Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMayor's Response to Comm. Sarnoff - Grove Bay Residences(. itl of 4liuini, caloribra MANUEL A. DIAZ MAYOR May 7, 2007 The Honorable Marc Sarnoff Commissioner, City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 (305) 250-5300 FAX (305) 854-4001 VIA E-MAIL RE: Grove Bay Residences- 3663 South Miami Avenue (the "Project" z Dear Commissioner Sarnoff: I received your letter dated April 27, 2007, and your campaign flyer that includes a reproduction of the letter and which presumably was mailed throughout District Two this past weekend. This is an unusual and most unorthodox way for a Commissioner to communicate with me. Nevertheless, if this is your preference, I will respond in kind. During my past six and one-half years in office, no other Commissioner has communicated with me in such fashion because my door has always been open to them. In fact, during your six months in office, my door has always been open to you, and you and I have engaged in many substantive discussions with respect to issues of mutual interest, except until now. As I am sure you are aware, I have not vetoed a single Commission action during my term. Rather, the relationship I have maintained with the Commission has been one of consensus and collegiality. This spirit of cooperation is not only the practice of good governance, but has also resulted in unprecedented political stability in our City, a stability which I believe has allowed for our city and our residents to grow and prosper. The power of the veto is one which I take very seriously. I have never, nor will I ever, use this power for political expediency, political retribution against a Commissioner, or for any other purpose not in the public interest. I strongly believe that the members of the Commission take comfort in the fact that they can use their best judgment to make informed, legislative decisions without fear of a Mayoral veto designed exclusively to embarrass them politically or otherwise. As such, after reviewing your letter, after considering the evidence presented during numerous hours of public hearings, and after carefully listening to the deliberations of the Commission, I will not exercise my veto power with respect to items PZ1, 2 or 3. The Honorable Marc Sarnoff May 7, 2007 Page 2 However, because of the importance of this decision to my neighbors (I live a few short blocks from the Project), I decided to expand the scope of my analysis by reviewing the tape of the Cocoanut Grove Village Council (the "Council") meeting of May 2, 2006. I consider this important for several reasons. First, you were the Chairman of the Council at the time of this meeting that took place over one year ago, on May 2, 2006, at a time when politicizing the issue was not the order of the day. Additionally, several of the members of the Council have also recently communicated their request for my veto. The Council is elected by those of us who live in the Grove to represent the best interests of our beautiful neighborhood and its people. As such, I researched how my neighborhood representatives responded to the merits of the Project when the only consideration before them at the time was the best interests of the Grove and whether the Project is better than what could alternatively be built on the site. The May 2' Council meeting, which occurred in front of an otherwise empty Commission chamber, did, in fact, assist me greatly in arriving at my decision. The central question presented can be summarized as follows: is the land use change from GI (government institution) to R-4 residential zoning better for the general interests of the residents of Coconut Grove? The Council answered this question, unanimously, in the affirmative. In fact, the overwhelming consensus amongst Council members was that the Project is a far better alternative than what could have been built. The property was originally zoned GI, meaning that, by right, Mercy Hospital could have built an ACLF, a "Cleveland Clinic" or other medical office building(s), or simply expanded its hospital operations, without height restrictions. Alternatively, the Project as presented to the Council that evening was for 3 buildings at a total of 300 units. In fact, you must know that the Project is actually a down zoning (not an up -zoning as many have been misled to believe) from what is allowed to be built under current zoning. During the Council meeting, representatives from the developer, Mercy Hospital, and the Bay Heights and Natoma Manors Homeowners Associations (the "Associations") all stood before you in support of the Project. Tucker Gibbs represented the Associations and advised the Council of how six (6) months of intense negotiations had produced the Project. Apparently, the Associations had even gone as far as to retain their own traffic consultant who conducted a traffic study. ) The Honorable Marc Sarnoff May 7, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Gibbs quite eloquently summarized the three (3) concerns of the Associations as follows: traffic, (specially important because of neighborhood cut -through traffic), density, and the ability to limit any future expansion plans for Mercy Hospital. Mr. Gibbs explained how the traffic concern had been mollified given that the proposed residential use of the Project (enhanced by these being high -end second and third homes) caused much less impact on traffic than the alternative GI medical office use for the property. The Project as presented also assuaged concerns over density (the Project is much less dense than under a GI medical office use, and the developers had conceded to neighborhood demands by decreasing the number of units from 1,000 to 300). In fact, Mr. Gibbs compared the Project to Grove Isle which he indicated has approximately 600 units. Finally, the Associations had secured an agreement regarding the expansion of Mercy Hospital (Hospital agreed to limit development for the next ten (10) years. All agreed that, as a result of these lengthy negotiations, the Project was much different than the one originally planned, was better than what could be built on the site by right, and, as such, was supported by the Associations. Mr. Gibbs summarized the issue succinctly for the Council and ultimately for the City Commission, "whether this zoning is appropriate", and "whether this Project is better than what could be built there now?" He further suggested that if the Council (or ultimately the Commission) thinks it is worse [than what could be built there now], they should vote against [the Project]. Council members also opined as to how the Project was a better alternative than what could have been built. Gary Hecht "jumped for joy" when he heard it was 300 units, calling it a "beautiful alternative." After noting that she did not see any opposition from the public and that everyone was in accord, Yvonne McDonald (who is now on your Commission staff) called it an "excellent project." Michelle Niemeyer called it a "nice project" and said how she would rather see this Project over one that could include 40 story medical buildings. David Collins agreed how the traffic issue is a "no brainer" because residential use has much less impact than medical use, and as far as overall impact on the Grove, "it doesn't seem Coconut Grove is giving up very much." Ron Nelson (who also now works for you) found the concessions secured by the Associations helpful, and appeared specially pleased with the concession limiting Mercy Hospital's development rights for ten (10) years, an issue he claimed to have been concerned with through the years. Finally, it was Gary Hecht who moved for approval of the Project, calling it a "marvelous project", that is "clearly in the best interests of the Grove." You were present throughout the hearing, and heard over and over again, statements in support of the Project, and how all agreed that it was a much better alternative to what could have The Honorable Marc Sarnoff�«') *� �, 4>l c� �, May 7, 2007 \d� 04%` -j, 01,, .9 Page4 '' f"c. �° '' ;;. 9 been built as of right. Yet, not once did you question anyone, not once did you voice your objections -A, &et to the Project as a whole or any part of it. In fact, you specifically denied any public comment, even de refusing to allow Nina West to approach the microphone. You had the opportunity to keep the Project from moving forward, or at the very least, to voice your opposition on the record in a public forum, but you failed to do so. To the contrary, you acknowledged that the Project appeared to be a good project. The fact is you chaired a meeting where a unanimous Cocoanut Grove Council voted in favor of the Project, a project that was then much bigger and more dense than what was approved by your Commission colleagues. Even the current Council web page acknowledges that the "Council voted to support the project due to its low density and public waterfront access." The facts is that, at the urging of Commissioner Sanchez during the Commission meeting of April 26, 2007, the Project has been further reduced from the one approved by the Council as follows: Council approved Project Commission approved Project Tower 1 height 304 feet 228 feet Tower 2 height 354 feet 268 feet Tower 3 height 411 feet 308 feet Density (# of units) 300 (originally 1,000) 225 F.A.R. 1.2 million square feet 900,000 square feet Therefore, after again reviewing the video of the Council Meeting, I can only conclude that what has changed since then, and what has changed your position and motives from one of agreement to disagreement, is purely political. As previously stated, I have never and will never base any of my veto decisions on politics. I must, therefore, decline your request for a veto. Your letter also asks that I veto PZ 3 so that the item can come before the Commission again. At such time, the Commission can impose your suggested ten (10) additional conditions to the MUSP. The majority of the City Commission has indicated that the public hearings on this matter have been more than sufficient, and I will honor their wishes that no further hearings be required. Instead, because I find your suggestions valid, I have not only asked the developer to voluntarily agree to the ten (10) conditions, but I have added two (2) additional requests ofmy own as well. The results ofmy efforts are as follows: The Honorable Marc Sarnoff May 7, 2007 Page 5 1- Green Construction- In keeping with the requirements of Miami 21, the developer has agreed to obtain no less than Silver LEED certification. This requirement was part of the Commission's MUSP approval. 2- Baywalk- The Baywalk will be well lit and will have a minimum average of 25 feet. There are areas of the Baywalk which are tight and will be at fifteen feet. However, the developer has agreed to increase other areas to more than 25 feet to compensate and achieve the 25 foot average. It will be open to the public at all times. 3- Bike path- Although the road cannot be expanded, there will be a shared bike path/bike lane. Signage will be provided on South Bayshore Drive. 4- Public park- While there is no one central area available for a 10,000 square foot park, the Baywalk will easily exceed 10,000 square feet and will include park amenities such as trees, benches, lighting and fountains. 5- Vehicular parking- The developer would rather encourage pedestrian not vehicular access to the public Baywalk. As with other waterfront sites in the Grove, it is their hope that locals will choose to walk, bike or roller blade to the site. Those who choose to drive to the Baywalk can always use the Mercy Hospital facilities. 6- The developer will complete infrastructure improvements as required under the approved MUSP. 7- The developer will provide an off -duty police officer at peak construction times. 8- This item was also included as a condition of the Commission's approval of the MUSP. 9- The developer will submit a construction plan for approval by the City delineating the developer's efforts to mitigate construction traffic. 10- This item was also included as a condition of the Commission's approval of the MUSP. This too will be included in a construction plan to be submitted to the City. Finally, I have asked the developer for two (2) additional conditions. First, I have requested that the developer pay for a traffic signal on South Bayshore Drive and Halissee. The developer has agreed to fund a traffic signal impact analysis to determine the feasibility of the signal at that location. In the event the County believes that a signal is warranted, the developer will pay for it. �oo� The Honorable Marc Sarnoff da s� � May 7, 2007 �` �� �� i ! ,9 Pa e6 r .;. A g Additionally, I have requested the developer repair certain drainage in the area leading inict. S' the Carroll Manor complex. This area suffers from considerable flooding, and is severely affecting 4' the quality of life of the senior citizens who live at the complex. The developer has agreed to'pay the necessary repairs as part of the County improvements to South Bayshore Drive and also to pay for improvements to Halissee. When we were elected to our respective offices, we took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and of the State of Florida, and the Charter of the City of Miami. One of the most basic rights that all of us enjoy is our property right. Through the power of zoning, our predecessors (not you, not me) granted certain property rights to property owners throughout our City. You, your colleagues and I will often be confronted with projects we do not like, and given the legal right to reject, we would, I am sure, oppose any such project. Circumstances exist, perhaps such as this one, where we would prefer that nothing be built on the site in question. However, the owner of the property has a legal right to build something there and the City Commission has applied the proper criteria by using competent, substantial evidence to approve the Project. Thus, the question before you, before your colleagues, before me and before the Council last year, is what is the best project under the circumstances for the City and for the people of the affected neighborhoods. When we assume our respective offices, I believe we also assume another great responsibility, and that is to be honest with those who entrusted us to serve them. We have an obligation to properly inform our residents even when the news is bad, not to mislead them or misinform them, not to incite them and make them believe in a cause we know not to be what it appears to be. Rather, we should, we must, present them with the same criteria, the same facts, that form the basis for our decisions. Let them step into our shoes, and then ask them....given these facts, given these options, which do you think is a better result for our city, for our neighborhood? This, I believe, is the true test of leadership. As you and I have discussed, I am hopeful, that through the Miami 21 process, we will be able to eliminate uncertainties and restrict the ability of the Project to set a precedent for the balance of this property and other GI properties. e'ee, The Honorable Marc Sarnoff May 7, 2007 Page 7 Let me finally remind you once again that my office door has been and always shall remain open to you for discussions on any matters related to your district, its citizens and their best interests. Sincerely, cc: Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Mr. Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager Commissioner Angel Gonzalez Commissioner Joe M. Sanchez Commissioner Tomas P. Regalado Commissioner Michelle Spence -Jones