HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal ObjectivesObjections to Applications for Land Use and Zoning Changes, Special Exceptions
and MUSPs for Parcels 1 and 3 of One Herald Plaza
My name is Loretta E. Alkalay. I bought a condominium across from One Herald Plaza
in June 2005. I am also an attorney in New York. I have handled environmental and
land use issues throughout the United States for more than 25 years.
The applications for the Land Use and Zoning Changes, Special Exceptions and MUSPs
for Parcels 1 and 3 of One Herald Plaza should be rejected. The resolutions of the City of
Miami Zoning Board and Planning Advisory Board recommending denial of these
applications should be adopted by the City Commission for the following reasons:
A. At best, the applications are incomplete and should be rejected as such. At
worst, these applications were improperly filed in Knight Ridder, Inc.'s name
without Knight Ridder's corporate consent. Zoning Ordinance 11000, Section 2202
clearly states "no person ... shall apply for an amendment for the rezoning of
property except an owner or agent or attorney for an owner."
1. There are no authorizations from Knight Ridder, Inc., owner of One Herald
Plaza, included in the applications as required by Sections 2202.3 and 1304.1:
a. No corporate resolutions or powers of attorney from Knight Ridder, Inc.,
the major property owner, authorizing Javier Avino or Larry Marbert to
file these applications are included in the applications.
b. Rather than indicating the property owner's consent to these applications,
the affidavits and letters in the file from Larry Marbert underscore Knight
Ridder's failure to consent to the applications. They do not constitute
corporate resolutions binding on Knight Ridder, a publicly held
corporation. The affidavits and statements from Larry Marbert do not
w even identify his position with Knight Ridder and they do not indicate that
0 he is authorized to speak for the company. The letters from Larry Marbert
to Lucia Dougherty — identical except for the references to Parcels 1 and 3
CZI — are particularly troublesome. They do not identify the property in
�-- question and refer to its location as simply "Miami -Dade County".
Z O Z Furthermore, Mr. Marbert refers rather oddly to what is supposed to be
corporate property as "my property". Attachments 1 and 2. These are so
® U 0 clearly not legal retainers that they call into question both Mr. Marbert's
L.L.! and Greenberg Traurig's good faith in representing these letters as
Ca somehow implying authorization of Knight Ridder to file these
U applications.
c. The affidavits filed by Mr. Avino and Mr. Marbert contain no information
En co on who these individuals are or for whom they work. It is hard to believe
U.J that Javier Avino represents Knight Ridder since he filed the applications
(J� [L_ in the name of Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. Knight Ridder
Newspapers, Inc. has not existed as a corporation for more than 20 years.
Knight Ridder, Inc. has been the successor corporation since a corporate
resolution was passed in 1986. Attachment 3. The applications also
improperly state that Knight Ridder is owned by: Miami Herald
Publishing Company, Knight Ridder Newspapers and Richwood, Inc. It's
hard to imagine if Knight Ridder were in fact Greenberg Traurig's client
that they would not know that Knight Ridder is the parent company of the
Miami Herald.
2. It makes no sense for Knight Ridder to have filed these applications since it
has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to sell its Miami Herald Offices.
a. From its March 7, 2005 press release announcing the sale of its parking
lots to Terra Group/Citisquare to numerous quotes from Knight Ridder
executives and Larry Marbert in its Miami Herald articles, Knight Ridder
has repeatedly and consistently stated that it has no intention of selling its
Miami Herald offices. Attachment 4.
b. March 7, 2005 "In making the announcement Friday, both Knight Ridder
and The Herald scotched earlier rumors that the Herald's building, at 1
Herald Plaza, was a part of the deal. "It is not for sale," Marbert stressed."
c. May 6, 2006: "...company executives say the building is not now for sale
and will remain in place for the foreseeable future. Miami Herald
Publisher Jesus Diaz said that's unlikely to change even after the pending
purchase of Knight Ridder by the McClatchy Co.
"Knight Ridder has always said the building is not on the market," Diaz
said in an interview. "That position has not changed, and I don't foresee it
changing under McClatchy."
d. May 17, 2006: Larry Marbert, Knight Ridder's vice president of
production and facilities, reiterated what Knight Ridder officials have said
repeatedly since the company first put the 10 acres on the block.
"I don't know how many different ways I can say it, the building is not for
sale," he said. "In fact, during the bidding process those who included the
building in their bids were excluded."
e. In addition, Knight Ridder is precluded by its Merger Agreement with
McClatchy, Inc. from taking action to subdivide, rezone and build ort One
Herald Plaza. "... [Knight Ridder, Inc.] covenants and agrees with .
[McClatchy,Inc.] that (A) the business of [Knight Ridder, Inc.] andj%
Subsidiaries shall be conducted in, and such entities shall not take 4ny
action except in, the ordinary course of business, and (B) [Knight Ridder,
Inc.] and its Subsidiaries shall use commercially reasonable efforts to
preserve intact their business organizations ... "
3. Contrary to the developer Citisquare's arguments, the current land use.jknd
zoning for Parcels 1 and 3 are perfectly consistent with the current and
future use of the property — as determined by the property owner, Knight
Ridder.
a. Parcel 1 is an office building for Herald reporters and executives. Parcel 3
is the delivery truck entrance for Herald trucks going to the printing press
— which under every scenario is staying exactly where it is today.
b. Citisquare's claim that it needs to protect the view corridors of the Herald
parking lots it recently purchased to the west of Parcels 1 and 3 is contrary
to assertions made by Lucia Dougherty at the May 8, 2006 Zoning Board
2
Hearing that restrictive covenants have been agreed to by the Herald
which will control future development of these Parcels.
4. In addition, changing the land use and zoning would make 1 Herald Plaza a
non -conforming use. Zoning Ordinance 11000, Section 200 prohibits the
creation of new non -conforming uses.
5. The evidence clearly shows that the property owner has not filed the
applications as required by City of Miami law. Therefore, in accordance
with Section 2202.1(e) and 1304.1, the applications must be rejected.
a. Since it makes no sense for Knight Ridder, Inc. to request a land use and
zoning change, and there are no corporate resolutions or powers of
attorney authorizing these applications, it is clear that Knight Ridder — the
property owner — has not joined in these applications.
6. Applications fail to include required authorizations from all owners and all
persons with a financial interest in the property.
a. Authorizing affidavits from 100% of the owners are not included in the
applications as required by Sections 2202.3 and 1304.2.1 of the zoning
ordinance. Specifically, although deeds submitted with the applications
indicate that Richwood, Inc owns a portion of the property, it did not file
any affidavit authorizing the applications.
b. In addition, the Title Report indicates that there are easements on this land.
(It should be noted that the applications refer to Parcels 1 and 3 and the
Title report to Parcels 1 and 2.) Easements are property interests and 100%
of the easement owners should be required to file affidavits regarding this
application. Herald Bay Park apparently owns one of the easements.
There is no record that I could find in the deeds of that easement. There is
also a right-of-way reflected in the title report. No affidavit from the right
of way owner and no indication of the impact of the rezoning on the right-
of-way.
c. The Title Report also indicates potential coastal construction
setback/control line. There is no further information provided in the
application as to the impact of this on the MUSP application.
d. Section 1304.2 requires compliance with the application requirements.
The application states: "The Miami City Code requires disclosure of all
parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, with
respect to a presentation, request or petition. Accordingly, disclosure
of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any
other interested parties, together with their address(es) and
proportionate interest are required." Since McClatchy Co. has reached
agreement to buy Knight Ridder, it should be considered an indirect owner
and be required to file an affidavit. Attachment 5.
e. No articles of incorporation were provided for Richwood, Inc. or
Citisquare, LLC.
f. The title report indicates easements and restrictive covenants on the
property. It is impossible to tell from the information included in the
applications the effect of these easements and restrictive covenants on the
land use and zoning changes and MUSP applications.
3
B. Applications contain numerous irregularities.
1. Applications are not notarized or are notarized before the date the applications
were signed and dated. For example, Parcel 3 MUSP application is not
notarized at all; a number of required notarizations are missing from the
zoning and land use application, Parcel 3. Attachment 6. More disturbing are
U o 0 the notarizations of the other applications, including the Parcel 1 and 3
�s `4�, 2. v Amendments to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, where the
C. NU �, notarizations are inexplicably dated a week or more before the date signed by
o U Javier Avino as purported representative of Citisquare and Knight Ridder.
Attachment 7. Chapter 117 of the Florida Statutes Sections 107 (9) and (10)
prohibits the notarization of a signature if the signer is not in the notary's
j o . presence or if the document is incomplete. While one improper notarization
L could somehow be characterized as a mistake, here we see improper
L notarizations in almost all of the 6 or more applications before the
8 E Commission today.
U) 4) 2. Equally troubling, are Javier Avino's affidavits certifying that all documents
are correct (see, for example, Application for a Special Exception Parcel 1) is
dated before Larry Marbert's affidavit and before the date he himself signed
the application. Attachment 8.
C. City employees have engaged in a pattern of conduct that deprives the public,
and in particular project opponents, of due process of law.
1. In complete contravention of the requirements of Section 2215, titled
Requirements concerning changes in original applications after processing
begins, City employees in the Board of Hearings allowed pages of dated and
notarized applications to be removed and substituted after the Zoning Board
and Planning Advisory Board Hearings. This has resulted in backdated
documents and affidavits swearing to the accuracy of documents that have no
meaning. In addition, the City Commissioners and the public have no way of
knowing what documents are properly before them today. Attachment 9. .
2. This scheme was discovered on May 25, 2006, when Patricia Mayor, anuii►cr
project opponent, and I went to the Board of Hearings to review documents.
In reviewing Parcel 1, I noted that one of the purported applicant's names had
been changed from Knight Ridder Newspapers, Inc. to Knight Ridder, Inc.,
that the pages where this change was made were in a different type face and
that the signed, dated and notarized pages had not been resigned, redated or
renotarized. There was also no indication anywhere in the file that a change
had been made. I planned to take copies of these documents home to compare
to the ones I had previously copied.
3. In reviewing Parcel 3, I noted a group of four pages clipped together with a
yellow sticky that said New /Update and a yellow sticky that said A Parcel 3.
I did not see a signature page. The cover letter requesting the updating was
dated February 2006. I asked Isabel, the City employee watching us and
making copies, where the signed and dated pages were. She told me that she
needed to remove the old pages and insert these changed pages. I said,
incredulously, "How can you do that, the pages are signed and notarized." She
said, "I can't say anything more; you'll have to speak to Anel Rodriguez."
4
She called Mr. Rodriguez in and I asked him how pages in sworn documents
could be changed and he said, "that's how we do things."
4. City employees have repeatedly allowed incomplete applications for these
projects to be filed. The omissions are often glaring. For example, the failure
to include Corporate Resolutions authorizing the applications themselves and
Articles of Incorporation from Citisquare and Knight Ridder. The failure to
require notarized documents. The failure to check to determine whether
documents are properly notarized. (It's also not clear why what appear to be
City employee initials on applications, predate the applications themselves.)
5. In the stampede to approve applications before Miami 21 takes effect in
District 2, City employees and its contractors have trampled on the rights of
the City and its citizens.
a. One of the most bizarre examples is the so-called traffic sufficiency
letter prepared by URS, for the City. The letter is really a traffic
insufficiency letter. Attachment 10.
b. Through a sleight of hand possible only in the Magic City, it becomes
a traffic sufficiency letter even though it clearly states that a delivery
truck site circulation plan must be submitted before the file can
progress to the Planning Advisory Board. "The applicant has
o 5 0 mentioned that the project architect would provide the information
o_ c V regarding maneuverability of delivery trucks within the project site.
a c E �, As this project progresses through the review process, the applicant
0 n�" 0 must submit an acceptable site circulation plan for approval by
aai I U City staff before submitting the project to the Planning Advisory
o o Board." [emphasis added.]
v o c� c. Notwithstanding its clear insufficiency, the letter states:" At this time,
. we conclude that the revised traffic report along with the subsequent
Eo a a submittal meets all the requirements and the report is found to be
v E sufficient."[emphasis added]
c/) d. In its rush to rubber stamp this project, URS issues a traffic sufficiency
letter on the assumption that a critical requirement it spelled out —
delivery truck maneuverability — will be met!!
e. Not surprisingly, in a City mesmerized by the drumbeat of
development, no one picked up that the traffic sufficiency
requirements had not been complied with. Neither the Assistant
Transportation Coordinator who received the letter nor the City
Planner ensured compliance with the delivery truck requirements.
f. Notwithstanding URS's claims to the contrary at the PAB hearing May
17, 2006, there is no traffic circulation plan in the public record and
repeated requests to URS and the City Planning Office have not
produced any such plan. Attachment 11.
D. City employees have acted to thwart the clear intent of the City of Miami's
Zoning Ordinance.
1. The regulatory scheme of the City of Miami's Zoning Ordinance clearly
places additional hurdles on private parties seeking to rezone land. Section
2209 and 2210 place additional burdens on applicants under Section 2202.1(e)
5
2. than under 2202.1(a) through (d). The latter sections apply to zoning changes
submitted by the City or one of its agencies.
E. Joining the development rush, and in a clear violation of substantive and
procedural due process, the City Attorney's Office prepares Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in support of the proposed development, without any
consideration of the substantial issues raised by the public at the Zoning Board and
Planning Advisory Board Hearings, including especially the significant question of
Knight Ridder's authorization to file the applications. Attachment 12.
F. Contrary to the clear requirements of Section 1702.2.3 applicable to MUSP
applications, the files do not contain "a developmental impact study which shall
demonstrate whether impact of the proposed development is favorable, adverse, or
neutral on the economy, public services, environment and housing supply of the
City."
c 1. There is no environmental impact analysis even though there are potentially
o
a? significant impacts especially with regard to traffic, water and use of the historic
Venetian Causeway. The site was once owned by the Sun Oil Company and it
0 has been an industrial newspaper plant for almost 50 years. It is most likely a
3 = toxic wasteland and any disturbance of the soil could have severe environmental
impacts. Presently, the sale of the 10 acre Herald parking lots is awaiting
2 environmental remediation according to an SEC filing by Knight Ridder.
Environmental remediation means toxic waste clean up. If parking lots require
Q remediation before they can be sold, it is certain that the area closest to the plant
will require significant clean up. In addition, destruction of the Herald offices
will likely involve asbestos clean up. Attachment 13.
2. The economic analysis is inadequate to assess the economic impact of the
proposed land use and zoning changes and proposed development. If Knight
Ridder in fact consented to these applications, the economic analysis is
particularly inadequate because there's no analysis of the economic impact of
closing or moving the Miami Herald offices. There is also no analysis of the
widely reported economic downturn in the condo market or the impact of adding
hundreds of condominium units to a market with tens of thousands of unsold units
and thousand more coming on the market.
3. There is no analysis of whether the potential development of property being
considered meets the concurrency requirements of state law under chapter 63 as
required by Section 2209(b)(3).
E. Homeowners —such as myself — who purchased property in reliance on the zoning
of One Herald Plaza — in particular the current height restrictions - are entitled to
strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements before a change in land
use and zoning which would block views and decrease air and light in my home and
in public areas of my condominium.
As the applications were improperly filed and/or are incomplete, the City
Commissioners must reject them. In addition, the specific requirements of Section
2209 and 2210 have not been met. In particular:
6
The proposed change does not conform with the adopted Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan;
The proposed change is not in harmony with the established land use
pattern;
The change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood;
The proposed change does not maintain the same or similar
population density patterns and does overtax the lload on public
facilities, especially traffic;
The proposed change does not positively influence living conditions
in the neighborhood;
The proposed change has a much greater impact on traffic and affects
public safety to a much greater extent than the existing classification;
The proposed change has a much greater impact on light and air to
adjacent areas as the existing classification;
The proposed change has a much greater negative impact on property
values in the adjacent area as the existing classification;
There are substantial reasons why the use of the property is fairly
limited under existing zoning;
It is very easy to find other adequate sites in the surrounding area for
the proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
In addition, for MUSP applications, the criteria of Sections 1305.2 and 1305.3 must be
established. Furthermore, Section 1703.1(b)(1) specifically requires a determination
"whether the development will have a favorable impact on the environment and natural
resources of the City based on an environmental impact analysis to be provided by the
applicant."
Major development with significant impacts on Biscayne Bay, the Venetian Causeway
and the Herald's neighbors should not be undertaken without good faith compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance. Anything Less violates due process and denies us equai protection
of the law.
Loretta E. Alkalay
Submitted into the public
record in connect:° n ith
item PZ .30 on rl ? D�
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Cleric
7