very firm about the strict hardship requirements. The need for the variance would be a result of the applications before you today, and therefore, were created by the owner. Those variances to cure the nonconforming use would not standup in court. By segmenting the future land use map, i.e., flum amendments and rezoning process, into one -- into Parcel 1 and Parcel 3, allow for the sale of the 1.1 acre parking lot on the north side adjacent to the Venetian Causeway and the future sale of development of part of the 4.58 acre land, where the Miami Herald offices are located. Because this segmented strategy necessarily triggers the need for a replat and loss of -- and ultimately, the loss of the legal nonconforming status, the property must be considered holistically, not in two parcels. You should vote for -- therefore, you should vote all four down and tell the developer and the property owner to bring in one plan, not two. My fifth point, because the property is under single ownership, you cannot consider two separate flum or future land use map amendments, Section 163.3187. Florida Statutes allows for small-scale amendments of ten acres or fewer so long as among other restrictions, the -- and I quote, "the proposed amendment does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of property granted a change within 12 months." This is also reflected in the draft ordinance before you for the land use changes and on the application at page 2, itself. Initially, the -- incidentally, the applicant answered no to the following question on the application, on page 2: "Do you own any other property within 200 feet of the subject property?" The answer was "no ". The public policy behind this is to avoid segmentation, which would mask the total impact of the entire property permissible under the land uses. The City cannot approve the flum amendments within 200 feet with the same owner. For this reason, the zoning changes in the accompanying MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) cannot be changed, and for example, if you approve, let's say, Parcel 1 first, that's automatically approved. You've got the same owner. The subsequent amendment cannot go forward because that's an amendment within 200 feet. It creates enormous problems. It's illegal. This property needs to come forward under one application, if at all. My seventh point, public documents obtained from DERM (Department of Environmental Research Management), which I'm going to put in as an exhibit, show a shocking amount of contamination, not only on the 1 Herald Plaza property, but also on the property before you seeking approval for the retail center. Phase II enviro -- the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by HAS Engineerings [sic] and Scientists for the Citisquare Group, LLC, showed elevated concentrations of arsenic, lead, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons), ammonia, TPHs (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons), and VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds). Again, it's going to be here as an exhibit. The report shows a long history of environmentally hazardous uses, and the Herald property itself is called out as having numerous DERM violations for elevated concentrations of heavy metals, ammonia discharges, and above -ground diesel storage tanks. We're currently still reviewing the DERM documents related to the property, and DERM itself is still reviewing the data and sampling from the property in how to proceed, including their own requirements for restrictions and covenants. Based on this information alone, the City should decline the applications or at least not act on them until the full scope of the environmental contamination is understood, and by the way, in your own City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 ordinances for Major Use Special Permit, and also special exceptions, they require an understanding of the environmental impacts of the development, and that, again, is going to be in the record before you. Number eight, the Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), like other CRAs in the City, is designated to foster redevelopment to assist those neighborhoods and citizens most in need, and I want to emphasize that. That's what the process is for. These applications are not consistent with the Omni CRA plan and certainly help only the Citisquare LLC group, not those residents, small businesses in and around the Omni area who place their faith in the City and the CRA process. Number 9, the City has invested significant time and resources on Miami 21, the new future zoning for the City. I understand that it's about to be - -come front and center to you all in the next couple of months, hopefully. The Performing Arts Center and surrounding lands are the best chance for the City to make -- really make a special plan for everyone, those who live there, work there, and visit there. These applications are rushing before you simply for one reason: they want vested rights. They don't want to have to come in to you under Miami 21. The same situation occurred on Biscayne Boulevard when we were considering SD-9; you had at a mad dash to get vested rights. It was chaos, and ultimately, it ended up in some litigation and some lawsuits. That can be easily avoided in this situation. The importance of this land, in particular, the I Herald Plaza, as part of the over of overall plan for the Performing Arts Center, experience should outweigh one particular developer's design to beat the adoption of a better plan. This land, if any land, should be taken very seriously, and should not rush into this simply because they need vested rights. This is a once in a life time chance to look at the entire property, a jewel of an investment in the Performing Arts Center, and I think it's time to step back and really consider these issues. My clients are not against development and expect -- and, in fact, expect that it will happen. By rushing into these convoluted applications on vast tracks of land around the Performing Arts Center is ill-advised. Tell the developer to come back with something more reasonable, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that my clients will be there supporting it. Finally, number ten, there has been an enormous amount of substitutions, additions, modifications, late submittals of affidavits, et cetera, all of these applications, which, not only conflict with the City's complete application definition -- and that's key in requirements before the application can begin review, but it also caused much confusion and a lack of awareness to what exactly is being considered. This is a fundamental due process issue. I'm not pointing fingers or saying anyone, in particular, that the City acted wrongly. In fact, the City, in my opinion, in my experience, has some of the finest civil servants anywhere, and I'm also a registered planner, AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners); been that way since -- over 15 years, and I can tell you that people work for you all, particularly in the Planning Department and at the Hearing Boards, are fantastic civil servants and operate this City very well. However, there is, in my opinion, a systemic problem here. The public should not have to check and recheck files once these projects are under review, and certainly not when they're scheduled for public hearing. It creates, unfortunately, an atmosphere of suspicion and confusion, and for that, I think -- at a minimum, that needs to be looked into to bring forward a sense of trust in your decisions and trust that what they think that they are being presented before you. Finally, for these reasons, I ask that you please deny the application, or at least, send it back and have them bring it forward under one application for the entire property, and not break it into Parcels 1 and 3, and eventually, I'm sure, through a replatting process, that Parcel 2 will pop up somewhere in there. The printing press, it appears to me, is where they're trying to navigate this system so that they can retain the printing press, eventually get rid of the offices, and have development there. The fact of the matter is the printing presses and the offices are one structure. You can't take the offices away without losing the nonconforming status; it's an all or nothing proposition. That's my conclusion, and I'll put the exhibits into the record, and I would like to ask Hal Spaet, who's one of the group leaders for the neighbors, to come up, make his presentation, which is part of the boards and whatnot, and then have the traffic expert come up, and then the two -minute rule would definitely be adhered to, so I appreciate your attention. Mr. Fernandez: Who's your expert? Is Mr. Spaet your expert? City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Dickman: Is our expert here? Mr. Fernandez: So -- did you mention that you also had an expert? Mr. Dickman: We do have an expert somewhere. He's going to wait till the second reading. Mr. Fernandez: Oh, for items 3 and 4? Mr. Dickman: My -- it's going to be for all the items -- Mr. Fernandez: Oh, for all the items. Mr. Dickman: -- so -- Mr. Fernandez: You would -- Mr. Dickman: -- second reading, plus the MUSP, we'll -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Mr. Dickman: -- take that on all there, OK. Is that -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Mr. Dickman: -- OK? Mr. Fernandez: Certainly, so now, actually, you have concluded your role as representing your client. Mr. Dickman: That's right. Mr. Fernandez: You also represent Mr. Spaet? Mr. Dickman: No. Mr. Fernandez: Or he's a member of the public who would standup and speak? Mr. Dickman: Yeah, they're a member of the public. They have some -- Mr. Fernandez: OK. Mr. Dickman: -- presentations that they'd like to make. Mr. Fernandez: Well -- so then the Chair can call members of the public, as you deem appropriate. Mr. Dickman: And I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them at this point or later. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. Ms. Thompson: Chair, I just -- Chair, are we on the two -minute limit? City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, you are. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Spaet: Well -- my name is Hal Spaet. I've been speaking for the -- I live at 555 Northeast 15th Street -- opposition group, and until I ran into Mr. Dickman today, we've prepared a presentation, which is going to exceed the two -minute rule and -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Mr. Spaet: -- we didn't understand it. In fact, we've been communicating extensively with your office to make sure that we were able to make this presentation. It's quite a bit. It's video. It's representations and -- Chairman Gonzalez: How long is your presentation? Mr. Spaet: I would say ten minutes. Mr. Fernandez: And who does he represent? Chairman Gonzalez: And that -- Mr. Fernandez: Has he filed with the Clerk? Chairman Gonzalez: That was going to be my -- Mr. Fernandez: You represent specific homeowners association or --? Mr. Spaet: I'm a spokesman for the opposition group in the Omni. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think the question is, are you being compensated for this? You're not Mr. Spaet: No, absolutely not. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Now, but you -- my -- Mr. Spaet: I'm a resident. Mr. Fernandez: -- recollection, Mr. Spaet, is that you spoke last time this hearing was opened. Mr. Spaet: I know, but I never had a chance to give my presentation, which -- Mr. Fernandez: It's at the discretion of the Chair and of the Commission, if you would allow someone who spoke before to speak again because, perhaps, he didn't get all the time or all of the ideas concrete. Whether he, in fact, represents someone -- the opposition is a very nebulous thing. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: You know, the -- homeowners associations, you recognize. You recognize individuals being represented by an attorney, but an attorney who's not being paid by someone City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 who represents the opposition, undefined as it is, it is certainly up to you, in your discretion, to afford him whatever period of time you deem appropriate. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. That was going to be my question. How many of the persons present here today are you representing? Mr. Spaet: I'm re -- there are only -- I believe there are only two other speakers, -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Spaet: -- so -- Chairman Gonzalez: You know, that is the problem, because what is going to happen is that everyone that stands at that podium is going to say I represent a group of people that are not here today, and I need ten minutes or fifteen minutes because I have a presentation, and then this is going to prolong and prolong and prolong, and this item is going to take three months before the Commission can make a decision, because you know -- I mean, it can be so complicated. I mean -- Mr. Spaet: Mr. Chairman, what ifI do this. What ifI --I know there're a couple of other speakers who want to speak, at least, that we've been organizing. What ifI ask them not to speak and I'll speak for them, and then people in the general public, who really aren't part of our group, be able to say what they want? Nobody else is going to come up here and ask for ten or fifteen minutes. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me tell you what my position is. I want to be fair to everyone. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, andl think that I'll be unfair ifI allow someone from the general public to speak ten minutes or fifteen minutes, and then I limit the rest of the public to two minutes. I have -- I want to be totally fair. I want everyone to have the opportunity to express their opposition or their support of this project, butt want to be fair to everyone, and I don't think it's fair ifI start to allow some people to speak for ten minutes and other people just two minutes, and you know, when we start the clock, I'm just going to go by the clock, and I will appreciate it -- and I'll beg you to please, please stay within your two minutes because one thing that will hate to do is to turn off the mike after two minutes, so stick to your two minutes. Mr. Spaet: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Spaet: Let me first say -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let -- the gentleman is speaking. Will you please be kind enough to let the gentleman speak and then you will have your turn? Mr. Spaet: They were speaking to me, I think. They were saying that if need -- we've spent so much time and so much effort in putting this together that they were saying to me, as other people will, that if it's necessary for them to stand up here and give me their two minutes, they will. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Spaet: We can go on forever that way, and I'm attempting to make this presentation because City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 it's very important that you see what we have. You're not going to see this from anybody else. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so then I'm going to allow you the ten minutes, and you're going to be speaking on behalf of how many people in the public? All right, fine. Go ahead. You got your ten minutes. Madam City Clerk, start the clock. Mr. Spaet: Mr. Chairman, we're here to talk about how important this particular property is. This Knight Ridder property is the key to the Performing Arts District. It's the key to the whole area, you know. It is the most important piece of property. I understand, a few years ago, there was an evaluation done by the Chamber or somebody else. It was the second most valuable important piece of property in the City ofMiami, so what we're asking you to do today is think about what's going to happen if these changes are brought about, and James, if you could start the video. This is James Good. He's a computer artist -- video artist, and what he has done is he has put together all of the plans and specifications for every single building, every single structure that's now before the Planning Board. It could be in some phase of construction, but James, can you get it going? James Good: Yeah. Mr. Spaet: Are you waiting for it to load? Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's on. It's on. Mr. Spaet: OK, here it goes, and if you take a look at your monitors, you'll see that the two orange buildings are the buildings that we're talking about at the 1 Herald Plaza. Now those particular buildings -- and you're talking about thousands of people living there. If we only take the one that's going to be built in a reasonable time, that building is right there on 15th Sfreet where the Venetian Causeway is. If you look at all of those buildings together, and if you look right behind it, you see the blue -- the two blue high-rises and the retail center that is being proposed. You'll see that there are really only two streets, really only two streets that lead any resident to that building. They happen to be the same two streets -- Could I get the hand mike, please? -- that we use, and that's 4,000 of us that live on North Bayshore Drive, then you know the new construction up at 18th and 21 st on North Bayshore Drive, that involves another 3,200 people, so what we did is we put together a map that shows you the streets I'm talking about. Here are the two proposed sites. Here's the two sites that we're talking about here today. Now this is actually the water looking west, so this is east to west, south to north. This is North Bayshore Drive here. All of these arrows point to buildings that are either being constructed now or will be constructed. These buildings are projected to be occupied within the next year. You're talking about 3,200 residents in this area. Anybody who has seen -- this is Margaret Pace Park right here. Anybody who has seen North Bayshore Drive here realizes that these buildings basically were built on top of each other. This North Bayshore Drive area is a two-lane road. As a matter of fact, as a resident over here, I've actually seen cement trucks trying to deliver cement. A car and a cement truck cannot pass each other. That's how thin this road is right here. When these buildings are occupied, these buildings right here, where you see arrows right here, is where we live. This is The Grand, and this is the Venetia, and this is the Bay Parc Plaza. This is 4,000 residents right here. All of these residents, including next year this 3,000, that's 7,000 will be using North Bayshore Drive, and once they get down here, they use either 15th Sfreet or 13th Street since -- this is 13th Sfreet right here next to I-95. Thirteenth Sfreet is one-way going west. It can't be made two ways. The way that this applicant says they're going to bring people in to both of these projects is by 14th Sfreet right here. We don't know whether they're going to use 15th Street or not, but 15th Street's is a two-lane road. You know 15th Sfreet. The Omni's here. The Metromover is right here, so the accessibility to any area right here involving a thousand residents is virtually impossible. Now all of this took place before we realized that the Citi square is going to be built here. This is a 700, 000 foot retail center involving parking, involving two condominiums over here. I must say, as residents, we City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 really have no problem with these two condominiums for this simple reason: The only main street here that people can use, where people can get into this is Biscayne Boulevard. People can get into these two condominiums directly from Biscayne Boulevard. You know, if you stretch it a little more, those same people can use 14th Street, which is a four -lane road, and get into the retail area, but there's absolutely no way people can get into these two residential high-rises they're seeking on the Knight Ridder property, and there's no way that those of us that live there now and those of that that'll live there next year can get into our homes on a daily basis, so building this building right here is probably the most important piece of land in the City; becomes the most important, overpowering, out of scale structure in the City, and I ask you this question. I want to -- we've tried to show it in a different way, if we can. Here you see in blue everything that is being sought to be built today. Here is the high-rise right at the Venetian Causeway, 15th Street right there. HHere's the retail center. Here's the two condominiums. What I've been saying is the traffic was bad enough already to prevent people from getting into here and prevent us from getting home, but if you add all the traffic -- and I understand you triple it for a retail center that's operating all day -- if you add that to the mix on these little streets, these little streets that were built 45 years ago for a different population at a different time -- I know that because I live on the Venetian Islands over here, and I've been riding my bike through this area since I was 11 years old. These streets haven't change at all, you know. Right here you see a view of -- from the Venetia all the way down to Southeast 1st Street, and you see that everything on the water here, everything on this valuable shoreline is low-rise right now. There's not one high-rise yet built in this area. Ifyou allow this building, this land use change to residential high-rise, you are making a change in the future ofMiami. You're altering every wonderful possibility that this performing arts area holds right now, and the reason you're doing that, just take a look at what I said before. This is a representation of every single building that's before the Planning Board now. This is what this area is going to look like if those buildings go up. This little piece right here, hidden from view, is the Performing Arts Center: so my point today is this. Ifyou grant this land use change, the zoning change, what you are doing is determining the future of this entire area, because once you grant this change, whether this developer decides to or not, somebody is going to build a high-rise at this location, and really, if you think about it, coming across the Venetian Causeway, what you're going to see -- and James, do you have the thing going around again? -- is you're basically going to see what becomes a concrete canyon. You're going to see this building right here and you're going to see other buildings in the back, and you're -- it's going to look like New York City and we're Miami. Our shoreline is exactly what we value here. Ifyou grant this land use change, you're making it certain that this is going to happen, if it's next year, if it's five years, and the problem with doing that is that you lose control over this property. You grant this change, you wait, developer puts it in his back pocket;; builds a retail center; another City Commission, years from now, can come in here and instead of building two buildings here, the zoning law gives them the ability to build five buildings here, but effectively, you've lost control of the Performing Arts Center before it's ever built, before Miami 21 ever comes into effect. We're asking you not to allow that to happen. At least leave this area open, leave somebody else -- give somebody else the opportunity to do something different to preserve the integrity of this wonderful, new, exciting area, so I come here today and I ask you to deny. Please deny this land use change for the benefit of the people of Miami, the benefit of the people living in the area. Thank you (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And you did it with 45 seconds to spare. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Good job. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you so much. All right. Now we're going to open it to the -- yes, City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: I just have to ask Mr. Spaet a couple of questions, ifI may. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: I know that you're a very good lawyer, Mr. Spaet, but are you also a traffic planner? Mr. Spaet: No, I'm not. Ms. Dougherty: Have you had any studies at all in traffic planning? Mr. Spaet: Only the study of that particular area for the past 50 years. That's all. Ms. Dougherty: You live in the Plaza Venetia. Mr. Spaet: I do. Ms. Dougherty: It's a high-rise, right? Mr. Spaet: Right. Ms. Dougherty: And do you know the zoning of the Plaza Venetia? Mr. Spaet: I don't know the particular zoning. I believe it's high-rise, but I'll -- Ms. Dougherty: Do you know -- Mr. Spaet: -- whatl can tell you, if you'll -- Ms. Dougherty: -- would you believe me -- Mr. Spaet: -- allow me to answer, please? Ms. Dougherty: I just asked you the question. Would you believe me ifI told you it was CBD, Central Business District? Mr. Spaet: Totally believe you, ifyou allow me to answer the question, please? Ms. Dougherty: That's all I'm -- just wanting to ask you, if you knew if it was a central business district zoning, the highest specification? Mr. Spaet: No, the previous question, which just cut me off from when you asked me the following question. See, the point I'm making here today is that all three of those buildings were built by Tibor Hollo 27 years ago. If those buildings were on this Planning Board agenda, I'd be standing up here objecting to the building of those buildings. They were built at a different time by a different Commission in a different time in this city, when revenue was so necessary to establish the City in the first place, so yes, I'm familiar with the traffic pattern, probably more familiar than any consultant that you would bring simply because I've lived there my whole life. Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. Now we're going to open it to the general public. Remember, please, two minutes for a speaker. Good afternoon. Your name and address. City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mark Feldman: Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Mark Feldman, I live at Plaza Venetia, 555 Northeast 15th Street. The building in which you sit is 150 feet by 175 feet. They want to build a 64-story tower on a piece of land that is 280 feet by 125 feet. It's not going to fit. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Feldman: Hopefully, you won't allow them to do that. Imagine the power that they have -- that developers have to get the rules changed. We are here because, in the two previous board names, one Planning, whatever they were, their objective failed, and then they came before you and they said, "Well, let's change the rules, " instead of -- we want a simple majority as developers. We don't want a two-thirds, and you allowed them to do that, so that -- if those rules were in place, then the two boards would've passed instead of failing their objectives. The power that they have should not be so unrelenting so as to be unstoppable, and that's what you're going to allow them to do ifyou allow this 62-story tower on essentially a lot that is, more or less, 10,000 square feet than the building in which you sit. It's wrong. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Your name and address for the record, please. Barbara Bisno: My name is Barbara Bisno. My address is 1000 Venetian Way, Apartment 603. I'm president of the Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance. We do not oppose the MUSP that this developer has asked for on Parcels 1 and 3. My memory of July 27 is that there were seven items. The MUSP was there as well, and I believe -- and I can stand corrected if my memory is failing me, butl believe the MUSP that was presented included the changes in the design that we requested of the developer in terms of a loggia to the waterfront, and the lack of vehicular entrance and exit -- there would be no vehicular entrance or exit to the tower on Parcel 3 on 15th Street, and I hope my memory is correct about that, and I guess the MUSP will come up in the second reading -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes, it will. Ms. Bisno: -- so in -- because of the agreements that we have reached on the MUSP, we do not oppose the land use and zoning changes. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: On 1 and -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- 3 for the record. Ms. Bisno: 1 and 3. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 1 and 3. Chairman Gonzalez: 1 and 3. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, sir. Noel Nation: Good afternoon. I'm Noel Nation, a resident at 240 West San Marino Island, on San Marino, Miami Beach. I'm here this afternoon on behalf of the Venetian Island Homeowners Association. Matt Leibowitz would normally be here. Unfortunately, he had to leave town for a business matter, and caught me at the voting booth on Tuesday and asked me to step in for him, so we are in a very similar position to the previous speaker. We also have no opposition to the residential condominium development. We've reached an accord with the developer on access issues relating to the Venetian Causeway that would affect our neighborhood, which is satisfactory, and therefore, have no opposition. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Nation: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Next speaker. Stacey Stokes: Hi. My name is Stacey Stokes. I live at 555 Northeast 15th Street, and I'd just like to explain a little further about how these two parcels are inextricably linked, because what the developer is showing, as far as bay walks and walk-throughs and vistas, all depend on the Herald office building being torn down, which the Herald denies is going to happen, and the developer even agrees that it's unlikely to happen, so when they show you a plan that has a bay walk -- oh, but you can go to 14th Street and go between the buildings -- that's not real. That's supposedly not going to happen. Instead, what's going to happen is there'll be a narrow strip there that the general public will not be near. Instead, it will be the residents of that building, or perhaps -- I mean, a handful of people may use it, but it's certainly not what I think the goal is in having a bay walk that connects all ofMiami. I very much object to the way the parcels are being separated or the effort to separate them. They are -- all of these parcels, including the Citi square, the retail and their residential, all of these parcels are connected. These are all the same development group, generally, and they all -- they're all interrelated, or you're going to walk from the retail over to the residential. As a citizen, you know, it's been very, very hard for me to follow what's happening in this -- with this project because the documents keep changing, and apparently, it's very hard for citizens to even speak, and I very much object to the way the City Attorney fried to limit our ability to speak to you. We are not going to use your time inefficiently or irresponsibly. I would also point out that the CRA, in its diagrams and in some of its discussion, it discusses having that access to the water. It shows Parcel 3 as being completely open. It doesn't show any building there. I don't think anybody even considered it. It is inexfri- -itis once the buildings start, and Ms. Dougherty, in her Planning Board presentation, her Zoning presentation, continuously said how this zoning is inappropriate because we could have tattoo parlors here or tow truck companies, but the fruth of the matter is, once you grant this change -- I don't know where I put it, but -- Chairman Gonzalez: Your time is up. Ms. Stokes: -- you will -- you could see the five buildings. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. Sir -- Mark Swanson: Good afternoon. Chairman Gonzalez: -- your name and address, please. Mr. Swanson: Yeah. My name is Mark Swanson, and I live in the Plaza Venetia, number 608. I've lived here since, I guess Commissioner Regalado, in 1961. This, frankly, was my one fear of living in the City ofMiami. It wasn't crime. It wasn't anything else, but exactly this, zoning decisions. I specifically chose not to live on Brickell or Brickell Key. I know that the planner, who I respect, who spoke here previously, resides in Sanibel. Sanibel has, I believe, a three-story height limit. It's not unreasonable to ask that people not build things yertle the turtles; basically, twice the size of anything in the neighborhood. Traffic is already unbearable. You can't even use the Metromover to escape for about a three -block radius on either side because the Metromover is stopped for construction cranes. Somebody has to put a stop at it. Anybody else would do a story and they'd tell you the house of skies, and somebody else has already done stories without even looking at questions of the ownership interest. This is also wrong for economic development. Look at the Miami Herald. Most of the employees are black or Hispanic. Fortune Magazine has identified a pressman as one of the ten jobs that you can City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 make a success at without an advanced education. You're basically setting the stage for a reverse economic development for these people to head to Miramar, like Channel 6 and everybody else. Don't do it. It's wrong for the neighbors. It's wrong for the City. It's wrong for our building, which is a multiethnic building. We have hip hoppers. We have gospel rap. We have owners. We have renters. This is basically for a bunch of investors. It's not a consistent plan. Make them show you a consistent plan. You have the right to turn it down. They were given special exceptions years ago, and now they're saying we don't like those special exceptions. They are like any other investor, and if they were doing the story, they would hold you to task fort it. Somebody else will later; if not the residents, the voters. This project is totally wrong, and I urge you to turn it down. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am, good afternoon. Patricia Mayor: Good afternoon. Patricia Mayor, 555 Northeast 15th Street. I find it curious that the folks from the Venetian Causeway side, according to the newspaper, have received an offer for a payment of $1.35 million, and now they're not opposing the project, so that under your hats a curiosity. You'll also have people show from the hotel saying that they tell their -- the people who stay in their hotel not to go out in the neighborhood, but I called the hotel and they reassured me that the neighborhood was absolutely safe. I have a report from the Police Department that it's the lowest crime area in the City, downtown core, and you had the pastor of the church say that there's crime in the area. However, they do feedings that do draw some needy people that, of course, need help, but the appropriate place for the feedings would be in the areas west of Biscayne Boulevard that are specifically built for that. I urge you to consider Chicago. Mayor Manny Diaz has emphasized the importance of studying the Chicago plan, where they maintain all buildings away from the shoreline. It's been in existence since 1909 as the Burnham Plan. Miami can begin taking care of our shoreline today. It's your responsibility. We ask you for that responsibility. The reality, bottom line, is that if you do change the zoning on those parcels on the water -- it's about the shoreline, Parcels 1 and 3 -- you will forever allow five towers to go on the five acres that are along the water, whether it's today or tomorrow. They will place five -- they can place up to five towers on that shoreline, and I'll just hand you this sheet and conclude. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Julie Grimes: Good afternoon. Julie Grimes, with the Double Tree Grand Hotel, 1717 North Bayshore Drive -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Grimes: -- The Grand. I would like to say that we're in support of this project, and I think it is time to actually not step back and wait. It's time to step forward and move. This neighborhood has been isolated for far too long, and as much as we're all very happy at one point, those of us living and working at The Grand, that the Commission did, many years ago, approve that project and was able to create a vital community within The Grand. We have not been able to create that community outside the particular little neighborhood there. This is the opportunity to do so. As much as we appreciate and love the Miami Herald. It seems the opponents would like to see it parking lots much longer, and that has never contributed to the community. There's no pedestrian area to walk and hasn't been for 15 years. Now we see that the Performing Arts, by fall, coming together, but we do need to build on the community that is there. The way we see it, the Skyline Manhattan, there's no reason why a world -class city of this nature shouldn't consider a skylight like that -- a skyline like that. That's where this city is headed. The world has realized what a wonderful place this is to live and work, and there'll be more and more people attracted to it. I don't think it's a small few that should enjoy the beauty of this city, and I think this is the direction we need to go for that neighborhood and we welcome the opportunity. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 18 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Giselle Reggiani: My name is Giselle Reggiani. I live in 1717 North Bayshore Drive, The Grand. I am not an expert in zoning, butt know that I want to walk at night to retail space, want to be able to walk to the park and now I'm not. It's the lowest crime, but it's not secure. You're not feel comfortable walking at night, and I think this project can bring to the neighborhood that, that you can walk, that you can enjoy the neighborhood, that is great, and I am in support of this project for that. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. We didn't get your name on the record clearly. Ms. Reggiani: Giselle Reggiani. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Esther Liontos: Hi. Chairman Gonzalez: Hi. Ms. Liontos: Esther Liontos, 1717 North Bayshore Drive, The Grand Condominium. I just want to say two things. I lived at this place for ten years. I lived at The Grand for ten years, and I think that this project will bring a lot of good things to our area. I live there, and I have to walk at night, just like she said, and deal with the crime -- the high crime right there we still have to this day. I feel that one of the reasons that the crime rate has gotten low was because of the new projects that have come to that area, like the Performing Arts Center, the 1800 Club, Quantum, the Paramount, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, I can go on forever. I'm really for it. I think it's going to bring very good things to it, and I encourage you to approve it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you. Ms. Lionos: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Andres Asion: Hi. My name is Andres Asion, and I'm born and raised on Palm Island, and I know the area extremely well. I sell a lot of real estate in the area, and when I'm talking to the people that come into Miami to buy real estate in Miami, I really feel that this area that we're talking about from the Miami River all the way up to the Performing Arts Center is going to be the Park Avenue ofMiami, and the reason why I say that and the reason why we're living through such a crucial time right now in the City ofMiami, because it's basically reforming the city's skyline and reforming how this city's going to be looked at, and how the skyline is going to change for the next 20, 30, 40, 100 years from now, and this is really the only place where one is going to be able to live and actually walk downstairs and be lined with all the retail shops and the restaurants and the coffee shops and go across the street to Bayside or to the museum park or to the Performing Arts Center or to the retail component, which is trying to be implemented into this Herald site right now. This is the only place in Miami. You're not going to be able to do -- you can't do it right now on Brickell Avenue. It doesn't exist. You can walk down from your building on Brickell Avenue and not have that lined up. You could go to South Beach to any of the buildings south of 5th Street or on Ocean Drive or Washington Avenue and you're not going to have that retail component to it. There's nowhere else in the city. This is the only time and place that we're going to be able to establish some type of urban pedestrian feel community like the center of you know, a mini Manhattan, or a mini -- big urban city that is -- you're going City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 to be able to offer this to your residents. You know, people that go to Times Square -- that check out Times Square don't say, "Oh, my God, there's so much traffic." They come there and they enjoy all the retail, the coffee, the shops, whatever it is there, the buildings, and they live in, and they pay a premium for living in the center. Right now people are commuting way too much to be living out south, to commute, you know, two or three hours a day to come into the center of the City. We're being able -- and if this -- the retail components like this retail component coming into the Herald site and other retail components like this, in addition to the project being built, do not get implemented into the core, into the center of downtown Miami, downtown Miami's condominium buildings and everything that's being built is not going to work, because if you're going to go over there to live there and not have anywhere to go while you're there, or going down to the Performing Arts Center and not having anywhere to go, you have to get in your car and leave the City, then it's useless. It's not going to work. Chairman Gonzalez: Your time is up. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is up. Mr. Asion: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, sir. James Good: Hi. My name is James Good. I live at 555 Northeast 15th Street. I would just like to say I'm opposed to the project. I'm not opposed to developments in the area, in general. I think development would be very good. It just needs to be more appropriate. I'd like to see parks with buildings -- two-story buildings behind those, ten -story buildings behind those, and 65-story buildings behind those, and not 65 right on the water. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. Greg Mirmelli: My name is Greg Mirmelli, am I wanted to say I'm here to support the project because I think everybody against it is from the neighboring building, and it's not fair for them to be in a high-rise and start saying the guy next to me can't do it. If we did that, downtown would never get developed, and in terms of traffic, right now these lanes are all closed because of the construction at the PAC (Performing Arts Center) and things seem to be surviving, so I imagine we can handle a few more buildings over there, and it is in place and in scale with every project on the water in downtown. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Susan Neuman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Susan Neuman, 555 Northeast 15th Street. I've been in this neighborhood for the past 25 years, both as a resident and as a business person, and I think you have a unique opportunity before you right now. I respectfully request that you consider saving the waterfront from the McArthur Causeway to the Venetian Causeway, from the water to North Bayshore Drive, ideally, and if not, at least to Herald Plaza for a public park. This could be a cultural park in keeping with the theme of the Cultural Art Center. It could be a passive park where people could go to walk or run or read or anything. It doesn't have to be an active park, like Margaret Pace with basketball and volleyball and other things of that nature, but I have heard, as I was sitting here today, anywheres from 3 to 7,000 new residents being put into the area, and I don't think there's a blade of grass for them to share. Now this is Miami. It's not New York -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's right. Ms. Neuman: -- so please, I respectfully request that you save our waterfront. City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, ma'am. Yes. Good afternoon. Sharon Dodge: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Dodge, and I am a fairly new resident to the area. I'm at 555 Northeast 15th Avenue, the Venetia, and I have been in this place only two years. I spent the previous 21 years in Seattle, Washington, a city which is enjoying also unprecedented growth and development and construction. However, in Seattle, in the last 21 years, as a result of much public dialogue, and a risky but willing group of visionaries who have spearheaded the development in Seattle, we have a terrorist approach to usage in our waterfront. We don't have the same lovely waterfront. We have lots of oil slick and gray skies, but we are known as a beautiful waterfront city because you can get to it. I also submit that tall buildings does not equal less crime. That actually the kind of people that you bring to an area for the activities for which you bring them to the area affect that a great deal more, and yes, we are pro -development. We're pro responsible, visionary development of our waterfront. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Joseph Corona: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Mr. Corona: -- Commissioners. Joseph Corona. I reside at 555 Northeast 15th Street. My professional experience as an employee and consultant for Norwegian Cruise Line has afforded me the unique opportunity to see from land and sea, as well as the air, some of the most beautiful world -class cities in the world; from Sydney to San Francisco, from Oslo, Norway to Turkey Finland and beyond to Sydney, Australia, it's been a unique opportunity, but it's not through these travels that I learned about the value of city planning. No, I really learned all I needed to know about conscientious development and vision when I was ten years old. It was Main Street School in Chicago, Illinois, in Mrs. Kelly's fourth grade class. It's there that we learned how the tragic fire of the 1800s -- late 1800s in Chicago led the unique opportunity for the city planners at the time to form this template of the future of their city. They knew then -- call it Chicago 8 -- 19, if you will -- as we know now, the impact of their decisions at the time. The visionary Charles Alderman, who introduced the ordinance to keep the late Michigan waterfront clear of buildings, is revered to this day by the citizenry of that city and to city planners worldwide. I say to you we're at the same historical point in Miami right now. Weather aside, Chicago and Miami have many similarities: diversity, culture, successful sports teams, and their respective juxtapositions to water, and almost identical lengths of city waterfront property, approximately 30 miles each. Sadly, the orientation to the water is different. Chicago has 30 miles of green space, bike paths, marinas, and beaches. Miami has the same length of shoreline and less than four miles of parks, paths, and green space. You can do the rudimentary measurement yourself with a map and a ruler. We are definitely at a historical point in the preservation and development of QOL space, quality of life space, and green space. This is a wrong project at the wrong time and the wrong place, and I learned another thing when I was ten years old. Three wrongs, definitely, do not make a right. Please deny this project. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Emilio Manfrediz: Emilio Manfrediz, 1500 Northwest 12th Avenue, Apartment 1218. Am I the last one here? Well, leave the best for the last. I live in Miami since 1946. That's 60 years. When I got out of the service in 1955, I started working at Pier 1, downtown Miami. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wow. Mr. Manfrediz: It was fabulous. I ate at the Royal Castle across the Boulevard and I walked to work, Pier 1, warehouses crumbling, beautiful oil tanks, Belcher Oil Company. Very exciting. City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 There was nothing to do, nowhere to go. We were very peaceful; it was no people. You into cemetery, the same thing. I love progress. I'm old now. I like to be peaceful. I want to relax in my apartment, watch my TV (television) quiet, but that's not the future. Think about that. Why do people go to Hong Kong? Why do they go to New York? I remember the first time I went to New York. I look up Empire State Building, and my goodness. Forty -Second Street, the life. What was the life all about? The people, the traffic, the excitement. It's up to you to decide what you want Miami to be in the future. A peaceful little town, little city? No. Look to the future. Look to your children. Look to my children, my grandchildren. It's important. Approve this project. These people are laying their money on the line. They're taking the risk. They're doing the work. You should back them up, and not only this time, in the future think about what I'm saying, and I know what I'm saying is true. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: No clapping, please, please. No clapping. Yes, ma'am. Mary Thorp: I'm Mary Thorp. I live at 510 Daroco, in Coral Gables, and I just want to tell you a little bit about my first impressions with Miami -- with downtown Miami when I first lived here. I moved into the Four Ambassadors and within the first week, my car was towed to someplace on Bayside, and so I went up to catch a bus so I could get to it, and this man that would now call my guardian angel, but at that time I would have called him a wino or a bum -- he was just scary -looking and smelled terrible and everything else -- kind of adopted me, and I got on the bus, and I had to ask directions where to get off and everything else, and he told me, and they dropped me off downtown, and then my guardian angel said, "He gave you the wrong directions. You have to walk up this way, " and he took my arm and he started leading me. Well, I have never been so scared in my life. I was -- I just looked at all of these people in the dirt and the run-down conditions and everything else, and I knew I'd never live through it. I just knew, but he had this grip on my arm, and I knew that he knew I had money, cash, because I had said I had to pick up my car, so then we're waiting by a church, and I'm waiting for my next bus, and all of a sudden, I just thought I've had it, and a cab came by and I jumped in, and then I noticed that the cab didn't have that, you know, little thing that a cab is supposed to have, then I thought, my gosh, I jumped into some stranger's car, and off we go, so that was my first impression of downtown Miami; that it's a scary place. The second thing was then I worked on Brickell, and so I frequently was stopped by tourists saying, "Help, help. How can I get on I-95? I'm lost in this town," and my third thing is I went down to the Gusman fairly recently, in the afternoon, and you know what the neighborhood looks like there. It's pretty depressing. Chairman Gonzalez: You need to conclude because your time is over. You're -- Ms. Thorp: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- a half a minute over, OK. Ms. Thorp: All right. I'd just like to say I think Miami is a world -class city and we deserve a world -class downtown. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Adrion Sieckel: Good afternoon. My name is Adrion Sieckel, 445 Southwest 11 th Street, Miami. I was born and raised in Miami. I work in downtown. I just want to say I am a proponent of the project. From my point of view, for the Performing Arts Center and for that whole area, it's really an ideal use for that property in terms of getting people to not only go to the performing arts, but also get involved in the community around it and its access to the downtown corridor City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 and to Brickell and everywhere else, so in simple terms, not to belabor it, I'd love to see it happen, and I am a proponent of it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Good afternoon. Laura Pellegrini: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Laura Pellegrini, and for the record, I live at 3101 Indian Creek, on Miami Beach, and I'm new to Miami. I am from Toronto, which I think is a world -class city. It's kind of like a small New York, and when I moved down to Miami, I was looking for a place to live and I was so shocked of how seedy and scary downtown is, and a lot of people have mentioned that Miami is a world -class city, and I think this project will move it in that direction with regards to being a place where you can walk and feel safe and have shops and retail stores, so I am a supporter of this project. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you so much. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none - Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: -- one more ? Josh Merkin: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Merkin: Good afternoon. My name is Josh Merkin. I live at 19110 Southwest 89th Avenue, and like the gentleman just mentioned a minute ago, my wife and I, too, are interested in the arts, and having the exciting possibilities and opportunities of the Performing Arts Center is really great for us, and I think to complement that with night life and restaurants would really just be a great thing for the City ofMiami. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Nina West: I have one question. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. West: Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, in Coconut Grove. While we are discussing all the bay walks that have been going on in the City and the City's purpose for a bay walk in front of our new buildings and the dedication of these bay walks, not one bay walk has been dedicated with a permanent easement, and currently, a better -- a bay walk that was dedicated on the Miami River is asking now that because the homeowners association is taking over and we have crime, they want to close it. This is the same thing that happened on Brickell Avenue, and I have request of the Commission that from now on and in the future, when bay walks are dedicated, that a permanent easement be given to the City ofMiami. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. This conclude the public hearing. It comes back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. Chairman Gonzalez: No? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez: No. City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Dougherty -- Chairman Gonzalez: Rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez: -- is entitled to rebut -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK, rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez: -- the arguments made. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: While Ms. Dougherty is setting up, I just would like to call the City Commission's attention to some of the ten items that Mr. Dickman so eloquently presented to you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Of course, in reverse order and not covering all of them, but just the ones that I believe are relevant and important for your consideration. Number 10 is actually -- or even though he promised he would not revisit old issues, is a restatement of everything that his client had, in essence, presented to you before. With regard to number 9, the fact that this City Commission is considering Miami 21 that, in itself should not be a stop either to development or to applications or for the inescapable fact that the City Commission must apply existing law to existing applications, so reference to Miami 21, it's a very interesting argument he's making, but clearly, not to be considered. With regard to everything else, I hope that the applicant was taking notes of the clear roadmap thatHr. Dickman had laid out for them, because I think he made an excellent analysis that I know that us and staff are very aware of of some of the roadblocks or some of the potential issues that the applicant will have as they move forward to consider the issues of platting, or unity of title, or demolition, or necessary variances, but clearly, this is all anticipatory, and the fact that there may be issues related to all of these things that he clearly laid out is not a stop, is not a bar for you to consider the Comprehensive Plan change and the changing zoning that's in front of you, so the anticipatory nature of the problems that he has raised, the fact that he has painted this -- these issues as being problematic in the future should not be considered by you today because they're not relevant necessarily to the change in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning that's in front of you. Issues with -- Commissioner Haskins: Jorge -- Mr. Fernandez: -- arsenic -- Commissioner Haskins: -- Jorge Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: On that issue, I had a question. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: I understood from Mr. Dickman's presentation that the -- this parcel is not currently platted like this. Is it platted as Parcels 1, 2, and 3, or -- and can you -- if it's not platted like that, can you do -- can you make a change on one of those parcels without it being City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 the same on all of those parcels? Mr. Fernandez: Clearly, I don't have the answer to that question. I don't know what the applicant's plans are, and presently, I don't know how they're platted. Perhaps staff can speak to that. Commissioner Haskins: Yeah. That's critical to this because we have it brought to us as two separate parcels, Parcels -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: --1 -- Mr. Fernandez: 1 and 3. Commissioner Haskins: -- and Parcels 3 -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: -- and the way it is presented to this Commission is that a change on parcel I can be independent of a change on Parcel 3, but if -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: -- that's not the case, then I'm afraid we've not -- Mr. Fernandez: No, and I believe that -- Commissioner Haskins: -- brought this to Commission properly if we can't do it individually. Mr. Fernandez: And that's a very good point, and I believe Ms. Dougherty would address that, but the issues thatHr. Dickman raised is with a future development of these. I think that when the MUSP is presented to you and you would see the concept of the development that is being planned, perhaps at that time, platting issues or unity of title questions will be fully addressed, although Ms. Dougherty can address those now, too. Commissioner Haskins: But the decision today is on a land use change, and once the land use change is made, the land use change is made, so I don't understand that argument, Jorge. Mr. Fernandez: The -- Commissioner Haskins: I don't understand why it -- it's something that comes up at time of the MUSP. I mean, if we cannot make a land use change -- Mr. Fernandez: Irrespective of platting. Commissioner Haskins: -- for Parcel I separate from Parcel 3, then we have different considerations here. Mr. Fernandez: You can. You can make a plat -- you can make land use changes individually or independently in Parcel 1 and in Parcel 3, irrespective of how they're presently platted. Commissioner Haskins: You can? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, you can. City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: There are many parcels throughout the City that have different zoning classifications on the same unified site, but one of the conditions is if we do separate them in terms of ownership, we do have to plat it. That's one of the requirements the City has in the future, and the Major Use Special Permit will be subject to us replatting it, but there are many instances where there are two different classifications -- zoning classifications on the same parcel owned by the same site. Commissioner Haskins: All right. Ms. Dougherty: Again, for the record , Lu-- Commissioner Haskins: Jorge, you concur with that? Mr. Fernandez: I concur with that, yes. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Definitely. Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here today on behalf of the owner and the applicant. I am here on behalf ofMcClatchy to make their record clear, as well as Citisquare. John Heron, who's the McClatchy attorney, is here today. Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're addressing the issue of the application that was brought forth in the first -- Ms. Dougherty: Yes -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- testimony that we had? Ms. Dougherty: -- andl will answer them in detail, as the CityAttorney's asked me to do, but just to set the record a little bit straight, and so that -- I know that the Chairman wasn't here the last time. I just wanted to refresh your memory of what we're requesting. This is Parcel 1 and this is what we made our presentation for on the last time, and Parcel 1 includes the office building as well as the printing presses. This is currently owned by McClatchy, and what they have told us in the past, and Knight Ridder has said in the past that they don't have any present plans to develop this site, so you may say to me, why is it that you want to rezone the property? Chairman Gonzalez: But that's -- excuse me. That's the actually Miami Herald building, right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: This is the building itself as well as the printing press. This is the office building and a printing -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And printing. Ms. Dougherty: -- press, so this is Parcel 1, and that's items 1 and 2, the rezoning and comp plan amendment for Parcel 1. That's what we've already had testimony about, so you may say to me, well, why are you trying to rezone a piece of property that, A, you don't own, and all you have is a right of first refusal, if, in the future, they want to buy it, they have to ask you first whether or not you want to sell it, so why are you rezoning this property? -- It's because my client has made a huge investment in all of this site, this property and this site property, and they want to know what's going to be built in the future. That's the reason for us requiring the Miami City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Herald to go through this Major Use Special Permit so that we know what's going to be built in the future. Now we say, OK. Well, they don't have any present intent. OK You leave the building here, but if the Miami Herald or -- excuse me, the Miami Herald/McClatchy sells it to anybody in the future, they have to do this plan. How do we know they have to do this plan? Because we're going to make them do this plan by covenant. We think that's a benefit to the City, as well. We think that for you to know what could possibly be built in the future, that's in your benefit, as well as ours, ours who have a major investment in this property, but what hap -- why is it that we think this is the proper zoning for this property? It's because your adopted Omni Redevelopment Plan says so. This is your adopted. We didn't make this up. This is what you said. The C-2 zoning of the Miami Herald building is inconsistent with the existing zoning patterns and should be changed to the better - reflect the reflected desired character of the area. Other places say it should be high density, multifamily, mixed use. This is your adopted plan. Commissioner Haskins: Is this the most recent Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) Redevelopment Plan? Ms. Dougherty: Yes, it is. Commissioner Haskins: That's part of the expansion? Ms. Dougherty: Yes. OK, so this parcel is the only C-2 modified, quasi -industrial property on the entire waterfront in the entire city. This is it. It is inappropriate to have in your downtown possibility of as of right -- talking as of right -- tow fruck companies, tattoo parlors, warehousing, any of those kinds of rights. It's an inappropriate zoning and it's a remnant of an old zoning that happened when this used to be the Belcher Oil Company site. This used to be the -- what was the Bayfront Park? I mean Bicentennial? Unidentified Speaker: FEC (Florida East Coast). Ms. Dougherty: FEC rail yard, and -- what was the Arena? Unidentified Speaker: Port ofMiami. Ms. Dougherty: Port ofMiami, so all of that used to be an industrial waterfront. It no longer is. It's your downtown. This property across the street is zoned CBD, Central Business District, the highest, most intense zoning classification in the City. Everything else around this site is zoned SD-6. This is what we're asking for. This zoning classification that you see in brown, that's what we're asking to be put on the river. I mean, on the water. This C-2 zoning again is the only C-2 zoning on the Bayfront anywhere in the City, so it's inappropriate zoning classification. The appropriate one is either CBD or SD-6. Your City Attorney has asked me to go point by point and address some of the issues that were brought up at the last agenda, so I'm going to do that. First question is, did I have the proper authority to represent Knight Ridder in the first place and McClatchy in the second place? At that time, I had given you a letter from the McClatchy general counsel. I now have a power of attorney that was given to me to file these applications, and Javier Avino, who is going to be passing them out. At all meetings, Larry Harbert -- at all the meetings, the Zoning Board meetings, as well as the Planning Advisory Board meetings, Larry Harbert was present at the time that he -- at the time he was also the vice president for operations for the Miami Herald and Knight Ridder. There were title issues that brought -- we had brought up at the Zoning Board issue -- at the Zoning Board hearing, and frankly, Joe Ganguzza, who is a good real estate lawyer who's on the Zoning Board, did find a problem with the title, because the deeds -- that we looked in the record, the deed says one thing. However, because of changes of title, changes of names, and mergers, there was a different name as the owner, so I'm going to give you that board, so the original name that we had on the property was Knight Ridder -- Knight Newspapers, Inc., which got changed by merger and changes of date -- name, and the actual name of the company is Knight Ridder, Inc. We did City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 change that in the public records when we found out between the Zoning Board -- between the two Zoning Boards, we changed the application. That is the proper thing to do. Your Code allows that, and in fact, every jurisdiction that I practiced before allows for changes, nonsubstantial changes to applications. We went to your Hearing Boards; we changed the application. We didn't -- we actually supplemented the application. Nothing was ever taken out. Nothing was ever substituted. Nothing was actually taken out of the record. They maintained the record at all times, with the old application as well as the supplemental. Section 2215.3 says -- this is of your Zoning Code -- upon completion of the public hearing -- no, excuse me. `After notice of public hearing before the Planning Board, Zoning Board, City Commission, as the case may be, and has a given, and no change shall be made in the original application for zoning amendment which would have the effect of creating substantial differences between the matter advertised and the matter upon which the hearing is actually held." In this case, there are no substantial differences. There are no changes at all in the actual merits of the application. Terms of creating a nonconforming use. There were allegations that a nonconforming use is actually an illegal use. That's not the case. Your Zoning Code provides for nonconforming uses, meaning a use that existed before the law changed, and in fact, when you pass Miami 21, there's going to be lots of them, and they're going to be continued to be able to be legal. In other words, a building which was allowed to be at 36 stories in the same district now is going to be down to 24 stories, you don't have to block off a building. It gets to be remaining, and it legally remains. What it means is you can't expand it without having a special exception, and in fact, we do have a special exception pending for the (INAUDIBLE) no variances are required, but we do have a special exception in the event we are successful with our rezoning of the property. We'd have to get a special exception to take down the office building. There is an allegation that we are required to have easement holders, meaning anybody who has a right-of-way or an easement onto the property to also be an applicant. That is not in your Code. It's nowhere in your Code, that you have to have an easement holder. There were allegations about the notary, and this is, I think, a interesting point. This is your application form, and I have with me this afternoon Javier Avino, who's right here, and he is actually the person who signed the application, Marisol Gonzalez, who's our notary, and our zoning consultant. This is your application form. Here is a date that we always fill in as the date of our application. This is the date. You can only apply for zoning applications the first seven days of the week, so we fill in the date of our application so that you know when we apply. This is the signatory for the notary, and this is actually the date -- excuse me, the location where the signature for the applicant is. Javier signs the application, not necessarily the same day it is -- we apply. He actually prepares and sign these application in front of our notary several days in advance of actually applying, so that's why there is a different date for the application and a different date for the signature and a notary. I'm going to go to Mr. Dickman's issues. He suggested that this is -- these two, processed together, would be over ten acres. In fact, they're about five acres. They're not ten acres. I think what he is thinking about is the fact that you would have the -- you would go into the water for the FAR (floor area ratio) purposes, and when you go into the FAR, maybe that's over ten acres. Well, that issue has been decided by the Department of Community Affairs, and another case that he had on the river, in which case they said that that additional 70 feet into the water is not counted towards your application and the ten acres, so we do not have a ten -acre issue. The building, in terms of the printing presses, it allows to be remained. It is a legal use. It is not a illegal use. Means you can't expand the printing presses, but don't know from your Comprehensive Plan that that's something that you really want to have happen. We don't need a variance; special exception is pending. We do have a single ownership currently that we will have to get a replat in order to divide after we've sold the property, and in order to get a building permit, we will have to replat it into two separate parcels. The Omni CRA specifically says that multifamily mixed -use development is appropriate for this site, and here's something that you have been told in the past. You've been told that you want to have -- by the folks in the audience -- waterfront access and a waterfront bay walk, and what happens in the event that the actual office building and printing presses are not demolished and a new building not built, will you have this bay walk? This is something that is going to be permitted, no matter what, and we will condition this bay walk from our -- from the first project in Parcel 3, regardless of whether City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 or not this portion is now. Right now there is no access to the waterfront. There is no public access. There's no public bay walk. If you favor us with a rezoning of both sides, you'll have the public bay walk all the way to the end, regardless of whether or not the building comes down. We did pass out the power of attorney from McClatchy, and I think, in terms of the fraffic, I need to have Tim Plummer come and rebut, but the evidence presented by Mr. Spaet. Timothy Plummer: Good afternoon. Tim Plummer, 1750 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, in Coral Gables. We have been through the MUSP fraffic study process. We meet all City standards. We've been reviewed by the City and the City's consultant. As you know, this project falls within the downtown DRI (Development of Regional Impact), and there are available frips according to the downtown DR'. One of the very important things I think you should be considering when you're looking at this land use and zoning change is what the parcel has as of right versus what they're proposing, and if you look at Parcel 3, in particular, they can build up to 154,000 square feet of office without any zoning change, without coming before you. That creates about 15 percent more PMpeak-hour trips than the present project, so that's a very, very important fact that needs to be on the record, and I'll be here for any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: But that's primarily applicable to parcel number 3, which -- Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: -- would be the subject of the next public hearing that will be open. This is only Parcel 1 -- Chairman Gonzalez: And 2. Mr. Fernandez: -- which is items 1 and 2 right now. Mr. Plummer: Correct. Mr. Dickman: Could I ask a quick -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. Dickman: -- question of the --? Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Dickman will have a question of the expert. Mr. Dickman: Actually -- Mr. Fernandez: And you have your credentials on -- did -- Lucia, did you proffer him as an expert? Ms. Dougherty: I did, and maybe you'll want to tell them what you do. Mr. Plummer: Yes. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida. Mr. Dickman: Actually, I had a question for Ms. Dougherty. She put some testimony on the record. I'd just -- Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Mr. Dickman: -- like to ask, in total, how many replacement, substitution, changes did you actually make for all of these applications that you referred to just a few minutes ago? City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: We changed the title. We changed -- we submitted an affidavit saying when one parcel was actually executed. We submitted a new power of attorney because the City Attorney asked us to. It's not something that I thought was required, but we submitted a new power of attorney. We submitted a letter from McClatchy, only because your client raised these as potential issues did we actually submit those, not because we thought we had to -- Mr. Dickman: So that's five submittals, five -- Ms. Dougherty: -- and we submitted a re -- new disclosure of interest after the McClatchy purchase. Mr. Dickman: OK Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Dickman -- Commissioner Haskins: I had a -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- before you leave, I heard -- Mr. Dickman: Yes, sir. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you, sir, in your presentation, and I didn't want to interrupt you back then, that all of these parcels are contaminated, and you talk about arsenic, and I don't know how many other contaminants. Where is this contamination coming from? Mr. Dickman: There -- again, and I'll tell you -- Chairman Gonzalez: And do you have proof of that? Mr. Dickman: I do. I have a -- I have documentation, and I apologize. I didn't have copies for everybody, and by the next reading, you'll have that before you. There are color maps that show where they sampled sites. It's not only on the 1 Herald Plaza property, Parcel 3, Parcel 1, but it's also on the parking lots that are coming before you on other items. These are -- my understanding, these are documents that are being generated through due diligence between the buyer and the seller that are required to go through DERM DERMmakes them public. They're public documents, and I've submitted some things, and I will make it a point to make sure you all have that. Again, I got it recently. What I read to you is from what was in the report. I'm not a toxicologist or an environmental -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right, right, right. Mr. Dickman: -- engineer, butt will make sure that those come to you. Basically, there are -- that is an old industrial area. There are gas tanks. There are -- a lot of that land is actually fill land, and there have been a lot of major industrial activities that have occurred on that land historically, going back probably a hundred years, and it's documented in those reports. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you so much. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, he -- Chairman Gonzalez: I just want to -- Ms. Dougherty: -- is correct, we do have lots of contamination. It is currently being cleaned up, and we can't get a building permit until it is clean. City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: But is this contamination all over the place in all the parcels, inclusive? Ms. Dougherty: No. It's mostly -- Chairman Gonzalez: The building, the Miami Herald building? Ms. Dougherty: -- in the south side near the Belcher Oil site. Chairman Gonzalez: Pardon me? Ms. Dougherty: It's mostly on the south side near where the Belcher Oil site used to be. Chairman Gonzalez: Not on the property where the building is? Ms. Dougherty: Not where the building is. Chairman Gonzalez: There is not contamination there? Ms. Dougherty: Well, that's not where the contamination is. It's where the oil industrial sites were, but the point is, all of it's being cleaned up now. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Dickman: Those documents -- Commissioner Haskins: Can I ask -- Mr. Dickman: -- will speak for itself, and there -- you'll have those. Chairman Gonzalez: I hope, by the next meeting, we should have enough proof of whatever it is there. Mr. Fernandez: Um -hum, yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: It will be very interesting. Commissioner Haskins: Can I ask a question? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Commissioner Haskins: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner. Commissioner Haskins: I just wanted to ask a question. He said -- your traffic consultant had said that currently, as of right, without going through this process, you could build 154,000 square feet of office on parcel 3, is that right, 154,000 square feet? Mr. Plummer: Correct, that's my understanding from the architect. Commissioner Haskins: And if you change from the C-2 liberal commercial to the SD-6 central commercial residential district, how many square feet of office could you build as of right? Mr. Plummer: I don't know the answer to that. City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: Would it be fair to say a lot more? Mr. Plummer: I would think so. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Question for the traffic expert, please. You -- I'm sure that you have read the Galvin Mobility Project report about Miami -Dade County being one of the gridlocks areas in the country, recently published last week. Mr. Plummer: I haven't read it in detail, butt know of it, yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Well -- OK. One of the stories mentions that the plans ofMiami-Dade County, especially the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization), is to spend like nineteen thousand millions of dollars in the next 25 years, but mainly, in rapid transit, west and south. What plans, if you know, do we have for downtown Miami to alleviate the traffic gridlock that we are ourselves are creating, American Airlines, Performing Art Centers [sic], all these projects that are coming on-line? Is it just what we have now or do we have, in the future, any remedy? Mr. Plummer: I think DERM -- Commissioner Regalado: I mean, traffic -wise, not -- traffic -wise. Mr. Plummer: Traffic -wise, and what we look at in urban area like downtown Miami is all the different components of transportation, and as you know, there's the streetcar project that's on the boards for the City ofMiami. There's a port tunnel project, which is very critical to the downtown area to remove the trucks coming in and out of the port from the city streets, having access from Watson Island to the port. That's a very, very important project as well. The Downtown Transportation Master Plan has a list of different projects that are being considered in the future. For instance, converting most of the streets of downtown Miami from one-way to two-way to take out the confusion and help with the congestion issue, so there are projects out there, including Biscayne Boulevard widening that FDOT's (Florida Department of Transportation's) getting ready to get under construction right now between port boulevard and 836. Commissioner Regalado: But these are plans, because you're aware that the money is not easy to come for the tunnel or for whatever, not even the streetcar. We don't even know if we have the funding for the streetcar. I'm just saying that we need to be aware of the traffic issues in downtown. Mr. Plummer: Absolutely. Commissioner Regalado: Thank you. Mr. Plummer: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Hello. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I'm sorry. I just have a quick question. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: First thing -- I just want to go back to the fraffic issue, just so that I have clarity on the fraffic issue. Was there an actual study done on it at all? Did you do kind of like a study on it? Mr. Plummer: Yes. There's -- an MUSP traffic study was completed for both Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Did you share it with -- was it ever shared with the neighborhood resident? Mr. Plummer: It's been with the City. It's in public record, and the City ofMiami has a -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: So -- I mean, that's really a question, I guess, through the -- because they mentioned it this afternoon as if they did not know one had existed. What is his name? What is --? Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. That's Mr. Spaet. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Spaet, do you have a copy of that study, sir? Mr. Spaet: Yes. Our traffic expert is here. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK, so you did review the study that they had? Mr. Spaet: Yes. They have reviewed it, and they have a response to it. You know, if they want to -- wherever they are, if they want to come -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, I just -- I mean, we talked about the traffic study issue. I think it's important to understand -- I mean, you put comments on the record, and I just want to have a clear understanding of that. Mr. Espino: Elio Espino with the Advanced Transportation Engineering Consultants. Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of protocol and process, you are at that stage of the hearing where you're in the applicants' rebuttal portion. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: The applicant was rebutting the statements or the assertions -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- made by Commissioner or by Mr. Spaet. Now, apparently, their expert, who was not here when they had their case in chief is here and he intends to testify. Mr. Espino: We were here. We were under the impression that because this was the first reading, that we were not allowed to present, and we did not want to take that chance -- Mr. Fernandez: All right. Mr. Chair -- Mr. Espino: -- but we were here and we'll be happy to -- Mr. Fernandez: Issues of transportation are primarily relevant when you consider the MUSP -- City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and the MUSP will come on the 28th -- Chairman Gonzalez: On the 28th. Mr. Fernandez: -- and so, you know, everyone -- Chairman Gonzalez: And that's -- Mr. Fernandez: -- has the liberty to testify and say whatever they say, but -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- and ifI remember correctly, the statement was that the expert witnesses will testify at the second reading. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Is that correct? Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, we brought up the issue of the -- of traffic, both of my colleagues brought it up, so I wanted to have clarity on it, so that's why I asked the question, and since you spoke -- you're speaking about it and you guys asked for additional clarity on it, I wanted to have a further -- a better understanding of what is the issue around the traffic. I mean, I'm hearing one person saying one thing and then I'm hearing him say another, so what was the issue? Chairman Gonzalez: Well, that -- Mr. Espino: I'll be happy to clarify it -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: But I'll -- I will address it. We can address it at -- during -- when we get ready to get to that item. I don't have a issue. I just wanted to have -- gain a better understanding of that. I have two other questions outside of that, though -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- so I guess when we get -- Mr. City Attorney, when we get to that point, then I -- Mr. Fernandez: You will have a full opportunity -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- have the opportunity to address that. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: On the 28th. Mr. Espino: I'll be happy to answer the question regarding the traffic, if you allow me to answer that question. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Well, I am going to respect the Chairman, and the Chairman is City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 asking that we deal with it when we get to that point. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: We will leave the fraffic issues for the MUSP -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- on the 28th, right? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: So -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Mr. Spaet: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Mr. Spaet: With all respect -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Spaet: -- we did mention the traffic issue. They did bring their expert. We would request an opportunity for our expert at least to respond for your information. I mean, this is for your information. Question was asked, and please allow him to at least answer the comment made by the other expert. Mr. Fernandez: Perhaps, it would be appropriate at this time for both parties to proffer their experts now and forego the opportunity in October when the MUSP is fully presented for them to testify, or perhaps, the Chair wants to indulge and hear the same thing twice. It's up to you. If you have the time -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Would both sides -- Mr. Fernandez: -- and indulgence. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- agree to do that? Would both sides agree to do that? Ms. Dougherty: What, today? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Proffer now the fraffic testimony on both sides. Commissioner Regalado: Well, one already did. One already did -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, one already did. Commissioner Regalado: -- so they need their -- Ms. Dougherty: Actually, in my -- in our case, all we did was respond to Mr. Spaet's fraffic -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: So -- Ms. Dougherty: -- issues that he brought up on his cases, so that's all we were doing. City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Spaet: Yeah, butMr. Chairman -- Ms. Dougherty: We have not presented our full traffic -- Mr. Spaet: The problem -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Spaet: -- is this. Chairman Gonzalez: Just a minute. Excuse me a minute. In fact, that's exactly what their expert witness did, was respond, because you asked them -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- to respond to every point that was made out -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- right? Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: So all they did was call their expert to respond to the comments made in reference to traffic by the gentleman -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: And my -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- so they haven't done a presentation on fraffic, right? Ms. Dougherty: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- but my question -- Chairman Gonzalez: They shouldn't have a presentation on fraffic on this side because both of them will have to make a presentation or will want to make a presentation on the 28th, when the MUSP be considered, is that correct? Mr. Fernandez: Correct, and for all intents and purposes -- Chairman Gonzalez: That's -- Mr. Fernandez: -- fraffic considerations are not relevant for your Comprehensive Plan decision that you're about to make. Commissioner Regalado: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: We are supposed to vote today on some issues, right? City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: Change of land zonings and -- Mr. Fernandez: The designation -- Commissioner Regalado: -- all that. Mr. Fernandez: -- and the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning atlas. Commissioner Regalado: We're supposed to vote only -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Land use. Commissioner Regalado: -- with the information that we get to the best of our knowledge from - Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- experts and in terms of -- on law -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- so you mean to tell me that traffic garage, whether it's not part of an intelligent vote. I cannot vote on -- today on these issues ifI don't know what's going on with the traffic. IfI don't know what is going on with the famous garage that has been all over the media with $200 million gift from the City. For me, you know, ifI -- I cannot wait for the 28th to vote and then reverse my vote that I did on the 7th, or refer my vote ifI don't have all the information. It doesn't make sense. It -- you know, it puts us in a very awkward position, like you know, potted plant;; doing what the staff is recommending. We really need information. I mean, the reason that the Chairman called this meeting, and we all agree, is because this was going to be the only issue to be discussed, and we needed time to hear the people. There's a bunch of people here, pro or in favor or against or whatever, but they need to be heard, and you know, I can't -- I cannot vote ifI don't have all the information, and that's why I ask about the traffic, and because the traffic is an issue for any change of zoning that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) regardless of you know, what the staff or what the people say, that we have to wait or not, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fernandez: In the context of the Comprehensive Plan, you're correct, Commissioner. You're to consider all the elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there is a transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan, and when you're looking at amending the land use designation in the comp. plan, it is perhaps appropriate that you consider the larger transportation issues. A transportation studies that goes to trips generated at a certain time of the day with regard to the volume of traffic and certain arterials, and you know, all of the things that that study is not appropriate in the context of a Comprehensive Plan; the larger policy issues that the Comprehensive Plan addresses with regard to transportation are, and if the applicant addresses those or if the opponents address them, that is fair fodder for them to be discussing, but the particulars of transportation, the number of trips and the like, perhaps is best addressed when you consider the MUSP. Mr. Dickman: Well, quite frankly, in your own land use analysis, you have a concurrency management report on it, and you are required to consider the whole array of development that could occur under a land use amendment. That includes the impact on traffic. That's why your Comprehensive Plan has a whole element called "Transportation circulations." City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: And your -- Mr. Dickman: It's a relevant question. It's not just the MUSP. Mr. Fernandez: It is. It is, and your application contains that. You can speak. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I just want to -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Can I --? Mr. Fernandez: Ask the staff. Chairman Gonzalez: Let me -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK, wait. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- please, just let me -- I just wanted to say one little thing on the traffic thing. The only reason why -- and I want to respond to the City Attorney on it -- I asked for Lucia to give me some clarity on it because you were rebutting or he was rebutting what was communicated earlier regarding the traffic, but I didn't really hear him -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- addressing those issues in his rebuttal, and so that -- I guess maybe that was probably why I was a little confused, and I agree with my colleagues; it's very difficult for me to vote on something unless I have a -- Ms. Dougherty: We're happy to do it. Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so -- Ms. Dougherty: Whatever you'd like. Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: We can either make a full traffic presentation -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- and have the experts. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Or just rebut -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, let's -- Ms. Dougherty: Whichever you want. Chairman Gonzalez: -- do that so everybody can be able to vote on this issue today and go home with a peace of mind that they hear everything that they needed to hear. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Chairman Gonzalez: Who wants -- you want to do your presentation? Mr. Spaet: No, Mr. Chairman. We really don't want to get into a traffic presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: No, not -- Mr. Spaet: All we -- Mr. Fernandez: No, no, no, no, no. Now you will. Chairman Gonzalez: No, no, no, no. Wait a minute. No, no, no, no.. Mr. Spaet: Oh, no. Chairman Gonzalez: No. Now we're going to go into the presentation -- Mr. Fernandez: Oh, yes. Chairman Gonzalez: -- because we have been debating back and forth -- Mr. Spaet: We're happy to do it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- for 15 minutes, you know -- Mr. Spaet: We're happy to do it. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and this is not a game. This is not a game. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that you allow staff to make a presentation of what is in your packet with regard to their analysis and to the studies that they have conducted with regard to what's in the Comprehensive Plan change and then have that be the basis for both sides then to make their presentation with their experts. Commissioner Haskins: That's what I was going to ask you. Chairman Gonzalez: Whatever. Commissioner Haskins: We have a -- Chairman Gonzalez: I'm told -- by some of my colleagues here, I'm told that if we don't hear the traffic consultants testify today, they're not going to be able to vote, so if they're not going to be able to vote, then we're wasting our time -- Unidentified Speaker: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so we need to do whatever is necessary to do to make sure that the five Commissioners sitting in this dais are going to be able to vote at 5 o'clock in afternoon, at 7 p.m. tonight, at 3 a.m. in the morning, but they're going to vote today, OK. Mr. Dickman: And -- Chairman Gonzalez: So -- City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- how are we going to proceed? Who's -- yes, ma'am. Commissioner Haskins: May I say something? I have a -- this is new to me, so this is very interesting. I have a hard time understanding how we do, in the City ofMiami, comprehensive land use changes without hearing from staff on the impact on fraffic and infrastructure. That is, as staff knows, a consistent theme for my office in questioning our designations in Miami 21. I think that the City's responsibility and this Commission's responsibility is to understand, at least at this time first reading, what their view is on the impact on concurrency requirements in our capital -- in our Comprehensive -- Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Haskins: -- Plan are. Mr. Fernandez: Exactly. Commissioner Haskins: I want to hear that testimony more fully in second reading. I want to hear testimony from both sides in second reading, but this process of not having that sort of discussion has hurt the City. We have made land use changes without taking all of those things into consideration throughout this City, and we need to make sure that from now on, we do look at the impact on our streets and the impact on traffic and the backup and -- because as I move -- as I wander around more and more of the City ofMiami and I get into some of these areas where we have lots and lots of development and no infrastructure, I'm very concerned with what we've done to ourselves, and we have not done the things that we need to do to make sure that we have through streets, and adequate passage from area to area for the citizens that are moving into these buildings, and that is contributing to the development weariness that our citizens have so what I'd like -- what I would like to do is to see what is staffs view on the impact on traffic and infrastructure for our Comprehensive Plan, and then hear, in the second reading, the testimony, which is typically what we would do. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ms. Thompson -- Priscilla, it's Roberto Lavernia for the Planning Department. Yes, it is part of our analysis in all land use change petition a concurrency analysis that take in consideration recreation and open space, portable water transmission, sanitary sewer transmission, storm sewer capacity, solid waste collection, and fraffic circulation. It is part of your -- our analysis and it's part of the packages that you have in any application that we have. In this case, since there was not increase in the amount of unit permitted -- because C-2, you can have 150 units, like C-1, under special exception permit, so the fraffic circulation -- the concurrency (UNINTELLIGIBLE) was OK in this case. Commissioner Haskins: And let me ask you -- then that gets to the question of the staff analysis, which is -- goes back to the question that I asked earlier. Under C-2 restricted, you can build 154,000 square feet of office, and we know that office creates more fraffic than residential, correct? Mr. Lavernia: The resi -- I think that the traffic -- Commissioner Haskins: So are we comparing impact for this purpose on -- are we comparing it to what they say they're going to build today versus what, if there is a land use change, they could build should they decide to change the project somewhere down the pike? Because we are looking at going from C-2 to liberal commercial or -- liberal commercial; that the amount of office that can be built is much greater. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): What that goes to is actually the second item in your package, which is their zoning change. The land use classification identifies the uses that are allowed in each land use and the density of development permitted. In the request before you, the density isn't changing. What's the big change is in the zoning change, which is item number 2, where there's a huge FAR increase from the requested C-2 to SD-6, so for the land use, the concurrency analysis that Robert just put in the record is correct. The density was the same; therefore, the impact was -- it passed the concurrency test. It's the FAR that's very different and that's what -- your item number 2. In a C-2, they have a 1.72 FAR, and in an SD-6, it's -- I think it can get up to a little over eight, like 8.4 approximately, so -- and that's -- you know, and then there's bonuses and all those sorts of things, so yes, the C-2 number you heard before, the hundred and fifty some odd thousand square feet of office, that is permissible today by right without anything. If they go to SD-6, that number will probably go up by about seven or eight times that. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Spence -Jones -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. You're going to listen to the study, right? Chairman Gonzalez: -- are you satisfied with Commissioner Linda Haskins' -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: I know you want the truth, right? Chairman Gonzalez: -- proposition? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, yeah, I'm satisfied with my colleague's proposition. I just Chairman Gonzalez: You -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- still, you know -- Chairman Gonzalez: Would you feel comfortable to vote on the item just having heard an explanation from the staff and not from the consultants? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I mean, I would definitely still would like to hear from the consultants regarding the issue. I mean, that would, you know, at least provide me further clarity. I mean, I'm not really sure even from what staff presented, I even have -- I have clarity from that. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, so you're right -- Ms. Dougherty: You know, one of the things -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Maybe you guys -- Mr. City Attorney, do you have -- can you -- maybe you can break it down to me so that I can further understand what he was somewhat trying to communicate because I know that you had the same look on your face. We were trying to figure out -- we couldn't really hear him. Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner -- Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Dougherty: -- Spence -Jones -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: That was -- City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: -- just before he does that. I mean, just -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: Part of our process in the Major Use Special Permit is that we have to prepare a traffic study. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Dougherty: Then we have to pay the City $4,500 for them to hire an independent fraffic person to analyze our traffic study, and that process oftentimes happens where you are asked as your fraffic study consultant and they will say, well, we need more information on this. I mean, this is not something that's just rubberstamped, by any means. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: They continually tell us we want more information, more information, and oftentimes -- and that report is also in your Major Use Special Permit, which is why, probably, they want to have this study at the next meeting because that's -- it's in the Major Use Special Permit context that your traffic study personnel actually reviews our fraffic report -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- for accuracy and for consistency and -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Thank you for clearing it. Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I understand it a little better now. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Regalado is not here. Let's wait until he comes back to ask him exactly the same question. Will he feel comfortable enough to vote on these issues without having a full-blown presentation from the consultants? I got to tell you, traffic studies, the developer is going to present a fraffic study that's going to say its no problem; traffic will flow. We can fit another 10 million cars on the streets, you know, and if they can't drive through the street, they can fly, you know. That's going to be no problem. The opposition is going to say that, no, there is a lot of congestion. There is -- personally, I mean, I don't think any one of us that live in the City ofMiami needs a consultant to tell us how bad fraffic is -- and I don't care what you tell me -- pretty soon, we're not going to be able to move in the City of Miami. Pretty soon we're not going to be able to drive through the City ofMiami. Traffic is totally crazy. All day long, in every single area -- it doesn't have to be in downtown Miami. Take this 27th Avenue any day of the week, at any hour of the day, or 22nd Avenue, or Flagler Street, or Southwest 8th Street, it's crazy, it's crazy. Now, because the fraffic is so bad and because there isn't capacity for more cars, are we going to stop development? Maybe that's a bright decision, and then we have to say, you know what? No more development in the City of Miami. No more buildings because we can't fit anymore cars in the roads, or yeah, in fact, there is a lot of problem with fraffic. Hopefully, the County or the state or the federal government or I don't know, maybe Jesus Christ will do a miracle to bring the millions and millions of dollars that we need to have to build tunnels and bridges and streetcars and trains and, you know, and that might be the solution, so that's my personal opinion. I mean -- Commissioner Regalado, I asked a question that if-- Commissioner Haskins proposed that she wanted to hear from the staff City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 in reference to the traffic study, and then waited until the 28th to hear from the consultants. I asked Commissioner Spence -Jones if she was in agreement with that and if she will be able to vote on these issues today under those conditions, she says, yes, she will. Now my question goes to you. Are you satisfied with hearing from the professional staff or will you rather still hear from the consultants on both sides so you can make a decision on the item today? Commissioner Regalado: No, Mr. Chairman, I -- first of all, I'm not satisfied with the report from the staff because it's very simple or simplistic, but I respect Commissioner Haskins' protocol and Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones, too. I do think that there are some questions that need to be answered, and going back, me, personally, I have not been brief before, during, or after the first hearing when we decide to defer this. After, when we decided to defer, I have not been briefed by anyone in the staff on this matter, so I have to follow what I have here to read and what I read in the press. What I read here -- you know, you can debate whether it's good or not -- what I read in the press, to me, was a great concern because there are some issues being raised that need to be answered, and you know, I don't have a problem in voting today, whether my vote go one way or another, ifI don't feel I have the whole information, but I do think that this is a major decision, and every decision that we make today or the 27th [sic] is connected. One is connected to the other one, and the change of zoning is connected to the MUSP, and it all is connected to traffic and density and future and view and vision. Everything is connected, so to answer your question, I'm ready to vote. You can proceed with the hearing. I do have some question, which are maybe rhetorical, but I'm willing to stay and listen to everyone and vote. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fernandez: I want to correct myself. The second hearing on -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: October 26. Mr. Fernandez: -- these items would be October 26, not September 28, as I misled you. It's October 26. At which time, you will have the second hearing if these items are successful today. If not, then you won't have a second hearing. If you have a second hearing on October 26, then you would also have the MUSP in front of you, and I just want to make sure that your decision today, whatever decision that is, is based on the evidence that you hear today here on the record and what's been presented to you in writing, not on newspaper articles or on hearsay that you may get from someplace else. You know, you, of course, read and watch TV and all of that, like everybody else, but you need to make sure that you force yourself to base your decision on what you have heard here today, so it is critically important that you hear from the parties in front of you, as much as you need, to make an intelligent decision. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. Just -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: -- a question to the City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Newspaper is hearsay of the worst kind. Commissioner Regalado: Well, do we have on the record a statement from the publisher and chairman of the board of KnightRidder, McClatchy -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- regarding the future of the site? Do we -- Mr. Fernandez: Ms. Dougherty. Commissioner Regalado: -- have it in the record here? Ms. Dougherty: You don't have anything in the record saying that they want to sell it or develop it. All you have in the record is their application. Commissioner Regalado: OK, so that comes back to what read in the paper, so -- Ms. Dougherty: What did you read in the paper? Commissioner Regalado: -- Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Commissioner Regalado: -- should I not believe what the publisher/CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Knight Ridder McClatchy said in today's paper? Mr. Fernandez: I don't read the newspaper, sir, so I couldn't tell you. Commissioner Regalado: You should -- Mr. Fernandez: Well, some newspapers -- Commissioner Regalado: -- because -- Mr. Fernandez: -- but -- Commissioner Regalado: -- I get information about this from the paper, and the question is this raises some questions, you know. Mr. Fernandez: -- and -- legitimately, you may inquire of the applicant what her client is thinking when he said what he had said. I don't know. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Mr. Fernandez: Here he is. I see him standing up. Chairman Gonzalez: Do you remember Jorge Mercanosa (phonetic)? Remember Jorge (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ? Mr. Fernandez: The Chairman saw (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: Mr. Chairman, I just -- I did not -- I know that we're getting ready to take a vote on this, butt was asking Lucia a -- some -- I had -- remember I had a couple questions. That was only one. I really -- I didn't intend for it to become, you know, snowball like that. I just wanted your traffic person to really respond to the -- to what they put on the record, so I don't have a problem with waiting on getting further clarity on that, if you -- if we have that. I just have some questions about these pictures, if you don't mind, you know, the images, just so that I have some clarity on them. Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Commissioner Spence -Jones: There was a statement that was made about 14th Sfreet. I believe it's here. I'm going to go to the bay walk. The bay walk area here -- Ms. Dougherty: Bay walk area. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and -- Ms. Dougherty: This is 15th Street. This is the bay walk. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right, and the -- one of the residents talked about the pass -through area -- Ms. Dougherty: Oh, yes. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- that represented -- I think it's -- I thought it was right in the center here. Ms. Dougherty: It's right here. One of -- the residents from the Venetian Causeway? Commissioner Spence -Jones: They specifically talked about -- Ms. Dougherty: Oh, this one here? Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- 14th Sfreet. Is that 14th Street in the middle? Unidentified Speaker: This is 14th Sfreet right here. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. She made a reference -- I don't know who it was -- to the images in the pictures, saying that there was going to be this area, which is there, that would be a part of the overall development, and that -- Ms. Dougherty: This is the master plan if -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah, if -- Ms. Dougherty: -- McClatchy -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- the building -- Ms. Dougherty: -- someday sells the Miami Herald and the office building. If they sell it, this is the vision, and this is what they're required to do -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- because that's what your MUSP says. City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: That's what our covenant makes them say -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- OK? Commissioner Spence -Jones: OK. Ms. Dougherty: If they never sell it -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- and it stays an office building forever -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: -- which we frankly doubt will happen -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Right. Mr. Dickman: -- objection, ifI could, just for the record, that while we're talking about land use and zoning, I know it's always compelling to want to visualize a plan, and what's before us today isn't a MUSP. In guarantees of a hypothetical development with a hypothetical view corridor, you can't condition your land use and zoning on those kinds of things. MUSPs can, and very frequently do, change substantially down the road. Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely. Mr. Dickman: What you're looking at may not be anything down the road. You have to look at the land use and the zoning, and our arguments have to do with the land use and zoning, and we have every intention of talking about traffic under the land use and zoning, but if we only get to talking about traffic once we're at the MUSP, it's late, it's too late because the zoning and the land use have already been decided, so I would just object to any insinuations that this is what is going to happen because you're deciding on a land use and zoning issue. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Dickman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: -- has restated what I've been telling this Commission for years, and I appreciate that. There is a room and opportunity for you in the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan, when you change those, to consider the impact of traffic, and that's where staff has given you their report. Level of service is critical. You compare not only the existing land use with theproposed land use, but you must do that comparison in the context of how our -- using the formula that our ordinance and state statute provide, which is an analysis of trips generated at a certain time, peak hour, and you know, and you need to hear from staff which is competent substantial evidence, what their analysis yields so that you would have something to base yourself on. If the opponents have information contrary to what staff has determined as part of the land use designation change, then they're able to also present that, so I would suggest that staff goes on record and state what the traffic analysis for the change of the land use and Comprehensive Plan indicates with regard to level of service in the proposed category. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: While staff is coming up, though, I will say this, and I make this proffer on this record so that you know that we don't do a bait and switch. We would be willing to proffer a covenant tying ourselves to this plan. Mr. Dickman: You can't do that. That's not relevant to this proceedings. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, ifI may, a question. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner Regalado. Mr. Dickman: That's not relevant to this proceedings. Commissioner Regalado: Question for Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: You brought it up. Commissioner Regalado: I -- I'm frying to ask a question to Lucia here. Ms. Dougherty: Sorry. Commissioner Regalado: The reason I ask about statement of the publisher in today's paper is precisely for something that you just mentioned. The publisher, Jesus Diaz, said that they don't have a plan to leave; that they want to stay, and you know, they don't have a plan or a wish to sell or move somewhere else. However, I ask that precisely for something that I just say here. The minute that the zoning changes in that property, having a property appraisal, which is very aggressive to treating good on the commercial side would mean that, in the next two years, with the change of zoning and being the property appraisal, one that uses the land use, not the building -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- to appraise, taxes in that property will go up probably -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- one thousand percent. Ms. Dougherty: It could. Commissioner Regalado: I'm telling you, with all the new projects around, so I don't understand why would the Herald go against their economic interest? Ms. Dougherty: I'm telling you -- OK. I've said this before. I'm going to say it one more time. Because we made them. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Ms. Dougherty: We told them they had to do this so that we knew what was going to happen in the future. Commissioner Regalado: Right, so -- Ms. Dougherty: They didn't necessarily want to do this. It was because my client wanted them to commit what could possibly be in the future. We thought that was good for you, too. City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: -- the mystery is, if they don't allow their land to be rezoned, you don't buy the property of the parking? Ms. Dougherty: Well, absolutely, we don't buy it, but more importantly -- Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Dougherty: -- we -- they never said that they were going to sell it to us. They -- we have a contract to purchase this one. We're always going to purchase this one. This is the one we do not have a contract to purchase. We only have a right of -- Commissioner Regalado: But that's the printing press. Ms. Dougherty: Correct. We only have a right of first refusal. This one we're buying, no matter what. Even if it doesn't get rezoned, we're going to have to buy it because that's what our contract says. This one we do not have a contract to purchase, OK, but we said to them we want to know what you're going to build there. We think someday you'll sell it, and we want a commitment as to what's going to be there so that we know that we're protected on our views, we're protected on our public bay walk, and we know that, in the future, there's always going to be this area here open, so that's why we made them go through this exercise. Now, if you say to us, OK, we're going to rezone only this portion; we're not going to rezone this portion, well, that's up to you. That's your policy decision. You may have reasons to do that. It's unfortunate for my client. I think it's unfortunate for you because then you don't know what's going to happen in the future if they do sell it, but -- I mean, that's up to you. It's a policy decision. We're still -- Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Dougherty: -- going to go forward with this one. We still would like your rezoning for this parcel. Commissioner Regalado: But the other question I have is by buying the rest of the properties and by rezoning -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- the other properties -- Ms. Dougherty: This one, by the way, does not have to get rezoned. This is only a MUSP. Commissioner Regalado: Right. Well -- Ms. Dougherty: OK. Commissioner Regalado: -- by building there -- Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- what it does to the Herald is that leave them without parking. Ms. Dougherty: Oh, no. One of the requirements that they put on us is to provide all of the parking for the Herald on this site, and right off the front door. Commissioner Regalado: OK, which brings me -- City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: -- to the question that I ask about 45 minutes ago. What is going on with the parking? Ms. Dougherty: OK. Commissioner Regalado: I mean, we've been -- Ms. Dougherty: All right. Let me -- Commissioner Regalado: -- reading -- Ms. Dougherty: -- answer this -- Commissioner Regalado: -- that there is no funding for the parking. Ms. Dougherty: OK, let me answer this the best way I can. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Ms. Dougherty: This is not on my application, and Mr. Siffin is here, as well as his attorney, but I'm going to answer it the best way I can. They will be asking some entity for money for assistance with the building of the parking garage, not for The Herald employees, but for the Performing Arts Center patrons. That's up to you whether or not you want to assist them in that. It's totally up to you. I mean, that's their -- they can request it. It has nothing to do with this application today, either this application or this application. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Why don't we go back to the -- to your rebuttal -- Ms. Dougherty: I'm finished. Chairman Gonzalez: -- because -- you're done? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, great. All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Sanchez: If you close -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the public hearing and you bring it back, I will take the opportunity to speak, for I have opened my ears and I have shut my mouth and I'm ready to speak now. Ms. Dougherty: One of this things I would say to you, then, if you wanted to wait -- I mean, I finished our rebuttal. If you wanted to vote on this one now, that's fine. If you wanted to wait until we do the second hearing -- Chairman Gonzalez: We're considering 1 and 2, right? City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: You're considering 1 and 2 now. Mr. Fernandez: 1 and 2. Ms. Dougherty: If you wanted to vote on 1 and 2 now or if you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Dougherty: -- wanted to wait until after you hear 3 and 4 to vote on it -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no. Ms. Dougherty: -- that's up to you. OK. Chairman Gonzalez: It is up to the Commissioner of the district. Mr. Fernandez: My advice -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- what they want to do. Mr. Fernandez: -- is that you consider 1 and 2 -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: 2 -- Mr. Fernandez: -- independent of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- independent -- Mr. Fernandez: -- 3 and 4. Chairman Gonzalez: Very good. Mr. Fernandez: Independent of 5, independent of 6. They may all be related in some fashion, in some way, by ownership or by what have you, but the uses, what's in front of you, merits individual and independent consideration -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before I yield to Commissioner Haskins -- Mr. Fernandez: -- so you have brought -- excuse me. You have brought the hearing back to you; no more citizen input? Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's closed. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The public hearing -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- it's closed. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- is closed for the record. Before I yield to Commissioner Haskins, ifI could just shine the light on this and maybe provide some focus on the issue, you know, this reminds me when I was ten years old and I was playing baseball and my dad took me out to play ball, and he would hit ally and I couldn't catch it, and he'd say, "Hey, keep your eye on the City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 ball," and he'd hit another one and I couldn't catch it, and he finally got mad and said, you bat. I'm going to go get -- and I'm going to teach you how to do it, and I hit the ball for him and he couldn't catch it, and he threw the glove on the floor and said, "You have this all screwed up; I can't even figure it out, " so having this -- all the things that have been said here, it is very confusing. The issue is very, very simple. The item that's in front of us today is land use. It's for a changing of zoning from general to -- general commercial to restricted commercial. That's the only issue that's on the table right now. Our decision should be based on the testimony, and especially competent substantial evidence that has been presented. All the other issues pertaining to platting, unity of title, demolition design, that would all be heard October 26 when the MUSP is in front of us. Once we're able to make this decision, then we could move on to the other item and either vote it down or vote it up, and it puts us in a better position to address the issue. Now I could honestly understand that some Commissioners don't want to put the cart before the horse, and they want to ask all these issues that are affecting us, traffic. I'll address all those issues when we address the other issues. I have heard testimony on both sides, and I feel that the land use change is a legal and valid change. However, having said that, that responsibility then falls on us to make sure that whatever is built there is within formality and conforming to the surrounding of the neighbors in the community. After all, this is downtown Miami, folks. This is a downtown. Show me a downtown in this great nation of ours that isn't built -- not overly built, but has traffic problems like we have. We're addressing those problems. We are working on streetcars. Yes, people say, well, it's not there yet. We're working on the traffic study, but all those issues we'll address when we get further on in this process. I am prepared now -- and I will yield to the Commissioner of the district -- but having heard the testimony, I am prepared to support this zoning change, so Commissioner Haskins. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Haskins. Commissioner Haskins: Well, on the spot again, huh? I have a hard time understanding why we need a land use change on Parcel 1. I hear the testimony that there's a covenant, but covenants can be changed. We can bring back to future Commissions. We are -- if we -- when we go down the path of land use changes and then subsequent zoning changes on these parcels, we are upzoning them. That's all there is to it, and what are we -- what -- I think what we're buying into is higher density and not giving future Commissioners the chance to do what they feel they should do, so I have a hard time understanding a land use change on Parcel 1, OK? My concern -- I do have concerns on Parcel 3. I think that -- and Lucia, when you put the picture side -by -side, that one -- those two, the ones you've got in your hands right there, except that -- they need to go this way so they're the same -- you got that one upside down. I have a hard time seeing how this covenant works, because when I look at Parcel 3 and Parcel I here, I see that Parcel 3 takes about one fifth of the entire parcel. When I look at the development here, I've got half on the north and half on the south, unless -- that's Parcel 1 right there. Unidentified Speaker: That's Parcel 3. Commissioner Haskins: I mean, Parcel 3, I mean. That's all Parcel 1, and what is this building here? That's the printing press thing, OK. All right, and the other concern that I've had in just looking at the property is how -- I mean, I understand the public use and all of that, but if the printing press stays, how do thr frucks access the -- how do the frucks get to pick up the newspapers? Right, and I think right now they come around the back, right, along the bay? Ms. Dougherty: That's for Parcel 3, which we haven't made a presen -- Commissioner Haskins: For Parcel 3 -- Ms. Dougherty: We haven't made -- Commissioner Haskins: -- right? City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Dougherty: -- that presentation yet -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- but they still come along here -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- and there is a berm -- a sitting berm right here that covers the fruck traffic -- Commissioner Haskins: Right. Ms. Dougherty: -- which, currently, this is the way they come. Commissioner Haskins: You know, and I think -- you know, when we're looking at the PZ.1 item, the one -- I -- which is Parcel 1, I don't see the rationale for changing land use today. I think that -- I understand what, you know, our friends at the CRA might have said in their master plan. I understand the argument that density belongs downtown, but I don't understand, when we're sitting in a situation today, where there's not a project that's potentially there in the near future, and I do believe, you know, that some of The Herald statements and McClatchy statements do matter in this. I don't see a need for a land use change at this point, and I would like to be able to see what would be done in the future, if if there is ever an ownership change there. Again, I see a lot of benefits to the developer of Parcel 3 to protect view corridors or whatever for the building on Parcel 3. I don't necessarily see the benefit to the City of changing that land use today, and for closing the ability in the future to do something spectacular with that site, which is certainly the lion's share of this waterfront parcel. That's how I feel. Chairman Gonzalez: So what is your motion, to deny? Commissioner Haskins: I make a motion to deny the land use change on Parcel 1. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Discussion on the item. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. Discussion, Commissioner -- I'm sorry -- Vice Chair Sanchez. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so we deny it. Basically, what happens now? Ms. Dougherty: Well, then we'd go forward on Parcel 3 for a land use change and a Major Use Special Permit, hopefully, the next time -- Chairman Gonzalez: But we're considering 1 and 2, right? Ms. Dougherty: -- but the Parcel I will not go forward with the land -- with a Major Use Special Permit at your next meeting. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, but now I'm confused. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So Parcel 3, we still -- City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: We are considering 1 and 2, right? Mr. Fernandez: PZ (Planning and Zoning) items 1 and 2 -- Chairman Gonzalez: 1 and 2. Mr. Fernandez: -- which is Parcel 1 -- Chairman Gonzalez: Parcel 1, OK. Ms. Dougherty: This one. Mr. Fernandez: -- and on that, the motion and the second is to deny -- Chairman Gonzalez: Deny. Mr. Fernandez: -- PZ.1, but you also need, after you -- that motion, if it carries, then we need to make the similar motion for - Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- PZ.2. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Any further -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- discussion? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it's still under discussion. Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, OK Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just want to -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- elaborate a little bit on it. We -- I could understand the concerns that the Commissioner for the district have, and I certainly sympathize with the people that were against the project as it is. I just have to say what I feel, all right. We are 110 years old. We are a very young city. We are vibrant city. Anyone who travels around the world and says Miami, they know where it's at. I think the opportunity for our city for greatness existed, and I think that to have -- and I don't want to use a close mind, but an open mind to finding ways to improve our city, especially improving an area that needs improvement, and we have worked very hard, through the CRA and the concepts that we've come up with, to try to revive that area, and still, I don't think we could just do it alone with the CRA. We have a golden opportunity today to work on creating a beautiful bay walk that I still think that it could be done if we're able to bring everyone to the table. That is the only parcel of land that we are not able to access on a bay walk. If we were able to do that, we could guarantee a bay walk from the mouth of the river to the end of the park, and I have been one that have been fighting very hard to fry to open up that 14 Street to create a beautiful entrance into the bay walk. People want the bay walk. The bay walk belongs to the people, so I would have loved to see this maybe go on so somehow, in the near future, we're able to come together because we're the ones, as a quasi judicial board, to decide on a MUSP, and I think a lot of these issues could have been worked out pertaining to the design, pertaining to the location, but if the zoning is the issue, then I would ask the City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner of the district to work at frying to bring back a presentation or a package that could really accomplish what we want to accomplish. No one's here anti -development. The people that are here are protecting their interest; that's fine. We do that in government. People protect their interest, but we -- I hope that we don't lose that window of opportunity to really improve an area that, today, doesn't have it and because of the economy and because of development in the near future, it may not have for a long time. Having said that, I will -- I'm ready to vote, Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Why don't we do a roll call, please? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Roll call. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: No. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: And Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Then the motion to deny is approved, 3/2. PZ.2 06-00379zc ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "SD-6" CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA (PARCEL 1), MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. First Reading City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-00379zc Analysis.pdf 06-00379zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-00379zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-00379zc ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00379zc ZB Fact Sheet 04-10-06.pdf 06-00379zc ZB Fact Sheet 05-08-06.pdf 06-00379zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-00379zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003791u & 06-00379zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-00379zc CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00379zc CC FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-00379zc Submittal.pdf 06-00379zc CC FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-003791u & 06-00379zc Clarifying Application Documents.PDF 06-00379zc CC FR Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf 06-00379zc Application Page 2 Replacement.PDF 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Potential Traffic Impact.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal by Dickman.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Power of Attorney.pdf 06-003791u and 06-00379zc Submittal Section 2215.pdf LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza (Parcel 1) [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on May 8, 2006 by a vote of 4-2 by virtue of the fact that Section 62-93 of the City Code requires five (5) favorable votes for the approval. See companion File ID 06-003791u and related File IDs 06-003831u and 06-00383zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential District for the proposed Herald Square (Parcel 1) Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter be DENIED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Regalado and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Sanchez Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Now, the same motion would be in order for PZ.2. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Commissioner Haskins: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.2. Motion. City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: So moved. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Motion to deny, right? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. We have a motion to deny -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Regalado: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and we have a second. Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. Roll call. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Ms. Thompson: The motion to deny is approved, 3/2. PZ.3 06-00383Iu ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA - PARCEL 3, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. First Reading City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-003831u - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-003831u - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-003831u - PAB Application Documents.pdf 06-003831u - Analysis.pdf 06-003831u - Concurrency Report.pdf 06-003831u - Comp Plan Map.pdf 06-003831u - Zoning Map.pdf 06-003831u - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-003831u PAB Reso.pdf 06-003831u CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003831u & 06-00383zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-003831u CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-003831u CC FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-003831u Submittal.pdf 06-003791u CC FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-003831u & 06-00383zc Clarifying Application Documents.PDF 06-003831u CC FR Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf 06-003831u Application Page 2 Replacement.PDF 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Miami Herald.pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Miami Today.pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Memo Luft Consulting, Inc..pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Conceptual Aerial View.pdf LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza - Parcel 3 [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor of the plan to the City Commission on May 17, 2006 by a vote of 4-3. See companion File ID 06-00383zc and related File IDs 06-003791u and 06-00379zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial for the proposed Herald Square - Parcel 3 Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Spence -Jones, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): Actually -- Chairman Gonzalez: We go to 3 and 4. Lucia Dougherty: OK, Commissioner. Again, for the record, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm going to take this away and show you what it was going to look like City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 with just one. Again, the project is -- Mr. Fernandez: Pardon me, Ms. Dougherty. Ms. Dougherty: Sure. Mr. Fernandez: Madam Clerk, on the last vote that was taken, you called it as a 3/2 vote, is that correct, or should it be a 4/1 vote? Vice Chairman Sanchez: 4/1. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. It was -- the last one was 4/1. Mr. Fernandez: All right. Thank you. Ms. Dougherty: OK. This site, again, for the record, is located in Parcel -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- again, pardon me, Lucia. Ms. Dougherty: That's OK. Mr. Fernandez: You would need staff to set up the item for you. You need to know and the public needs that -- watching, the viewing public needs to understand what these two items are, so you need staff to step up to the podium, set the item for you, then the applicant makes her presentation, then the opponents or the public get to speak. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. PZ.3, it's on first reading. Staff. Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): 3 and 4 are com -- for the record, Roberto Lavernia, Planning Department. 3 and 4 are companion items. One is the land use; the other one is the zoning change for Parcel 3 of the Miami Herald. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Lavernia: We have -- the Planning Department is recommending approval in this case again. The Omni residential increased area allows 500 dwelling units per acre, and the general commercial that they have today allows 150 unit, with the increase to 500 because of the area, so we have a concurrency analysis also that is based on the level of service, transportation, and they have before change, a "B" designation; after the change, a "B" designation, which the check off comes out OK, so the recommendation of the Planning Department in the land use is for approval, and also item number 4, which is the zoning change, we have the recommendation for approval, too. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Lavernia: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's an ordinance on first reading. I think all testimonies have been -- Mr. Fernandez: Also, furthermore, for the record, let me state that both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, when they heard these items, turned out to be a technical denial because they did not meet the five votes requirement. However, you -- if you read the documentation, the City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 votes were majority votes by both of those boards in favor of the items, but having failed to meet the five -vote requirement, they're deemed to be technical denial or -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It was a 4/3. Mr. Fernandez: -- at that -- Hal Spaet: Mr. City Attorney, most respectfully, the vote at the Zoning Board was 4/2 against. That was a denial. There was no technical situation there. It wasn't a matter of reaching five votes. It was 4/2 against. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk, would you verify that? Mr. Fernandez: The record -- what I'm reading here on your sheet, Planning Advisory Board, on item PZ.3, recommended denial due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor of the plan, and the vote was a 4/3. Vice Chairman Sanchez: So they need five for -- Mr. Spaet: No. That's the Planning Board. The Zoning Board -- Mr. Fernandez: The Zoning Board -- Mr. Spaet: -- is 4/2 against, against. Mr. Fernandez: Well, again -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't have -- Mr. Fernandez: -- I'm going -- perhaps, I may stand corrected. I'm just going by what I'm reading that has been prepared by staff which says the Zoning Board recommended denial to City Commission by a vote of 4/2, by virtue of the fact that Section 6293 of the City Code requires five favorable votes for the approval. Now the way I read that is that it was 4/2, would have been, if simple majority ruled, in favor. Otherwise, there would have been no need to have written this the way it was written, and staff is checking now. This information is usually contained and transferred to the Commission when the item is presented to you for first reading so that you are aware of what your boards have done on these items, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and that's being checked, but while that's being checked, you know, that's just for a matter of presenting the record. Pardon me, Ms. Dougherty. You may commence your presentation. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Now, Mr. City Attorney -- Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- was that presentation only for 1 and 3 or do -- Mr. Fernandez: This is for PZ (Planning & Zoning) items 3 and 4. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Madam Applicant -- Mr. Fernandez: PZ (Planning & Zoning) items 3 and 4. City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you're recognized for item 3 and 4. Lucia Dougherty: Thank you very much. This item, items number 3 and 4, deal with Parcel 3, which is the northern side of the entire site. It's the one that is on 15th Street and the bay, and it's the smaller of the two parcels that were in question. The issue is today whether or not the land use classification should be changed from C-2 to C-1, and whether or not the zoning classification should be SD-6 as opposed to C-2. Again, this is a industrial remnant level over from the time that there was a Belcher Oil site, an FEC (Florida East Coast) railroad site, and the Port ofMiami, so it is a vestige of industrial property and it is no longer consistent with your Comprehensive Plan or your Omni Redevelopment Plan. Only Bayfront property and the entire City ofMiami that is C-2 are industrial, and it is virtually in your downtown. Jack Luft, right now, who is our planner, is going to make a presentation on the land use amendment. Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that testimony given is on Parcel 3, correct? Ms. Dougherty: Parcel 3. Jack Luft: I'm not going to repeat this because we've heard it three or four times, but just to quickly recap. This is the vision plan of your adopted redevelopment plan, which says that the most important issue in the Omni area is to overcome barriers. That's the number -one issue, the primary barriers being I-395 to the south, linking it to the park and this particular property, the so-called Herald property, linking the Performing Arts Center to the bay. As long as this property is zoned and master planned general commercial and liberal commercial C-2, there is no incentive at all to redevelop it; that this property discourages residential. It is -- it makes possible the only place that you could expand the printing plant is on this site, and retaining the C-2 would mean that you are effectively endorsing the potential, as of right, to expand that printing plant. Now you may say that will never happen. New York Times, like many newspapers, are consolidating operations. They just announced that they're closing their Edison printing plant. They're consolidating and expanding their central plant. As newspapers are combined -- and we know thatMcClatchy is doing that -- the pressure is to combine for efficiency purposes, the printing plant operations, and they are, in fact, expanding central plants. Just be aware. No, you probably won't get tattoo parlors or tow trucks, but this is a statement: unless you change this, it is the future land use expectation that the expansion of that printing plant is perfectly fine, and with that would come significant new fruck fraffic along with that expansion, so we're very clear about that. The issue here, as it was on the other parcel, is, however, much broader. We talk about traffic, and Commissioner Regalado has raised a significant concern, and I think everyone in this room recognizes the truth of what he's saying about what's happening in this community. I will tell you, as a planner, that the traffic problem we have is not a road problem. It is a land use problem. Look at the future land use map of the City ofMiami, 50 percent of it is low density, single-family, and duplex. Right now, in Dade County, the average single -- average low density home has three cars per family. The average trip to a shopping for the average family has increased from four miles to seven miles. We have built a city that, by and large, forces people to use automobiles. The decision was made in 1986, when the redevelopment plan was adopted and the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) was set up for the Omni area, that Omni, together with downtown and Brickell, was going to be, as Commissioner Sanchez said, a place for alternative lifestyles. If you want to drive your SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) and your three cars per family and you want to live in Kendall, then that's your choice, and you can deal with the fraffic because it isn't going to get better, but if you want to walk to work and to shops and to entertainment; if you want a different, regular lifestyle that, frankly, has been the norm in the world's great cities for the last thousand years, then these are the places that you do that. You're not going to solve the traffic problem, but you are going to give people an alternative to those places that we've heard testimony today. People move from Toronto and they say where do I live? Where do I find that great city and that place to live? Some people in this area will have a problem with that, but the fact is your Comprehensive City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Plan, the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the State's endorsement of those plans has affirmed that there are 63 goals, objectives, and policies in your Comprehensive Plan that directly relate and support this change; that effectively say your Omni Redevelopment Plan is the correct vision for a city that is changing. I would like to submit this to the record because I have put in here the findings and justifications on how each one of these 63 goals, objectives, and policies directly support this action, and by extension, argue against retaining the C-2. Now there's been a lot said about waterfront, and how precious it is, and how we need to protect it. We've heard about Seattle and we've heard about Chicago. Chicago has Michigan Boulevard and Lake Shore Drive, and Seattle has the Alaska Highway. Unfortunately, it's a double-decker expressway, and the railroad track, but the only reason that they have open space along the waterfront is because they have public roadways and access ways paralleling that coastline. Unfortunately, in the history ofMiami, we didn't build those roads, and that's been one of the great frustrations and disappointments in this City; that we don't have the malecon of a Havana, and with Biscayne Bay Aquatic Resort, we will never have that, but we can create a substantial bay walk, just as we've done in Dupont Plaza, in Miami Center; we're doing it in our public parks. The fact is we've got over 16,000 linear feet of publicly accessible walkways within one mile of this site on the water's edge; on Venetian Isles, on Watson Island, on Bicentennial Park, and all the way up to Margaret Pace, and there's one missing piece right here, one missing piece. If we do not change this zoning, if we do not change the master plan designation, we are effectively locking in an antiquated development form, an obsolete use onto that site until such time as it is changed, and I understand the Commissioner had said, well, maybe that time isn't now. That's your decision, but we're very clear that you will not realize that public access, and that's the only way we're going to get it is through redevelopment of this site. Now some people have said that we need access through this vacant parcel to the waterfront. Well, you understand that this is the bus station here, and this is not the place to open up the view, but what your Omni plan says is if you can't have 14th Street, if that isn't going to happen, if this isn't going to go through, then go up to 15th and come across, but it says using 15th Street. What do you have on 15th Street? You have a five-foot sidewalk. It doesn't say acquire this parcel and build a walkway. It says use 15th Street. What you can do with a incentive to redevelop and a rezoning, you can require a substantial access corridor well in excess of the width of 15th walkway and create that link just as your Omni plan has said. That's on page 60 of your redevelopment plan. It has been said that you can't change the master plan on this parcel because it's within 200 feet of another parcel. That's a rule that DCA (Department of Community Affairs) put in place because people were taking 12- and 15-acre parcels and breaking them in half and doing two small (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and pretending that it wasn't over ten acres. Can't do that, but this isn't, collectively, both parcels over ten acres. It doesn't apply. It's not an issue. Ultimately, we have to come to terms with the fact that this is a high density area. There seems to be this reluctance, this reticence, this hesitation that, well, maybe we don't want the density. Of course, this county is growing and it's only going to grow one way or another. It's going to go out or it's going to go up, and if it goes up, it better happen contextually in a place where you can gather working, living, and playing, and concentrated in an area. In the book Cities in Full describe the phenomenon that's occurring in urban centers in America today that is unique, it's different;; something we haven't faced before, and this is the decline of the small retail shop, the small merchant, because the small merchant doesn't have enough density and walk-in traffic to survive, and they are being outgunned by the big boxes that collect all of the patrons in one place and give them everything from groceries to lawn mowers. Small merchants are dying. Thirty percent of the small merchants in Rome, Italy have died in the last ten years because of beltway big boxes in Rome, Italy. It's happening in this City, and as Jane Jacobs said, and she said this last April, just before she died, the only way we're going to preserve the fabric of our streets, our small scale merchants and our shops and our living environments is through density, and don't pretend you can do it any other way. What Cities in Full has said, you've got to have a minimum of 10,000 units within a 200-acre area or a five- to ten-minute walk if you're going to sustain small merchants. Your -- Miami Business Review, a few months ago, had a big full page article: vacant retail space. You're asking all these developers go up Biscayne Boulevard. Put retail at grade, and magically, the retail will occur. City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 No, it won't. Fort Lauderdale has now got building after building of vacant retail at the base. They don't have the density. They never concentrated. They just strip it out in one big long run up the beachfront or up Biscayne Boulevard. You want that intensity and that concentration in this district. This is where it belongs, and if you're going to have those local services, which you don't have in the Omni today -- the grocery stores and the drug stores and the bakeries and the specialty shops -- you're going to have to get that walk-in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because people are not going to drive from Kendall to come up here and buy a loaf of bread. This proposal is a big issue. It is a big change, and it's meant to be because if it isn't, you hurt the overall program. Your retail will depend on it. Your redevelopment of the waterfront depends on it, and that's why your Comprehensive Plan and your redevelopment plan said change the zoning, change the future land use map, commit yourself to change, and then make it happen according to reasonable design guidelines and standards and move forward. It's been 20 years since this plan was adopted and 20 years later, we're still looking at parking lots. I'll reserve any comments for rebuttal on the conclusion of this. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Madam Applicant, anything else? Ms. Dougherty: No. We will close now and wait for rebuttal. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Counsel, you're recognized. State your name for the record. Andrew Dickman: Thank you. Once again, Andrew Dickman, representing Loretta Alkalay, at 1555 Northeast 15th Street. I did ask to incorporate a number of my comments from the prior. I'm not going to duplicate that. That's there. I do want to point out a couple of things that were brought up, and I'm going to fry to cover these very quickly. First and foremost, I have -- regarding the CRA plan, if you look at the CRA plan -- and I've got -- I've made copies of page 59 -- excuse me. I'm doing this on -the -fly -- it's page 59 of the final draft, projects and strategies. I'm going to put this into the record, but it does show this parcel, Parcel 3, as an open area, so if you're really looking to the CRA plan, you can look at this diagram. I mean, obviously, there are several versions of the CRA plan. I frust thatHr. Luft is looking at the right draft, but this particular diagram from the CRA plan, the final plan, shows that parcel as open space. It makes a lot of sense, quite frankly. It's right on the historic Venetian Causeway. It's abutting an area that's already pretty developed on the other side, and if you were to have traffic coming in and off of a Venetian Causeway, it would be, more or less, a canyon, especially. It's a one -acre parcel of property. I also want to say, once again, that all of this land is under one ownership. If they sell off a piece of this, it does have to get replatted, and I understand you may think that that's a development issue, but it's key because a decision here will, in effect, cause a trigger of you approving a nonconforming use that will have to be complied with, and there are all kinds of issues with this. Once they replat that property, they have to deal with the structure that's on it, and I think, in an abundance of caution, you should get the owner of the property, since you're considering Parcel 3, to understand and agree that a decision on this could trigger some very significant impacts on a very expensive printing press. It cannot be expanded. It's a nonconforming use. Environmentally, Commissioner, you asked about the environmental report. I was fortunately go out and make a couple copies of this. I'm going to give you all -- it's already in the record on item 1 and 2, and I'm going to pass out copies of this to everyone. Mr. Fernandez: And you want this also incorporated now in item 1 and 2? Mr. Dickman: Separately. I'm not going to cover everything. I just want to -- Mr. Fernandez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: He's going to incorporate all his arguments. Mr. Fernandez: And this is with -- City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: -- regard to the contamination -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez: -- in the site? Mr. Dickman: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: All right, which, in item 1 and 2, there were -- Mr. Dickman's point number 7. Mr. Dickman: Yeah. Now, Commissioner Gonzalez, I -- unfortunately, I don't have color copy makers around here, so I gave you the color copy, and you can see I folded the maps in the back, and you can take a look at the properties that are being sampled, and what I've circled there is Parcel 3, and I apologize to everyone else. I don't have color copies for everybody, but you'll see that there are some -- there are no less than six sampling sites on this particular parcel. They have elevated readings for arsenic. There is at least one petroleum tank that's underground. These are things that are serious considerations. You'll see also that this applies to all the land that's being transacted between the Miami Herald knight Ridder and the developers, so for your information, I wanted you to have that for this item or future items, and I think it's important that you consider that. Certainly, they're going to be required to clean it up. I think you need -- as a land use and zone change, it's something that's highly relevant to your decision -making, not only under your comp plan, but the state rules 9J5 and 163 say that if you have competent evidence, the best data has to be considered, and this is certainly important information. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Dickman: You're welcome. Finally, Mr. -- Commissioner Regalado, you brought up the articles that were recently in the paper. I do have two copies of them. I'm going to ask to put these into the record just so that we have them, because I think that they are relevant, and perhaps, someone can give those to the Clerk for me, and I do want to put those into the record. I think that since the owner of the newspaper is actually publishing these articles, you would think that there's some relevancy to that. The bay walk, -- the bay walk is there. In fact, there is supposed to be a bay walk there. Miami Herald newspaper has closed it down. It's been stopped. You can't use it. They are the owner of the property that you are looking at right now. You would think that they need to make some agreement right now and right here, here and now that that needs to be open, but, quite frankly, I think you need to look at the entire property and have a real bay walk, but the arguments about not having a bay walk, connectivity, and waterfront property, that is there. It's supposed to be there. The Miami Herald has shut that down. They've blocked it off. This is a one -acre piece of land. If any of you live in and around one acre, it's not big, and the amount of intensity and density that they're trying to put on this piece of property, I think is -- goes without saying, that it's far too great, and then, finally, the idea that you -- that -- as Mr. Luft said, that you might have this horrible situation of an expanding printing press. Again, it's a nonconforming use. Your Article 11 goes into great detail about nonconforming uses. If they fry to change this, they have very big restrictions. They may be able to change it slightly under a special exception, but the fact of the matter is, if a hurricane comes bowling through there and tears that thing down, less -- you know, greater than 50 percent, it's gone. It's got to go away, and I'll submit to you that any decision on this small parcel will trigger a replatting scenario that could very well cause that nonconforming use, the printing press and the building -- it's all one. You can't just claim that they're two buildings -- will have to go away, and I think that needs to be considered. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Go ahead. Teresita Fernandez (Executive Secretary, Hearing Boards): May I? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sure. Ms. Fernandez: Teresita Fernandez, Hearing Boards. I would like to clarify the record on the Zoning Board and the recommendation from the Zoning Board. OK. What happened is that there was a motion to deny and it failed 4/2. Even though we had four votes, 4 denial, it failed because Chapter 62-93 says that each item before the Zoning Board shall require the affirmative vote of at least five members of the board for passage, so this was like a technicality, and that's why we are clarifying it and amending the Code. Chairman Gonzalez: So the motion to deny failed? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Failed. Ms. Fernandez: Failed, but it was a motion -- Chairman Gonzalez: Because they -- Ms. Fernandez: -- to deny anyway. Chairman Gonzalez: Because even though there was majority, they didn't had five. Ms. Fernandez: Absolutely true. Chairman Gonzalez: That's the issue that I bring -- Mr. Fernandez: It comes to you -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- been addressing -- Mr. Fernandez: -- as a denial. Chairman Gonzalez: -- constantly that we should have a majority vote instead of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It should be as simple as a nay or yea. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Ms. Fernandez: And that's why we are doing the amendment. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the item failed at the Zoning Board. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Doesn't mean that it was necessarily -- City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: Wait. Hr. Fernandez: -- denied. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner Haskins: It was a -- but the recommendation for denial -- Hr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Haskins: -- failed -- Chairman Gonzalez: Failed. Mr. Spaet: That's right. Commissioner Haskins: -- 4/2, so what's in our package is incorrect. Mr. Spaet : That's right. Commissioner Haskins: What it says in our package is that the -- that there is a recommendation for denial only due to the failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes, so it looks like in here, in this package, that the vote was four in favor of the change and -- Hs. Fernandez: Because - Commissioner Haskins: -- three against, but what you're saying is there was a recommend -- that the vote to deny was 4/2, and it did not prevail because -- Hs. Fernandez: Because what -- I'm sorry, because what lacks is that it should have said Section 62-93 of the City Code requires five favorable votes for the approval or denial. Chairman Gonzalez: Or denial. Commissioner Haskins: For the approval or denial. Hs. Fernandez: Or denial. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Haskins: OK, so -- Hs. Fernandez: That's -- Commissioner Haskins: -- this is not correct. I mean, first of all -- Hs. Fernandez: No. Commissioner Haskins: -- it shows 4/3 in here. Second of all -- Hs. Fernandez: No, it's 4/2. Commissioner Haskins: -- the way this reads -- Hs. Fernandez: It was 4 -- City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: -- as if it got 4 votes for and 3 against, when it was really 4 against and 2 for. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: Actually, you're looking -- Commissioner Haskins: Just reversing. You know, instead of taking a double negative. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Mr. Fernandez: The bottom line -- Ms. Fernandez: It's confusing. It's confusing. Mr. Fernandez: -- is that I stand corrected. It comes to you with no recommendation from the Zoning Board. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Spaet: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Spaet: Do I have to identify myself again, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: You should. Mr. Spaet: Hal Spaet, 555 Northeast 15th Street. I want to say to you that thank you for that vote. That was a vote for the people of the City in this area and for the Omni area, and we always came here today. That traffic map, that -- all of our information was all about Parcel 3. It was all about this parcel, because we all knew -- we read the same things that you did -- that The Herald is not moving. We knew that. We just wanted to make sure that somebody doesn't come along and take advantage of it, but it -- all of the evidence, the traffic evidence, was about Parcel 3. Mr. City Attorney, my point was this. You're absolutely right, that traffic is taken up at the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). My point was the reason the land use should be voted down is because any high-rise dense residential consfruction there is a traffic nightmare dilemma. It's dangerous, it's so terrible, and what I said before has to do with the land use. Somebody on the Commission made a statement that construction can't take place there. Maybe we shouldn't build at all. That's not true. The CRA put together, at the cost of $750, 000 and 20 years of planning, the exact kind of structural development that can be -- can occur at the Omni - - in the Omni area; beautiful walkways, beautiful parks, a beautiful area. Taxpayers' money, a lot of it was spent on doing that, butt wanted you to understand that what we came here to object to today was the immediate consfruction on Parcel 3, because that's what's going to happen. That's the parcel that sits right at the edge of the Venetian Causeway, so you know, that was the point. The other thing that I'd like to raise, and then I'll be happy to sit down, is this: The problem that you have now is that you're putting 1,200 or so people in a 64-story high-rise next to a printing press, you know. I don't know what the environmental impact of that is. I question whether or not it's healthy, whether it's a good idea at all, so I ask you, please continue to do this. We will -- you know, we are not against development. As a matter of fact, I wanted City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 to point this out before. Having lived there for so many years, having lived in neglect, in blight; having dealing with these problems, we are probably more desirable -- desirous of having construction there than anybody else. We want the area developed. We're sick and tired of seeing every single service industry and business that we use move to some other area. Every single one, except The Miami Herald, and that makes this whole thing ironic, so I'm asking you, please deny this application for land use and zoning, and thank you very, very much for your attention. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. All right. Anyone else? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am, you -- Stacey Stokes: Well, I was asking him to put up a picture for me that I think expresses what -- one of my issues. If you look at page -- I'm Stacey Stokes, at 555 Northeast 15th Street, Miami. If you look at page 81 of the CRA final draft, you will see -- and I'm sorry, I don't have copies of this -- but you'll see a picture of what's there now, The Herald building, the corner and what the CRA would envision. Unfortunately, this isn't the project that we're talking about. This shows a low-rise building where the factory is, where the printing press is. That's not going to happen. The Herald has just said it multiple times. It also shows the building that we're talking about on Parcel 3 as maybe having a little cafe outside. Nobody agrees more than I with the importance of having the bay walk connecting Miami. I mean, I run, I walk, I bike, I skate. I'm very big advocate of that, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a private thing. I mean, you -- you can call it public, but the fruth is, I'm sure there'll be security guards there and it won't be so public. Also, on page 38 of the CRA, and I quote, "As illustrated in subsequent sections, the Omni area has endured a number of developments which have effectively segregated the area from neighboring parts of the city and from one of the area's greatest assets, Biscayne Bay." He also wanted to mention, my friends will roll their eyes, but none of the other cities that we've been talking about -- New York, Chicago, Singapore -- none of them are in a hurricane zone, and their -- I've talked to Mr. Pastorino, who writes the Code, the Building Code for Miami -Dade County, and there is no physical proof of what the effect of building 62-story buildings this close together in a hurricane zone might be. It's all theoretical. I would also point out that because this building is going to sit at the foot of Venetian Causeway, which is -- it's an important bridge, even though it's not a major bridge. It creates a choke point for hurricane evacuation, and that's it. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you so much. All right. Yes, sir. Mark Feldman: I'm Dr. Mark Feldman again. I live at Venetia, Plaza Venetia. Please understand that we're not against the development. That's a beautiful piece of property, Commissioner Sanchez, you talked about. Thirty -- that current walkway is 34 feet. I don't know what your definition of a bay walk is, but it's not 34 feet. If they weren't so greedy to build a 64-story tower, as I said to you by measuring this piece of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, could I interrupt you -- Mr. Feldman: -- property -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for a minute? Mr. Feldman: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just because they want to build a 64-story tower, doesn't mean they're going to milk -- build that. They -- the MUSP -- when they come in front of this Commission, we decide what they could build, based on the recommendation the City gives and the input of the residents. Like these six towers here or five, that's never going to happen, not as long as I'm a City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner, and I can guarantee you, my colleagues all agree with me. Mr. Feldman: That's what -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: If one thing that we could agree on is that we need to work together to improve the downtown area and the CRA area -- Mr. Feldman: I agree with you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and the only way we're going to do it is by working together and, hopefully, we could come back one day and find an agreement so the developer could build something we could all be very proud of -- Mr. Feldman: We agree with you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and you could look out your window and see a beautiful building instead of a parking lot where people doing things they aren't supposed to be, and homeless people walking around, and we could only do so much as a government, but we need to work together, and I -- listen, the beauty of democracy is that we respect each other. I mean, we could disagree on issues on one day and agree on the other, but at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I think that we all have one common theme, is that we want a clear vision for downtown Miami and the CRA, and we must embrace that vision to accomplish it. Mr. Feldman: I agree with you, but that's not what the picture shows. Their -- excuse me, sir -- but their plan shows this. It does not show a beautiful bay walk with the building set back far enough so thatyou have the public access thatyou have described, that people have described from other cities. That's not what they come to you with. What they come to you with are pictures that are inaccurate as opposed to showing what they want to build. That -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: What they want to build. Mr. Feldman: Yes, but if you give -- if you vote yes, that's going up, and they start digging tomorrow. That's -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's OK Go ahead. I'm sorry. Mr. Feldman: That's what they show. That's their pictures, their architectural renderings. Come back off the water a hundred feet or so, let them build a hundred stories, but make the -- you remember -- I'm here long enough to have been to South Beach Elementary when the black population of our country had to be off the beach by sundown. That's how long I'm here. I've seen the signs. They were terrible then. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you permit this to happen, they're going to build what they show. That's why they're here. I ask you not to allow them to build that piece of ground a building essentially this size, 60 stories tall. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Thank you so much. You made your point. Yes, Mr. Dickman. Mr. Dickman: IfI could just one second, Commissioner Sanchez, bring up an excellent point, and I've made a real quick poll among people. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Look, you want to show the good side, show the good side, but you want to show the bad side, show the bad -- , Mr. Dickman: That's exactly my point. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but be fair. City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Dickman: That's exactly my point. I mean, all of my clients are -- the client that I represent -- and I know her neighbors -- they've all said -- they've never said no development. I mean, they understand where they live, and they embrace the CRA. They think that that's a good thing. It's an asset to their area. The problem that we're facing here is this bifurcation of Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. Now, if Knight Kidder ever said, look, we're ready to go. We've got another place. We're going to go someplace else. Bring the whole parcel forward. Find a buyer. Come to us. Work with us. Get something that step back that gives you a nice bay walk, you'll have us in here, all of us saying, let's go, rock and roll, but what's happened is you've got Parcel 3, Parcel 1, it's disjointed, it's problematic, and what you need to do is have the land opener -- owner come forward saying we've got a buyer. We're going to look at the whole plan and you'll get everybody, I bet, or most of everybody in that building, where I'm representing someone, coming in saying we like this. This is the right kind of development and let's rock and roll on that, so I think that positive approach -- I just want you to know that that's the positive part that we're coming from. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: As you hear all this evidence, I want to continue to remind you that you need to base your decision on competent substantial evidence. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Evidence of feelings and ideas and philosophy and all of these things, you cord -- very -- in a very cordial way, with great courtesy, listen to it all, but you must base your decision on the kind of evidence that, in your mind, tends to prove or disprove an essential element of the application that's in front of you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Yes, ma'am. Patricia Mayor: Excuse me. Patricia Mayor, 555 Northeast 15th Street. Once again, the issue is if you approve the zoning to SD-6, you stand to have five towers there. Vice Chairman Sanchez: What, SD-6? Mr. Fernandez: Yeah, which is PZ.4, and you're hearing both together. You're hearing PZ.3 and PZ.4 together. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sorry. Mr. Fernandez: She's speaking to their actual rezone. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I apologize. Ms. Mayor: So Parcel 3 is also being requested to be changed -- the zoning to be changed, which means, again, once you change that zoning, they will -- whether it's today or tomorrow, any developer will be able to place an unlimited height skyscraper on that parcel. It's a 1.1 acre parcel. The present plan that they're proposing is a 1-acre footprint, OK, Parcel 3, on the north side of the property, at the very mouth of the Venetian Causeway, the historic bridge, so that's the whole issue. You grant the zoning, you're going to get a mega skyscraper on the shoreline, OK. It's OK for New York, but not for Miami, and basically, we love the idea of-- when other City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 people get up here, they make it sound like we're against development. We're not against development. We want proper development from the shoreline. Stepped, lowered than - go inland to higher. Don't drown out the shoreline with walls. We've -- I've spoken personally with David Martin. How many times did I talk to you? I sent you an e-mail ( electronic mail). Work with us. Do what's responsible for that shoreline, and the developer does not want to budge on the issue of putting a high-rise there. We've tried to work together, and they do not want -- they only want the change of zoning for the skyscrapers, OK, and it is absolutely true, OK, so -- I mean, I heard in the newspaper today that the City has $212 million available possibly to consider for the retail. Why don't they take that money and buy Parcels 1 and 3, if there's so much money available? Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Your time is up. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That money's not available. Chairman Gonzalez: You know, I -- Ms. Mayor: That's the -- if the money is available. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Don't believe everything you read in The Herald. Chairman Gonzalez: Don't believe -- Ms. Mayor: Exactly. I'm saying "if. " Chairman Gonzalez: -- any -- everything that you hear -- that you read in The Herald because let me tell you, let me tell you. Ms. Mayor: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: Here is one Commissioner -- at least this Commissioner, with the amount of poverty that we have in the City ofMiami, with the need that we have for affordable housing for the poor people, not the people that live in the bay, not the people that have the pleasure to look at the sea everyday and get the breeze of the sea. I'm talking about the poor people of the City ofMiami -- with the amount of those people that we have in the City ofMiami, in Disfrict 5, in District 1, in Disfrict 3, OK, I will never -- and I'm making this statement here today -- I will never vote to give a penny, one penny of those millions of dollars that Miami Herald is talking about, this Commissioner will never support that. Ms. Mayor: To any developer. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Ms. Mayor: Thank you. That is what we want to hear. Chairman Gonzalez: Bring me a plan to provide affordable housing for the poor, a plan to bring industries so we can provide good jobs to the people ofMiami, and then I will vote to support with money -- Ms. Mayor: I'm not the one you need to convince. Chairman Gonzalez: -- whatever we have to support. Ms. Mayor: I agree. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Mayor: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. James Good: Hi. My name is James Good, from 555 Northeast 15th Street. I just wanted to say I'm in favor of other projects that the developer is putting forward, including the shops. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Good: You know, I feel that's good. That's stepped back, and more suitable use could be found for this property here. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Next. Yes, ma'am. Barbara Bisno: My name is Barbara Bisno. I live at 1000 Venetian Way, and I'm president of the Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance. I spoke earlier andl did indicate that we do not oppose the development on Parcel 3, and it is because -- I just want to make clear -- the developer did alter his original plan to include a three-story loggia that connects to the waterfront. He's apparently going to ask the City to take an easement as well, so that the walkway and the loggia stay open to the public, and also restrict no vehicular exit and entrance on 15th Street. I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. You know, reality is -- and I'm going to take two minutes to -- is that we hear so much argument in reference to new developments in the City ofMiami, and looking at the tax bills that we have just received from Miami -Dade County, all over this city and this county, and people that have commercial properties, like myself that own a couple of properties, built in 1921, so you can imagine, frame houses thatl have rent to the -- to working class of the City ofMiami, where I can't afford to raise those families their rent because they cannot afford it. They will have to move out, OK, and receiving a bill and increasing taxes of $3,500 in one year, that's totally insane, what is happening in this City ofMiami. I believe that - - I don't know if the figure that I'm going to give is correct, butl think that we have an increase of $23 billion on the tax base of the City ofMiami, and guess what? Eighty percent of that increase is not due to new development. It's not due to new constructions. It's due to existing properties that exist in the City ofMiami that have been built in the past, OK Looking at the problems that we are facing in our City -- and next week, we're going to have a budget hearing, where we are supposed to keep maintaining the pension plans at a rate of $80 million every year. I don't know where we're going to get the money to keep providing Police service, Fire, Solid Waste, the basic service that the City ofMiami has to provide to its residents, and let me tell you. I don't know what is going to happen in the City. I don't know what is going to happen with the working class of the City. Eventually, they're going to have to move to Naples, or to Tampa, Key West, and come -- you know, drive to work everyday in the City ofMiami because this is becoming the City for the rich, not for the working class, and it's very good to live in a house, you know, have the privilege of live in a good neighborhood and own a house and maybe it's worth $500, 000 or $600, 000 and don't care about the poor neighborhoods that haven't seen development or haven't seen progress on the last 30 years, and now, when their time comes, people oppose to it because they don't care. They're living a good life. They're having a good time, so who cares about the poor? Who cares about the working people? So -- but let me tell you. Those that are so opposed to development, your time is coming, because development is slowing down. Pretty soon you won't see anybody like this gentleman wanting to invest a penny in the City ofMiami because he won't be able to make a profit on his investments, and then we're going to see what we're going to do to maintain the services of the City ofMiami and to keep paying for the increases of the unions and keep paying for the increases that we're suffering every single year in this City ofMiami. I will hate to see the City go back to 1996. I wasn't here. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 I wasn't sitting in here, butt know that two of my colleagues were sitting here back then, and they had to go through hell, through hell to make this city survive, and they had to make real, real tough decisions so we didn't lose our city, so you know, that is my statement, but let me tell you. Don't worry so much about development because development is stopping, and you know what? When development stops, not only the developers are going to end up. -- the lawyers that are making thousands of thousands of dollars opposing these developments, they're also going to have to start working accident cases or malpractice -- medical malpractice, or who knows what, OK? Because there will be no more easy money. Commissioner Haskins: They can be aviation attorneys. Chairman Gonzalez: There will be no more easy money. That's reality. That's the big picture, people. Look at it. That's the big picture, you know, and sometimes it might not be a good thing to say. It might not be political correct, but that's the way I feel about it, OK. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hurrah Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, Lucia. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Judy Sandoval: Oh. Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. After what you said, Mr. Gonzalez, I mean, it's sort of silly, butt was just going to disagree with the attorney, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I thought you were going to be nicer this year. I don't know when you're going to start, but what I meant to say was that I think you should consider many of the things which are not so cut-and-dried by the ordinances because we are talking about quality of life for everyone in this City, and we are talking about the aesthetics of our waterfront, and these things are very hard to measure, but they should be taken into consideration. I hope you will. I mean, it's wonderful that Commissioner Sanchez is concerned about the bay walk. I've been fussing a lot about the size and quality of landscaping on the bay walks. They should be larger. They should be true malecones, like we have all over Latin America -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but this is not -- Ms. Sandoval: -- like there is in Havana. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Latin America. This is not -- you know, a lot -- Ms. Sandoval: Well, we should -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- of people go to -- Ms. Sandoval: -- be better, doing things better than they do in Latin America, not -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- a malecon in Latin America, and you know why? Because they don't have a job. They go to sit there because they don't have a job. They have nothing to do, OK. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: This is not Latin America. You know why we are here? You know why we are all here? Well, I'm not here because I didn't -- I could not survive in my country because my country was one of the best counfries in the world back in 1959, OK. I had to came here because of political reasons. Even though I was so young, I had to come here because of political reasons, but let me tell you. I have visit many of those counfries, and the poverty -- they have a lot of beaches, and they have a lot of malecones where they can go and sit, but that's all City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 they do; they go and sit there, OK, and expect and hope that God maybe send them a piece of bread so they can eat. This isn't Latin America. This is the United States ofAmerica, and at the rate that we're going in here, we're going to have a lot of people going to the malecon that you're talking about to sit there and hope for someone to go by and throw a dollar at them so they can eat. That's what is going to happen in this city. Ms. Sandoval: I hope -- Chairman Gonzalez: You just wait and see. Ms. Sandoval: -- not, Mr. Gonzalez. Chairman Gonzalez: I hope not. Ms. Sandoval: And I hope -- Chairman Gonzalez: I hope not. Ms. Sandoval: -- all of these developers should go up to Allapattah -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Ms. Sandoval: -- and develop it up there. I know that's your wish, so I hope it happens. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Go ahead. Ms. Dougherty: Again, Lucia Dougherty. There are two really big differences between Parcel 1 and Parcel 3, and that is that there is a current developer ready and willing to start development of this property immediately. The property is under contract. He's about to buy it, no matter what. The second thing is, there's no nonconforming use issue. This is a blank piece of property. There's no building on it. There's no nonconforming use issue, so that's the difference between this site and the other. They passed out a -- page 59 of the Omni Redevelopment Plan. This is on page 39. You will see that there is a building with a parking podium on it. There is another illustration on page 88 that was brought out by one of the other speakers, and it actually has a building on this piece of property, as well. You can't tell how big it is because it -- 81, and then there's another piece of-- another part of the redevelopment plan on page 77, which has all the green spaces, and there's no green space on it, so this is only illustrative, and it says so on page 1, where it says that "the diagrams and illusfrations in this document are intended to serve only as a visual aid to understanding the intent and the implementation of the redevelopment objectives and strategies," so it doesn't -- these illusfrations don't -- are not something that are part of the redevelopment plan. It just helps you fry to envision it, and you can see that this is a parking podium on the same site with a building on it, so with that, I would urge your approval. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: On that issue, I want to make sure that you understand that the CRA plan that has been alluded to has not been officially adopted by this Commission. I would be very concerned if this Commission based any of its decision on a proposed plan that has received preliminary approval by the CRA Board, but has not fully come to you, and you have not City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 officially taken action on that. Chairman Gonzalez: I understand. That's like the Miami River -- Mr. Fernandez: Right, exactly. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Commission -- Mr. Fernandez: We have a few of -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- plan -- Mr. Fernandez: -- those situations where, you know -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- that they talk about so much, and it hasn't been -- Mr. Fernandez: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- approved by the Commission. Mr. Fernandez: Correct, and so you need to be guided by that. It does not have the force, it does not have the strength, you would, of any legislation that you have approved. It does, however, have 10, 12, 15, 20 years of study and analysis, illustrative charts, principles, ideas, you know, so for whatever it's worth in that sense, it's fine for you to consider, but in you basing a decision granting or denying rights of the individuals here, I caution you not to base decisions on that proposed plan. That's what it should be called, proposed plan. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We'll take that under -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you so much. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- advisement, but we -- Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Dickman. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- put a lot of time and effort into that, and that's -- and I understand. We haven't approved it, and we can't vote on the issue because we haven't approved it, but the CRA, and everyone that has sat on the CRA, has put a lot of time and effort in trying to revitalize -- bring revitalization to that area, and a lot of the ideas that are on that plan are great ideas. I just want to -- you know, I don't want to -- I don't want people -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to think that we're spinning our wheels and doing nothing. Mr. Fernandez: No, no. I agree with you -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- but perhaps, this is encouragement for you to consider and adopt the CRA plan at some very close future date. Chairman Gonzalez: And we're talking about the Omni CRA. Mr. Fernandez: Correct City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: Omni CRA vision -- Chairman Gonzalez: We are not talking about poor -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- plan. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Overtown CRA. Mr. Fernandez: Correct -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- so that's all that -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: -- I have to say. Chairman Gonzalez: You -- something you wanted to add? Mr. Dickman: No. I was just going to say, if that's the case, then perhaps it should wait until after your very expensive, elaborate plan has been adopted. I mean, why come in before the plan is adopted? This is -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you sure you're not anti -development? Chairman Gonzalez: No, he's not. Mr. Dickman: Not at all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you sure? Mr. Dickman: Trust me, but I am for planning, and if that's the plan -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: You know, I -- Mr. Dickman: -- then why do something before your plan? Mr. Fernandez: Just like there is -- the plan is something that, you know, you have because it makes a lot of good sense to plan comprehensively like that. However, that would constitute a moratorium if you hold up any development simply because you have failed to pass a plan, and certainly, applying concepts, and principles, and ideas that you derive from plans or from the proposed Miami 21, which is in the (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but not yet here -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- it would not sustain legal challenge if you base any decision, for or against, on those types of -- Chairman Gonzalez: On something that hasn't been adopted. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you so much. All right. I'm bringing this back to the Commission. City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins. Commissioner Haskins: Well, first, I want to -- Judy, what -- you know what we need to do? We need to get a group together to see ifMcClatchy and The Herald will just donate their property to the City and make a beautiful park. What do you think? Or, at least -- at the very least, open up their bay walk, which would be very wonderful for us, wouldn't it? Ms. Sandoval: Allow me to speak. I have a solution, which I meant to present when we talk about City Square. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Judy Sandoval. Ms. Sandoval: Yes. Judy Sandoval, and excuse me, but I made a very short speech before. The $200, 200 -- what was it, 200 million that was mentioned by The Herald thatHr. Siffin wants for his parking garage, we could take that 200 million. I understand that's about the price or the value of the Herald property -- Commissioner Haskins: It's not that easy -- Ms. Sandoval: -- Parcel 1. Commissioner Haskins: Yeah, but it's not that easy -- Ms. Sandoval: The City could not give the money to them --I mean, he's a developer. He's a risk -taker. That's his problem. Take that 200 million -- Chairman Gonzalez: Buy the Herald. Ms. Sandoval: -- buy Parcel 1, and make a -- Chairman Gonzalez: And build a park. Ms. Sandoval: -- nice parking garage for the PAC (Performing Arts Center), and then the City could make all the money on that, and that solves the whole thing here today. Commissioner Haskins: Hey, I like a donation better. At least open the bay walk, OK? Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's come back to Earth. Commissioner Haskins: Listen, I -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Commissioner Haskins: -- have -- you know, with Parcel 3, I have the same concerns, in terms of the impact and the land use change, that I've had with Parcel 1. I have the same concern in Parcel 3. However, I think that there's been a lot of work on a project. There has been a lot of discussion with community groups. There has been a lot of work by the developer, and I think, in fairness, we -- I would like to see, as we talked about earlier, those further analyses, the fraffic analysis. I would want to hear from the community's fraffic analys -- traffic consultant and that sort of thing. When I look through the CRA plan that was adopted by the CRA board, but not by this Commission, there are all sorts of different scenarios here, but most of the scenarios include some pretty high density in all of these parcels. I think the issue of the bay walk for this parcel is -- you know, our big chance for a wonderful bay walk is if the Herald building sells. That's all there is to it; just the dynamics of how the printing press works, and that sort of thing. The bay walk issues are certainly not the big wins that we could have if something else happened with the Herald property, so although I have some very, very significant concerns about traffic impacts, City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 impact on infrastructure, those sorts of things, I would like to make a motion to pass this on first reading. Commissioner Spence -Jones: So move. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): He has to read into the record the title. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. On -- Chairman Gonzalez: I'm sorry. It's an ordinance. Mr. Fernandez: It is an ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Fernandez: PZ.3. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Ms. Thompson: Roll call. Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: Well, I wanted to make some comment, but I justgoing to vote, and because I don't have the information, because I don't -- still don't understand; I don't have all the facts, I have to vote "no." Ms. Thompson: Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, butt just want to speak on the issue. Al [sic], come on up for a minute. Come on. Come to the mike. Al [sic], you're a bright man. You're a very smart man. Parcel 3 is the problem, isn't it? Hal Spaet: Yes, huge. Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. The whole issue here, folks, is Parcel 3. Mr. Spaet: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Come on. Let's -- as they say, let's cut the orange in half. Let's get down to it because I think that we are hurting -- we're weakening the City if we can't come in agreement here. I think we have a golden opportunity to accomplish something that we could all be very proud of, if we could just find a solution to that Parcel 3. I have a problem with Parcel 3. Parcel 3 is small. It should be preserved, but we have to work to make sure that the other projects that are coming on-line -- not the density and the other issues. We'll address that in the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). We'll address all those issues in the MUSP. Once they come in front of us, we'll address all those issues. I'm going to pass it on first reading, butt want to send out a clear message to the developer, and Al [sic], you, and the residents that are concerned, and I could see why you're concerned. IfI lived in that building, I'd probably be here, too, but let me just plea with you to fry to work something out here so we don't lose a great opportunity that we -- I mean, it breaks my heart that I've worked so hard to get that 14 Street open and have people drive and enjoy the bay, and see that bay that people tell me we've given that bay away. We've lost that. The bay belongs to us, not to buildings. You know, it belongs to City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 us. The poor could walk to a bay or drive, and walk down the bay, just like a beach. You're poor. You go to the beach, you walk down the beach, you relax. The bay walk is ours, and if we don't have the opportunity to get that piece of land to connect that entire bay walk, it's like a pearl necklace that's missing a pearl, so I plead with you, Al [sic], work with the developers on this, and maybe come back in the near future to fry something where -- to try to some -- work something out. Mr. Spaet: Mr. Commissioner, I have talked to them. We have offered a compromise, a solution that would allow the building, we have. They rejected it. You know, I think if you pass this today -- if you -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's first reading, Al [sic]. First reading. Mr. Spaet: OK. If you ask us, and you ask them, to sit down and come up with a solution, we feel we have a solution. Commissioner Haskins: Hal, and that's why this proposal was made -- this motion was made. Everyone -- I believe my -- I know that -- where Commissioner Sanchez is. There are lots of reservations about this. There are definitely lots of reservations, and we know that the Parcel 3 - - we know the Parcel 3 issues -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: The issue. Commissioner Haskins: -- OK? I want to hear all of the evidence, butt really want the developer and the neighbors to work together. This is only first reading, and I think that this is sending out -- between Commissioner Sanchez and I, and hopefully, my other colleagues -- that this is a message that there is a concern about this project, and there's not -- Mr. Spaet: Can I ask you both a favor? Commissioner Haskins: -- this is not a slam dunk to go through. Mr. Spaet: Can I ask you a favor? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure. Mr. Spaet: I think a compromise could be worked out if the City would be willing to be involved in that discussion. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Whoa, time out. Chairman Gonzalez: The City can't. Mr. Fernandez: Whoops, no. All right? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, no, no, no. Al [sic] -- Commissioner Haskins: Jennings. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I apologize. No, we can't do that. Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chair, I just have to respond to this because I think you can see the good faith of my client working with neighborhood associations. We're happy to work with this association, as well, but their solution is to move the building onto a public street. That is not an acceptable solution to us, so I just have to tell you, we'll sit down with them again. Well fry to City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 redesign the building to maximize the view corridors because, really, that's the -- that is the corpse in the living room here. That's really what -- all they're talking about, so -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that -- Mr. Spaet: Yeah. Ms. Dougherty: -- we will sit down and we'll talk with them again. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that's why I voted on the issue, and I plea with both of you, both sides to sit down and fry to find an amicable solution to this, so maybe when you come back on second reading, we could resolve it, or if not, then we'll decide what we have to do, and we'll vote our conscience on that, so I vote yes, on first reading. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Thompson: Continuation of your roll call. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: I vote yes on first reading. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Then Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 4/1. Ms. Dougherty: Thanks very much. PZ.4 06-00383zc ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "SD-6" CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY ONE HERALD PLAZA (PARCEL 3), MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. First Reading City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-00383zc Analysis.pdf 06-00383zc Zoning Map.pdf 06-00383zc Aerial Map.pdf 06-00383zc ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00383zc ZB Fact Sheet 04-10-06.pdf 06-00383zc ZB Fact Sheet 04-10-06.pdf 06-00383zc ZB Reso.PDF 06-00383zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf 06-003831u & 06-00383zc Exhibit A.pdf 06-00383zc CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 06-00383zc CC FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf 06-00383zc Submittal.pdf 06-00383zc CC FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-003831u & 06-00383zc Clarifying Application Documents.PDF 06-00383zc CC FR Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf 06-00383zc Application Page 2 Replacement.PDF 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Miami Herald.pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Miami Today.pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Conceptual Aerial View.pdf 06-003831u and 06-00383zc Memo Luft Consulting, Inc..pdf LOCATION: Approximately One Herald Plaza (Parcel 3) [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Avino, Esquire, on behalf of Citisquare Group, LLC, Contract Purchaser, and Knight-Ridder, Inc., Owner and the McClatchy Company (Publicly Owned) as Successor in Interest FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PUBLIC WORKS: Platting is required. ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on May 8, 2006 by a vote of 4-2 by virtue of the fact that Section 62-93 of the City Code requires five (5) favorable votes for the approval. See companion File ID 06-003831u and related File IDs 06-003791u and 06-00379zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential District for the proposed Herald Square (Parcel 3) Major Use Special Permit. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez and Spence -Jones Noes: 1 - Commissioner Regalado Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): PZ.4 requires a similar action. Is there a motion? Chairman Gonzalez: 4. Commissioner Haskins: I move PZ.4 on first reading. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second. Mr. City Attorney. City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Yes. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chairman Gonzalez: Roll call, please. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Spence -Jones? Commissioner Spence -Jones: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Regalado? Commissioner Regalado: No. Ms. Thompson: Commi -- Vice Chairman Sanchez? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Commissioner Haskins? Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Chairman Gonzalez? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Thompson: The or -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't think there's any opposition to the other items, are there? Ms. Thompson: The ordinance is -- I need to put on your record your vote. Chairman Gonzalez: Four to one. PZ.5 06-01053mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE CITY SQUARE RETAIL PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1431-1451 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE AND 425 NORTHEAST 13TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 130-FOOT, 5-STORY HIGH RETAIL STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 641,104 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 4,052 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-01053mu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01053mu - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-01053mu - Zoning Map.pdf 06-01053mu - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-01053mu - Traffic Sufficiency Letter (6.7.06).pdf 06-01053mu - UDRB Resolution (5.17.06).pdf 06-01053mu - IDRC Comments (5.9.06).pdf 06-01053mu - School Board Comments (4.24.06).pdf 06-01053mu - Public Works Comments (4.24.06).pdf 06-01053mu - Aviation Comments (5.4.06).pdf 06-01053mu - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-01053mu - Exhibit A.pdf 06-01053mu - PAB Exhibit B.pdf 06-01053mu - Table of Contents.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB A - Letter of Intent.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB B - Application.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB C - Zoning Write Up.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB D - Legal Description.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB E - Aerial.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB F - Zoning Atlas Page 23.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB G - Project Data Sheet.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB H - Warranty Deed(s) & Property Tax Information.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB I - Ownership List & Mailing Labels.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB J - State of Florida Corporate Documents.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB K - Directory of Project Principals.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB L - Project Description.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB M - Minority Construction Employment Plan.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB N - Sufficiency Letter.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB N - Traffic Impact Study.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB 0 - Site Utility Study.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB P - Economic Impact Analysis.PDF 06-01053mu - TAB Q - Survey.pdf 06-01053mu - TAB Q - Site Plans of Property including Photos.pdf 06-01053mu PAB Reso.PDF 06-01053mu CC Analysis.pdf 06-01053mu CC Legislation.pdf 06-01053mu CC Exhibit B.pdf 06-01053mu CC Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-01053mu & 06-01054mu Supplemental Disclosure of Ownership.PDF 06-01053mu CC Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf 06-01053mu Urban Plaza Standard & Guidelines.pdf 06-01053mu Space & Residential Design Standards.pdf 06-01053mu Presentation.pdf 06-01053mu Submittal.pdf 06-01053mu Submittal Miami DDA Market Profile.pdf Presentation(City Square Parcel 3).ppt Presentation(City Square).ppt LOCATION: Approximately 1431-1451 N Bayshore Drive and 425 NE 13th Street [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Knight-Ridder, Inc., City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Successor by Merger to Miami Herald Newspaper, Inc. and Miami Herald Publishing Company and the McClatchy Company a Publicly Traded Company on the NYSE as MNI FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on July 5, 2006 by a vote of 7-1. See related File ID 06-01053mu. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the City Square Retail project. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0482 Direction by Commissioner Haskins to the Adminstration to provide an independent validation of the calculations of green space in the project; further directing that the closure of 14th Sfreet be done by permit only. Vice Chairman Sanchez: 5 and 6. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. PZ.5. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there any opposition to 5? Jorge L. Fernandez (City Attorney): It's a MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), and the -- staff will make its presentation for you to consider it. Commissioner Spence -Jones: You ready? Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): For the record, Roberto Lavernia, Planning Department. The petition is for the City Square Retail Major Use Special Permit, located at 1431, 1451 North Bayshore Drive and 425 Northeast 13th Sfreet, to construct an approximately 130-foot, 5-story high retail structure to be comprised by 641,104 square feet of retail space, and approximately 4,052 total parking spaces. The recommendation is for -- Department is approval with conditions. We have the regular conditions that we put to the Major Use, and condition number 11 is the design conditions, pursuant to design -related comments received by the Planning director. There are several conditions -- I'm just going to put on the records the -- what we think are more important. The proposed facade treatment of awning, grids, louvers, and commercial panel, et cetera, shall be developed and refined to provide a more proper human scale, and all of which shall be reduced in size and scale. Confirm the use and size of large-scale advertisement panel with Zoning. They are not allowed, as presented, in this moment. Architectural treatment or a rooftop garden at the top floor of the parking garage, as it will be highly visible from the surrounding high-rise building, and ensure that all the cars on the top level of the garage will be hidden from view from above. Provide second floor retail liner along the interior street, and we have condition from (l) to (q) about landscaping issues, so the recommendation is approval with conditions. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. This is a public hearing. Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's no opposition. City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Is there any opposition to this item? Jeff Bercow: Yes. I think there is. Chairman Gonzalez: I would have been surprised. I would have been shocked. All right. I guess the developer presents the case first -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- right? Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir. If you can just give us a minute to set up or -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Bercow: -- 30 seconds. Chairman Gonzalez: You want to take a break? All right. Let's take five-minute break so you can get set up. [Later... Chairman Gonzalez: Are we ready? Yes, sir. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): You're lacking a quorum. Chairman Gonzalez: I -- Commissioner Regalado was around here somewhere. I saw him. Is he here? He's outside. All right. I need one more Commissioner. All right. We have Commissioner Regalado here, so now we have a quorum. Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: Thank you -- Chairman Gonzalez: Good afternoon. Mr. Bercow: -- Mr. Chair. Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is Jeff Bercow. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bercow & Radell, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. I'm here today on behalf of the property owners, and I'm representing Citisquare Group, the contract purchasers of the property. With me, at some point, were Pedro and David Martin, of Citisquare Group. Mark Siffin, from Maefield Development, is the project developer. Bernardo Fort -Brescia and Sherry Gutierrez, from Arquitectonica, are our architects. Cathy Sweetapple is our transportation consultant. Andy Dolkart is our economic specialist. Cesar Garcia -Pons, from EDAW (Eckbo Dean Austin Williams), is our landscape architect, and unfortunately, Mr. Chair, because we do have opposition from one of our competitors, Bayview Markets, we are going to have to make a full record this evening. City Square is a five -story, double -story vertical retail center to be located on what is now the parking lot located between the Miami Herald and the Performing Arts Center, the PAC. There are two parcels that you're going to be hearing about this evening. This is the east parcel that comprises approximately nine acres of land. City Square Towers, the next MUSP, is the west parcel, between Biscayne Boulevard and Bayshore Drive. City Square Retail will feature large retailers that, to date, have been conspicuously absent from the downtown area and from the City ofMiami. Want to be clear this evening. The only thing that we're talking about right now is MUSP approval of the project's design. We're not talking about rezoning. There's no land use change here. We are seeking approval within the existing zoning. This is also, as there was some discussion earlier today -- this is not about the loan request presently pending before the CRA (Community Redevelopment City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Agency) for funding for the parking garage for the PAC, and this is not about the signs either. This is project approval. The signage shown on your plans are only illustrative. We are not asking for approval of any signage today, and we understand if those types of signs were to get approved, we may have to come back to you in the future, and there will probably have to be multiple public hearings at that point in time. This project is designed to accommodate several large retailers, in addition to providing smaller ground level retail shops and restaurants along Northeast 14th Street, a private road that bisects this property. These retailers, in turn, are going to bring shoppers and employees who are going to generate additional pedestrian activity in this area, which has been designated a mixed -use media entertainment district, and it's going to bring that activity both when there are shows going on at the PAC, and also when the PAC's closed, and there's nothing going on there. Commissioners, you, better than anyone else, are well aware that, since 2002, there have been over one hundred development projects within the downtown area that have either been completed, or currently under construction, or have been approved. There currently is $13 billion worth of residential and mixed -use development underway. Where are all those new residents going to shop? Where are they going to furnish their condominiums, buy their food, their clothing, their towel and linens, and other daily living supplies? I'd like to distribute to you a -- Pm going to ask Ben, my partner, to distribute to you a retail market profile that was prepared by DDA (Downtown Development Authority) that shows that there are over 30, 000 people living within a one -mile radius of the center of downtown. Within the three-mile trade area, we have over 185, 000 people living, and there are over a half million people living within the six -mile trade area of this property. That is an awful lot of purchasing power, and it does not include the 105,000 employees that come in and out of downtown everyday, the 30,000 student population, and tourists who pour into the Greater Miami area at a rate of 12 million a year. As the DDA information shows, the resident -based sales potential within this trade area is staggering. In the year 2005, it was $3 billion annually; billion with a "B." That's going to go up to $4 billion in the next 25 years. An awful lot of purchasing power, and where's that money going to be spent? It's projected that we have approximately 70,000 new residential units coming on-line within this project's market area. Where are these people going to shop? Well, we believe that there is a clear demand for a new large-scale retail center like City Square. This is the right location to satisfy this tremendous retail demand, and at the same time, bring in a substantial amount of foot traffic to enliven this area. You're going to hear from Ben Fernandez. You're going to hear from the architects that we have created a retail project that is compatible with the Performing Arts Center and encourages nightlife and activity surrounding the Performing Arts Center. The property that's the subject of this application is zoned SD-6.1, which permits and encourages intensive retail use. It's important to recognize the intent of the SD-6 and the 6.1 zoning districts, and we've reprinted a couple of paragraphs from those districts. These districts are special and have -- and substantial -- they have a substantial interest because of their proximity to the CBD (Central Business District), and because of the need to provide major retail shopping and entertainment activities. That's exactly what this project does, and by providing the major retail shopping and entertainment activities, we're going to be bringing with it a substantial amount of pedesfrian activity, which satisfies this next component of the SD-6 and 6.1 district, which is to increase desirable pedestrian activity; provide a strong pedestrian orientation; encourage uses, activities, arrangements, and amenities that generate pedestrian street life, all for the purpose of enhancing the pedestrian experience. In a nutshell, what we are doing with this project is providing dining, entertainment, and shopping activities in a vertical mall. The tenants of this vertical mall are going to draw people from all over the Miami area, probably all over South Florida, in addition to not just the patrons of the Performing Arts Center. These people are going to come to this area to eat and to drink at the restaurants and the bars located at the street level, and they're going to come to shop at our stores, which may be niche market retailers like Best Buy or Barnes and Noble, or it could be department stores like Filene's, Kohl's, or Macy's. That, in turn, is going to provide the constant activity that will support the PAC and make it a success. This particular property, we think, is uniquely situated at the confluence of major transportation infrastructure, including the McArthur Causeway, State Road 836, the Metromover, which has the Omni PAC station next door, the Venetian Causeway, and Biscayne City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Boulevard. It is a particularly good site for a major retail center that must be easily accessible to be successful, and our transportation consultant, Cathy Sweetapple, is going to talk about that in a minute or two. In addition, we're in the middle of a high -density residential area, including downtown high-rises, Brickell Avenue, Miami Beach, the towers in the Omni area around Margaret Pace Park, and hopefully, at least one parcel located to the east of us. Plus, of course, we're adjacent to the Performing Arts Center. We think that the addition of this project to the area mix of high -density residential and perfor -- and the Performing Arts Center is basically going to be a catalyst. It's going to create a synergy that will turn this area, which -- let's face it. Today, it's the poster child for blight in the community redevelopment area. It's going to turn this property, this area, into a vibrant and exciting urban sfreetscape that complements the PAC. The project developer is Maefield Development. That's a company that has a proven frack record in Miami -Dade County, with an award -winning project on Miami Beach, the Strand development on Ocean Drive, as well as award -winning projects in California and other parts of the country. I have distributed to you a package of materials from their Web site, which shows their extensive track record locally and around the country, and with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ben Fernandez. Ben Fernandez: Good afternoon. I just want to expound a little bit on the zoning district and the consistency issues for this project. Unlike the first -- Chairman Gonzalez: Name. Mr. B. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: Name and address. Mr. B. Fernandez: I'm sorry. Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unlike the first project that you looked at, of course, this project is entirely consistent with the existing comprehensive plan designation and the existing zoning disfrict, which is SD-6. As Jeff said, it's uniquely situated at the confluence of many transportation corridors. The only other property that probably has that benefit is the Met area property that has Dupont and Brickell, et cetera, and we believe this is appropriate on the other side of downtown, the north side of downtown. The project is particularly consistent with two provisions of SD-6 and SD-6.1, which provide -- and you can see them before you there -- that large-scale, yet diverse architectural designs are to be encouraged as statements of regional significance and the inherent social and economic complexity of these districts, and this is a very different architectural design. We think that it provides that diversity that this area needs because what this area has presently is really a sea of high-rise development. This is going to provide a valley in what is, you know, otherwise a real mountain range of high-rises, and we think that that's going to be compatible with the Performing Arts Center, and it's also going to ensure that many of the high-rise developments around Margaret Pace Park continue to enjoy that view corridor into the CBD disfrict. The project is also consistent with another very important provision of SD-6, which provides that public walkway systems be increased commensurately with new development by the creation of plazas and public promenades within this disfrict -- public or private promenades in the district, and within the yard setback requirements and through block connections, and we are providing a through -block connection from Bayshore Drive to Herald Plaza through 14th Street. You're going to have a through connection there that will take you all the way to Parcels 1 and 3, that you considered just a little while ago. I'd like to ask Bernardo Fort -Brescia to come up now and just walk you through some of the architectural details of the project, and then we'd like to bring up some other consultants as well. Bernardo Fort -Brescia: Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo Fort -Brescia. I'm a principal with Arquitectonica -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- and -- Ms. Thompson: A little louder, please. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. I'm Bernardo Fort -Brescia. I'm a principal with Arquitectonica. There? Yeah, and I'll first like to give you some background on this project. When we first contacted to look at the site, we analyzed what is the entitlement based on the current zoning, and we realized that we could build 3,175 units of residential, or about 2.8 million square feet of construction, and yet, we then realized that a parking garage for something like this would require about a 12- to 14-story garage, and -- which would occupy the majority of the site, so we were very happy when we heard that, in fact, the developer was looking to build a horizontal building; in fact, create a valley between Biscayne Boulevard and the waterfront, and actually open up the airspace and build a retail project. The original project that you're going to see here today is -- has a height of 110 feet to the top of the roof so it will be equivalent to about a ten -story podium that would have been the equivalent of a podium to serve five 65-story residential towers. Actually, in fact, a little bit lower than that. It is -- with that, I'm going to tell you -- the construction area, the build area, the FAR (floor area ratio) area of this project is about 641,000 square feet, so that gives you some of the relative terms of what is being proposed today to you. It is -- I also prepared -- before I take you through this presentation -- some diagrams that do show you the relationship to the adjacent other low-rise building in the neighborhood, which is the Performing Arts Center, and how we were very careful to remain below the profile of the sculptural shape of the building adjacent to us, and you can see from these diagrams that that is precisely the case; that the building roughly aligns with the cornice line of the low-rise component, and that the actual fly tower and forms that create the profile actually are above the proposed building. It is a -- and with this, I'd like to take you and show you, through the site plan, what is -- how the project is organized. It's organized into two buildings that are bisected in the center by a pedestrian promenade, and this pedestrian promenade is probably the most important feature of this project, and you can see it here, where it occurs at the end of the proposed circle. In fact, our client owns the entire block. In fact -- well, the property, the parcel for which we are designing is everything that I am pointing out to you here, including that portion of the circle, the proposed circular plaza that actually cuts into our site, and our design, and our client's proposal is actually following the future profile of this curve that lines up with the entrance to the symphony hall, and will dedicate this plaza in front that would allow for this circular -- as an urban space to occur, due to the form that we're creating. The second aspect is that there is a connection that occurs to the center of the site. This is also private land today. You all know it as the entrance drive to the Miami Herald, but in fact, it's part of a property, and the City had looked to us to create a extension of 14th, and actually carry it all the way through the site, so that if some day there's development that may occur on the waterfront, this would be the terminus on a future waterfront plaza, and if the Herald were to remain, this promenade allows those who work at the Herald to be able to enter the project and cross through to the Performing Arts Center district, and create a pathway for those who work there back into the new neighborhood that is being created, so it serves the dual purpose of dealing with the number of -- the workforce that exists there, and if someday this were to change, of course, the hope of the Planning Department is that someday this would be a waterfront plaza, and that would be terminus of this promenade that comes all along 14th and all the way to the waterfront. You can see here how we have shops lining North Bayshore Drive and the Herald Plaza on the other side, and that we have a -- multiple accesses to the parking garage. You can see here the ramps, and there's access ramps from many directions into the upper and lower levels of this project, and may I point out that the upper levels is where we have the 1,800 spaces for the retail space, and you can see here -- everything that you see here at the south side is retail, and this is the parking that serves the retail through the series of bridges that cross through this promenade that I mentioned earlier, and that, in the lower levels, we have underground parking that is -- that reaches to the edges of the property and the entire perimeter of the site, and it is here where we fit about 2,500 spaces, of which about 750 are for the Miami City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Herald workforce, and the balance is intended for the Performing Arts Center use, about 1,500 of those parking spaces. It is with this -- I think I've told you enough about the general configuration of the project. I should point out that this project has very large sidewalks along North Bayshore Drive, and one of the reasons is because North Bayshore already has a 20-foot sidewalk, and we have an additional 10-foot setback, so they're 30-foot sidewalks. Plus, we are providing a covered arcade in front of the shops, so there's -- for outdoor dining under protection, so that it is -- in fact, there's very broad ave -- sidewalks that are occurring along the avenue, and needless to say, here, it becomes a very deep plaza because of the positioning of the circle, an even larger dedicated open space for the public. I think that when you look at the land -- at the organization of the site, you can see clearly here in this image what is happening here. You can see North Bayshore Drive, the cut for the future circle. You can see that the position of our circle aligns perfectly with the curvature of the entrance to the symphony hall, and actually is reflected in the project that we're going to show you later here on the block where the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) shops is located. This probably is also the best explanation of what we're trying to do with this pedestrian promenade and vehicular promenade. I mean, both -- there's access for cars and pedestrians across -- through the site, all the way across and access to Herald Plaza on the other side. I think -- with this, I'd like to tell you a little bit about the character of the project. I first pulled this image because it tells you what you feel and see as you come out of the symphony hall. Directly across the street from symphony hall, you can see here the plaza, and imagine that, here, to the left, is a symphony hall, and there's -- one of the entrances to the symphony hall faces this circular plaza, and this is the arcade I mentioned. These are the wide sidewalks. Ten feet of those sidewalks we're allowed to occupy with outdoor dining because it's within our property; it's in the setback line, and there's another ten feet beyond that for the arcade. There will be awnings protecting the customers from this side. Remember, even though the Performing Arts Center is quite a large structure in that direction, and the sun from the west side would hit this surface, and therefore, the awnings that you see there projecting, and I'll -- and I have some other images that show you, as you march down, some of the other shops that occur as you march down in the other direction towards the Omni complex today, but probably what is most important is to tell you what we have created in the streetscape. What we have done is that instead of creating a single, one giant building, we've created almost like row houses, almost like a series of buildings that are marching down the street, each one with a different facade. They conceal many of the service quarters and support spaces and parking that are part of the functions of this building in the -- at the ground floor. This whole arrangement is suspended off the ground floor, so what you can see -- we have the frontages along the street, and it gives that impression of a real cityscape of a series of street fronts and a series of buildings as they're marching down. We have a total of five stories of retail -- I should have pointed this out -- including the ground floor, of course, and you can see here, in the other direction, what we are trying to create here with retail signage that is relating to each one of these volumes. There's some more artistic, sort of mega images that are part of the aesthetic of the composition, and included and concealed within are the entrances to parking. As you can see, they're very discreet and very small, but of course, necessary. This is calculated from the parking count that we were required to look at. There are some additional images here that tell you about the rest of the project. It is -- you can see here the future boulevard shops development, the Performing Arts Center, the Miami Herald building over on the other side, and what I meant about the creation of almost like a series of buildings that are marching down the street in the entire perimeter of the site, and lastly, I should also point out that the entire loading arrangement of this building is completely concealed, right next to the access ramp and the expressway, in the most discreet location, where it's less visible, where it's less friendly of an environment for pedestrians, and in fact, is a logical place to put the retail loading and unloading. It's completely under the building. It's completely concealed and invisible inside the building. It is covered by facades, as if it were other retail shops, and I think that, with that, I think I've covered most of what I wanted to show you here. You can see some of the other images. This -- you can see the atmosphere along North Bayshore Drive with the different facades of the different stores. They're different heights, each one of them. It's not a uniform facade, even though the building itself it is a continuous five -story building, and I think City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 that should summarize what I wanted to explain to you. Thank you very much. Mr. B. Fernandez: Great. Thank you, Bernardo, and -- Kent Harrison Robbins: My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. I -- Mr. B. Fernandez: We're not finished with -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well, we would like to ask some questions of this witness, and I believe I spoke with the Attorney Fernandez before this hearing, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. He advised me that when a witness finishes, as an opponent, I have a right to ask questions, cross-examina -- examine those witnesses, so I'd like to, through the Chairman, allow me to ask those questions. I do have a number of questions because this is a large project, and there's a lot of vagueness in what's being presented to you, and we need to clarify it to understand what is actually there in this project. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, both parties have a right to cross-examine each other with regard to statements or position they make. How that happens is pretty much up to the Chair and to the Commission. I've explained that there cannot be contemporaneous cross-examination, like it would be in court; that the presenter, be an expert witness or whoever the parties put up there, must complete their presentation, and then, through the Chair, questions can be asked and answers given to those particular question, but it's not the concept of full cross-examination, where, you know, you have somebody pursuing and answering and being contemporaneous. It has to be through the Chair. A number of questions -- now how many questions and the length of time that you spend on that is also the discretion of the Chair. I would advise that you be generous in allowing the parties to sift through the evidence so that you can hear the truth, or that you can hear the best possible evidence on all matters -- Commissioner Regalado: Mr. -- Mr. Fernandez: -- so -- Commissioner Regalado: -- Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: So your suggestion is -- I'm sorry -- so what you're telling me is that we should have a full presentation and then have -- Mr. Fernandez: You -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- the questions second? Mr. Fernandez: Well, actually, you have the option of every time the applicant makes or introduces an expert, in this case, like Mr. Fort -Brescia is being introduced by them as an expert, at his -- at the conclusion of his testimony, that you would allow limited cross-examination through the Chair. You can also opt for having the applicant make their complete presentation, put on five, six, seven -- I don't know how many experts because they listed a whole lot of them. I don't know how many of them they intend to call, and then at the conclusion of the applicant's case in chief then allow cross-examination to take place. The problem with that issue is a logistic one. You know, by the time you get to the seventh -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- expert, the questions of the first one might have lost relevance. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. I'd rather do it -- City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. B. Fernandez: Mr. Chair -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- by expert -- expert by expert, so do you have questions from the gentleman? Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: -- ifI may? Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: Just want to make sure. Who are you representing here? Mr. Harrison Robbins: My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. I'm an attorney. My offices are at 1224 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida. I represent 110 Avon, LLC. That is the owner of the property on which the Bayview Market has been approved, and this project will, by traffic and other means, adversely affect our property. We are also working in alliance with residents of the Venetia, and have spoken with them and talked to them, and we're allied with them, though we do not represent that -- those individuals, but we would like to ask those questions and go forward -- Commissioner Regalado: No. I just wanted to find out who you were representing because the counsel said at the beginning that it was a competition, so this is -- if this is about money, you know, and client -- I thought that everybody wanted to have that area to be like New York, where you have a store and another store and another store, so now we don't want New York? Mr. Fernandez: Well, Mr. Chair -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: We want New York, and you know, we welcome the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Regalado: That's what I told you. I can't understand this -- any of this item, I don't understand it because, you know, I heard the neighbors, and they had, to me, logic, but now I'm -- I would like to hear what the different economic parties have to say. Mr. Fernandez: Again, at the end of the day -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Just through the Chair -- Mr. Fernandez: -- after the end of the presentation and the cross-examination, I will be giving you guidance with regard to considering only competent substantial evidence that goes to the merits of the MUSP. Any other information or evidence that you get that you may deem to be solely based on competitive advantage or economic gains, or all of that, may not be relevant to your consideration, and you may choose to disregard it. Now, if the entire hearing turns out to be something like that, then the Chair could turn to me and ask for guidance with regard to how to limit the nature of the questioning and the cross-examination, but we don't know yet because we -- it hasn't happened. Commissioner Regalado: Mr. City Attorney, I mean, it's because I am too dumb that I need a lot of information, but let me tell you something. In voting for a shopping center, you need to have all the information; marketing, traffic, environment, neighbors, I mean, weather, you know, baseball league schedule, and I'll tell you why. Because only two blocks away, there is a Omni, City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 which is empty, and an eyesore. There is -- we have here in Coral Way -- thank God that somebody bought it and is going to open it again -- the Paseos Shopping Center, who has been abandoned and empty for more than five years, so we need even marketing information. This is not about a condo. This is a decision that we are requested to take, and we really need to know a lot of information, which may not be relevant legally, but it's the only intelligent way to vote; marketing, you know, kind of stores, appeal, number of people that are going to be able to go buy, restaurants. For me, that's the information that need. I mean, you know, remember that all these subdivision is called Garden of Eden, so I mean, we should be paying good attention to this Garden of Eden area, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify that. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Bercow: Mr. -- Chairman Gonzalez: You have some questions? Mr. Bercow: -- Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yes. Mr. Bercow: Mr. Chair. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: Just through the Chair. Before Mr. Robbins begins, I'd just like him to put on the record where his client's property is located. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Oh, I was intending to do that in my main case, but I'd be more than happy to disclose it. We're located on 17th Street on Northeast 2nd Avenue, which is approximately seven blocks away from this site -- Mr. Bercow: Thank you. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- and we're right on Northeast 2ndAvenue, immediately south of the cemetery. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just out of -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- curiosity, how is he going to hurt your client? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well, we have an issue with fraffic, and we do have fraffic engineers -- in fact, the same fraffic engineers that have been hired by the Venetian people to evaluate the site. We're dealing with issues concerning gridlock, Biscayne Boulevard. We're also talking about whether or not this area is going to be successful because the success of the Performance Arts Center [sic] and the art center depends on the -- will affect my client 'cause my client is not just retail, but we do have a residential mixture with our project, and the appeal of this area and the art appeal in this area is critical in determining the success of the Performance Arts Center [sic] as well as that area. Vice Chairman Sanchez: How long has your client been there? City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Harrison Robbins: My client -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- has been developing this, and in fact, the Major Use Special Permit was approved approximately a year ago. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Did somebody ask him if his business was going to be successful? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Excuse me? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Did somebody ask him that his business -- if his business was going to be successful? Mr. Harrison Robbins: I don't know. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. He opened it because he's trying to do what everybody's frying to do, which is capitalize on economic vitality that's happening in downtown Miami. Mr. Harrison Robbins: That's correct. Everybody wants to be able to do it, but you have to do it in a socially responsible way, which will not adversely affect the adjoining neighborhood; that will enhance a neighborhood, and perhaps, create a type of environment that will induce the type of Performance Art Center [sic] and art center that we need in that area. That's the whole reason and the whole concept that this whole art center began. I don't want to go into my presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: OK, go ahead. Mr. Harrison Robbins: I'm trying to get -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- into the issues -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead and ask -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- of the facts. Chairman Gonzalez: -- your questions, please. Mr. Harrison Robbins: The first question -- Mr. Fort -Brescia, you referenced the open space and plaza. Would you agree that the open space requirements is ten percent of the gross lot area? You need a microphone? Chairman Gonzalez: You need a mike. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Somebody took it, right? Oh, here it is. Chairman Gonzalez: There you are. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: And in fact -- so under the gross lot area that you present in your facts with your plans, you would need 39,457 square feet,; is that correct? City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: In fact, what you're proposing is not to provide the open space, but to get -- you're requesting a special permit in order to allow a reduction in the amount of open space on that site. Is that correct? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: And in fact, you have made certain representations that you'll need, at the very least -- in your report, at least, that's attached to your documents submitted in your plan -- that you're going to need in excess of 4, 000 square feet to be exempted from the open space requirement; is that correct? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK. Would you show me --? So that means that you're representing that there's approximately 35,445 square feet of space, and in your plans, you specified that they're in four different locations. Would you show those locations where those sites of open space are, and specify does it include or not include sidewalks and sidewalk area, and would you demonstrate that for -- and explain where those areas are? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Everything that you see here all the way around, and the plaza, and so forth, and the balance is -- as permitted by the MUSP, we -- our developer is contributing to the tree fund, as -- what is done in many of these projects in the urban locations. Mr. Harrison Robbins: I want to just -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) usual. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- understand -- OK. Mr. Fernandez: Excuse me. No -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: It was reviewed by the Planning Department thoroughly, and we've been through all areas that are included and not included, and we've gone through the speculations very thoroughly with them, and this is how we reached the conclusions. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Could you show me or do you have any diagrams of record that will show specifically what areas have been designated as open space, so we have something to work from? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: I haven't seen anything in your application which designates what particular areas are deemed open space. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, you have to identify yourself. Mr. Harrison Robbins: I'm asking him the question. He's being the one cross-examined, Sherry. I understand -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, I'm going to ask the project manager, who's familiar with the details, to answer the question. This is Sherry Gutierrez. Sherry Gutierrez: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Sherry Gutierrez. I work with City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Arquitectonica, 801 Brickell Avenue. Myself personally met with Manny Vega at the Zoning Department, and as part of our MUSP application, we -- he and I sat down and identified all the areas, which I'll point out to you right now, for the green space, which (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: Was this ever put in writing what (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the areas, which is open space and which is not? Ms. Gutierrez: Yeah, I -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: Do you have a copy of that with you that you can give to us so we can submit it into the record and look at it? Ms. Gutierrez: And as I'll describe and I'll show you, it's this area here, the area between the property line and our promenade. All of this green space here, which is part of our property, but as respect of this design, we brought our building in; the area that continues here on our promenade, and the area that continues here, as well as this street through the center, and I'll show you -- ifI may just show Mr. Robbins right here. This is the approved MUSP, and it tells you all the areas that's required for urban plaza and for open space. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Right, and these are the specs, but what I'm asking for -- because you have specifically a number of 9,961 square feet on Bayshore Drive, I'd -- Ms. Gutierrez: This is urban -- this is the urban plaza requirements. This is the open space. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yeah, and you also say -- right here, on Bayshore Drive, 9,961 square feet. Ms. Gutierrez: Correct. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Where is that 9, 961 ? Could you define the limits of that? Because the City's entitled to $50 where you come short, but also, the City is -- has the right to reject this because whether or not it has that there. Mr. Fernandez: And Mr. Chairman, the questioner -- I think it's going beyond -- no statements, no arguments; simple questions. You get an answer. You don't like the answer, the Commission should be able to judge that you have not been given the appropriate answer, and then continue. The client loses credibility if they don't answer questions -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- succinctly. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Thank you. Ms. Gutierrez: I think we've identified that the open space along Bayshore is contained within our property line, within the setback that we've provided from Bayshore, within this plaza area, that, again, is inset of our property, and it continues all along Bayshore, as described and identified in our data. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK, so when you say it runs along it, are you saying that it's -- includes from the sidewalk to your property, or --? Ms. Gutierrez: This is our property line right here. Mr. Harrison Robbins: So that's from your Swale area, the sidewalk, and the area underneath City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 the arcade. Is that what you're defining as your open space? Ms. Gutierrez: It doesn't include the area under the arcade. It's the open space area from the property line to the face of the structure with this plaza. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this can best be addressed by staff who has done a full analysis of all the open space and the formulas and the application, rather than to engage in cross-examination that leads from one question to another. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: If the questioner has -- the global question is, is there the proper allocation of open space? Mr. Harrison Robbins: No. I think it's necessary to see specifically what's deemed open space and not because there's a waiver that has to make a decision here. Commissioner Haskins: I think we can hear that from staff. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Right -- Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Haskins: OK. I mean -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- but that's fine. Commissioner Haskins: -- it would just be nice to hear that. I would like to hear it from staff because we're going to have the arguments on both side. Can -- so can staff address their analysis of the green space area? Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Administrator): The plans were reviewed today by the Zoning staff member Manny Vega. The open space requirement is a -- ten percent of the gross lot area, and it has to be open to the sky. If you all remember, you approved a text amendment not long ago that allows for a modification, or waiver, of those open space standards for payment into the Open Space Trust Fund, and they can get up to a hundred percent. What'll happen is, whatever final number comes in for building permit is what they're going to have to pay into the trust fund for, but they can request a waiver. It's permissible within the Code, and the plans before you today, as reviewed by Zoning, determined what areas were open to the sky to count as open space and urban plaza requirements, and they meet the Code. What's before you today is proper. Commissioner Haskins: So they meet the green space requirement with this design? Ms. Slazyk: With the waiver, with the waiver for a cer -- Commissioner Haskins: With the waiver, and -- Ms. Slazyk: With the waiver, and they'll -- Commissioner Haskins: -- how much green -- what's the percentage of green space? How much (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --? Ms. Slazyk: It's ten percent of the gross lot area -- City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Haskins: And -- Ms. Slazyk: -- and the architect has already said how much of that they're asking to be -- Commissioner Haskins: And what percentage of -- Ms. Slazyk: -- waived. Commissioner Haskins: -- that -- and what percentage did they meet, five percent, seven percent? Ms. Gutierrez: The required area is 39,458 square feet. We've provided 35,445, so it's -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. That's all -- Ms. Slazyk: And they'll pay $50 a square foot for every square foot they're short -- Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- into the Open Space Trust Fund that the City will use to acquire lands for future parks. Commissioner Haskins: And that was validated by staff? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: And that should be what the Commission needs to know with regard to this line of questioning. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Next question. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel. Chairman Gonzalez: Hello. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yes. Well, the question I have now is does the atrium -- is the area under the afrium part of what's deemed open space under this application, the 110 foot -high afrium between the elevators and the parking area? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Because, as we explained it, it is a perforated mesh enclosure. It's a sunscreen, but it is not an enclosed space. It's like a -- Ms. Gutierrez: It's not air-conditioned. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- canvas awning would be projecting from a building into the open space. Ms. Gutierrez: Non -air-conditioned. Mr. Fort -Brescia: It is a -- it's not a glass enclosure. Mr. Harrison Robbins: So that's -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: It's not an enclosed space. Mr. Harrison Robbins: --110 foot -high atrium is what you deem as part of the -- I just want to City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 make certain I understand it. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, maybe, in architectural terms, I should explain to you. That's not what you call an atrium. It is a -- it's a covered walkway, but it's completely open. It's not air-conditioned. It's not interior, and it is pervious. It is -- it's like what you -- what we are proposing here is simply that. It is protected -- a shade protected space. Mr. Harrison Robbins: And what -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: It's a hot place. Mr. Harrison Robbins: See, what I'm looking at this thing, it says 12,260 square feet. How do you calculate that when the length of that is, in fact, 390 feet -- 4 feet long, and 100 feet wide? That would come out to 39,000 square feet. What part of that is deemed part of the square? Why would you define only 12,000 of that as part of the square space? Ms. Gutierrez: IfI may again, one more time. The area that counts is the sidewalk pedestrian area that's on either side of the street, not the street itself and the reason why it's counted as open space is because it's non -air-conditioned, and it's not enclosed on three sides, similar to One Biscayne, where there's that huge glass atrium; all that deck beneath it counts as open space. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wachovia. Ms. Gutierrez: Wachovia, I'm sorry, 200 South -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. Maybe if you examine the drawings, you'll see that there's a curb line, and there's a paving pattern that crosses across, but there's a driveway going through. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Is that a -- that going to be an active driveway, or is that going to be closed up during the course of this? Mr. Fort -Brescia: No. It's an active driveway. It just slows down the traffic because of the paving pattern and unifies, visually, the two sides. This happens in many places. Mr. Harrison Robbins: So you're going to have traffic going down Bayshore and through this area that you deemed the urban plaza area? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, it is no different than other properties. Absolutely. There is -- the urban plaza that we've calculated is on either side. There are two urban plazas; one here and one here. We did not calculate the portion where the cars drive through. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK, so it's my understanding that the urban plaza is just to the north of the 14th Street,• just to the south is another urban plaza -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- the second urban plaza, on either side of 14th Street on the west side, and then where's the -- there's other urban plazas. Where are the other two urban plazas that you identified? Mr. Fort -Brescia: I think we already do this, but we're welcomed to do it again. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Specifically urban plaza. I'm not talking about open space. City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Gutierrez: The area contained along 14th Street, some of them do double duty, and this area where we discussed with Manny Vega, that faces 15th, where we have the opportunity to create a green space. Mr. Harrison Robbins: So that's the area -- the northeast corner of the property there is your -- considered your urban plaza here. Ms. Gutierrez: Correct. That's part of the calculation. Mr. Fort -Brescia: That is one of the urban plazas, and that is facing diagonally towards the Plaza Venetia. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK, so you have one urban plaza here; you have one here, and then right across the street, you have your third one -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK. I just want to make certain -- Mr. Bercow: Mr. Chair -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- I understand that. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Well, we explained -- Mr. Bercow: -- Mr. Chair. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- that several times. Mr. Fernandez: The scope of questioning has gone beyond that which I think any court would find reasonable. You have heard testimony from staff that fully addresses your concerns for purposes of competent substantial evidence for you to -- Chairman Gonzalez: For open space. Mr. Fernandez: -- vote on this. Instruct the questioner to please move on to the next question, and questions should be single and addressed with an answer, not question leading to question on the basis of the answer. That is a kind of contemporaneous cross-examination that you're not obligated to follow. He's entitled to get questions answered, not engage anyone in that type of -- what he has been doing for the last 20 minutes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: The plaza that you reference and you talk about that big star in the center, that is going to be a center area of traffic, isn't it, of actual automobile traffic, not pedesfrian traffic; isn't that correct? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK. Mr. Fort -Brescia: There's pedestrians in the perimeter, and there's a widened space all the way around. That's right. Mr. Harrison Robbins: So it's not truly a plaza because that's not a pedesfrian plaza. That's a City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 traffic plaza. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Maybe I should cross-examine you. What do you call a plaza? What is the minimum dimension that, in your vocabulary, calls a plaza? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: I'd like to know that because many of those in Italy wouldn't qualify, I gather. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: I don't understand the question, please. What do you mean "what is a plaza and what is not"? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well, under the urban guidelines, which I'm sure the plaza guidelines, which we're going to put into the record, it specifically defines only that area that's within the net lot area as being part of a plaza. Mr. Fort -Brescia: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) exactly that's the answer we gave you already, so you may come again and I'll point out it is within the net lot area. I'm making reference of an urban space that is a public urban space beyond our property line, and I'm making reference to the context when I talk about the circular plaza. Mr. Bercow: It's a private road. Fourteenth is a private road. Mr. Fort -Brescia: We are not required to do -- Mr. Bercow: It's a part of the net. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- the circle or that dimension or that form at all. We chose to do it in support of the urban design purpose that the City has established with the Performing Arts Center. Mr. Harrison Robbins: And are they 20 feet wide? Mr. Fort -Brescia: More than that. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Every single one? The one that goes along 14th Sfreet? Mr. Fort -Brescia: No. The urban plaza here is much more so -- this is -- are you talking about the plaza or urban --? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well, you -- I'm trying -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: You need to get specific here because 14th Street is both the plaza and the open space, so I don't know what you're referring to. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Well -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: We have plazas that are more than 20 feet, yes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- to the extent that it's deemed urban plaza, you said it was on either side of the road, and I'm asking you, on the north side of the road of 14th Sfreet, on the south side of the road, are either of those strips 20 feet wide? City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Both of them. Mr. Fernandez: -- let me ask you a question. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Is this Commission interested in this line of questioning? Do you need -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- further -- Chairman Gonzalez: Not really. Mr. Fernandez: -- explanation? If not, please instruct -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Counsel -- Mr. Fernandez: -- the questioner to move to the next line of questioning. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Would you please do that, move to the next --? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Just so you understand why that is relevant. I'm referencing -- and I will reference my experts, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) reference the guidelines, design guidelines. Chairman Gonzalez: It might be relevant, but you know, the way you're going, we're going to find the relevancy of your question by 1 a.m. this morning. Mr. Harrison Robbins: We will show that with our experts, and I understand your -- Mr. Fernandez: You will have an opportunity to put on your experts. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yes. We will put on a record what -- and that's why we're trying to clarify these issues because it isn't -- if there's an actual map here with an actually shaded in area, then there wouldn't be any questions here, and I wouldn't be asking these questions, but it's very nebulous, and in fact, you have to grant a special permit in order to grant them the special - Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, we know. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- exception or the special reduction from the 39,000, so I'm entitled to know that, as well as I'm entitled to know what is deemed urban plaza because they acknowledge they're trying to get two bites of the apple. Chairman Gonzalez: What kind of urban plaza does your client has in their project, in their building? Do they have any open space? Mr. Harrison Robbins: We have a quite different building. Our building is a residential building -- Chairman Gonzalez: Oh. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- with a different -- in a different zone, not next to the Performing Arts Center. City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: I know it's a different zone. Mr. Harrison Robbins: A substand -- we're next to a cemetery, not against the Performance Art Center [sic] -- Chairman Gonzalez: Next to a cemetery. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- where quiescence is appropriate. Where here we're talking about activity and opening the space, a totally different concept. Ms. Gutierrez: Can I just add --? We're -- you are losing site of one important thing. Fourteenth Street is not a street on this property. Our property ends here. What the developer has done, chosen to create a pedestrian thoroughfare through the project. This is his property. It's his private property; it's a street that does not exist. The Herald uses it, but the property line is here. It's not two parcels. This is all one parcel, so when you refer to it as a street or a road, it's a private road, something that's been created. It's not a public street. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Harrison Robbins: But it's a platted public street, but you have to close that off. Mr. Bercow: It is not a platted -- Ms. Gutierrez: No, it's not. Mr. Bercow: -- public street. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think your question has been answered, Counsel. Mr. Bercow: I think you need to look -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Move on to the next one. Mr. Bercow: -- at your facts - your legal facts. Mr. Harrison Robbins: I have no further -- Mr. Bercow: This is a private property. This is not a -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: One final question. What are the hours of operation going to be of the atrium area or the open space courtyard? Mr. Fernandez: Was that the something that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) testified to? Mr. Harrison Robbins: The public -- private road. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't think that's relevant, is it? Mr. Fort -Brescia: I don't think the architect has the control -- Mr. Bercow: Those haven't been determined. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- of that. That's -- City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Harrison Robbins: Is that going to be open --? Mr. Fort -Brescia: That is not a question for the architect. You can ask the -- Mr. Fernandez: That's right. Mr. Fort -Brescia: -- owner. Mr. Harrison Robbins: OK. Well, thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't need to know how many gallons of water does it take to flush a toilet either. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: That was good. That was a good one. Mr. Fernandez: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Next -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Bercow -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- expert. Mr. Fernandez: -- you're next. Chairman Gonzalez: Next expert. Mr. B. Fernandez: We'd like to bring up Cathy Sweetapple to talk to you a little bit about traffic issues. Cathy Sweetapple: Thank you, Ben. Cathy Sweetapple, fransportation consultant for City Square Residential and Retail, 101 North Gordon Road, Fort Lauderdale. Just want to take a few minutes to walk you through the global fransportation issues for the site. Number one, again, you've heard this earlier, we are within the downtown DRI (Development of Regional Impact). This property gets its entitlements from the Increment II of the downtown DRL We are well -situated, adjacent to regional access and regional roadway access, transit access, which is especially important for this site; adjacent to the Omni Metromover station, which, as Miami -Dade continues to enhance and develop its Metromover system, will interconnect the western part of Dade County with downtown, and with the future Miami Streetcar and the future work on the FEC (Florida East Coast). We continue to move forward all of the plans and programs for transit infrastructure. This site has excellent access to I-395 through Bayshore Drive, and that is absolutely an asset for this project. We are located in an area that is well -served by local and regional roadways. I want to just mention that the traffic study for this site has been performed in a comprehensive manner. We have incorporated the existing traffic, which again, includes the traffic from the Herald office building that's there today. We have maintained that traffic in the analysis. We have then added on future growth and background traffic. We have added committed development traffic equal to 4,200 dwelling units of future committed traffic. We have then, on top of that, added in the traffic for the City Square Parcels 1 and 3 that you heard earlier today, and we have added in the traffic from both this project, the retail component, and the residential component, so you have a study that has been developed comprehensively with all of these pieces in place so that there is no question whatsoever that the City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 level of service standards are met, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan; that the City and their consultants have reviewed this traffic study. There was extensive data collection. There was extensive analysis at each and every one of the adjacent intersections. We looked at 12 study intersections for this site to ensure that the surrounding area would be able to accommodate this type of project. We followed the person trip methodology, which in and of itself, is a very unique approach, which combines the roadway capacity with the transit capacity of a study area; puts them together, and then looks at whether or not the future volume exceeds or does not exceed the capacity, but to make sure that we are not missing something, the intersection analyses are what bring you back down to reality, which then make sure that the roadways and the intersections can accommodate the traffic. Now -- great, thank you. I just want to make sure this is on because I just want to walk you through, very, very quickly, the concept that we're talking about. Again, here is the City Square east parcel. Here are the locations of the two residential parcels you heard this morning, or earlier today, plus the Herald office building and the Herald printing facility, so all of the traffic that's on the road today has been -- is part of this analysis, and again, we've got -- this is what we're looking at today. We've got the Herald parking lot, with a small parking structure, and then we have the west parcel for the future residential, and so, as you can see, we are -- all of the traffic that is generated by the existing employees, again, has been accounted for in the roadway network, as well as the trucking activity for the printing facility, and the project has been designed to ensure that access to and from the east parcel and the west parcel works. This -- it makes no sense for us to move this project forward if we can't get in and out of the site, so one of the things that we've all been talking about is how do you get in and out, and we have two primary access points that serve the retail parcel, what we call the west access and the east access. As you know, Herald Plaza dead -ends at 395 on the south, so it's very important that 14th Street remain open for public -- as a roadway. It functions today as a roadway, even though this portion of 14th is not dedicated to the public. The applicant has maintained a two-way roadway through this access point, which is critically important for this site. There is no question, and so the traffic leaving and departing the retail site can use 14th Street and the traffic signal which currently exists to either travel west or to travel south to jump on I-395, and as you know, the ramps come off 395, take you right up Bayshore and right into the retail parcel. Again, you've heard that the other part of this design includes a full layer of parking for the existing employees for the Herald office building. It also includes a full level of parking for the Performing Arts Center, and these two components have their own separate entrances and exits into the parking. The Herald employees will use this access point that takes you down into their parking level, and the Performing Arts Center, which is here, will have this access point, that takes you down into a level for that facility. The retail component will use parking on the north side of the site. The Omni Metromover station sits adjacent to the site immediately on the north, just north of the MDT (Miami -Dade Transit) transit facility, and again, you can see here the Metromover line runs right adjacent to the site. The reason the downtown DRI works for this area is because the infrastructure is in place for the transit access, critically important for the employees that will work at the site, for the shoppers, for the folks in the area that will live and walk to the site, so I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Next expert or -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) rebuttal. Mr. Bercow: I think we would just like to wrap up our presentation. I'm going to ask the project developer, Mark Siffin, to speak a little bit about -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: We'd like to ask one question, or two questions, to the traffic engineer. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Hr. Harrison Robbins: You -- my name is Kent Harrison Robbins, for the record. You prepared a traffic study, and you submitted that into -- with the application; is that correct? Hs. Sweetapple: That is correct. Hr. Harrison Robbins: And that includes your methodology? Hs. Sweetapple: What are you asking me? Hr. Harrison Robbins: I'm just asking did you incorporate and explain the methodology you used -- Hs. Sweetapple: Yes, we did. Hr. Harrison Robbins: -- in order to come to the conclusion in the traffic study -- Hs. Sweetapple: Yes, we did. Hr. Harrison Robbins: -- in your actual written report? Hs. Sweetapple: We did. Hr. Harrison Robbins: And that's for the Commission to be able to review. Hs. Sweetapple: Yes. Hr. Harrison Robbins: Now you're familiar with the private road that bisects the property on 14th Street; is that correct? Hs. Sweetapple: Yes, I am. Hr. Harrison Robbins: OK. Is that a -- explain to me is that a functional road or a traffic road, or is that going to be a private walkway, or what's the function --? Hs. Sweetapple: No. That is a functional road. It exists today as a functional road. It will exist in the future as a functional road. Hr. Harrison Robbins: Will it remain open to the public, according to your analysis of the traffic circulation, at night, or will it be closed at night -- Hs. Sweetapple: No, it's not. Hr. Harrison Robbins: -- to prevent crime from going in? Hs. Sweetapple: No, it is not going to be closed at night. Hr. Harrison Robbins: So it'll be open 24 hours a day. Hs. Sweetapple: Yes. The only time the applicant has ever discussed closure is, perhaps, on a weekend, where they could add bollards to add sort of a plaza area, where there could be some sort of outdoor festival, or marketplace of whatever that would be -- would -- could occur in this nice brick pavered area, but during the nighttime, during the morning, during the workday, during the peak hours. It is intended to be open to traffic. Absolutely. Hr. Harrison Robbins: And at -- City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: But -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- 2 o'clock in the morning, will it also be kept in -- just -- you're talking about 24 -- Ms. Sweetapple: It's going to be open to traffic -- Mr. Bercow: It's still private. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Thank you. Ms. Sweetapple: -- as a street. Chairman Gonzalez: I think -- Mr. Bercow: It's still private. Chairman Gonzalez: -- she answered the question. It's going to be open. Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Cathy, and now I'd just like to ask the project developer, Mark Siffin, to just say a few words to the Commission, and we'll close our case. Mark Siffin: Thank you very much. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Mark Siffin. I live at 527 East Dilido Drive, and I'm not an expert on anything, and I've been listening carefully and taking notes while you've been speaking, and listening to people speak to you, and I thought a number of the things you said rang very true. When I first came to Miami, those were some of the same things that I saw. I came to Miami because a bank brought me here, and they brought me here to take over a block of Ocean Drive on Miami Beach that was in very much disrepair, and I showed it to my wife. She thought I was out of my mind. She thought living here was something that she preferred to stay in Los Angeles, and I thought Miami was one of the most incredible opportunities I'd ever seen in my life. I completely hear you about the concern for the future. When I started to work on that project on Ocean Drive, and then I worked on another project, which I'm presently constructing in Miami Beach, I was lucky enough to hear and read about the Miami Herald project, and when Mr. Pedro Martin was lucky enough to acquire the opportunity to buy that property, I went to him and asked him ifI could work with him on the project because I thought it was so exciting, with all the residential development that, in your wisdom, you saw to approve, and that people were brave enough to risk the dollars to actually go out there and try and deliver. It seemed to me the thing that was lacking was the supporting conveniences that then would make it all work, and the key to the supporting conveniences is the fact that, as Commissioner Spence -Jones pointed out, and as you pointed out, and as, I'm sure, you care because it's your district, and I'm sure you care, too, Commissioner, is that over as many jobs as the four top manufacturing concerns in Miami -Dade County are created by this project. American Airlines has 9, 000 jobs. That's how many they have. They're the largest employer in Miami -Dade County. This project creates a third as many jobs, and they're entry-level jobs because my grandmother, who came here from Hungary, and my grandfather, who came here from Ireland, had first and second grade educations. My father, a much smarter man than me, put himself through Harvard with a double PhD (Doctor of Philosphy), but the stepping stone of the entry to the middle class was provided by jobs that my grandparents could actually assume to then make it possible for my father, to then make it possible for me, and the way in which I speak is reflective of the education I got growing up around my dad. Two and a half billion dollars worth of new salaries will come to the City ofMiami over the next 20 years, and you correctly stated I wouldn't give a cent to a project that sought to take from those that don't have and give it to those that do, but this project is an engine of prosperity for those that don't have because, as myself I don't have a college education, but yet, I could get a job working City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 there in a meaningful employment at a creditworthy tenant that will actually deliver sustainable jobs, three thousand some jobs, a third of what American Airlines delivers, over 60 percent of what BellSouth, the second-largest employer in all ofMiami-Dade, delivers; more than the combination of the four manufacturing -- top manufacturing employers combined in all of Miami -Dade. At this place, real people can work and live and become part of our society, not get forced out, but be integrated in, and that's the way capitalist democracies work, so I respect your opinions, and you decide what should be done and what shouldn't be done. I just thought this might be a nice complement to the City and to the area as a whole. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Mr. Bercow: I just want to reserve time for rebuttal. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, I hardly ever do that, but -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: Opposition. Yes, sir. You're recognized. Mr. Harrison Robbins: My name is Kent Harrison Robbins. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ken [sic], you're going to rebuttal that? Mr. Harrison Robbins: No, I'm not. I'm presenting my case, and then we'll go forward from there, and I represent 110 Avon, LLC. I've already described the property they own, and we're going to go forward on explaining why we feel the way we do and why we oppose significant aspects of this project. I want to let you know that my clients do not oppose parking for the Performance Arts Center [sic]. They don't oppose the ability for people to put street level retail, but what we have here is contrary to the zoning of the City ofMiami. What's being represented to you is the principal use is retail is, in fact, the principal use is, in fact, a garage, and in fact, a garage is limited in FAR to 1.72 FAR, plus ten -- plus up to one foot for every foot of retail on the ground level, and that's what's permitted on this site. The garage is the primary use, and therefore, it's limited to that FAR. In fact, the FAR of this building is substantially greater than that amount. Because if you add the parking, which should be counting towards FAR, and the retail, which is not the principal use, you get 1.8 million square feet, when only about 700,000 or 750,000 square feet is actually allowed if you deem this a parking garage, and we will have evidence -- our experts, excuse me, who will testify that, in fact, the principal use of this is a parking garage and should be limited to that FAR. We will also have an expert who will talk about open space requirements and plaza requirements, how these particular open spaces do not meet the requirements -- and plazas do not meet the requirements of the design guidelines and open space guidelines incorporated into the ordinance, and they're going to go into details about that, and how that impacts -- and how important it is to have open space next to the Performing Arts Center, and then we're going to have both a architect, experienced architect, as well as an experienced planner, who represents many municipalities, is going to testify on these issues. They're also going to have a traffic engineer who's going to show how gridlock is inevitable, based on the approved projects in place and this project, and how that's going to reduce the intersections to "F" grade and fail under concurrency. Finally, we're going to briefly address the signs. We understand the signs are not part of this application, but they've been included in the actual drawings being presented to this Commission, and we ask you, if the signs aren't City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 going to be there, what's going to be there, and that is not shown, and so there's these big, blank walls that'll be there if the signs are somehow miraculously approved by some means, which is not consistent with the Zoning Code as it is right now, so that's basically where we're going to go on this thing. The first person who's going to testify is Henry Iler. He's a planner, and he will tell you a little bit about himself. Henry Iler: Good evening. My name is Henry Iler. I'm president and principal of Iler Planning Group. Our offices are at 11000 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 206, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. I'm an urban planner for a number of years. I have a company. We have clients in the area. We do comprehensive plans for local governments. We do zoning code writing. We do economic development plans, CRA plans for cities, such as Deerfield Beach, Dania Beach, Homestead, Florida City, Medley, Marco Island, just to give you some impression. I've been in the field about 25 years. I have a master's in planning from Florida State. I just -- I have just a couple points, really, that are fairly simple. As Mr. Robbins said, this is really not a retail project. It is a parking garage, if you go by the amount of use that's on the site. There's approximately a million to 1.2 million square feet of actual parking area. There are over 4,000 parking spaces; 57 percent of those parking spaces are being used by users off the site, the Herald and the PAC, so only 43 percent of the spaces are actually used for the retail space that's here, so as you can see, the parking garage is the predominant use, and the retail is actually an ancillary use, and under the Code, if this is designated as a parking garage, the FAR of 1.72 should include the parking garage, and the ancillary use is limited to either 10 or 20 percent of the parking garage area, but it must be included in the FAR. They also need a special permit, which they have not requested this evening, at least, a special permit II for a parking garage, so we really just wanted to point out to you that while this is being represented as a retail project, its primary use is parking, and the primary part of the parking is for people that are not even using this site, and we all know the public benefit of offering parking for the arts center, and we don't dispute that, but it is a reality. I want to talk just a little bit about the open space; ten percent is required of the gross floor area. That equals about 40,000 square feet, rounding off of area. The site plan indicates about 36,000 square feet, if you round, so there's about 4,000 square feet of a deficiency, and it's really unclear, as all this questioning we had before -- it's a little unclear to us how the open space would calculate it on the actual plans. The drawings are not real specific. They have a lot of colors that you don't -- not quite sure where the right-of-way is for the roads. You cannot count sidewalks or rights -of -way towards open space, and we just don't know whether those were counted in some situations or not, butt guess, from a larger planning point of view, I guess I would ask why, in an area where we're frying to have pedestrian -oriented activities -- we want street life in this area -- are we not getting the right amount of open space? It would seem that open space would be something that should be maximized on this site. It should be even more than is required. You want to have people out on the street. You want to have plazas, and it seems that the open space part of this is not being kept up. The -- you don't have to approve the variance for the open space. It's not actually a variance; it's a deficiency, but if it's inconsistent with local plans, such as the CRA plan -- we've not had an opportunity to review that plan, but there are reasons not to necessarily just let this deficiency in open space go by. It's very important to this area, as some of the other witnesses will show to you in just a few minutes. On the urban plaza -- now the urban plaza can also be counted towards open space if it meets certain criteria, and five percent of the site has to be an urban plaza area; that would be approximately 20,000 square feet, rounding up, and they show almost about 29,000 square feet on their plan, but once again, we do not know how they have counted the public rights -of -way in some of these cases. The open space areas and the plaza areas need to be at least 20 foot wide --20 feet wide. That's not the sidewalk; that's the area between the sidewalk and the building face, and it doesn't appear, from the way they represented the drawings, that the -- really that 20 foot width is there, but once again, it's unclear. Each plaza must have at least one activity -generating feature. That can be a fountain. That can be a retail space that opens up onto the plaza, something that generates a little activity, not just a blank wall, not just a free, those kinds of things. It has to have one generating feature. There are four plaza areas, and it's not clear and wasn't shown how these features are being shown in City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 the area, and then the plazas must be at least 300 feet apart. Well, we already know that plazas one and two, on Bayshore Drive, are not. They're right next to each other. They're not 300 feet apart. You also cannot have more than 25 percent of the linear frontage on a road on either side of this project, no more than 25 percent of that area can be counted as a plaza. It looks like the area on 15th Street may not meet that criteria. It seems to be over 25 percent of that actual frontage along 15th Street, so those are just some of the things on the urban plaza, and then we ask, once again, on the plaza areas, if you're not providing the right amount of plaza area or the right dimensions of plaza areas -- this is the Performing Arts Center. There's a tremendous investment sitting just across the street, and you would think that the plaza areas would be -- would more than meet the criteria. They do show a lot of area, but it's not clear whether that area meets the urban plaza criteria, and I'll just touch on signage quickly. Just so you know -- and I know it's not something you're going to be talking about tonight, but we calculated -- and once again, the plans are hard to dimension. You have to kind of do a little bit of rough dimensioning on the plans because they're not easy to read, but approximately about 30,000 square feet of LED (Light Emitting Diode) -type areas -- these are the moving signs, large panels, very tall -- Mr. Bercow: I've got to object to this part of the testimony. This -- I -- as I've said before, the signage is not part of this application. Chairman Gonzalez: That is correct. That was stated -- Mr. Bercow: Just want to object for the record. Mr. Fernandez: Sure -- Chairman Gonzalez: That was stated when -- Mr. Fernandez: -- and you know, the Commission is -- will be advised as to what is relevant, competent substantial evidence. Mr. Iler: All right. I just have a couple minor points here, but the -- that's 31,000 square feet of signage on this building, which is an enormous amount of signage. Chairman Gonzalez: But you understand that we're not discussing signage today, right? Mr. Iler: Right, right. I under -- Chairman Gonzalez: So -- Mr. Iler: -- but just a rough estimate, that's almost probably, according to the Code -- if you make some assumptions about the number of shops at the street level, about 20 shops at the street level -- that's almost 3, 000 percent above what the Code would allow, so just some of the ideas -- and they are shown on the plan, so I think what Mr. Robbins said is, well, if they aren't going to have the signs here tonight, what is -- what are going to be in those areas, and are you going to have to approve 31 -- 30,000 square feet of signage in the future, based on the fact that they were shown on the plans that you're approving tonight? So just some of the points, and I'll let that be the end, unless there's cross-examination questions. Mr. Bercow: Yes. I have just one question for Henry. Henry, are you aware of the fact that, in the City ofMiami, a parking garage does not count as floor area? Mr. Iler: Well, in reviewing the Code, if you designate a parcel for a parking garage, it does say that it's counted as floor area. City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: But this is not designated for a parking garage. This is accessory retail. Is it -- Iler: It is accessory -- Bercow: -- your position, Henry, that because the parking garage is larger than the retail, that that makes the parking garage the principal use and the retail is accessory? Mr. Iler: Yes. I feel that since it's almost twice the amount of space as the retail, that that would make it a principal use, and the retail is actually less -- Mr. Bercow: And -- Mr. Iler: -- than 50 percent of the site. Mr. Bercow: -- can you tell me what the relevant percentages are of your client's project? How much is retail and how much is parking? Mr. Iler: On the -- Mr. Bercow: On Bayview Markets. Mr. Iler: No. I don't know. Mr. Bercow: Would it surprise you to know that, in fact, the parking for Bayview Markets, the floor area, exceeds the amount of retail space? Did you know that? Mr. Iler: I wouldn't be -- it wouldn't really affect me either way. Mr. Bercow: But -- so it's OK for Bayview Markets, but it's not OK for City Square Retail? Is that what you're saying? Mr. Iler: I don't know any -- I know nothing about -- Mr. Bercow: OK. Mr. Iler: -- the Bay -- the Bayview -- Mr. Bercow: Thank you. Mr. Iler: -- Market case. Mr. Bercow: Thank you. Mr. Iler: I'm talking about this one. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Let me establish a rule here. The applicant expert witnesses didn't took more than five minutes each, so I'm going to set five minutes for each one of your experts because -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: That's fine. We will -- we'll abide by that five-minute limitation. Chairman Gonzalez: I hope that, you know, five minutes be enough for you to -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: The next -- City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: -- present your point. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- expert is Architect Deborah Desilets, who's an architect in the state of Florida. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We need your name and address for the record. Deborah Desilets: Hi. My name is Deborah Desilets. I'm an architect. My office is located at 100 21st Street, Suite A, Miami Beach, Florida. I've been practicing in architecture since 1993 as an architect; before that, as an intern architect. I brought to the Park West district about 45,000 square feet of nightclub space, and I've enjoyed and loved that area quite a bit. It's a pleasure to work with the City ofMiami. I'd like to just say that even in your own staff report, you say that the ground floor retail area and streetscaping project, as proposed, it's a super -block that doesn't respond to human qualities, and I think that we really can see that in this 100 foot tall transportation spine that you have at the center that's masquerading as a plaza. A fully -- they also say -- your people on your staff -- that the sfreet should be -- the street that they're saying is a plaza, but maybe is not a plaza, or maybe an open space; some question mark -- that that sfreet should be fully opened -- they don't call it a plaza -- to typical vehicular traffic and developed at the street level with a high percentage of usage that promote pedestrian activity. I think, as it exists now, it doesn't meet the criteria as a plaza, as it has a car going through it. I don't know if that's true or not, but there's not much places for congregation, and I don't think there's 20 feet on either side of it that make it a plaza. The -- also talking about the streetscape and the lack of signage. Therefore, signage --120- or 100 foot walls, however blank they may be, supersize me. That's what I want to say about this building. Everything seems to be at a gross scale, and your staff says the same thing. The architectural treatment continues to bear a little relationship to human scale. It presents a super -block of 100 foot tall blank walls along all sides of two critical blocks within our -- I might say 'precious" -- $480 million Performing Arts Center. I think that we haven't traveled this far in the history ofMiami to have a box be our statement of something that can be copasetic -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Yeah. Ms. Desilets: -- with the Performing Arts Center, so I'm quoting from their report. I'd like to say that I agree with my colleague that this garage is -- that this building that they call retail is masquerading as a parking garage with over 50 percent of the area sustaining off -site parking. The reason the question about public space is so important is that they should pay you if they're not giving it to you. You deserve to have public spaces elsewhere. Get your money and let the children play somewhere. This is horrible that in a -- that some sort of architectural algebra can make it that we don't have a humane existence for the people of this city, particularly so close to a performing arts center, where gaiety and the conviviality of life should be celebrated. We continue to separate. We continue to divide. We don't find places where we can come together. It's a very abysmal statement on the way that we choose to design and build our cities, gentlemen. We leave silent testaments in our architecture to the way we treat and feel about people. I think we have a particular responsibility at this location, being a Mecca of the arts and being something that will be flaunted throughout wherever it goes that this is what we represent in Miami. I think we owe it a little bit more. I'd like to say the box is banal. I think the box is hurting the City. I think it's hurting in a spot that it doesn't need to be. I'd like to also mention that, in my humble opinion, TV (television) is not art, neither is just art on walls art, and I think that your staff has also said that the scale of these large art pieces and the scale of these LED screens make it very, very unattractive at the pedestrian level. I'd like to say that, in closing, we do have failures concerning mega -block structures for retail; one is the Omni, as the other gentleman mentioned; the one is on Coral Way. The Mayfair struggled for many, many years. I think, with the kind of density we have here, mega stores are not the right solution. Artists need diversity, and this sort of community that we're trying to create there would be much more better served with diversity. Having a little scrim at the street is just like decoration on a big box. It's City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 very difficult to describe that architecturally, but the feeling of 100 foot wall around you, you don't get a plaza/open space. You get slits of air that are going to -- slits of sky. You really don't see the building. Plus, I also question whether or not the box, at its corners, is not going to block the view of this building considerably from the roadway, which was a big consideration during its design. In closing, I just want to say that we've had a lot of failures with shopping centers in that area. I've lived in that area. I've watched how we have a homeless problem. We have a crime problem. This interior courtyard that you're making, if it does have LED or not have LED, it will become a very substantial point place and target place for crime. I think it's not -- I think that a complete statistics of the Omni crime study should be submitted into your review so that you know just how bad a problem it was at the Omni, and how it continues during the weekends and at night to be a problem. Thank you very much. Mr. B. Fernandez: I'm sorry, Ms. Desilets. Could I just ask you a couple of questions? Ms. Desilets: Sure. Go ahead. Mr. B. Fernandez: Where were you reading from? Ms. Desilets: Oh, I was reading from staff report. Mr. B. Fernandez: OK. You know that -- you mean the internal design review comments? You were not reading from the staff analysis, correct? Ms. Desilets: The -- no. The internal re -- comments. Mr. B. Fernandez: Do you understand -- Ms. Desilets: Exactly. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- the differenced between those two types -- Ms. Desilets: Right, but -- I -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- of -- Hs. Desilets: -- do understand that, but I agree with that a hundred percent, and I don't know whose words they were. Thank you for not making me have to say -- invent them. They were perfect. It is not in a scale that's human. Everybody knows a car (UNINTELLIGIBLE) anything -- Lincoln Road doesn't have cars going through it in this kind of fashion. Mr. B. Fernandez: That's right. Those comments were based on initial design iterations, not on the final application, and it's not -- Ms. Desilets: That's fine because the final one doesn't show -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- and it's, in fact, not -- Ms. Desilets: -- a resolution. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- a part of the staff analysis. Ms. Desilets: They're incorporated in the staff report, and they don't show any reflection, so they bear being continually spoken about because they don't appear to be applied. There's no rectification. There's no way that this thing -- this is a total "supersize me" building. This is like, hey, let's get big. This is not about being intimate with the scale. This is a performance that City ofMiami Page 111 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 requires that you are dwarfed in it. This is not a place where people come to celebrate being people. This is a place where you are incredibly -- Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Ms. Desilets: -- going to be intimidated. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. Fernandez, is that the answer? Mr. Fernandez, you asked a question. Ms. Desilets: Yes, that's the answer. Mr. B. Fernandez: That's -- Chairman Gonzalez: The lady has been talking and talking and talking, and -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Thank you. I think that she's answered my question. Chairman Gonzalez: Is that the answer? You got your answer? Ms. Desilets: Thank you very much. Mr. B. Fernandez: Yes, I did. Thank you. Ms. Desilets: I wanted to answer it. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: Next. Ms. Desilets: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Ms. Desilets: All of you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. You have another expert? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yes, I do. I have a traffic engineers, ATEC (Advanced Transportation Engineering Consultants, Inc.) -- Chairman Gonzalez: Bring him on. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- and Elio Espino is going to testify today -- Chairman Gonzalez: Bring him on. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- and he will give you his credentials, and he has a short presentation on slides that will educate you about -- Chairman Gonzalez: You got five minutes. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- the impact. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: You got five minutes. Elio Espino: Good evening. My name is Elio Espino. I'm at 12905 Southwest 42nd Street, Suite 209. I'm a senior traffic engineer with Advanced Transportation Engineering Consultants. I have nine years of experience, professional experience. I'm a licensed professional engineer, also have an earned PhD in transportation engineering, and the presentation that I'm going to give to you, it's basically looking at the traffic impacts of this development and similar developments in the area. If you -- we're trying to set up the computer. Chairman Gonzalez: Stop the clock while they set up the computer. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. I just want to be fair to everyone. Mr. Fernandez: Every -- Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: I don't want anybody saying that I was not fair. Mr. Fernandez: Has the Clerk verified that everyone testifying as an expert, hired and retained by the opposing side, is a registered lobbyist? Ms. Thompson: Each one, by the opposing side, is a registered lobbyist. Mr. Fernandez: Wonderful, good. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Lavernia: Excuse me. Just for the record, I want to clarify that when this case was approved by the Planning Advisory Board, it was approved with two conditions, and I want to read, for the record, those two -- Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead and read the -- Mr. Lavernia: -- conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: -- conditions. That's very imporant. Mr. Lavernia: Applicant will provide the signage to direct traffic towards North Bayshore Drive. That's one condition, and second, recommend to the City Commission that the waiver of Chapter 36, Section 36-6, noise ordinance, not be waived in this case, and the applicant agreed with those conditions at the Planning Advisory Board. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Bercow: That's correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Do we have any experts in computers here so we can set up? Mr. Harrison Robbins: For the record, I'd like to introduce the guidelines, the open space guidelines and the plaza guidelines into the record, and I'll submit them to the Clerk. These are the spec -- the guidelines that are a part of the City ofMiami Planning Department guidelines, referenced in the ordinance. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. You may do so. City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Harrison Robbins: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Are we ready? Mr. Espino: We're almost ready. I apol -- we do -- I guess we do need an expert in computers. We have been waiting for so long that we dropped the computer when we got up. We were so anxious to present and to have dinner also. Chairman Gonzalez: There comes our expert, and then you say the City ofMiami is bad. You see, we even provide person to fix your computers. See, we're very kind people here. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We -- are we done? Are we connected or --? Mr. Espino: Yes, yes. We -- it should be coming up in a second now. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Espino: Thank you for waiting, and I apologize for the mishap. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Mr. Espino: As I mentioned before, we were hired by Mr. Robbins to look at the traffic impacts of the proposed development City Square. As Mr. Robbins mentioned, we -- also, we've been working with residents of the Venetian Condominium and looking at the fraffic impacts of all the new development in the area. Just to give you a little bit of information about the background, like I just said, the purpose of the study was to look at the traffic impacts of the proposed development. In addition, we included all the developments in the area from around 8th Street to 18th Street, and the area that we concentrated on is bound by 15th Street on the north, by the Herald Plaza on the east, Biscayne on the west, and 13th Street on the south, which is basically this area that I'm showing here. There are five -- there are actually six signal lights intersections in this area, and we will -- we did very detailed analysis of each of these intersections. We did it for existing conditions, and we did it for future conditions, and we have the analysis -- the results of that analysis to report to you. Just briefly, the methodology that we followed -- and it was mentioned before about the methodology that the City follows, and as the consultant for the development mentioned, it's based on the person -trip methodology, which is -- it takes into account the transit capacity of-- adjacent to -- on the road. We did collect -- we had gathered data from studies that were presented to the City and accepted to the City. We did do the frip generation based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the level of service analysis based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. I'm making emphasis on that because the person -trip methodology, even though it has been accepted by the Department of Community Affairs, it's not widely accepted in practice. In fact, the City ofMiami is the only one in Miami -Dade County that uses this type of methodology, and as someone mentioned before, the City's faced with the issue of either allowing development to go on or stop development because of the traffic issues, and what we tried to do with this analysis was to show the real impacts of -- in that area if all of these developments go on. We understand that development is going to be allowed, but we want to be able to give you the real picture of how fraffic impacts are going to be. Just to give you an idea, these are around 14 projects -- it's a sample of projects in the area. This is about a mile -- it's about a -- Commissioner Haskins: You have a minute. Mr. Espino: Excuse me? Commissioner Haskins: You have just one minute. City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Espino: One minute? OK. I just wanted to highlight that the amount of development that is in this area -- very -- in a very close area, and this -- we did a very extensive analysis of each of those developments, and this is the amount of frip generation that they're going to be generating. We're talking about five -- almost 5,000 new trips that will be coming to this area, and you can see the City Square development is, by far, the highest contributor of new frips to that area, which is about 1,500. The traffic consultant for the developer did highlight the fact that you have access to 395, and that is true, and traffic will be using those -- traffic is not just local traffic. It's traffic that will be coming to those -- to this area because, at the same time, we're talking about trip -- Chairman Gonzalez: Excuse me a minute. I'm going to give you an additional two minutes. I hope that the applicant doesn't have a problem with that, but you have to -- you know, you have to go to the point. I mean, you -- Mr. Bercow: Mr. Chair, we don't object. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you're going through the entire section, the -- all the buildings, all the -- you know, just go to the point because your two minutes are going to go, and you know -- Mr. Espino: I -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- because of the waste of time with the connection of the computer, some interruptions, I'm going to allow you another two minutes. I -- Mr. Bercow: We don't object. Chairman Gonzalez: You don't have a problem? So go ahead. Please set up the clock again for two more minutes. Mr. Espino: I thank you very much for your time. I just wanted to highlight that the -- this is part of the analysis that we did because this is the background traffic that is -- that will be coming to the area. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. Espino: This is the level of service that we perform, and these are the existing conditions, and as you can see, even today, some of the approaches at the intersections are failing, even though the overall level of service appears to be within standards. Now when we look at the future condition, when we add all the background fraffic, four of these intersections will be operating a level of service "F, " and basically, it's -- you know, Biscayne Boulevard, which is the main road, the main access point. We have 15th Street and North Bayshore Drive would also be operating at level of service "F, " and I just have a brief video of the micro -simulation analysis that we did. We basically plugged all this information into a computer program and we simulated traffic. I wanted to highlight this in a lot more detail that is normally done, and the reason that we did that is because of the short blocks, the fact that the intersections are close to each other. For the MUSP, you usually just do isolated intersections, which that doesn't give you the real picture. I'd like to highlight the fraffic congestion on 13th Street; also on 15th Street, there's significant amount of traffic that is frying to go through that intersection. I would also like to highlight that this is the access to the Venetian Causeway, which is a main route to residents of that area. You can also see that even the internal circulation of the site does not work very well with the amount of traffic that will be going there. I'll conclude it -- basically go to the next slide with just our -- we are very concerned with the fact that the infrastructure is not there to handle this amount of new fraffic coming into this area. You will have level of service "F" for Biscayne and 15th. That's a significant issue because of the access to Biscayne City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Boulevard and to residents on 15th Sfreet. There was mention before about new projects. There are no new projects that add new capacity on Biscayne Boulevard. The project that was mentioned before on around 5th Sfreet does not add any new capacity, neither projects north of that. The DOT (Department of Transportation) does not add any additional capacity. In addition, the numbers that you saw already took into account the assumption that 17 percent -- about 17 percent of the fraffic -- of the people will be using transit, 10 percent will be using -- will be walking, so even with those liberal assumptions, you still have a significant lack of infrastructure to handle this amount of traffic. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We thank you. We got your point. Commissioner Regalado: Can I ask him a question? Chairman Gonzalez: Sure. Go ahead. Commissioner Regalado: You represent the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Opposition. Commissioner Regalado: -- people that wants to do the shopping center on 2nd Avenue, right? Mr. Espino: Yeah, 110Avon, LLC. That's Bayview Market. I've also mentioned that we have been working with the Venetian residents on fraffic issues in this area. Commissioner Regalado: And you said that Biscayne Boulevard does not have that kind of infrastructure? Mr. Espino: Basically, Biscayne Boulevard, with all the new development in the area -- and that's what I was trying to show -- will not be able to handle that amount of traffic. You would have a lot of -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's it. Mr. Espino: -- as shown -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's denied. Let's tear down the PAC, too. Mr. Espino: -- I think the City -- Commissioner Regalado: Which is -- which could handle more fraffic, 2nd Avenue or Biscayne Boulevard? Mr. Espino: I haven't analyzed 2ndAvenue. I don't know if 2ndAvenue can handle more traffic. Commissioner Regalado: It's a no-brainer; it's bigger. Mr. Espino: I haven't looked at 2nd Avenue. Commissioner Regalado: Well, the thing is that you may be right, philosophically, but it's too late because the performing center is there; American Airlines is there, and you know, there's nothing we can do about it. Chairman Gonzalez: And possibly, the stadium. Commissioner Regalado: Huh? City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: And possibly, the stadium. Commissioner Regalado: OK, and what else? Mr. Espino: And I think - Commissioner Regalado: I mean -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's it. Mr. Espino: -- all I can provide to you is my technical expertise so that you can make a decision. Commissioner Regalado: No, I understand, but you know, we -- I mean, we should have thought about that several years ago, before the Performing Arts Center, before the American Airlines Arena, before, you know, the Museum Park, if ever it's built, which I don't think, but anyway, you know, it's something -- and what you are proposing here is to stop this commercial project because the infrastructure is not there. Of course it's not there, and it will not be there -- and the first thing that the people have to understand is that downtown is not New York. It will not be New York. It cannot be New York because it doesn't have the 300 -- the 500 miles of subway system that New York has, so forget about it. It's not New York; it will never be New York, so we have to deal with the stuff that we have for traffic, and that was my comment. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: OK I have a few questions -- Chairman Gonzalez: I -- Mr. Bercow: -- for Mr. Espino. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: Mr. Espino, when did you do your data collection for this study? Mr. Espino: The data was obtained from previous studies that were submitted to the City, so we included -- Mr. Bercow: So -- Mr. Espino: -- data -- Mr. Bercow: -- are you telling me that you didn't do the traffic counts? Mr. Espino: No, we didn't do traffic counts -- Mr. Bercow: OK. Mr. Espino: -- because it was under construction during the time that we were retained. Mr. Bercow: Which studies did you obtain the data from? Mr. Espino: We obtained data from the City Square MUSP. We also obtained data from the Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 MUSPs that were submitted to the City. City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: So your analysis that you showed in the -- with the intersections, et cetera, would have included the traffic from -- the future traffic from Parcel 1, correct? Mr. Espino: Yes. It would have included -- Mr. Bercow: And you're aware that Parcel I was denied today, correct? Mr. Espino: Yes, it was. I under -- Mr. Bercow: So -- Mr. Espino: -- stand that. Mr. Bercow: -- then, your -- what you've shown on the screen, in fact, overstates the conditions; is that correct? Mr. Espino: Well -- Mr. Bercow: You included Parcel 1 traffic. Mr. Espino: Yes, and I -- Mr. Bercow: OK. Mr. Espino: -- also showed that there will be about 5,000 new frips coming to the area. Parcel 1 will be -- Mr. Bercow: That's -- that wasn't my question. I also want to know, did you optimize signal timing for future conditions? Mr. Espino: Optimization is done if it is something to be gained. We did not see anything that would -- Mr. Bercow: So the answer is no? Mr. Espino: No, no. We - no, we did not do that. Mr. Bercow: OK, and finally, you did not use the City's standard and required person -trips methodology; is that correct? Mr. Espino: Our analysis was -- we only analyzed the intersections. We did not do a link analysis. That's where the person -trip methodology applies. As I mentioned before, we disagree with the methodology because it doesn't give you a number, an actual estimation of what the -- Mr. Bercow: You -- do you know -- and you represent Bayview Market -- that Bayview Market utilized the person -trip methodology for it to get approval? It was not in the DPI. It got an exemption from the DPI. Bayview Market used the person -trip methodology in its MUSP application. Mr. Espino: Like I said, my intent was to show the actual impacts by doing a more detailed level of analysis. I mentioned before that we understand that the City is in this situation that new development needs to be allowed, and they need to be -- that needs to be accommodated, so if you are doing a study to -- City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: But -- Mr. Espino: -- the City, I'm sure you would have to use the -- Mr. Bercow: OK, but -- Mr. Espino: -- person -trip methodology. Mr. Bercow: -- you -- OK, so you acknowledge that your client did use it when they got their approval? Mr. Espino: I'm not aware of what they -- Mr. Bercow: OK. Mr. Espino: -- did -- used. Mr. Bercow: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome, sir. Thank you so much for your presentation. Any other expert witnesses or --? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ben? Mr. Harrison Robbins: No. We're finished with our expert witnesses. Chairman Gonzalez: You're done? Mr. Harrison Robbins: I just -- yeah. I'm going to close out and just advise you. There are -- besides the Major Use Special Permit, you're also approving a number of other permits that we feel are not appropriate and should not be approved. One of the things -- Chairman Gonzalez: But that doesn't have anything to do with the MUSP, does it? Mr. Harrison Robbins: Yes, it does because you're approving not just a Major Use Special Permit, but special permit lls that are part of the process and special permits -- so all the permits are incorporated into this package, and you're approving it. There's one -- for example, there is one permit that you are going -- a special condition in this permit that allows the project to go over to foundation without the appropriate unity of title and covenants in place prior to the time of going into foundation. This is critical that you not allow that special permit because it's essential to get the agreements with the PAC and with the Miami Herald in place to assure that that parking will be utilized for this -- for the purposes stated in this application, and without a binding agreement, you can proceed and you can cause these people to proceed to vest their rights at that point, and proceed with the project and never get the unity of title, or never get the covenants that would be a requirement in order to go forward with the project, so this should not be a special condition of not demanding those covenants in place to protect the rights because they are representing that this parking will be for the PAC, and they're representing -- but there's nothing, no written agreements assuring the City that they will get that -- that these parking spaces will be used for the purposes stated, so you need something in writing. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. What else? City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Harrison Robbins: Finally, I would like to just make the point that what we're dealing -- in summary, what we're dealing is a parking garage on which some retail is added to it. Chairman Gonzalez: That was already said. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Right, and just want to remind you that it's our opinion that what you're approving is really a parking garage under a different FAR, and we intend to -- and that's our position, and that's what our experts have said. Chairman Gonzalez: We got that. Mr. Harrison Robbins: In addition, I want to point out that there is -- that this building is being looked at and items are being submitted to you, which are then being said that you should not consider. We're talking about the signage. They're saying here's our beautiful, beautiful building, but yet, those things that are on the building are not included in the application, so you're really not getting a full picture of what's going to be if those LED signs, those monstrous things are not there. What's going to be behind that? Chairman Gonzalez: But once again, once again, you're talking about signs that we're not discussing signs in here. Mr. Harrison Robbins: If the signs are not -- Chairman Gonzalez: Signs -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- there, what's going to be there? Chairman Gonzalez: Well, you know -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: Fifteen -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- whatever is going to happen with signs, they will have to come back to this Commission -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: But the -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- for approval. Is that correct, Lourdes? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chairman Gonzalez: So we're not discussing signs here now. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Which -- Chairman Gonzalez: I mean, signs doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- means -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- here tonight. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- you will have blank -- if the signs are not approved, then that means you will have blank walls, 120 feet widths of blank walls with -- Chairman Gonzalez: Whatever. We might have -- City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- nothing on it (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chairman Gonzalez: -- blank walls. We're not talking about what we're going to have on the walls. That is not being discussed here tonight. Mr. Harrison Robbins: But that surfaces are a part of the application, and that's something you should consider under the guidelines and under the criteria, and that's why -- that's the only reason I'm bringing this up. This is, essentially, two buildings with a scarf on top of it, and you have to look at it that way. You have to look at -- this isn't a five -story building -- Applause. Chairman Gonzalez: No clapping, no clapping. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- this is not a -- Chairman Gonzalez: This is not a theater or zoo or -- OK? Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- five -story building that had been first represented -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or a Dolphin game. Chairman Gonzalez: Or a Dolphin game, right. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- this is not a five -story building as first represented. This is a ten -story building in the middle of an urban environment. We are frying to ask this Commission to compel them to come back. We're not saying deny everything. What we're saying is come back; make these changes; open up the plaza. Make this more pedestrian; open the space. Let's revisit and look at whether or not this is really a garage or a retail space. If they're claiming that this is a -- that they guarantee that these are for the Miami Herald and that these are for the Performance Art Center [sic], produce the documents showing that they are committed to that in writing and bound to provide that parking. Produce it as part of the record. If they're ready to go forward in this in assuring that they want to enhance the Performance Art Center [sic], then show that they're willing to put more open space and not have squares that are feet apart, across the street in little parcels, but have a real public area for people to gather, both before and after the center. Let's have something that's real -- Chairman Gonzalez: Let me -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- that's effective. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: -- ask you. How long is it going to take you to conclude your presentation or your closing arguments, or --? Mr. Harrison Robbins: It'll be another couple minutes, and will -- two more minutes, and I'll shut it down. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Two minutes, please. Mr. Harrison Robbins: What we are looking at, and why we went through this whole issue involving the plaza is the guidelines are very clear. They must be 300 feet apart; they're not. The guidelines are clear that there must be a clear definition as to where the open space is in order to determine what is being waived. It is not clear on this record. The requirements are City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 that you have to consider what the principal use is of the site. It has not been considered. Under Section 919 of your statutes, F -- there are FAR limitations, which are consistent with the FAR of the zoning district for nonresidential use, and that's 1.72 FAR, plus the square footage of the ground floor, which is approximately 65,000 square feet. This building is almost twice the size of what it should be under the Code, and I'm asking you to send this back; have it redesigned. Let's have a better building. I think that they -- this developer certainly can make a better building. I think this team could do a better building. They just have maximized their envelope to get as much as they can without respecting where they are, and we need to respect the fact that this is next to the $480 million Performing -- Performance Arts Center [sic], and we need to respect that space, enhance that space, and if they're going to get the benefits of the valet and all the benefits of the income from that parking, then they certainly should give something back, and that's to give it some good, open square space -- a square and a public area that will be appropriate for the performance art experience. Thank you so much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you, sir. Applause. Ignacio Garcia Duquesne: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Garcia Duquesne: May I address the Commission, please? I'd like to make a statement of record. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Mr. Garcia Duquesne: My name is Ignacio Garcia Duquesne, 8341 Southwest 54th Avenue, Miami, 33143. I am codeveloper of Bayview Market. I understand that statements have been made earlier on this evening by this gentleman that he represented Bayview interests. Not -- neither I, nor any of my partners, know this gentleman, nor have authorized him to make any statements or a presentations on our behalf. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Wow. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ken [sic]. Chairman Gonzalez: Uh-oh. Oh -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: I have an agreement in writing signed off by an authorized representative of 110Avon, LLC to go forward on this. That's all I'm required. I confirm that these people were the -- was the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) and owner of the property, and they even acknowledged me -- when they raised this issue with me -- I would certainly brought that to your attention -- they acknowledged to me, as a matter of record, Mr. Swanson is the CEO. If they're having some type of dispute with my client, that's not a matter of public -- that's not -- certainly not a public issue, butt represent 110 Avon, LLC, and the CEO of record retained me. He owns 90 percent interest; Ms. Clark owns 10 percent; they're the ones who retained me. Chairman Gonzalez: Mr. City Attorney. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's irrelevant. City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: -- this issue is a superfluous, secondary issue. Just take it at face value for what it is. You need to focus on the criterias [sic] -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Competent -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and conditions of the MUSP. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: Competition, open market, all of these other things that would stand between these parties, is not -- Chairman Gonzalez: Not relevant. Mr. Fernandez: -- relevant to your determination -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- so the applicant now has an opportunity to rebut, and then you take the matter to yourself. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Lourdes, I have a question, and I'm sorry -- Mr. Fernandez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- any of my colleagues have any questions? Mr. Fernandez: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Bercow: I think there're other members of the public. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. All this time has been consumed by one party, and the public has not yet had an opportunity to speak, so you should allow -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- an opportunity for unrelated members of the public -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. Fernandez: -- not otherwise represented by this party, to have an opportunity to address you. I stand corrected -- Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Mr. Fernandez: -- ma'am. Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Members of the public that want to speak on this item, please come forward. Yes, ma'am. Welcome. Barbara Bisno: My name is Barbara Bisno. I live at 1000 Venetian Way, and I'm president of the Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance, and I promise you, I'm going to be much briefer City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Bisno: -- than the other gentleman. My -- we certainly do not oppose the concept of a retail development at that site; in fact, we welcome it. There -- we do have some conditions that we would like to ask the Commission to make certain they're put on the MUSP because, as I understand it, a MUSP can change as things go on, and the conditions are as follows: As the architect for the -- Chairman Gonzalez: Lourdes and Ana, you need to -- Ms. Bisno: What's wrong? Is there something wrong? Chairman Gonzalez: -- pay attention to -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no. Yeah. We want her -- we want to make sure that she's -- Ms. Bisno: Listening? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- paying attention, yes. Ms. Bisno: We've had conversations, so I know she knows what I'm going to say. There were some issues, such as raised by the architect, as this project moved through the process, from the Urban Review Design people, and from the Planning Department, and the developer has represented that they have met those criticisms by mainly the active pedestrian way all around the project and entrances to the retail venues along -- so that it does have the human interaction, that whole human size thing, and just for purposes of making certain that the design project stays as we have seen it, we asked that that condition, which was placed on the project by the Planning Department, be carried forward by the City Commission. Vice Chairman Sanchez: They're on the record. Chairman Gonzalez: They're on the record. Ms. Bisno: OK, fine. Vice Chairman Sanchez: They're on the record? Ms. Bisno: They're on the record, but you haven't voted to adopt them -- Chairman Gonzalez: No, but -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No -- Ms. Bisno: -- and I'm just asking -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- but -- Ms. Bisno: -- as a member of the public, to please adopt them. Chairman Gonzalez: -- if we decide to approve it, it's going to be with conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: With conditions. Ms. Bisno: With the conditions, OK. City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bisno: OK, then on the conditions that were read into the record from the Planning Advisory Board, we have spoken with the developer, and they were just not presented exactly as we presented them to the PAB (Planning Advisory Board) and as were adopted, and that is the signage that moves traffic out of the parking lots, we are asking that they be directed toward the north -- to bay -- to -- I guess it's North Bayshore, and -- yeah, but that they go south -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: South. Ms. Bisno: -- that the directions be to go south on North Bayshore, not just to go to North Bayshore. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Away from Venetian. Chairman Gonzalez: Come forward. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Away from Venetian; to take -- Mr. Bercow: Yes. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- towards -- Ms. Bisno: Away from the 15th Street. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right. Chairman Gonzalez: You agree with that condition? Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Bercow: Yes. Ms. Bisno: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: You are. OK. Ms. Bisno: Yeah. We've talked about it. I just want to get it out -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Ms. Bisno: -- in the public -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Ms. Bisno: -- and the other condition, which was read into the project -- into the record has to do with not seeking the noise var -- noise ordinance variance -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Ms. Bisno: -- during construction. Mr. Bercow: That's correct. City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bisno: OK. Now, two other conditions we would request of the Commission. One has to do with 14th Street. As it was indicated in a lot of the presentation back and forth, it is a street; it's going to be a street, and that's what the developer expects it to be to help take the pressure off of 15th Street, but there was then some indication from the traffic engineer that there is a part of the application to place bollards at the ends of the street to possibly use as festivals during the weekends. Well, we object to that. It's going to be such a busy area. They have the -- I don't know if you can call it a plaza after seeing the -- hearing the testimony, but the big circle thing near the Performing Arts Center that might be used as festivals, but we ask that the Commission place, as a condition of this -- of adopting this MUSP, that 14th Street remain an open street, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; no bollards, no festivals because of the pressures that will be on the traffic, and then the second condition we request -- and I know that you don't want to hear about signage. As a downtown resident -- I know. Let me just have a half a second. As a downtown resident, I see all over downtown Miami illegal signs, not only the big billboards, which have been there forever, but now signs on buildings, so for a person to say they -- what we are asking is that a sort of -- it's unfortunate you have to put this kind of condition on, but that no signage that is not legal under current zoning law -- Chairman Gonzalez: Regulated. Ms. Bisno: -- be put on this project. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's there, and any signage -- we're not discussing signage because any signage on walls will come back to this Commission if the County approves it. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: Well, it's -- Ms. Bisno: You see my dilemma? Vice Chairman Sanchez: I understand. Ms. Bisno: There's illegal signs all over Miami now. Chairman Gonzalez: Right, right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But that's -- Mr. Fernandez: No, but again, the -- whatever illegal signs there are, there -- this Commission has consented, for a period of time during the pendency of the change, to -- for those signs to be there. Any other sign is being prosecuted, and they're being torn down -- Chairman Gonzalez: They're being fined. Mr. Fernandez: -- as we speak -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: -- and so, the -- what the fair lady is asking with regard to this last condition is actually not a condition because it goes without saying that nothing would be approved that otherwise would not be -- Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: -- subject to the laws -- Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Mr. Fernandez: -- to the existing laws at the time, -- Chairman Gonzalez: right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and so if what she wants is a statement that says that everything will be done lawfully, it's a redundancy that we don't contemplate putting as a condition. Ms. Bisno: I know -- I realize it sounds like a redundancy -- Mr. Fernandez: Well, it is, ma'am. Ms. Bisno: -- if you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Fernandez: It is -- Commissioner Regalado: What she's saying is that we have to follow the law -- Mr. Fernandez: That's right. Commissioner Regalado: -- but we aren't because the sign -- the mural in the Miami Herald is illegal. Ms. Bisno: Correct. Mr. Fernandez: Well -- Ms. Bisno: You got it. Mr. Fernandez: -- again -- Commissioner Regalado: And it's been there. Nobody has taken down. Chairman Gonzalez: But I understand they have been fined. Ms. Bisno: Well, that's what I -- that's what we -- Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but -- Ms. Bisno: -- don't want to happen. Commissioner Regalado: -- you know -- Bisno: We don't want it to be a matter of signs -- of fines. We would like the Commission to put, as a condition for development, that no illegal signage -- we're willing to work with the developer, but they're asking for seven 8-story billboards, and we just think we need to talk about it some more. Chairman Gonzalez: Well, that is going to have to come back to the Commission -- Bisno: I realize that -- City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: -- and then they're -- Ms. Bisno: -- but -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- going to have to meet with you and try to get your approval or your support on it. Mr. B. Fernandez: We can agree that there will be no illegal signage. Chairman Gonzalez: OK -- Ms. Bisno: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so you got it. Mr. Fernandez: Well, again, you know, whatever the parties agree to is very fine, but the way that the ordinances are written and proper legal documents are maintained by the City, you don't want to start in the process of where, every time you pass a resolution or an ordinance, you have to declare yourself to be subject to the law and declare yourself to have to comply with the law. I mean, that level of redundancy is unbecoming a body like this -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- and a jurisdiction like the City ofMiami. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. All right. Mr. B. Fernandez: Since we are on the conditions -- and I understand you're in the public input, you know, portion of the presentation, but we would like to review the conditions, and maybe this is an appropriate time because we agree with most of the conditions. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Mr. B. Fernandez: However, there are a few of them in condition 11 that we would like to take up with you, and the first one is 11(b), which requires a chamfer on the southwest corner of the building to respond to the existing urban form of the Performing Arts Center, developed at the intersection of Northeast Bayshore and Northeast 13 Street, and I'd like to ask Bernardo Fort -Brescia to come up and explain how we believe that that condition isn't required, due to the fact that the plan has been revised various times -- Chairman Gonzalez: Well, let me tell you. You know, I personally have a serious problem with this because he was here testifying for five or seven minutes, you know, on the architectural of the buildings and everything. Then they -- the opposition came; their architect came and blasted him, or blasted the project, and now you're going to come back -? Mr. B. Fernandez: Well, he doesn't need to present. I would just want to inform the Commission Chairman Gonzalez: You know, if it is a condition -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- that -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- you have to work it out with the -- you know, with Lourdes and Ana. I don't know. City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. To the extent - Chairman Gonzalez: I mean - Mr. Fernandez: -- that this is a condition that was on the record and that it was presented to the Commissioners and the packet that went to them -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Um -hum. Mr. Fernandez: -- in your case in chief you failed to address your concerns with it. The Commissioners do not have necessarily now to listen to you wanting to make changes to that conditions, unless they are of a mindset that they would want to. Mr. B. Fernandez: Yeah. I mean, traditionally, when there is a motion to approve, you ask the applicant, are you familiar with the conditions? Do you accept them? And we do accept them, except that there are three -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but let me tell you. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- that we do not. Chairman Gonzalez: But Ben, there hasn't been -- there hasn't even been a motion -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Oh, I -- then I'll wait -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- to approve or to disapprove. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- then I can wait for -- there's a mo -- Chairman Gonzalez: We are still in the debate, so -- Mr. B. Fernandez: Maybe that's the appropriate time. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you're making an assumption that you're going to get a motion to approve, and you might not -- Mr. B. Fernandez: OK, very well. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so you know -- Mr. B. Fernandez: We'll wait. Ms. Bisno: IfI may just respond. I would ask the Commission to adopt the conditions. If they're already met, fine, then there's no problem, and simply to adopt all the conditions that were placed on the building by the Planning Department, the Planning Advisory Board, and these further conditions about 14th Street and the signage that we asked for. Mr. B. Fernandez: That's the only reason I -- Ms. Bisno: Thank you. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- brought it up is because they were talking about conditions, so I just wanted to bring it up, but I -- we can certainly wait and let the -- City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Anyone -- Mr. B. Fernandez: -- public continue. Chairman Gonzalez: -- else from the public that wants to --? Yes. Go ahead. Patricia Mayor: I just wanted to make -- I was supposed to leave, but -- Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. I need a name. Ms. Mayor: I'm sorry. Patricia Mayor, 555 Northeast 15th Street, Miami. A group of us were supposed to leave, but when we heard Mr. Robbins say that he represented people from Venetia, I nearly fell through my chair, so he does not represent us. I've never met him, and earlier in the meeting, they tried to get me, out in the hall, to oppose the project, and I 've never opposed the City Square project, so I just wanted to make that perfectly clear, and the traffic fellows are great guys, but when they reference Venetia, it's only the fact that we happen to have hired them for our traffic presentation. It has nothing to do with the Robbins case. Chairman Gonzalez: You got to be careful because maybe tomorrow they'll be sending you a bill -- Ms. Mayor: No, no, no. Chairman Gonzalez: -- so -- Ms. Mayor: We have nothing to do -- I really want to -- I stayed just for this, to make it clear. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you better clear the records, you know, before you get a bill tomorrow -- Ms. Mayor: Yeah -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- or Monday -- Ms. Mayor: -- so that's the statement. Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: -- for attorney's fees and consultants, and let me tell you, their bills are kind of tough. Yes, ma'am. Judy Sandoval: Good evening. Judy Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace, Miami, and I'm representing myself and as an -- I've spent four -- I'm born and lived 40 years in New York, and I congratulate Mr. Regalado for saying that Miami should not be compared to New York. It is not like New York, and why should it be? Why don't we compare ourselves -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: We should be better than New York. Ms. Sandoval: -- to Paris? Well, I've lived all over the world, including, as Mr. Gonzalez knows, in Latin America, but we should be our own city and have our own aesthetics. I mean, I could compare us to Valencia in Spain, which has a performing arts center built by the great Santiago Calatrava, and it's on the Mediterranean, and let me just tell you what that's like. Surrounded -- this performing arts center surrounded by gigantic reflecting pools and 17 acres of lush gardens. Well, that's wonderful, and what we have, instead of that, is City Square. Now there -- we can mention New York in the sense thatArquitectonica has built one of the most attention -getting buildings in New York in conjunction with Disney. I have here a critique of that building from the New York Times, and it describes it in terms of the legendary -- this is a couple of sentences here. The legendary Mecca of ravish good times, which is Times Square, City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 and the architectural firm with rhythm, 42nd Street andArquitectonica are a match made in honky-tonk heaven, and further along -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Judy, do me a favor. Read the entire paper. Ms. Sandoval: Oh, no. It's a couple of pages. I'll make you -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Read -- Ms. Sandoval: -- a copy. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- go ahead. Start ftom paragraph one. Ms. Sandoval: No, no, no. I'm trying to be real short here so your Chairman doesn't kick me off the podium. Chairman Gonzalez: I would never do that. I love you. Ms. Sandoval: Oh, no, no. Vice Chairman Sanchez: We do have -- Ms. Sandoval: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- a sense of humor. Chairman Gonzalez: We love you. Ms. Sandoval: OK. The architects -- this is New York again -- have described the project as a deliberate evocation of chaos. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I was only kidding about reading it all. Ms. Sandoval: Oh, you were? Oh, I thought you meant it. We could be here till midnight. The eclectic mix of signs, styles, and storefronts in the retail base, especially, is meant to look like a jumbled heap. One could view the jumble as a metaphor for the havoc unleashed by development in a city from which planning, for the most part, has all but disappeared. Well, I might say that what they have designed for City Square resembles what they did in Times Square, according to this description from the New York Times, and I'm only here to speak about the aesthetics of this building and its appropriateness in front of the Performing Arts Center because that is my professional capacity, and I have studied, recorded, and made comments on cities for many universities over the past four years. That's what I do, and so, I'm qualified to make some comments about the aesthetics and appropriateness of this City Square project. Chairman Gonzalez: Judy, your time went up about a minute and a half ago. Ms. Sandoval: Well, I've got 30 seconds, right? Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Sandoval: It's a very ugly building, and on that alone, you should reject it. If it looks anything like in New York, it looks like Houston Street before it was renovated, and here is -- Mr. B. Fernandez: I'm sorry, Ms. Sandoval. Have you ever been reviewed in the New York Times? City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Sandoval: I have written things for the New York Times a number of times. Mr. B. Fernandez: I mean, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) should be proud. Ms. Sandoval: I have written and published six books. I -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Sandoval: Et cetera, et cetera. I will be glad to match my credentials against yours -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Sandoval: -- any time. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Ms. Sandoval: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: Goodnight. We don't want to be here until midnight, and you know what? If we stay here until midnight, then we have to go to the malecon and eat churros and chocolate, you know. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I think it's closed. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We're going to close. Anybody else that wants to speak on this -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: -- item? Wow. All right. I'm closing the public hearing; bringing it back - Mr. Fernandez: Rebuttal by the applicant, and then you take it to -- Chairman Gonzalez: Rebuttal. That's what I ask. Any rebuttal from the applicant? Mr. Bercow: The only rebuttal is we'd like to offer Ms. Sweetapple for a one -minute rebuttal on traffic, one minute. Chairman Gonzalez: Go ahead. Ms. Sweetapple: Cathy Sweetapple. I just want to take 30 seconds to state that your Planning Department and Transportation Department reviewed our study. Your hired consultants, URS (United Research Services), reviewed our study. Our data stands as part of the record. We did not have failing intersection levels of service, similar to what you saw on the screen by the opposing traffic engineers. We met all the level of service standards on all of our study area roadways. Thank you very much. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. All right. I'm closing, and I'm bringing it back to the Commission. Mr. Bercow: Before you close, Mr. Chair. Mr. Harrison Robbins: Excuse me. I wanted to ask just one question. City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: No, no, no, no, no. No rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: No rebuttal. Mr. Fernandez: No cross-examination -- Chairman Gonzalez: You already had your cross-examine. Mr. Fernandez: -- and rebuttal testimony. You're -- Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Fernandez: -- completely off base. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Right. Mr. Harrison Robbins: I'd like to -- Chairman Gonzalez: You already asked -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- proffer -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- questions to the -- to their consultants, so you know -- Mr. Harrison Robbins: I'll be quiet, ifI -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- that's it. Mr. Harrison Robbins: -- can't proffer. Chairman Gonzalez: Yes, sir. Mr. Bercow: I just want to wrap up. I want to put into the -- I want to point out thatHr. Robbins not only doesn't represent the Venetia residents, there's some question as to whether he represents 110 Avon. 110 Avon is a 3,000 square foot piece of land in a 300,000 square foot assemblage called Bayview Market. It's a very, very small player. I'm going to put that information in the record, andl -- again, once again, we would like Bernardo Fort -Brescia to be able to address the conditions of approval. Mr. Fernandez: Well, again, Mr. Chairman, the concept of rebuttal that the applicant saves for themselves, traditionally, is that the attorney, the applicant would make those rebuttals. It's not an issue of calling back witnesses to, again, restate whatever they're saying. Mr. Bercow, please make a rebuttal to whatever testimony you've heard, in summation, and allow the Commission to take the case to itself. Mr. Bercow: I am not qualified to address -- there's three conditions that we wish to address. To my understanding, as Mr. Fernandez has indicated, that, traditionally, this is the appropriate time to address those conditions of approval, and in fact, you can look at it as rebuttal to the staff recommendation. Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah, but have you discussed that with the staff the removal of the conditions? Mr. Bercow: The -- no. There's only three conditions out of about twenty that we want to address. They know that we have concerns about the chamfering, about off-street parking, and City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 the second -story liner for retail, which is three things we just -- Chairman Gonzalez: But -- Mr. Bercow: -- have to address. Chairman Gonzalez: -- where is staff? Mr. Fernandez: Lourdes. Chairman Gonzalez: Are you willing to remove any of these conditions? Ms. Slazyk: No. Chairman Gonzalez: You're not? Mr. Bercow: I know that they're not willing. We've had these discussions with them. We want to bring these issues to you, and Mr. Fort -Brescia will do it very, very quickly. Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Bercow: With, you know -- Mr. Fernandez: -- in an overabundance of caution, as if you know, reading the tea leaves is not enough, do allow the gentleman to make his brief brief presentation. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: But the question is, ifI may -- Mr. Chairman, the question is, if we approve with the wording, "with conditions" -- Mr. Fernandez: Right. Commissioner Regalado: -- they will have to comply with every one -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Chairman Gonzalez: Exactly. Commissioner Regalado: -- so it is the City Commission, not the staff who have to remove the condition. Mr. Fernandez: Correct. Commissioner Regalado: OK. Chairman Gonzalez: No, but what I was looking for from the staff is their recommendation because, Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK. Chairman Gonzalez: -- you know, we're not professionals; at least, I'm not a professional architect. City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: No. Me neither -- Chairman Gonzalez: I'm not a professional -- Commissioner Regalado: -- but I'm just -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- engineer. Commissioner Regalado: -- saying. I'm just saying that. Chairman Gonzalez: You know, I don't even know how you lay a brick, so I have to ask them because that's what we pay them for, you know, to advise us, so -- Commissioner Haskins: You know, you can -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- that's what I was looking for, some advisement -- Commissioner Haskins: -- I mean, we go by our -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- but you know, I don't -- Commissioner Haskins: -- staff for advice. Chairman Gonzalez: -- want to take any more of your time. We need to conclude this. We've been here since 2 o'clock this afternoon. It's 8:30 at night, six hours -- six and a half hours debating one project. Incredible. Go ahead. Mr. B. Fernandez: OK. The first condition is 11(b), which is chamfering the southwest corner of the building, and again, I'm going to let Mr. Fort -Brescia address you on that. I think we've already met the intent of that condition. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Thank you. We took a picture of the site, and you can see here where the location of the corner lantern and the Performing Arts Center is, and our building is pulled way away from it, and the view from that VIP (Very Important Person) lounge here is completely clear to the bay. We are directly to the east. We're not blocking that view. In fact, when it was positioned, it was positioned diagonally in that location, and we don't feel that we are -- there's a second location that would possibly look out from the building at the other end, way at the other end here back by the plaza, where there's a stairwell that climbs up, and from the top of the stairwell -- I mean, what -- if we were -- ifI were to show you what we'd have to chamfer, we'd have to remove a very significant part of our building. It'll be nearly impossible to accomplish that from this stairwell, which really faces the circular plaza, and that was the intent. We don't believe that we could chamfer the building to that extent. It would be an enormous -- chamfering means cutting it diagonally. This would really greatly affect the shops, but also, in addition to that, I think would affect the environment of the street, where we're trying to line the shops directly along the street in an urban organization that we think is appropriate, but we feel that, from every other respect on the way, you can see clearly that the window -- the big lantern here is clearly intended to look out to the water, and the lantern way back here where the stairwell is is intended to look into that space. It would be impossible for us to cut back enough to be able to look out to the waterfront all the way in this direction, and that's why we -- it would greatly affect the viability of the stores to have that diagonal chamfer cutting through, and I think it would affect the sort of an urban nature of the architecture that -- you know, of the building, which is hugging the street. The second item that we suggest has to do with off-street parking, and we have no problem with additional parking -- City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Fernandez: Well, is that the second condition that you're talking about now? Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: Well, let staff address this particular condition and give you the rationale that they have used in enforcing or asking for this condition. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Staff. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Who's going to address this condition from the staff? Mr. Fernandez: And the reason for the condition is? Ms. Slazyk: Yes. The reason for the condition of chamfering the southwest corner of the building is because the Performing Arts Center is -- this is where it meets it at that intersection, and in order to respect the geometry of what the Performing Arts Center did at that intersection, this should respond to it, instead of being, you know, a diagonal that goes into it, rather than responding to the Performing Arts Center. It's to try to make that intersection a uniform -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Ms. Slazyk: -- design. Mr. Fernandez: Again, you've heard both sides. It's up to you to make your decision; and the second condition? Mr. B. Fernandez: Second condition has to do with on -street parking on Bayshore Drive, andl believe that that right-of-way -- there's plenty of area on that right-of-way to provide the on -street parking, and we've designed a larger space between the sfreet and the building so that it's more appropriate not to have parking spaces lining that street. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Slazyk: And we wanted the parallel parking to be provided on all the exterior streets in order to activate those streets. When parallel parking is available, it's easier for people that are arriving to the center to be able to have direct access. It's just a way of activating a sfreet. It's very successful, you know, along all sorts -- Mr. Bercow: And -- Ms. Slazyk: -- of streets that have parallel parking. Mr. Bercow: -- we concur with that. It's just that we don't want to provide the on -street parking within our property. It should be provided within the public right-of-way. We shouldn't be required to dedicate additional land to provide for that on -street parking. We think on-sfreet parking is great. We agree it serves a great urban function, but don't make us give up our land for additional on -street parking. That's not fair. It's not required by Code. Mr. Fort -Brescia: There is a 20-foot set -- Ms. Slazyk: You know what? I think that one is a misunderstanding. I think we meant on the public right-of-way -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Oh. Ms. Slazyk: -- not -- City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: That's fine. Ms. Slazyk: -- on your private land. Mr. Bercow: That's fine. Mr. B. Fernandez: No problem. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. Mr. Fort -Brescia: We agree then. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. B. Fernandez: And the very last one is just a requirement that we provide a liner on the second floor of the parking sfructure, which is not part of the retail structure. It's on the opposite side, on the north side of the project, and we've provided kiosks on either side -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: On the ground floor. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- on the ground floor -- Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yes. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- but what we have is an architectural treatment there, but it doesn't make any sense to provide a liner on the second floor of the parking sfructure there. Mr. Fort -Brescia: Yeah. Ms. Slazyk: OK, and the reason for that was also to provide a more dynamic and active retail space. This is their interior street. People are going to be walking along that, and if the upper floors are -- as nice as you want to architecturally freat it, it's not the same as having an active liner up there, interaction between people and the street. It's going to feel like a box up there. It's going to feel like it's blank walls, no matter how much they articulate it, unless there's a liner there. Mr. Bercow: Let me just explain. There's no access to the second floor retail space, and that takes away the parking that was intended for the ground floor retail, so it's going to really basically take away all the energy for ground floor retail, where people are going to go, they're going to patronize, and they're going to patronize it because they can get in and out very quickly. The -- Ms. Slazyk: It doesn't have -- Mr. Bercow: -- parking for the -- Ms. Slazyk: -- to be a second -- Mr. Bercow: -- ground -- Ms. Slazyk: --floor of retail. It could be an extension of your ground floor retail. It doesn't have to be real deep; it just has to have transparency and -- Mr. Bercow: But you understand we lose spaces on the second floor. Those spaces were intended for the ground floor retail. Nobody's going to go -- we're going to -- it's going to drive City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 down the value of that ground floor retail and reduce it as an attraction because we don't have the parking immediately available. Ms. Slazyk: Well, I think that the quality of the pedestrian space is more important. Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Having -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Are we done? Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- heard -- Mr. B. Fernandez: That's all. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- what you've requested, I think -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that when it comes here and we make the motion -- Mr. B. Fernandez: We agree to every other condition -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- and there's -- Unidentified Speaker: They agree with everything else. Mr. B. Fernandez: -- 20 of them. Chairman Gonzalez: Comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Haskins. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Let me go ahead and start. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for your patience. It's been a long meeting, and we really appreciate you being so patient with people, with those that are here, and making sure that we allow you due process. I think everyone had an opportunity. The attorney -- Ken [sic], are you still here? Ken [sic], I've known you for quite some time. I think you are a great attorney. I think we allowed you the due process to build your record. You did a great job for your client, but having based -- having to base our decision on competent substantial evidence that's being presented to us here, let me just say that could give you 480 million reasons why we should approve this project. That's how much -- Chairman Gonzalez: But please don't. Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, butt won't. Chairman Gonzalez: Please don't. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But won't. Chairman Gonzalez: We appreciate it. Don't. City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: But won't, but I'll tell you this much. That's how much we spent on the PAC, $480 million, and this project is a vital part of the PAC. If we do not approve this project, we're going -- the PAC is going to take the number one in our list of white elephants in this community -- Chairman Gonzalez: Oh, yeah. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- because it depends on the parking; it depends on the synergy of attracting people to downtown because, once again, not everyone's going to be able to make it into a show. Not everyone's going to be able to afford to go to a show, but people could come to downtown and enjoy what we're frying to accomplish here, which is a vibrant, energetic downtown in Miami. Now there was some -- there was a valid argument that was made, and it's based on design. That's the only thing that have concern with, based on -- within the scope of arguments. It's design. I want to make sure that this building has -- taking out the signs, and for whatever reason, I want to make sure that this building has plenty of art, plenty of art in the area, in downtown, because the way I see it now, you know it's a white -- it's a big building with big walls and nothing on it. I certainly don't want to see it that way, but do agree with the plaza. I do agree with all the jobs that are going to be attracting to downtown, and it's important now that things are going not -so -healthy on the development side, to have this type of development that's going to provide jobs, and then afterwards, the people that are going to have -- to be able to enjoy to have employment in downtown, so I do want to make the motion to approve, and I do want to waive condition number 2, which I think was agreed between staff and yourself on this ordinance, so once again, I want to make sure that the design is properly put together with plenty of art -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Well -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on this project. Ms. Slazyk: -- let me just clarify for the record. There's a condition in here that says that the applicant was to confirm the use and size of the large-scale advertisement panels with Zoning because the quantity and locations of signage in the project is excessive and does not meet the current Code. Then a little later on in the conditions, it says that the applicant shall -- conditions (a) through (p) above, which include what I just read about signage, shall require that the revised plan -- that revised plans be submitted for review and approval by the Planning director, demonstrating compliance with the above conditions. I wanted to put that in the record to say everything -- all of these conditions, the (a) through (p) that's in your package, they have to make modifications to their drawings and bring them back -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Perfect. Ms. Slazyk: -- for a signature, and what we have told the applicant is that, in place of those panels, which are not permitted by Code, art is what we want, so I wanted to be real clear on the record because this doesn't say that art is what we want, but we have told them that these graphic panels are to be art, you know, until -- unless the City Commission approves an ordinance that allows them to do something different, art is what we want -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Ms. Slazyk: -- and I just want that real -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lourdes -- Ms. Slazyk: -- clear on the record. City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I have another concern, and that is, what assurance do we have that the parking is for the PAC? Ms. Slazyk: I don't -- there is no -- they can't give us any assurance, OK. That's something to do with the CRA -- if they ask the CRA for money, that's who they'll give assurances to. The Code says that they have to provide a certain amount of required parking for their use. Their use is retail. They're meeting that required parking and exceeding it by a lot, OK It's still excess parking. There's nothing in the Code that says that your higher square footage dictates what your principal use is. Their principal use is retail, and they've got parking with excess parking. Vice Chairman Sanchez: But, you know, it goes back to -- we could build great things in downtown, and if we can't provide the people a place to park their car, we're going to be in trouble. Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: And let me tell you -- let me tell you. In the first place, I don't know whose idea it was to allow this PAC to be built without having parking because ifI fry to build a duplex or a single home and I don't provide parking, these same people deny my permit, these same people deny my permit, and ifI live in the County, the people in the County deny my permit to build a house -- Commissioner Regalado: Right, right. Chairman Gonzalez: -- and this monster has been approved without parking. Well, you know, as far as I'm concerned, let the people walk. If they want to go the PAC, let them walk. If they don't -- they can't walk, rent a helicopter, or you know, go by boat and get off on Biscayne Boulevard and cross the -- I don't care. To be honest with you, I don't care. If they didn't had a vision to provide parking for that center, you know what? They deserve to fail. They deserve to fail because, you know, it cost -- I don't know how many millions of dollars, additional dollars. Every time they talk about the PAC, they were over budget, and then, at the end, they don't have parking. You know -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but it -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- no wonder the County is in the condition that it is, no wonder. Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but the reality is, if the PAC fails, then this project fails; the people ofMiami fail. Mr. Bercow: That's correct. Mr. Chair, ifI could -- ifI can just address Commissioner Sanchez's concern. My client has been in negotiations with the County administration for probably the past six months. They are very serious. We have reached a very serious level of negotiations, in which we will be providing all of the permanent required parking for the PAC -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's great. Mr. Bercow: -- and to the extent that you can help prevail upon George Burgess and the County Commissioners to make that happen, we'd love it. Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think it's in their best interest to make it happen. Commissioner Spence -Jones: And Mr. -- and my colleague, Commissioner Sanchez, I do know that that is for sure fruth because I know the district Commissioner has been working very hard with -- along with the City Square folks to get that done. City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Mr. Bercow: That's correct. Commissioner Spence -Jones: I agree with you. I mean, we don't want a failed project, and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, about, you know, they should have thought about that before they did it, but we have it now, and we birthed that baby -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- and I'm just -- for me, as I said earlier, now that Miami Herald is, at this point, going to be there, this is an additional 3,200 jobs, which I know residents of District 5 will be jumping up for joy for this, and that's what I'm always trying to push because it's the little people that, you know, need to have this kind of support and have this in the area, so I welcome it and I support it, and I'm just waiting for Mr. Chairman to tell us what our next step is on this item so that we can -- Chairman Gonzalez: All right, so we -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: -- move on. Chairman Gonzalez: -- have a motion and -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. The -- no. Chairman Gonzalez: -- Commissioner Regalado wants -- Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. Listen, out of respect, I would let the district Commissioner make the motion, not -- Chairman Gonzalez: OK. Commissioner Regalado: IfI may, just a comment. Just for the record, and of course, you know because you are very well informed and prominent, the CRA Board is the same people -- Mr. Bercow: Yes, sir. Commissioner Regalado: -- that are sitting here. Mr. Bercow: I represent you. I know that. Commissioner Regalado: Right. I'm saying this because you heard, about an hour ago, the Chairman of this Commission, who is also a CRA board member, made a statement that should be taken into account when thinking about the future, and the Chairman said that he wasn't going to vote for any money from the CRA to facilitate the building of a garage. That's one vote. Mr. Bercow: For the garage for -- Commissioner Regalado: The garage -- Mr. Bercow: -- retail. Commissioner Regalado: -- for everything. Mr. Bercow: Well, that's (INAUDIBLE) -- City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Commissioner Regalado: The garage for everything. That's what heard, but probably I have hearing problems. My statement, it would be the same. As a CRA board member, I will not approve anything from the CRA, any money from the CRA to participate in this project, which I think, by the way, that the project itself is very good, but just for the record, so you understand, because I'm always -- when I say "yes," it's yes; "no, " it's no, and that's the way it is. It's much better, andl think it's important that you understand. Ipersonally think that the taxpayers of the City ofMiami, that the residents ofMiami-Dade County, have paid a lot for the Performing Arts Centers, something that we're all going to be very proud of but that 80 percent of the residents ofMiami will not be able to use at all because we're starting with October 5, $500 to see Gloria and Jose Carrera, and some people -- many people in the City ofMiami cannot pay. If the County were to extend the life of the CRA, we already have commitments for the Performing Arts Center. The CRA is already contributing, for the last 15 years, with more than one million dollar to the Performing Arts Center. If the Performing Arts Centers [sic] want to enter into agreement with you for the parking spaces, or if the County, that is the responsibility of building such a beautiful building without any parking at all, wants to engage in business, that's their thing. You know, I can't -- looking at the issues that we have in Overtown, Park West, and even the Omni, in terms only of infrastructure, I cannot, in my good conscience, vote for any money from the CRA. I'm just saying because -- so you know for the future. Other than that, the only thing I heard here negative about this project is the -- some people that think that they should not have competition. If that is the case, then the people from Bayside should have been here because they're bigger than the people that were not even built yet their store, but competition is healthy, and the more, the merrier, and the more stores and shopping centers -- and even if we have movie, like we used to have in the Omni many years ago, it's great for downtown. It's great for downtown because most of us will not be attending weekly the performing arts, but we will go to the retail stores and the restaurants, and across the street to see and to enjoy the new building. I just wish you that you can do this; the sooner, the better because the area needs them, and hopefully, you will, I'm sure, make money with the Performing Arts Centers because, you know, if you are able to pay $500 or $90 for a concert to attend, you will be able to pay $20 for a parking space across the street, and you don't have to walk five blocks to a School Board parking lot, and besides, it's good for us because we get the parking surcharge, so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Bercow: Thank you, Commissioner. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Haskins. Commissioner Haskins: I don't have a problem with the conditions proposed by the Planning Department or the Planning Advisory Board. I think they are good conditions, and I think we need to work through those design issues. I'm concerned with the amount of green space, and I would like to see a validation of the calculations of green space so that if we're not providing the plaza and green space in this project that we should, then we're making sure that we have the appropriate charges for that, OK, so I would like an independent validation. I did hear the discussion on closing 14th Street, and that is a private street, so -- and we are really concerned with the traffic implications in this area, and the times you would do this would be Saturdays and Sundays, which is, a lot of times, when the Venetian hits -- gets a lot of their highest traffic in that area, so if we could do something that said that the 14th Street would be closed by permit only, and there's a process to go through permitting for closing that street, so that it's not saying never, never, never, but certainly, it's something that we can continually work out with the neighbors, instead of saying absolutely not, so I'm really -- the conditions, I thought, were fine, butt would like to add those other two. On things like the PAC parking, I know -- I have to say that when I read the paper -- and $200 million to subsidize parking for the PAC, I thought, how in the heck could parking be close to 50 percent of the cost of the PAC to build itself and knowing the numbers of parking spaces that were -- that are supposed to be devoted to the PAC City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 here, $200 million sounds like an unbelievable cost per parking space, so I'm -- would not have support for $200 million support for this parking garage, sitting on the CRA. I want to see the PAC succeed, butl think that we need to work a lot more closely with the County on where the responsibility falls to continue to fund these projects because it's falling too much on the backs of the citizens ofMiami, and the more it falls on the backs of the citizens ofMiami, the less we have for the amenities that we need to provide, and when you look at the tax increment that's generated in the Omni, that tax increment, is generated by people that live in the Omni, and these are people that put up with the density, the traffic, every day of the week, so we should be able to have some say in providing an amenity for our people that are paying the taxes that are generating this increment. OK, and I certainly feel the same way about the CRA, the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA, when we have affordable housing and workforce housing issues to address before we talk about funding County projects, so anyway, I would like to make a motion to approve the MUSP with the additional conditions that stated in the beginning. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Commissioner Spence -Jones: Second. Ms. Slazyk: Can I get one clarification on a condition? You talked about 14th Street being closed by permit only. Commissioner Haskins: Yes. Ms. Slazyk: The permit mechanism that we have in place today for temporary closures for special events is a Class I, and that's what would recommend, but a Class I usually limits you to only two special events a year. Commissioner Haskins: OK. Ms. Slazyk: I'm sure they're going to want more than that -- Mr. Bercow: Yes. Commissioner Haskins: Is there a waiver mechanism for more than two if they --? Ms. Slazyk: They have to come to the Commission. Commissioner Haskins: That's -- you know, we can, you know, follow those rules. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Mr. Bercow: Could we -- ? Commissioner Haskins: I think -- Mr. Bercow: - Just for -- Commissioner Haskins: -- that's fine. Mr. Bercow: -- clarification, would we be able to say -- come to the Commission on an annual basis to get a permit that will -- Ms. Slazyk: Like approve your -- Mr. Bercow: -- allow us --? City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Ms. Slazyk: -- whole calendar for the year. Commissioner Haskins: That would -- Mr. Bercow: Exactly. Commissioner Haskins: -- be fine. Ms. Slazyk: OK. Mr. Bercow: Exactly, and -- Commissioner Haskins: That would be fine. Mr. Bercow: -- we just want -- Ms. Slazyk: I'll put that in. Mr. Bercow: -- to make it clear that that won't affect the private status of that roadway. Ms. Slazyk: No. It just -- Mr. Fernandez: No. Ms. Slazyk: -- means that when you want to use it for temporary special events, you get your Class Is, and you come to the Commission once a year to get a yearly calendar approved. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but also, the residents should know and be aware of -- Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. Class Is require -- Mr. Fernandez: Public hearing. Ms. Slazyk: -- notice, so they'll comply with notice. Mr. Bercow: That's fine. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor -- Ms. Thompson: Mr. Chair -- Chairman Gonzalez: -- say "aye." Ms. Thompson: I'm sorry. Chair, before you take the vote, may --? I just want the record to be clear. With those stated conditions, are we -- is this now a modified resolution? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Ms. Thompson: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries. PZ.6 06-01054mu RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE CITY SQUARE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1401 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, 360 NORTHEAST 14TH TERRACE, AND 1410-1420 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 623-FOOT, 60-STORY HIGH MIXED -USE STRUCTURE TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 942 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 13,566 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 1,684 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-01054mu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf 06-01054mu - PAB Analysis.pdf 06-01054mu - Zoning Map.pdf 06-01054mu - Aerial Photo.pdf 06-01054mu - Traffic Sufficiency Letter (6.7.06).pdf 06-01054mu - UDRB Resolution (5.17.06).pdf 06-01054mu - IDRC Comments (5.9.06).pdf 06-01054mu - School Board Comments (4.21.06).pdf 06-01054mu - Public Works Comments (4.18.06).pdf 06-01054mu - Aviation Comments (4.18.06).pdf 06-01054mu - PAB Legislation.pdf 06-01054mu - Exhibit A.pdf 06-01054mu - PAB Exhibit B.pdf 06-01054mu - Table of Contents.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB A - Letter of Intent.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB B - Application.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB C - Zoning Write Up.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB D - Legal Descritption.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB E - Aerial.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB F - Zoning Atlas Page 23.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB G - Project Data Sheet.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB H - Warranty Deed(s) and Propoerty Tax Information.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB I - Ownership List and Mailing Labels.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB J - State of Florida Corporate Documents.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB K - Directory of Project Principals.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB L - Project Description.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB M - Minority Construction Employment Plan.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB N - Sufficiency Letter.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB N - Traffic Impact Study.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB 0 - Site Utility Study.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB P - Economic Impact Study.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB Q - Survey.pdf 06-01054mu - TAB Q - Site Plans for Property.pdf 06-01054mu PAB Reso.PDF 06-01054mu CC Analysis.pdf 06-01054mu CC Legislation.pdf 06-01054mu Exhibit B.PDF 06-01054mu CC Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf 06-01053mu & 06-01054mu Supplemental Disclosure of Ownership.PDF 06-01054mu CC Fact Sheet 09-07-06.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1401 Biscayne Boulevard, 360 NE 14th Terrace and 1410-1420 N Bayshore Drive [Commissioner Linda M. Haskins - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Knight-Ridder, Inc., Successor by Merger to Richwood, Inc. and Miami Herald Publishing and the McClatchy Company a Publicly Traded Company on the NYSE as MNI FINDINGS: PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to City Commission on July 5, 2006 by a vote of 8-0. See related File ID City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 06-01053mu. *See supporting documentation. PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the City Square Residential project. Motion by Commissioner Haskins, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Haskins, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-06-0483 Chairman Gonzalez: PZ.6. Jeff Bercow: Thank you. Chairman Gonzalez: You're welcome. Is there any opposition to PZ.6? No opposition. Ben Fernandez: No. Chairman Gonzalez: Wow. Commissioner Regalado: Make a motion. Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Would you please --? Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development): For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. The petition is for the City Square Residential. They're located at 1401 Biscayne Boulevard, 360 Northeast 14th Terrace, and 1410 and 1420 North Bayshore Drive. The petition is to construct two approximate 623-foot, 60-story height mixed -use towers to be comprised of approximately 942 total multifamily residential units with recreational amenities, approximately 13,566 square feet of retail space -- Commissioner Spence -Jones: Oh, wonderful. Mr. Lavernia: -- and approximately 1,684 total parking spaces. The recommendation of the Department is approval with those conditions -- only going to be put on the record condition number 11, the most important conditions, which are the propose facade treatment for commercial panel, et cetera, shall be developed and refined to provide a more proper human scale and all of which shall be reduced in size, and scale, and articulation. Reduce the proposed 17-story parking garage to the minimum required for this site. Revise the west and north facade, introducing human -scale element. Condition from (l) to (m) are related to -- the revised plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the Planning director, demonstrating compliance with the above conditions prior to the issuance of any building permits, so -- Chairman Gonzalez: Thank you. Mr. Lavernia: -- that's the recommendation. Chairman Gonzalez: Ben. Mr. B. Fernandez: We agree with staffs recommendation. This is a project that's going to employ 2, 615 people during construction; create 80 permanent jobs. We -- it respects the Mahi Shrine -- the Boulevard shops on Biscayne Boulevard, and we think it's a great project;; ask that you approve it. City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 Chairman Gonzalez: All right. Mr. B. Fernandez: Reserve time for rebuttal. Chairman Gonzalez: Commissioner Haskins. Commissioner Haskins: Make a motion to approve with conditions. Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second. Chairman Gonzalez: We have a motion and we have a second, with conditions. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chairman Gonzalez: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries, and we need a motion to adjourn. Vice Chairman Sanchez: That order is always in order. Order to adjourn. Chairman Gonzalez: Goodnight. City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 NON -AGENDA ITEMS NA.1 06-01638 DISCUSSION ITEM BRIEF DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING A STRAW BALLOT QUESTION IN THE CITY OF HIALEAH ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006 REQUIRING THAT THE TAX ASSESSOR OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. DISCUSSED Chairman Gonzalez: You know, this Commission meeting is being televised, and we have nothing going on, so Commissioner Regalado, since you're from the media, why don't you send a message to City residents while nothing is happening here, so they know that we're still alive? Just give a message. Commissioner Regalado: Well, I can tell you that, on November 7, in the city of Hialeah, there will be a straw ballot question about the tax assessor property appraisal, the same one that we placed here in the ballot, and this is important because it would send a message. Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely. Commissioner Regalado: You know, you were talking about the assessment, and there are several ways that the State allows to assess properties, and our property assessor in Miami -Dade County, the only one that is not elected throughout the state of Florida, is using the best possible use in the future. While in Broward, the tax assessor, Lori Parrish, use the income. What it means is that the people that rent in the City ofMiami, the people that you were talking about, Mr. Chairman, the poor people, will be hit in the next three or four month with an increase in their rents to 50 -- Chairman Gonzalez: From 50 to -- Commissioner Regalado: -- to 60 -- Chairman Gonzalez: --100. Commissioner Regalado: -- to $100 each month. Chairman Gonzalez: You know how much I'm going to be hit? I rent. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: You know how much I'm going to be hit? Commissioner Regalado: Yeah. Chairman Gonzalez: Two fifty. Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, and that's -- and that is something -- because, you know, you cannot eliminate poverty by running out the poor of the City ofMiami. Chairman Gonzalez: Of course not. Commissioner Regalado: You know, and they are here, and we have to deal with that, and you know, the property assessor and -- it's one of the issues that we should discuss, and unfortunately, the County is not -- because that department is a money machine, you know. It City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 9/29/2006 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 7, 2006 gives money whenever -- Chairman Gonzalez: My landlord property value went up $125, 000 this year, $3, 000 increase in taxes; and insurance, from 4,500 to $10, 000. Commissioner Regalado: And you know what? Eight residents in our districts have moved out of the City of -- Chairman Gonzalez: Of course. Commissioner Regalado: -- Miami; one of them went to California; one of them went to Lehigh Acres in Florida and Fort Myers; another one went to Sarasota because they have relatives, and they decided -- they sold their home -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- which they had for 30 years, and just moved out of the City because they cannot, with insurance and the taxes on the property, value increase, they cannot deal -- Chairman Gonzalez: They can no longer afford it. Commissioner Regalado: -- they cannot afford it -- Chairman Gonzalez: They can't afford to live here. Commissioner Regalado: -- and it is a crisis that we have to deal with, and you know, it's something that we have to face because if we don't, people will continue to lose their homes -- Chairman Gonzalez: Definitely. Commissioner Regalado: -- and then we're going to have a crisis, and then we're going to have a lot of empty commercial spaces throughout the City because of the property appraisal -- Chairman Gonzalez: Yeah. Commissioner Regalado: -- so, so much for the speech, but I don't know. They're still not at it. City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 9/29/2006