Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEPB 12-01-09 Transcripts1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CITY OF MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD TRANSCRIPT OF DECEMBER 1, 2009 HEARING AGENDA ITEM # 6 MIAMI SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 2450 SW 1' STREET APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NOT TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR EIGHT BISHOPWOOD TREES LOCATED ON SW 3RD STREET BETWEEN SW 24' AND SW 25' AVENUES 3:00 PM CITY HALL 3500 PAN AMERICAN DRIVE DINNER KEY, MIAMI, FLORIDA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS MIAMI SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, 2450 SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET. THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR NOT TO ISSUE A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR EIGHT BISHOPWOOD TREES LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 24TH AND SOUTHWEST 25TH AVENUE. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? » YES. » Chairperson: YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. » I'M ANNA CRAFT. I'M HERE WITH LUIS GARCIA, REPRESENT THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA. » Board Member Grafton: MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THIS IS MY PROJECT AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT, SO I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF. THANK YOU » Chairperson: MAY WE HEAR FROM STAFF, PLEASE? » Preservation Officer: WE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE A SITE PLAN OF THE ENTIRE MIAMI SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL AND THE PLANS FOR ADDITIONS, PARKING GARAGES, AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING THERE— » Chairperson: NOW, IS ANY OF THAT BEFORE US? » Preservation Officer: I BEG YOUR PARDON? » Chairperson: IS ANY OF THAT BEFORE US? » Preservation Officer: NO SIR, I AM JUST SETTING-- » Chairperson: SO ITS ONLY-- » Preservation Officer: THE TREES. » Chairperson: SO ITS ONLY THE TREES? » Preservation Officer: ITS ONLY THE TREES, BUT I'M TRYING TO SET THE -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STAGE FOR YOU, IF YOU WILL— » Ms. Craft: AS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, ONLY. » Preservation Officer: THE REASON THIS IS HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THAT THERE ARE SIX BISHOP WOOD TREES -- I'M SORRY, EIGHT BISHOP WOOD TREES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND YOU KNOW WE'VE SEEN TREE APPEALS HERE BEFORE BUT GENERALLY THEY HAVE BEEN APPEALS AGAINST THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, OR DEPARTMENT'S DECISIONS. IN THIS CASE IT WAS A DECISION MADE BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE ARCHITECTS, WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD'S CONCURRENCE, HAVE ASKED THAT THE TRAFFIC BE MOVED OFF THE MORE HEAVILY TRAFFICKED STREET NEAR FLAGLER ONTO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT SITE, WHICH IS SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET. THE EIGHT BISHOP WOOD TREES ARE LOCATED THERE. THE PLAN IS TO BRING THE SCHOOL BUSES OVER TO THE SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET SIDE AND REMOVE THE BISHOP WOOD TREES BECAUSE THEY NEED THAT SWALE AREA TO CUT IN FOR THE BUSES TO PULL OVER AND OUT OF TRAFFIC. WHEN WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND LOOKED THROUGH THE CITY'S REGULATIONS, WE FOUND THAT THE INVASIVE SPECIES THAT ARE LISTED, THAT THE BISHOPWOOD IS ONE OF THOSE, AND IT'S ALSO CONSIDERED AN INVASIVE TREE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE DEPARTMENT, THE FLORIDA EXOTIC PEST PLANT COUNCIL. WE CHECKED WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEY TELL US THAT IF YOU REMOVE WHAT IS CONSIDERED A NONNATIVE I HOPE VASE I HAVE THAT THERE IS NO MITT -- INVASIVE, THAT THERE IS NO MITIGATION REQUIRED FOR -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOSE TREES. WE ALSO KNOW FROM THE PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US THAT THERE IS A MITIGATION PLAN THEY ARE GOING TO PLANT 12 LIVE OAK TREES ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR SHADE. SO THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN GIVE ON INVASIVE TREES IS TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, NOT TO GRANT THE ISSUANCE OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE BISHOPWOOD TREES. » Board Member Freedman: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE OFFICER, IF I MAY. » Chairperson: OKAY. » Board Member Freedman: IS THERE ANY INDICATION AS TO WHERE THE PROPOSED LIVE OAKS WOULD BE PLACED? »Preservation Officer: YES. AND I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. » Ms. Craft: OUR ARCHITECTS ARE HERE, MR. JOSE MURGUIDO. » Board Member Broton: I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION BEFORE THEY BEGIN. WHY WERE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO DEMOLISH THAT? WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE GIVEN BY THE PERSON WHO DIDN'T GRANT THE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION? » Preservation Officer: THERE WAS NO WRITTEN ORDER OTHER THAN IT WAS DENIED AND SOMEONE MAY KNOW MORE THAN THAT. » Asst City Attorney: PUBLIC WORKS IS HERE AND YOU CAN -- » Preservation Officer: PUBLIC WORKS IS HERE. » Asst City Attorney AND YOU CAN ASK -- IN FACT, NOT JUST YOU. THE SCHOOL BOARD OR WHOEVER CAN ASK PUBLIC WORKS RELEVANT QUESTIONS IF YOU WANTED TO. -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME. » Asst Public Works Director: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS FRANCIS MITCHELL. I'M REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE REASON WHY WE DENIED THAT REQUEST, FIRST OF ALL, THE NEIGHBORS OBJECT TO THIS REMOVAL. WHEN WE GRANT THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, WE ALWAYS LISTEN TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO SAY. SO IN THAT CASE, WE RECEIVED FIVE PROTESTS, AND THIS WAS ENOUGH FOR US NOT TO GRANT THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. » Chairperson: THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, PLEASE. » Mr. Murguido: MY NAME'S JOSE MURGUIDO. I'M AN ARCHITECT, AND I'D LIKE TO GET RIGHT TO THE TREES, BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD OFFER THE BOARD, IF THE THEY WOULD LIKE ME, TO TAKE THEM THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT AS TO HOW WE ARRIVED WHERE WE'RE AT? NO? » Chairperson: ONLY THE TREES. » Mr. Murguido: ONLY THE TREES? ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. IN THAT CASE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE A GROUP OF EIGHT BUTTONWOOD TREES THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT IN THIS AREA. AND THEY ARE A RESULT OF THE BUS CIRCULATION BEING MOVED FROM WHAT WAS IN THIS AREA TO THE BACK HERE. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE REPLAT PROCESS. WE HAVE CONSENSUS WITH THE TRAFFIC, THE COUNTY TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, CITY OF MIAMI TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT AND HAVE NOW DONE THE FIRST THING WHICH IS PULL THE PERMIT TO IMPLEMENT THAT, THAT PLAN. AND WE HAVE GONE INTO THIS ISSUE. SO THE KEY IS WE HAVE HEARD THE COMPLAINTS. MY LANDSCAPE -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ARCHITECT IS HERE TO TELL YOU HOW WE HAVE MITIGATED THAT. WE HAVE, IN FACT, ENHANCED THE LANDSCAPING FOR WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TO TRY AND APPEASE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS. SO IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO MY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO WILL TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY THE MATERIAL THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND HOPEFULLY WE COULD CLARIFY THE ISSUE. » Chairperson: OKAY. » Mr. Murguido: AND THAT'S MS. IDA CURTIS. » Ms. Curtis: GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS IDA CURTIS AND I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITH WITH CURTIS AND ROGERS DESIGN STUDIO. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CORRECTION, THE TREES THAT WE ARE REMOVING ARE, IN FACT, BISHOPWOODS AND THEY ARE CONSIDERED INVASIVE, EXOTIC, NONNATIVE. » Chairperson: PROHIBITED. » Ms. Curtis: PROHIBITED AND INVASIVE, NOT NATIVE. ALL OF THE BOOF --ABOVE. SO WE, IN FACT, WHEN WE DID THE ANALYSIS, WE DID FOLLOW YOUR CODE. WE, YOU KNOW, WE ASKED FOR A PERMIT TO REMOVE THESE TREES BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THESE TREES, AS MS. GUCCIONI SAID, THEY ARE EXOTIC, PROHIBITED. THEREFORE WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE MITIGATION. WE ORIGINALLY HAD PLACED GREEN BUTTONWOOD TREES IN PLACEMENT OF THE BISHOPWOODS THAT WERE REMOVED. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE NO AREA IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WE HAD PLACED THEM AS CLOSE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN SCHOOL PROPERTY AS WE COULD TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. HAVING LISTENED TO THE PROTESTS OF THE NEIGHBORS -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AND THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING, THERE WERE CONCERNS REGARDING SCREENING, REPLACEMENT OF THE TREES, GREENER TREES AND SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO IS WE DECIDED TO LISTEN TO THEM AND, YOU KNOW, ABIDE BY THEIR CONCERNS. AND WE, IN FACT, HAVE THEN SUBSTITUTED INSTEAD OF REPLACING THOSE BISHOPWOOD TREES WITH THE GREEN BUTTONWOODS, WE ARE NOW REPLACING THEM WITH LIVE OAKS. 20 TO 26-FOOT-HIGH LIFE OAKS AT PLANTING TIME, 12 OF THEM ACROSS THE SAME AREA WHERE THE BISHOPWOODS ARE BEING REMOVED. ABOUT YOU THEY CAN'T BE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BECAUSE WE NEED THAT FOR THE BUS STAGING, NOT PARKING. STAGING AREA. AND SO WE ARE PLACING THEM AGAIN IN SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY AS CLOSE AS WE CAN TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THE BISHOPWOODS ARE BEING REMOVED. THE NEIGHBORS TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS WHERE ISSUES ABOUT SCREENING FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHILE WE SYMPATHIZE WITH THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT SCREENING, THERE'S ALWAYS A FINE BALANCE BETWEEN SCREENING AND PROVIDING VIEWS FOR POLICING THE OPEN AREAS AT NIGHT. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF WHY WE CAN'T PRODUCE A VERY DENSE SCREEN BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNMONITORED FIELD AREA AND WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE AS THEY WOULD. SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THAT AS GREEN AS POSSIBLE AND AS OPEN AS POSSIBLE, YET PROVIDING SHADE. SO THAT IS, IN FACT, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE FENCING THAT IS THERE AND WHETHER -- I THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE GOING TO REMOVE THE FENCING -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. BUT, IN FACT, WE ARE NOT REMOVING THAT FENCE. THAT FENCE IS TEMPORARILY BEING REMOVED WHILE THE LANE IS BEING CONSTRUCTED. » Board Member Appel: MR. CHAIR? » Chairperson: YES. » Board Member Appel: I HAVE A QUESTION. » Chairperson: YES. »Board Member Appel: IF THE BUTTONWOOD TREES -- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHYTHE NEIGHBORS ARE OBJECTING. AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY LARGE TREES, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THE IDEA OF THE BUS ROUTE BEING MOVED TO THAT SIDE MIGHT NOT BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS AND THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE YOUR PLANS BECAUSE OF THAT. YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY OBJECTION. »Chairperson: YOU THINK? ARE YOU STATING AN OBVIOUS? ITHINK WE'LL BE HEARING FROM THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK YOU CAN ASK THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, BUT -- » Board Member Appel: BUT YOU HAD SAID THAT THE TREES THEMSELVES ARE NOT IN THE BUS ROUTE. THAT IS THE STAGING AREA. AND YOU WILL HAVE TO REDO. » Ms. Curtis: YES, THE TREES ARE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT NOW WHERE WE WILL BE PLACING THE BUS STAGING AREA. THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING AND THE NEIGHBORS THOUGHT THAT BUSES WOULD BE PARKED THERE ALL THE TIME, AND THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE SCHOOL. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A DROP-OFF AREA, PICK-UP AREA. SO IT'S NOT INTENDED FOR THE BUSES TO PARK THERE 24 HOURS. IT'S JUST AS -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE STUDENTS ARE DROPPED OFF AND PICKED UP, A STAGE. » Board Member Appel: AND IN YOUR OPINION THE ONLY WAY THAT THE BUSES, THE BEST ROUTE FOR THE BUSES IS WHERE YOU'RE PLANNING THEM RATHER THAN WHERE THEY ARE NOW? » Ms. Curtis: WELL, I WILL LET JOSE ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE HE IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH -- »Board Member Appel: LET ME ASK. JUST BECAUSE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, DAVID AND I ARE NOT THE ARCHITECTS ON THE BOARD BUT MAYBE WE CAN PHRASE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. » IS THIS THE BEST? » Board Member Appel: THE QUESTION IS I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR TO ALLOW A LITTLE LEEWAY, FIRST. I THINK WE'RE ALL HERE BECAUSE THE TREES ARE THE REASON WE'RE HERE OFFICIALLY BUT THIS ALL HAS TO DO WITH A DECISION MADE TO GO AGAINST WHAT IS NORMAL WHICH IS, WHY WOULD SHE WANT TO COMMERCIALIZE A RESIDENTIAL AREA MORE THAN YOU HAVE TO. SO IF YOU ALREADY GOT A DROP-OFF AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S ON FLAGLER, OKAY, WHY WOULD YOU WANT -- YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU WOULD GO AND MAKE A DECISION TO MOVE IT TO A RESIDENTIAL. »Chairperson: GARY. GARY, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEFORE US. »Board Member Appel: IT IS BEFORE US IN A WAY. »Chairperson: NO, IT IS NOT. » Board Member Appel: IT IS BEFORE US IN MY OPINION. IT IS BEFORE US, NOT TO MAKE APPROVAL. I'M NOT ASKING FOR APPROVAL. BUT IN TERMS OF WHY THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TREES, IT IS RELATED. AND I THINK IN -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THIS CASE IT'S RELATED ENOUGH WHERE AT LEAST A REASON WHY IT IS BEING MOVED THERE SHOULD BE EXPLAINED TO US BECAUSE THAT DECISION TO MOVE IT HAS IMPACTED THE HEALTH AND THE LIVES OF THESE TREES. SO THERE IS A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP THAT I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE WHOLE PLAN. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THE DROP-OFF. THAT'S WHAT I CARE ABOUT. BECAUSE IT RELATES TO THESE TREES. BECAUSE IF IT'S SAFETY OVER TREES, CHILDREN'S SAFETY, WE'RE TAKING THE CHILDREN'S SAFETY. IF THE IT'S CONVENIENT FOR THE TREES, THAT COULD BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT STORY. SO I WOULD ASK THE CHAIR TO ALLOW AT LEAST A FEW MINUTES TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. » Chairperson: YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. » Mr. Murguido: TWO MINUTES? ALL RIGHT. » RIGHT HERE, SIR. » WELL, IF YOU NEED, MAYBE THE CHAIR WILL LET YOU. YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO OBVIOUSLY-- . » Chairperson: YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. DON'T LET GARY USE YOUR TIME. » Chairperson: NOW A MINUTE 40. »Mr. Murguido: HELLO? HELLO? HELLO? HELLO? » Chairperson: MAYBE YOU SHOULD USE THIS MICROPHONE OVER HERE. » Mr. Murguido: HELLO? OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. OKAY. I MENTIONED THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE REFI PROCESS. THE ISSUE ON THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN STUDENT SAFETY. ONE OF THE -- THE PURPOSE FOR THE REPLAT -- HELLO? PERFECT. THE PURPOSE FOR THE REPLAT IS TO ELIMINATE FIRST STREET IN THIS AREA HERE. AND THE REASON THAT'S CRITICAL IS THAT STUDENTS ARE -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PARKING ON THIS SIDE AND THEY HAVE TO CROSS AND ACTUALLY CROSS THE BUS TRAFFIC. AS WE ALSO LOOKED AT HAVING THE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE STATE, BECAUSE THIS IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, THERE WERE ONLY THREE PLACES TO ACTUALLY PUT EXPANSIONS ON THIS PROJECT. AND THEY HAPPEN TO BE FLANKING BOTH SIDES OF COLOMBIA PARK. SO THERE'S AN ADDITION HERE AND A SMALL CLASSROOM ADDITION HERE THAT YOU SEE IN OUR RENDERING THERE. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE STUDENTS COME IN THIS AREA, THAT STREET HAD TO BE CLOSED. WE WENT THROUGH A YEAR -LONG PROCESS GOING THROUGH THE TRAFFIC, GOING THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS, A SERIES OF DEPARTMENTAL APPROVALS AND HAVE SECURED IT JUST RECENTLY. AND THE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE DOING IS ACTUALLY PULLING THE PUBLIC -- WE GOT THE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT AND ARE NOW IMPLEMENTING THAT PLAN, WHICH REQUIRED -- » YOU'RE PULLING, THE STREET GOT CLOSED FOR SAFETY REASONS? » Mr. Murguido: FOR SAFETY REASONS, PRECISELY. » Board Member Appel: AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE OLD-FASHIONED TRAFFIC PERSON WITH THE HANDUP? » Chairperson: YOU ARE USING UP HIS TIME. » Board Member Appel: I'M NOW THE SENIOR MEMBER ON THIS, IN TERMS OF STATUS HERE. I'LL INVOKE IT FOR ONCE. YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU ARE CLOSING THE STREET, WOULDN'T JUST HAVING A TRAFFIC GUARD UP, YOU KNOW, THE PROVERBIAL, YOU KNOW, MOTHER WITH THE PART-TIME JOB SAYING STOP, BUS COMING, AND LET THEM GO THROUGH? » Mr. Murguido: NO. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THERE ARE STUDENT -11- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATIONS ON THIS SIDE, NOT PARKING. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON NOW THE NORTH SIDE WHERE COLOMBIA PARK WAS. SO STUDENTS WOULD HAVE TO CROSS THIS ALL DAY LONG. » Board Member Appel: OKAY. » Mr. Murguido: NOT SIMPLY THE ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL. » Board Member Appel: CAN THEY DROP OFF MORE ON FLAGLER OR MORE ON A 25th OR 24th? WHY CAN'T YOU PUT IT THERE? » Mr. Murguido: EXCELLENT QUESTION. WE REVIEWED THAT WITH THE COUNTY TRAFFIC AND THE CITY TRAFFIC. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT FLAGLER IS A STATE ROAD. THERE'S NO DROP-OFF ALLOWED THERE. » Board Member Appel: OKAY. » Mr. Murguido: ON THE WEST AND EAST SIDES THOSE ARE BEING USED FOR PARENT DROP-OFF. THAT'S THE LION'S SHARE OF THE DROP-OFF. THE ONLY AREA THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE IS SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET FOR THE BUS DROP-OFF. THERE'S TWELVE BUSES THAT DROP OFF FOR ROUGHLY AN HOUR AND A HALF. AND AFTER THAT IT BECOMES OFF-STREET PARKING JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE CITY. AND I SHOULD ADD THAT THIS IS THE SAME WAY THAT ALL URBAN SCHOOLS ARE UTILIZING THEIR OFFSITE ROADS. IT'S NOT SIMPLY DONE HERE. IT'S A SERIES OF SCHOOLS. » Board Member Appel: WHAT ABOUT THE PART WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR PARKING GARAGE? THAT CAN BE A DROP-OFF IN THERE? » Mr. Murguido: WE HAVEN'T HERE. SO THERE ARE ALREADY BUSES LOCATED IN THAT AREA. SEE, THE CHILDREN THAT ARE THERE ARE -12- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN THAT COME OFF IN WHEELCHAIRS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN BUS DROP-OFF IN THIS AREA HERE. » HOW MANY BUSES ARE WE TALKING? ONE OR TWO? » Mr. Murguido: THERE'S FOUR BUSES THERE. » Board Member Appel: AND HOW MANY ARE GOING ON THIRD STREET? » Mr. Murguido: TWELVE. » Board Member Appel: TWELVE? YOU COULDN'T SWITCH THEM AROUND? » Mr. Murguido: YOU PHYSICALLY CAN'T FIT 12 BUSES HERE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THERE'S TWO INTERSECTIONS AND THE COUNTY TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT PROHIBITS ANY BUS PARKING AT THE INTERSECTIONS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE BUS IS THEN PUSHED SOUTHWARD. THE ONLY AREA THAT YOU HAVE, THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE 12 BUSES. THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE ON SITE THAT IT COULD HAPPEN. » Board Member Appel: OKAY. CAN'T DIVIDE IT UP? OKAY. » Mr. Murguido: WE'VE LOOKED AT IT. AND THE OTHER THING IS WE KEEP ALL OF THE MAJOR TRAFFIC AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS. SO THE ENTRANCES TO THE STUDENT PARKING LOT ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE. » Chairperson: AND YOU HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? » Mr. Murguido: DURING A REPLAT PROCESS, YES, SIR. » Chairperson: EXCUSE ME. ORDER. HEY, HEY. HEY, HEY. YOU WILL HAVE YOUR CHANCE. PLEASE MAINTAIN ORDER. » Board Member Freedman: CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THE STUDENT PARKING IS ON THE NORTH SIDE? -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Mr. Murguido: STUDENT PARKING IS HERE. STUDENT PARKING IS HERE. » Board Member Freedman: SO STUDENTS COME OUT OF THOSE PARKING AREAS AND GO INTO THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE SCHOOL? » Mr. Murguido: NOW THEY CROSS UNINTERRUPTED SAFELY INTO THE SCHOOL. » Board Member Freedman: AND ISN'T IT CORRECT THAT STUDENTS HAVE BEEN PARKING IN THOSE LOTS FOR SOMETHING IN EXCESS OF 50 YEARS? » Mr. Murguido: THAT'S CORRECT. STUDENTS AND STAFF. » Board Member Freedman: AND YOU HAVE A HISTORY THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM NOW, THAT SOMETHING'S CHANGED? » Mr. Murguido: YES. » Board Member Freedman THEY SHOULDN'T BE CROSSING THE ROAD? » Mr. Murguido: WHAT'S CHANGED IS THAT THE SCHOOL HAS AN OVERCAPACITY PROBLEM. THE STATE PASSED A CLASS SIZE REDUCTION. SO NOW IN HIGH SCHOOLS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE 25 KIDS IN A CLASSROOM, WHICH REQUIRES EITHER YOU FILL THE SITE WITH PORTABLES OR YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EXPANSION. SO THE EXPANSION, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE STATE AMENDMENT, IS TO PROVIDE THREE CLASSROOM BUILDINGS. SO WE COULD HAVE THIS SCHOOL BE COMPLIANT WITH STATE STANDARDS. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT ON A LIMITED SITE THAT WE HAVE, THE PLACE TO PUT IT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS THE FLANK -- IS TO FLANK BOTH SIDES OF COLOMBIA PARK AND PROVIDE BACK THE ORIGINAL GRANDEUR OF COLOMBIA PARK, BRING BACK A FULL HISTORIC RESTORATION. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY AN ADDITION. REASON THORNE HAS -14- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEEN RECUSED FROM THIS BOARD. THIS IS A TRUE RESTORATION. IT'S GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND MAKING IT A REGULAR SCHOOL. IT'S ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING BACK TO THE CITY SO WE COULD ENJOY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION. » Board Member Freedman: NO, I NEED AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT HAS CHANGED OR IS PLANNED TO BE CHANGED THAT CAUSES A PROBLEM WITH STUDENTS CROSSING THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL AS THEY HAVE DONE FOR IN EXCESS OF 50 YEARS. » Mr. Murguido: YOU HAVE COVERED WALKS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COVERED CONNECTION SO THE STUDENTS CAN CROSS FROM THIS NEW BUILDING -- THIS IS A NEW BUILDING. THIS DOES NOT EXIST. » Board Member Freedman: SO ONE AT THE TOP, ONE AT THE BOTTOM? » ONE AT THE TOP, ONE AT THE BOTTOM. » Board Member Freedman AND YOUR CONCERN IS WHAT IN REGARD TO THE BUSES? » Mr. Murguido: YOU CAN'T HAVE BUSES GOING THROUGH THE SCHOOL. » Board Member Freedman: WHY NOT? »Mr. Murguido: IT'S STATE LAW. » Board Member Freedman: WHERE ARE THE BUSES CURRENTLY -- ARE THE BUSES CURRENTLY GOING UP AND DOWN, WHAT IS THAT, FIRST STREET? » Mr. Murguido: FLAGLER. » Board Member Freedman: THIS IS FIRST STREET, RIGHT. » Board Member Freedman DO BUSES CURRENTLY TRAVERSE FIRST -15- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STREET IN FRONT OF MIAMI HIGH? »Mr. Murguido: YES, THEY DO. » Chairperson: PLEASE USE THE MICROPHONE. » Board Member Freedman: OKAY. NOW, YOU ARE CLOSING THE ROAD UNDER YOUR PLAN, RIGHT? » Mr. Garcia: IT'S ALREADY CLOSED. »Ana Craft: IT'S ALREADY. » Mr. Murguido: WE HAVE THE REPLAT. IT'S BEEN CLOSED. THE CONSTRUCTION HAS STARTED. WE ARE DOING THE FIRST THING THAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO RELOCATE THE BUSES. SO THE VERY FIRST PERMIT THAT WE HAVE TO GET AFTER THE REPLATTING PROCESS IS WHERE THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP. THE PROJECT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. » Board Member Freedman: HAD YOU NOT CLOSED THE ROAD, THE BUSES WOULD CONTINUE TO TRAVERSE FIRST STREET AS THEY HAD FOR DECADES, CORRECT? » Mr. Murguido: NO. » Board Member Freedman: WHY NOT? » Mr. Murguido: BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD NEEDS TO FIX AN UNSAFE CONDITION IN THE SCHOOL. BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THERE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S BEEN THE RIGHT THING TO DO. »Board Member Freedman: IS THERE A HISTORY OF ACCIDENTS AS A RESULT OF THIS CONDITION? »Mr. Murguido: I DON'T KNOW. » Board Member Freedman: WHAT DO PEOPLE DO IN CITIES LIKE CHICAGO AND NEW YORK? THEY CROSS STREETS ALL THE TIME TO GO TO -16- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BUILDINGS. » Mr. Murguido: BUT THAT'S NOT -- THE ISSUE IS THAT THE REPLAT HAS ALREADY APPROVED AND CLOSED. THE PROJECT IS THAT THE PROPERTY'S ALREADY REPLATTED. WE HAVE HAD THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE HAD -- IT WAS ADVERTISED. IT WAS BEFORE THIS VERY ROOM, BEFORE THE COMMISSION. THAT'S ALL BEEN DONE. SO IT'S GOING TO UNDO THAT ENTIRE PROCESS. IT'S BEEN A YEAR AND A HALF IN THE REPLAT PROCESS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DONE CASUALLY. IT HAS BEEN SCRUTINIZED. » Chairperson: QUESTION. » Board Member Barber: I'M QUITE SURE YOU PROBABLY ALREADY LOOKED AT THIS. TRYING TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS GET ACROSS WHAT YOU NEED TO GET ACROSS. HOW MANY STUDENT PARKING SPACES ARE THERE? DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND? CURRENTLY IN WHAT IS PROPOSED? » Mr. Murguido: 151. » Board Member Barber: STUDENT PARKING? » Mr. Murguido: YES. » Board Member Barber: STUDENTS WHO HAVE THE MONEY TO HAVE A NICE CAR AND DRIVE TO SCHOOL. JUST A SIDE -BAR. BUT THE PARKING GARAGE, HOW MANY LOTS? » Mr. Murguido: IT'S GOT APPROXIMATELY 250 CARS AND THAT'S FOR STAFF. »Board Member Barber: STAFF? ONLY STAFF? -17- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Mr. Murguido: YES, SIR. » Board Member Barber: WHERE'S STAFF PARKING NOW THEN? » Mr. Murguido: WELL, THAT'S WHY THERE'S A PROBLEM IN THE COMMUNITY. THERE'S INSUFFICIENT PARKING. STAFF IS PARKING ALL AROUND THE MEDIANS AROUND THE COMMUNITY. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS EXPAND THE PARKING CAPACITY OF THE COMMUNITY SO NOW THE STAFF CAN PARK IN THE GARAGE AND THE STUDENTS CAN PARK IN THE PARKING LOT AND WE DON'T HAVE CARS ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. » Board Member Barber: 250 STAFF CARS ON A DAILY BASIS? » Mr. Murguido: YES, SIR. » Board Member Barber: THERE'S 250 STAFF? AND 150 STUDENT CARS. THAT'S A LOT OF STUDENT CARS. BUT QUESTION. JUST BACK TO WHAT I'M ASKING IS HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT -- MY EYESIGHT IS BAD. 24th AVENUE? NO. USING THIS MAP RIGHT HERE TO YOUR RIGHT. THE TOP AREA? WHAT STREET IS THAT? » Mr. Murguido: LIKE 24th AVENUE. » Board Member Barber: 24th AVENUE? THAT PARTICULAR PARKING LOT RIGHT THERE, HAS THERE BEEN A THOUGHT OF USING THAT AS A SWING -OUT FOR YOUR BUSES TO COME IN? LIKE AT BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, THE BUSES SWING INTO THE PARKING LOT, SWING AROUND, CREATE A DROP-OFF AREA FOR THEM AND SWING RIGHT BACK OUT AND MAYBE MOVE IN THAT ACCOMMODATION, MAYBE ONLY MAKING THAT A FACULTY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF PARKING SO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO STUDENTS PARKING THERE AND ACCOMMODATE SOME OF -18- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THOSE PARKING LOTS INSIDE THE GARAGE FOR THE STUDENTS TO KEEP THEM SAFE? » Mr. Murguido: AND YOU LOSE 20 SPACES, PUT THEM ON STREET PARKING ON THIRD STREET. » Asst. City Attorney: LET ME -- MR. CHAIR. LET ME -- . [ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]. Asst. City Attorney: LET ME INTERJECT ONE THING -- INTERJECT ONE THING, IF I MAY. AND I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T INTERJECT -- INTERJECT EARLIER. ON THE TREE APPEALS, THE BOARD GETS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE PROJECTS AND ALL THAT. REMEMBER WHILE THIS IS ALL INTERESTING INFORMATIONALLYAND FACTUALLY, WE'RE NOT THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE. WE'RE NOT PAB. AND WE'RE NOT HERE TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THE WISDOM OF THE MIAMI-DADE SCHOOL BOARD AND HOW THEY DESIGNED THIS PROJECT. THE ISSUE HERE IS TREE REMOVAL UNDER SECTION 8.1 AND, YOU KNOW, ARTICLE 17, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CODE, THE CRITERIA FOR THAT. THE NEIGHBORS WILL WANT TO SPEAK TO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SPEAK TO AS WELL AS YOU HAVE. BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO BE MINDFUL THAT YOUR TASK HERE IS THE CRITERIA FOR THE TREE REMOVAL ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WHETHER IT'S BEEN MET OR NOT AND WHY OR WHY NOT. THANK YOU. » Board Member Freedman: I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TREES IN PARTICULAR, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. » DO YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT IT'S STILL RELATED? » NO. -19- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Board Member Freedman: YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOCK THE TREES DOWN. » Chairperson: YOU HAVEN'T ASKED A SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES YET. » Board Member Appel: WELL, FIRST YOU'VE GOT TO KNOW WHAT THE LEVEL REVIEW IS. IS THE LEVEL REVIEW A SAFETY ISSUE? » THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW. THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY ANOTHER BODY ENTIRELY. OUR PURVIEW IS ONLY WITH THE TREES. »Board Member Freedman: I HAVE TREE -RELATED QUESTIONS DIRECTLY. » Chairperson: THANK YOU. »Board Member Freedman: AS OPPOSED TO INDIRECTLY. WHICHEVER YOU CAN BEST ANSWER THIS QUESTION. THIS TYPE OF TREE, THE EXISTING TREES, THIS TYPE OF TREE HAS BEEN IN USE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ABOUT 100 YEARS; IS THAT RIGHT? »Ms. Curtis: I COULDN'T SAY BUT PROBABLY, YES. » Board Member Freedman: EVEN THOUGH IT'S LABELED AS INVASIVE, THESE PARTICULAR TREES ARE NOT SQUEEZING OUT ANY NATIVE VEGETATION, ARE THEY? »Ms. Curtis: I DON'T KNOW THAT, SIR. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I MEAN, THEY ARE NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA BUT I DON'T KNOW IF A BIRD TOOK A SEED AND PLANTED IT IN A NEARBY PRESERVE AND CHOKING OUT. IT'S JUST THE SPECIES AS A WHOLE IS DOING THAT. » Board Member Freedman: DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THESE TREES ARE SPREADING OUT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD? »Ms. Curtis: IN MY POLL OF THE BIRDS, NONE OF THEM ADMIT IT. I DON'T -20- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KNOW IF THEY HAVE ADMITTED. » Board Member Freedman: THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER TREES OF THIS TYPE AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ARE THERE? OTHER THAN THESE EIGHT WHICH WERE INTENTIONALLY PUT INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? »Ms. Curtis: THERE WAS MENTION OF OTHER TREES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THESE. BUT ONCE AGAIN THESE ARE NOT IN OUR SCHOOL PROPERTY. THEY ARE THE ONLY EIGHT BISHOPWOODS IN THE SCHOOL RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PROPERTY ARE THESE EIGHT. » Board Member Freedman: SO THE POINT IS -- AND TELL ME IF THIS IS CORRECT. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE PARTICULAR TREES AS FAR AS THEIR CHARACTERISTIC OF THE TREES? IT'S JUST THEIR LOCATION? » Ms. Curtis: NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE, SIR. THE TREES HAVE BEEN CATEGORIZED AS A CATEGORY 1 TREE. »Board Member Freedman: I KNOW THAT. BUT THESE PARTICULAR TREES, THEY ARE NOT, THEY ARE NOT ACTING AS A NUISANCE AND SQUEEZING OUT NATIVE VEGETATION, ARE THEY? » Ms. Curtis: NO. BUT WHAT THEY ARE ACTING IS AS A NUISANCE FOR THE SIDEWALK. WE HAVE PICTURES WHERE THE TREES HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. THEY ARE CRACKING THE SIDEWALK. THE SIDEWALK ALONG THAT AREA IS NOT ADA COMPATIBLE. » Board Member Freedman: SO THAT'S A MAINTENANCE ISSUE. » Chairperson: YOU DON'T NEED TO GO THERE. THESE TREES ARE ON THE PROHIBITED LIST. » Ms. Curtis: THEY ARE ON THE PROHIBITED LIST. -21- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Board Member Freedman: AS A SPECIES. BUT THESE PARTICULAR ONES, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT PROBLEMS THEY ARE CAUSING. » Chairperson: THEY ARE STILL MEMBERS OF THAT SAME SPECIES. ANY MEMBER OF THAT SPECIES IS PROHIBITED REGARDLESS OF THEIR LOCATION. » Board Member Freedman: PROHIBITED FROM WHAT? » Chairperson: FROM BEING PLANTED, SOLD OR PROPAGATED IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. » Board Member Freedman: BUT THEY WERE ALREADY HERE BEFORE THEN. » Chairperson: AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF THEM. SAME WITH THE CASUARINA ON -- »Board Member Freedman: I UNDERSTAND. WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS NOW THE PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN LIVE OAKS. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING LIVE OAKS INSIDE THE FENCE LINE IN THE BASEBALL FIELD AREA? » Ms. Curtis: YES. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT WE HAVE ROOM TO PUT THEM. » Board Member Freedman: AND WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE BASEBALL FIELDS? » Ms. Curtis: NO, WE'RE PUTTING THEM OUTSIDE OF THE CLEARANCE AREA FOR THE BASEBALL FIELDS. IF YOU CAN SEE ON OUR PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU,. » HELLO? » Ms. Curtis: THE LIVE OAKS ARE BEING PLACED AT THE EDGE OF THE -22- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FENCE, OUTSIDE OF THE PLAYING AREA, OUTSIDE THE CLEAR AREA FOR THE FIELD, AS CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF SIDEWALK AS POSSIBLE. » Chairperson: DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? »Ms. Curtis: I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING. AND YOUR CODE ALLOWS FOR IT AND, IN FACT, ALLOWS FOR THE REMOVAL OF A TREE THAT IS AN EXOTIC INVASIVE TREE SPECIES SO LONG AS IT'S REPLACED WITH A NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO PROMOTE GOOD FORESTRY PRACTICES. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE ARE PROTECTING ALL OF THE NATURAL AREA IN THE CITY, IN THE COUNTY BY REMOVING EXOTIC AND PROHIBITED SPECIES. \» ANYONE ELSE AT THE SCHOOL BOARD WISHING TO FOLLOW UP? » Mr. Garcia: I'M LUIS GARCIA ON BEHALF OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO POINT OUT IS THE REASON FOR THIS REBUILDING AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHOOL IS THAT THERE'S 2,800 STUDENTS IN THIS SCHOOL SITE. SO EARLIER ONE OF YOU HAD MENTIONED WHY WERE WE HAVING 150 PARKING SPACES. IT'S NOT -- IT'S JUST TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THOSE STUDENTS BUT THERE IS A LARGE NEED FOR THIS RECONSTRUCTION. AND BASED UPON THE JURISDICTION YOU HAD, YOU ARE REALLY JUST LOOKING AT A TREE REMOVAL AS YOUR ATTORNEY, AND COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD POINTED OUT NOT. AS THE OTHER REASONS WHY THE CONSTRUCTION HAS TAKEN PLACE. AS YOU'VE ALREADY NOTED, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ISSUES. THANK YOU. » Chairperson: THANK YOU. NOW, I'M SURE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE -23- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. I WOULD ASK THE SCHOOL BOARD IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAYBE LOWER YOUR BOARDS THERE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LINE UP AT THE MICROPHONE. » MR. CHAIR, ARE WE DOWN TO FIVE MEMBERS HERE? » Chairperson: WE ARE. WE'RE GOING TO LOSE ANOTHER ONE SHORTLY. » DO WE NEED FIVE VOTES OR FOUR VOTES? FOUR NOW, RIGHT? » FOUR MEMBERS. » WHILE THEY ARE DECIDING THAT. » Asst. City Attorney: OKAY. THE OFFICER WAS REMINDING ME THAT THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU RECENTLY SAW -- AND THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS NOT YET GONE TO THE COMMISSION. SO THE BUSINESS ABOUT THAT YOU NEED THE FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ONLY FOR DESIGNATION BUT NOT FOR OTHER MATTERS HAS NOT YET, HAS NOT YET GONE TO THE COMMISSION. SO YOU WOULD STILL NEED A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD. » Chairperson: A MAJORITY OF FIVE OR A MAJORITY OF NINE? IT SHOULD BE A MAJORITY OF FIVE, RIGHT? IT'S 3-2, BOARD TAKES ACTION? » Asst. City Attorney: YES. » Chairperson: BUT YOU NEED -- » Asst. City Attorney: FIVE. » Chairperson: BUT YOU NEED, FOR A QUORUM DO YOU NEED FOR OR FIVE? » Asst. City Attorney: QUORUM IS FOUR. AND WE HAVE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE TO READ, AND A SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR ALL OTHER MATTERS BUT DESIGNATION. THAT'S ON ITS WAY TO CITY COMMISSION ON -24- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECEMBER 17th. » Chairperson: BUT AS IT IS NOW. » Asst. City Attorney: AS IT IS NOW IT SAYS FIVE VOTES, MAJORITY. » Chairperson: SO WE NEED FIVE PEOPLE HERE? » Asst. City Attorney: WE NEED FIVE. » BUT YOU DON'T NEED FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES? » Clerk: YES, YOU DO. YES OR NO, YEAS OR NAYS. » THAT'S VERY SIMPLE. YOU NEED FIVE VOTES TO TAKE ACTION. THAT'S THE DEFINITION FROM QUORUM. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU NEED FIVE TO SIT IN HERE FOR QUORUM PURPOSES. BUT IF WE WANT TO PROVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU NEED FIVE -- »Asst. City Attorney: NO, NO. LOOK. THIS IS THE SECTION AND THIS IS THE ISSUE, SO YOU UNDERSTAND. FOUR MEMBERS CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. ALL DECISIONS SHALL REQUIRE A CONCURRING VOTE, A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT, OKAY? IT WOULD BE FINE IF IT ENDS THERE. HOWEVER AT THIS POINT IT GOES ON TO SAY, "HOWEVER, DESIGNATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 23 AND ALL ACTIONS ON CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE." ACTUALLY THIS IS A -- » APPEAL. » Chairperson: THIS IS AN APPEAL. »Asst. City Attorney: THIS IS A HE TROD -- THIS IS A TREE APPEAL AND NOW THAT YOU'VE RAISED THE QUESTION, I FIND A QUESTION OF FIRST IMPRESSION. IT'S NOT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. IT'S -25- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOT A DESIGNATION. SO I DON'T THINK THIS FIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR MATTER BEFORE YOU. » Chairperson: OKAY, WHO'S LEAVING? SOMEONE'S LEAVING IN THE NEXT AMOUNT OF TIME? IT'S A MAJORITY. AND THEN IT'S 20 MINUTES? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE TO LEAVE AFTER THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE HERE, BUT LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS. » Chairperson: PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. » Mr. Ray: MY NAME IS MICHAEL D. RAY. I'M AN ATTORNEY. I PRACTICE LAW AT 124 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MYSELF. I GRADUATED FROM MIAMI HIGH IN 1969. I'VE TAUGHT THERE. I'VE PARTICIPATED IN THEIR PUBLIC AFFAIRS INTERNSHIP PROGRAM. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT AS MR. APPEL SUGGESTED, IT CERTAINLY IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES AT THIS LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT BECAUSE SECTION 8.1.1, TREE PROTECTION SAYS, QUOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO ASSURE THAT THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IS EXECUTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TREES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. SO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THAT, IT HAS TO BE DECIDED WHETHER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TREES IS NECESSARY OR NOT. BUT BEFORE EVEN GETTING INTO THAT, THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT'S ADDRESSED AND IT ALSO RELATES TO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT TIME RUNNING OUT. AND IT'S A DUE PROCESS. AND MY ARGUMENT IN THAT REGARD IS THIS HEARING, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIS BOARD, SHOULD -26- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOT BE TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. AND I WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHY THAT IS. FIRST OF ALL, ANY NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR A HEARING LIKE THIS REQUIRES THAT A NOTICE OF HEARING, 8.1.8.3, NOTICE OF APPEAL. QUOTE: NOTICE OF HEARING, QUOTE, SHALL BE MAILED TO THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING. AND THAT NOTICE SHALL COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION 621292A OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE. FIRST OF ALL THERE ARE SOME OWNERS HERE OF PROPERTY ON THIRD STREET THAT DID NOT GET A WRITTEN NOTICE OF THIS HEARING. SO DUE PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. SECONDLY, 62.1292A OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE SIGN NOTICING THIS APPEAL WILL TAKE PLACE, QUOTE: SHALL BE ERECTED IN FULL VIEW OF THE PUBLIC ON EACH SIDE OF SUCH LANDS AND WHERE LARGE PARCELS OF PROPERTYARE INVOLVED WITH STREET FRONTAGES EXTENDING OVER CONSIDERABLE DISTANCES AS MANY SIGNS SHALL BE ERECTED ON A STREET -- ERECTED ON STREET FRONTAGE AS MAY BE DEEMED ADEQUATE TO INFORM THE PUBLIC. UNQUOTE. THAT WAS NOT DONE HERE. THERE ARE ONLY TWO SIGNS. ONE OF THEM'S ON 24th AVENUE WHICH HAS NOTHING EVEN TO DO WITH THESE TREES. THE OTHER SIGN IS ON THIRD STREET ON THE SIDE WHERE THE HOUSES ARE, NOT ON THE SIDE WHERE THE TREES ARE. NOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED WHEN THE TREES WERE INTENDED TO BE CUT DOWN AND THAT EVEN LEAVES MORE CONFUSION TO THE ISSUE AND OF A PROPER NOTICE BEING AFFORDED. -27- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AND PERHAPS WHY MORE PEOPLE AREN'T HERE. I KNOW SOMEONE'S HERE THAT HAS A LETTER OF, LIKE, 50 PEOPLE THAT OBJECT TO THIS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA. BUT MAYBE THEY COULDN'T GET HERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET PROPER NOTICE. AND ID LIKE TO GIVE EACH OF YOU A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE TREES WHICH SAYS — » Asst. City Attorney: YOU NEED TO GIVE A COPY TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AS WELL. » Mr. Ray: I WILL. » Chairperson: WAIT UNTIL YOU GET TO THE MICROPHONE. MAYBE PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO ADDRESS THE NOTICE ISSUE AFTERWARD. » Asst. City Attorney: I'M JUST MENTIONING IT. I'M NOT GIVING AN OPINION, YOU KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING PUBLIC WORKS. » Chairperson: WE'LL WAIT TO HEAR FROM YOU AFTER HE FINISHES. » RIGHT. » Chairperson: FOR THE QUESTION OF DUE PROCESS. » Mr. Ray: AS YOU CAN SEE ON THERE -- . » Chairperson: WAIT UNTIL YOU GET TO THE MIC. »Mr. Ray: ONE OF THESE WAS POSTED ON EACH OF EIGHT TREES. AND ON EACH TREE THIS IDENTICAL NOTICE APPEARED AND IT SAYS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2488 SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET, REMOVAL OF ONE TREE. ONE TREE. NOT EIGHT. »Chairperson: A TOTAL REMOVAL OF NINE TREES. » Mr. Ray: OKAY, YOU ARE RIGHT. IT SAYS NINE. BUT NOW THE APPEAL, ONLY HAS TO REMOVE EIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER TREE? -28- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BUT WHAT ABOUT 2488 SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET? IT'S A SMALL LITTLE EFFICIENCY. THERE'S ONE TREE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE. NOW, IF I LIVED DOWN THE BLOCK AT 2430 LIKE WHERE THIS GENTLEMAN LIVES AND I SAW THIS ON THE TREE, I WOULD THINK, WELL, I DON'T LIVE AT 2488; WHAT DO I CARE? WHAT KIND OF NOTICE IS THAT? AND IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR WEBSITE, CONSIDERING THAT, ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF MIAMI WEBSITE, 90.08% OF THE PEOPLE IN LITTLE HAVANA ARE HISPANIC AND 75% OF THEM ARE FOREIGN BORN. AND THESE NOTICES ARE ONLY IN ENGLISH, THAT'S EVEN MORE CONFUSING. SO PERHAPS THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HERE TO EXPRESS THEIR OBJECTIONS WHO WERE NOT ABLE TO BECAUSE OF THIS COMPOUNDED LACK OF ADEQUATE NOTICE STARTING FROM THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF THE TREE REMOVAL TO THE APPEAL NOTICE. AND THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND SO WHAT I WILL SUBMIT WITHOUT EVEN GETTING INTO ALL THE REASONS WHY THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER TO TAKE THE TREES OUT FROM THAT LOCATION, I WENT TO THAT SCHOOL. THERE'S PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES THEY COULD PUT THEM. BUT I THINK THE CITIZENS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN CONSULTED WITH AND HAVE NOT BEEN MET WITH AND I'VE TRIED TALKING WITH SOME OF THESE ARCHITECTS ON THE PHONE AND THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, AND THEY WON'T DISCUSS IT WITH YOU. THE SCHOOL BOARD, ONE OF THEM EVEN HANGS UP THE PHONE. AND I ASKED THEM, WELL, DON'T YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO USE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE SIDEWALK? THE SCHOOL BOARD CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, THEY -29- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SAY. THIS WAS MR. BOWEN AT THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER'S OFFICE FOR THAT AREA, MR. BARRERA. AND THEN HE PUT ME ON HOLD AND THEN I GOT DISCONNECTED. BUT NEVERTHELESS, OTHER PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE OBJECT. THEY COULD PUT THESE TREES ON 25th AVENUE. THEIR OWN MAP MISREPRESENTS THE ONE THEY HAD GIVEN OUT BEFORE, HOW WIDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ON 25th AVENUE. » Chairperson: YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. » RIGHT THERE ON 25th AVENUE. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE'S DOUBLE. YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS THAT SAY THEY HAD BEFORE AND THEY SHOW IT ONLY AS ABOUT THE SAME SIZE AS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THIRD STREET. HOW DID THEY COMMUNICATE WITH THE NEIGHBORS? THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. BUT AGAIN, THIS HEARING, SO FAR, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIS BOARD, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND RESCHEDULE THIS HEARING UNLESS YOU JUST OUTRIGHT DENY THE APPEAL. BUT OTHERWISE, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES UNDER THE LAW WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND WHAT HE MUST DO TO PREVENT THE DEPRIVATION OF HIS OR HER INTEREST. U.S. SUPREME COURT, GOLDBERG VERSUS KELLEY. ORDINARILY THE SERVICES OF NOTICE MUST BE REASONABLY STRUCTURED TO SEE THAT THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS DIRECTED RECEIVES IT. PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN GET A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT'S REQUIRED. » RIGHT. » Mr. Ray: WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WHEN IT SAYS THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE TREE REMOVED AT 2488? -30- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: RIGHT. NOW, THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE ATTORNEY IF THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. »Asst. City Attorney: THIS IS WHAT I HAVE DETERMINED SO FAR. PUBLIC WORKS UNDER 8.1.4.4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS THAT WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE ISSUANCE TO APPROVE OR DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT BY PUBLIC WORKS, THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH MEANS PUBLIC WORKS, SHALL POST -- SHALL NOTIFY THE APPLICANT AND POST THE NOTICE OF THE INTENDED DECISION ON OR ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN A LOCATION VISIBLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THE POSTING IS TO REMAIN VISIBLE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR TEN CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE POSTING DAY. UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD, I INDICATED THE PUBLIC WORKS REPRESENTATIVE TO STATE THAT HE BELIEVED THAT WAS DONE. NOW, TURNING TO THE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING HERE IN THE CODE IT SAYS APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC. THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. IT'S AN APPEAL TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. AND THE APPEAL TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, THERE'S A NOTICE PROVISION, 8.1.8.3, ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS ON APPEALS TO HEP SHALL BE NOTICED AS FOLLOWS: NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE MAILED AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING TO THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE THAT'S THE MIAMI-DADE SCHOOL BOARD, AND THE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE HEARING, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHALL BE POSTED WITH A SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 62.129.2A AS AMENDED OF THE MIAMI CITY CODE. I DON'T HAVE THE ZONING -31- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDINANCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I COULD GET A COPYRIGHT NOW, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT DEFINES THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS PROPERTIES THAT ARE ABUT THING, CONTIGUOUS, -- ABUTTING, CONTIGUOUS, NEARBY. YES, I WOULD SAY SO YES. » Chairperson: AND DO WE HAVE ANY, DO WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT? » I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER -- » Chairperson: WHAT'S THE NOTICE POSTED, OF THE NOTICE OF THE APPEAL? » YES, IT WAS. »Mr. Ray: IT ALSO REQUIRES AS MANY SIGNS AS MAY BE REASONABLY POSSIBLE. NOW, IF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE IS TO CUT DOWN THESE TREES OR PUT ON EVERY TREE THAT WHY WOULDN'T IT BE REASONABLE TO PUT THE OF APPEAL ON EVERY TREE RATHER THAN ONLY ONE DOWN AT 24th AVENUE WHICH ISN'T EVEN RELEVANT AND ONE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS, ONLY ON THE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET WHEN THE RULE CLEARLY SAYS THAT IT SHOULD BE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. AND IT'S NOT. SO NOT ONLY IS A DIVISION ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, IT'S DEFICIENT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE NOTICE ON THIRD STREET AND NOT ONE IN FRONT OF EVERY TREE OR EVERY HOUSE AS THERE WAS ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY PUT THE ORIGINAL NOTICE ON THESE TREES. » Asst. City Attorney: OKAY, THIS IS NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT I NEED TO TRY TO USE THE BOARD'S TIME EFFICIENTLY. THIS IS PERHAPS WHY WE MAY ALL LEARN FROM THIS, THAT YOUR JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS AT THE OUTSET OF THESE MATTERS AND NOT HALFWAY INTO THEM. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, IF -- YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE CODE PROVIDES. -32- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE INQUIRY OF DIFFERENT CITY OFFICIALS TO KNOW IF THESE THINGS WERE, IN FACT, DONE. I CANNOT SIT HERE AND IN A VACUUM DETERMINE THAT FOR YOU. I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THERE IS DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOTICE BEING GIVEN, THE PRUDENT THING IS TO RE - NOTICE THAT. THANK YOU, SIR THANK YOU. AND IF -- THAT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE THE EASIEST WAY TO CHALLENGE OR APPEAL SOMETHING IS TO SAY THAT THE ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS NOT GIVEN. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THESE THINGS WERE DONE RIGHT NOW. STAFF WOULD HAVE TO ASSIST US WITH THAT. » Chairperson: I THINK STAFF IS TRYING TO DETERMINE THAT. AND WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL GO ON AND WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT. IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO OTHER PEOPLE TO COME AND PRESENT THEIR OPINION. » Asst. City Attorney: ABSOLUTELY. »Mr. Ray: IT SAYS -- YEAH, I JUST READ YOU THE SECTION. ADJACENT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, RIGHT. HE HAS SAID THAT WAS NOT DONE, THAT'S CORRECT. » DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY DID ON THE TREES OR WHAT THEY POSTED. NOTICE I THINK IT'S BEEN ALREADY ESTABLISHED NOTICE WAS NOT MAILED TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, THEREFORE -- » Chairperson: NO, I THINK SHE'S LOOKING THAT UP. SHE'S LOOKING THAT UP. » Asst. City Attorney: WELL, HE SAID THAT. THAT'S TRUE. WHAT I SAID WAS I HAVE NO WAY OF SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW AND TELLING YOU WHETHER THAT WAS DONE OR NOT IF THAT WASN'T CLEAR. SO I KNOW -33- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HE SAID THAT. I JUST, YOU KNOW -- » Chairperson: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. »Ms. Dove: HI. MY NAME IS GISELLE DOVE. I LIVE AT 2520 SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE BASKETBALL COURT AT MIAMI HIGH. NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MADE UP OF A LOT MORE THAN BUILDINGS. WE LIVE IN A VERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE PROUD THAT WE HAVE MIAMI HIGH IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO LIVE WITH US AS GOOD NEIGHBORS. WE WILL NOT EVER, THE SCHOOL BOARD NEVER MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR PLANS WERE OR TO GET OUR INPUT. THAT'S MY FIRST POINT. SECONDLY, A SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE TREES. NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MADE UP OF MORE THAN BUILDINGS. TREES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE AT 2520 AND IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE MAN WHO WORKED ON MIAMI HIGH ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED MY BUILDING, ALSO. SO WE DO HAVE A TIE TO MIAMI HIGH. BUT WE DO WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE ARE THE ONLY TREES ALONG OUR STREET. THE BUSES ARE GOING TO BE PARKING THERE FOR AN HOUR. I'VE LIVED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVEN YEARS. TO REMOVE THE ONLY TREES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD FOR BUSES TO PARK FOR AN HOUR I THINK IS A GROSS IMPOSITION ON US AS NEIGHBORS. WE ARE THE ONLY STREET THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DOESN'T OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET. IF YOU CONSIDER THE SCHOOL AS A BLOCK, THEY OWN EVERY PROPERTY -34- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACROSS ALL OF THE STREETS. THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE THREE OTHER CORNERS TO CONSIDER PUTTING THE BUSES. WE HAVE NOWHERE ELSE. THIS IS OUR HOME. THE TREES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHO WE ARE AT SOUTHWEST THIRD STREET. SO IF WE WANT TO CONSIDER THOSE TREES, DO WERE THE TREES AS PART OF A HOME AND WHO WE ARE. AND YOU REMOVE THE TREES, YOU ARE REMOVING THE ONLY TREES THAT WE HAVE. THESE TREES HAVE BEEN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE 20s. WE MOVED IN THERE AND WE SHOULD THEN BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THESE TREES. AND WE EXPECT THE SCHOOL BOARD TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS TO US AND CONSULT US IN WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO. YES, MIAMI IS GROWING, AND WE'RE NOT AGAINST WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO EDUCATE THE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WE ARE A NEIGHBORHOOD FIRST. THE SCHOOL IS NOT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS A PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND BECAUSE WE LIVE THERE EVERY DAY AND THESE CHILDREN COME TO SCHOOL, THESE CHILDREN ARE ALSO PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND SO REMOVING THE TREE IS NOT A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PRACTICE. AND NOT MEETING WITH US TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE IS THE BEGINNING OF A BAD RELATIONSHIP. HAVING SAID THAT, WE ARE WILLING AND OPEN TO HERE WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS TO SAY. BUT AS FAR AS THE TREES ARE CONCERNED, DO REMEMBER THEY ARE THE ONLY TREES ON OUR STREET. AND TO REMOVE THEM FOR BUSES TO PARK FOR AN HOUR IS NOT FAIR TO US AS NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU. -35- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: BEFORE YOU GO, DID YOU RECEIVE NOTIFICATION? » NO, SIR. THE ONLY NOTICE I GOT WAS WHEN MY NEIGHBOR KNOCKED ON MY DOOR. I'M LIKE, WHAT? WHICH TREE? I THEN DROVE DOWN THE STREET AND SAW ONE NOTICE POSTED ON ONE TREE. » Chairperson: THANK YOU. » Ms. Dove: THANK YOU. » Asst. Public Works Director: FOR THE RECORD I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHERE ALL THE TREES WERE POSTED, THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WOULD FOLLOW IN PUBLIC WORKS. » Asst. City Attorney: OKAY. AND LET ME ASK YOU, FRANCIS. DID PUBLIC WORKS POST ALL THE TREES THAT ARE SOUGHT FOR REMOVAL HERE? » Asst. Public Works Director: YES. WHAT WE DO, THE NOTICE WE PUT IT ON A PLASTIC FOLDER AND WE STAPLE IT ON THE TRUNK OF THE TREES. » Asst. City Attorney: AND DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THAT WAS DONE IN THIS INSTANCE? » Asst. Public Works Director: YES. »Board Member Freedman: IF I MAY ASK: THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE OR SOME OTHER NOTICE? »Asst. Public Works Director: THIS NOTICE, NOTICE TO INTENT. » Board Member Freedman: OKAY. YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A NOTICE OF A RIGHT TO APPEAL? » Asst. Public Works Director: NO. » Board Member Freedman: JUST A NOTICE OF INTENT? »Asst. Public Works Director: YES. » Board Member Freedman: THIS NOTICE OF INTENT SAYS THAT PUBLIC -36- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WORKS INTENDS TO MAKE A DECISION TO REMOVE THE TREES. BUT, IN FACT, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, DID IT? »Asst. Public Works Director: NO. >Asst. City Attorney: AND IT SAYS -- IT DOES SAY AT THE BOTTOM, WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SENT TO THE PRESERVATION OFFICER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI. A COPY OF THIS NOTICE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PUBLIC WORKS AT THE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE. WELL, I THINK THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT PUBLIC WORKS DID POST THE TREE. I THINK THE TREES PLURALLY. » Board Member Freedman: WITH WHAT? IT SAYS -- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, HERE'S THE NOTICE, THIS NOTICE OF INTENT ISSUED WHICH SAYS IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL THE INTENDED DECISION, YOU CAN DO SO WITHIN TEN DAYS. BUT THERE WAS NO INTENDED DECISION ISSUED. » Chairperson: SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WAS THE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING POSTED IN THE RED AND WHITE SIGN ON THE TREES? THE FOLLOWING INTENDED DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 8.1. HERE THE INTENDED DECISION WAS NOT TO, NOT TO ISSUE THE TREE, RIGHT? NOT TO ISSUE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THE INTENDED DECISION SAYS REMOVAL OF A TREE. THAT WAS THE INTENDED DECISION. THE ANTICIPATED DECISION AT THE TIME THIS NOTICE WAS POSTED. SO BECAUSE THAT DECISION WAS NEVER RENDERED, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WAS AN APPEAL PENDING BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. »Asst. City Attorney: YEAH, I THINK THE QUESTION IS FAIR. I WOULD SAY THAT I KNOW THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CASE THAT WE DO NOT -37- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OFTEN GET BECAUSE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS INVOLVED HERE. BUT I DO THINK THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FRANCIS, WHAT THE MEMBER'S SAYING IS INSIGHTFUL. I THINK THAT HERE, I KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT IS USED MOST OF THE TIME, AND IT'S WHAT'S USED FOR EVERYBODY WANTS TO APPEAL A TREE BEING REMOVED. BUT HERE IT WAS THE DENIAL, THE DENIAL OF THE TREE PERMIT BEING REMOVED. AND I THINK THAT -- . » Chairperson: MR. ATTORNEY. » Asst. City Attorney: YEAH. » Chairperson: ISN'T IT CUSTOMARY FOR ITEMS THAT COME BEFORE THE HEP BOARD TO BE NOTICED WITH A RED AND WHITE SIGN ATA LOCATION? »Asst. City Attorney: YES. » Chairperson: AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR. NOT THIS. BECAUSE THIS WAS, THIS WAS BEFORE. » Asst. City Attorney: RIGHT. Chairperson: BUT THE NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING, THE NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING. » Asst. City Attorney: VERY QUIRKY SITUATION. I THINK THE ISSUE -- WELL, PUBLIC WORKS DID POST. WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT, THIS IS WHAT THEY CUSTOMARILY DO. IT MAY NOT EXACTLY FIT THE SITUATION, IT'S TRUE, BUT THE SITUATION IS VERY DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY DID POST. BUT WITH THIS I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE ADJACENT SPOTS RECEIVED THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THIS MEETING. I THINK THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE HERE MUCH MORE THAN THIS. I THINK THIS IS MOOTED BY THAT. I MEAN, AND THAT, THAT I CAN'T -38- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DETERMINE. » Preservation Officer: THEN IF I MAY, WE SEND TO CODE ENFORCEMENT A LETTER THAT ASKS THEM TO POST. WE DON'T DO IT. AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS PUBLIC WORKS. THIS IS WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I'M USED TO ANYWAY, CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE DEAL WITH THEM SOLELY. IN THIS CASE IT WAS THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DENIED THE PERMIT TO ISSUE. WE WENT -- IN FACT, I WROTE AN E-MAIL TO RAFAEL, AND IT'S DESCRIBED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ASKING HIM, DON'T THE APPEALS OF A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR GO DIRECTLY TO CITY COMMISSION. AND I CITED THE PROVISION WHICH I UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN. AND HE SAID, NO, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO HEP. AT WHICH POINT WE SAID, OKAY, WE'LL PUT IT IN THE LEGAL AD, WHICH WE DID, WE WILL NOTIFY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEY WILL POST, AND WE WILL NOTIFY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS IT IS WRITTEN. AND WE DID. I JUST LOOKED THROUGH THE MATERIALS THAT WERE BROUGHT OVER. WE DON'T HAVE THE FILE THAT HAS THE LIST OF ADDRESSEES. SO WE CANNOT CONFIRM FOR YOU TODAY THAT THEY WERE MAILED. BUT THAT WAS OUR PROCESS. » Asst. City Attorney: SO THAT BEING THE CASE, AND I'M SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S NOT GOING TO BE, THEY'RE NOT -- THEY WON'T BE ECSTATIC TO HEAR THIS. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE PRUDENT COURSE IS TO CONTINUE THIS TO EITHER BE SURE THAT THE RIGHT NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND IF NOT, THE MATTER HAS TO BE RE -NOTICED. THE KIND OF NOTICE THAT HAS TO BE FOR TREE APPEAL IS THE POSTING. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY LIKE ANY OTHER KIND OF APPEAL THAT GOES TO THE HEP -39- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD FROM WHOEVER ABOUT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DESIGNATION, WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT THAT WRITTEN NOTICE, YOU KNOW, WENT OUT BECAUSE IF NOT, PEOPLE CAN CHALLENGE WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN. I'M NOT TELLING YOU IT WAS GIVEN OR NOT GIVEN. THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT MY JOB, YOU KNOW. IT WOULD BE TO CONFER WITH THE STAFF AND SEE IF IT WAS DONE. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT NOW. BUT IF AN ALLEGATION HAS BEEN MADE THAT IT WAS NOT DONE, -- . » Chairperson: AND WE HAVE A REPORT OF ONE PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY WHO SAID -- » Asst. City Attorney: WE HAVE ONE PERSON SAYING, WELL, SOMEONE WHO WAS ADAMANT THAT IT WASN'T DONE. BUT SOMEONE ELSE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE THE NOTICE WHO APPARENTLY LIVES ACROSS THE STREET. IT CERTAINLY CAUSES ENOUGH CONCERN THAT MY ADVICE WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING IN THE EVENT WE CAN CONFIRM THAT THE RIGHT NOTICE WAS GIVEN. AND IF IT WASN'T GIVEN, THEN IT HAS TO BE RE - NOTICED. » Board Member: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE. » Mr. Garcia: TO THE CHAIR, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. TYPICALLY WHEN NOTICE IS GIVEN, IT'S GIVEN TO THE AFFECTED PARTY. THE ONLY AFFECTED PARTY IN THIS INSTANCE IS THE PERSON THAT HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DECISION. YOU ARE HERE BEFORE MAKING A DETERMINATION OR ANY DENIAL OF A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THE ONLY IMPACT THAT IS FROM THAT NOW IS THE SCHOOL BOARD BECAUSE THE -40- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SCHOOL BOARD IS THE ONE THAT IS ASKING TO APPEAL THIS DECISION. SO THE APPROPRIATE NOTICE IS TO THE PARTY THAT IS BEING AFFECTED. AND THAT IS, IN FACT, WHAT YOUR RULES SAY AND YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS UNDER SECTION 8.18, APPEALS, APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD. THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE APPLICANT OR ANY AGGRIEVED PARTY HAVING STANDING UNDER FLORIDA LAW, THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAS STANDING IN THIS INSTANCE TO ACTUALLY APPEAL THAT DENIAL IS THE IMPACTED PARTY, WHICH IS THE OWNER. AND THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU. SO THE NOTICE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FACTOR WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE SCHOOL BOARD HAD NOT RECEIVED NOTICE AND HAD NOT PROPERLY APPEALED THE DECISION BELOW. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. IF NOTICE REALLY HAS NO REAL MERIT IN THIS INSTANCE SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE AGGRIEVED PARTY IN THIS CASE. AND THAT WAS THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION I HAVE, THE ONLY SUGGESTION I HAVE. WE REALLY CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, ENTITY'S INABILITY TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE NOTICE. » Mr. Murguido: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE CHECK EMAILED AS AN ATTACHMENT AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO CIRCULATE IT AROUND. » Board Member: MR. CHAIR? » Chairperson: YES. » Board Member: IT WAS THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS. IS THAT -- . » Chairperson: STILL LOOKING FOR A SECOND. » Board Member: SECOND. -41- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: OKAY, THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL WHEN? UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING? » Clerk: THE NEXT MEETING. » Asst. City Attorney: WE WOULD -- LOOK, WE WOULD BE CONTINUING THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING IN THE HOPE SIMPLY FOR EXPEDIENCE THAT STAFF CAN CONFIRM AND THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, CHECK WITH LAW. BUT STAFF NEEDS TO CONFIRM THAT WE GAVE THE NOTICE PER THESE PROVISIONS THAT WE JUST READ OUT. IF WE KNOW THAT, THEN WE CAN JUST CONTINUE WITH THE ITEM AT THE NEXT HEARING. IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT CAN'T BE SUBSTANCE -- SUBSTANTIATED, THE ITEM WILL HAVE TO BE RE -NOTICED. » Chairperson: SO RE -NOTICE IT NO MATTER WHAT? »Asst. City Attorney: NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. I SAID WHERE -- » Chairperson: I KNOW WHAT YOU SAID, YES, WOULD MAKE SENSE OR TO BE PRUDENT. IF YOU WANT IT TO TAKE THREE WEEKS TO FIND OUT THAT THE NOTICE IS GOING TO GO OUT — » Chairperson: WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S CERTAINLY WELL WITHIN -- THE BOARD COULD, YEAH, YOU COULD DIRECT THAT AND -- BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A COST FOR ALL THESE THINGS AND THEN, YOU KNOW -- » Asst. City Attorney: WHEN IS THE NEXT MEETING? EXCUSE ME? » Preservation Officer: JANUARY 6, I BELIEVE, THE SECOND -- I'M SORRY, THE FIRST TUESDAY IN JANUARY. » Ms. Craft: THIS PROJECT WAS AWARDED BY THE BOARD IN OCTOBER. AND THIS IS THE ONLY ITEM THAT IS WEIGHED IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION, THAT PHASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. IT WOULD BE -42- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A HARDSHIP TO THE BOARD TO WAIT. » Chairperson: IT WOULD ALSO BE A VIOLATION OF -- THERE IS AN ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. SO WE CAN'T JUST IGNORE THAT. »Asst. City Attorney: IS IT REALLY A CONTINUANCE ISSUE OR IS IT REALLY JUST, WE LACK JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE MATTER TODAY AND THEREFORE IT'S AUTOMATICALLY, IT'S EITHER CONTINUED OR HAS TO BE RE -NOTICED? AND THEREFORE THE BOARD CAN DIRECTOR STAFF -- DIRECT STAFF, GIVEN STAFF'S KIM TIME CONSTRAINTS AND EVERYTHING TO JUST SIMPLY BE CAUTIOUS AND TO NOT DELAY THIS FURTHER, RE - NOTICE IT AND BE CAUTIOUS SO THAT IT WILL, NO MATTER WHAT, BE PROPERLY BEFORE US NEXT MONTH. OTHERWISE WE RISK TWO MONTHS IF IT TAKES US TWO OR THREE WEEKS. » Preservation Officer: NO, IT WON'T DELAY US EVEN IF WE HAVE TO RE - NOTICE IT. IT WON'T DELAY US FROM THE NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA. »Chairperson: IT WON'T? » Clerk: IT WILL NOT. » OKAY. WELL, WHAT WORKS WITH STAFF'S TIMING WITH EVERYTHING? » Clerk: IT'S 10 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING THAT THE LETTERS GO OUT, AND THE POSTING I THINK IS ALSO TEN DAYS. SO THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. THE PROBLEM IS WE CHARGE THE SCHOOL BOARD $3.50 FOR MAILING. WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THAT OUT. WE'LL PROBABLY EAT THAT IF WE HAVE TO RE -NOTICE IT. » SO IF IT'S NOT GOING TO DELAY IT TWO MONTHS, SHOULD WE FIND OUT WE HAVE TO RENOTICE IT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO - -43- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 » Chairperson: WE HAVE A MOTION. » Board Member: WELL, I MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE. BUT IT CAN BE TURNED OVER INTO A RE -NOTICE IF IT TURNS OUT WE CAN'T CONTINUE? IS THAT HOW IT WORKS? » Chairperson: WE CAN'T -- » NO. » Chairperson: I CAN'T CONTINUE THE MATTER IF IT WAS NEVER NOTICED PROPERLY. IF IT'S DETERMINED IT WASN'T NOTICED PROPERLY. » Asst. City Attorney: LOOK, THE MOTION CAN SIMPLY BE, IF I MAY MAKE A SUGGESTION. » Chairperson: PLEASE. » Asst. City Attorney: TO CONTINUE. STATE THE DATE AND TIME CERTAIN OF THE MEETING PROVIDING, HOWEVER, THAT IF, YOU KNOW, IF RE - NOTICING IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE RE -NOTICED. » Board Member: MOTION TO CONTINUE UNLESS RE -NOTICING IS REQUIRED. » Chairperson: AND THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE -- WHO SECONDED? » HIDDEN BENEFIT. » Clerk: AND A SECOND FROM MR. FREEDMAN. » Chairperson: HERE, LET ME EXPLAIN THIS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE. THERE'S BEEN A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER ADEQUATE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC, BOTH TO THE NEIGHBORS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND TO THE CITY AT -LARGE. BECAUSE THERE IS THAT QUESTION, WE HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT -- WELL, WE'RE VOTING TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT MONTH. AT WHICH -44- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TIME YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME BACK AND SAY THE SAME THING. WE WON'T HAVE TO HEAR YOUR PRESENTATIONS AGAIN AND HOPEFULLY KNOW YOUR OBJECTION. » WE'RE OUT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'RE NOW BEFORE THE BOARD. SO NOW WE'LL HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. [ ROLL CALL ]. » Clerk: MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 6th MEETING. » Chairperson: SO JANUARY 6th WE WILL. » JANUARY 6, 3:00 P.M., CITY HALL. THIS ITEM WHICH IS TREE PERMIT APPEAL REMOVAL, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD MIAMI HIGH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. » Chairperson: IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? *** -45- 05/14/2010 13:11 3053779100 RAY/KOLNER, LAWYERS PAGE 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE PAGE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached foregoing is a true and accurate Transcript Excerpt of the December 1, 2009 HEP Board meeting transcribed by me from the certified DVD copy provided to ne by the City of Miami Historical and Environmental Preservation Board, from the closed -captioned data track, to the best of my abilities. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this 12'" day May. 2010, at Miami, Florida, /111 C 4-fel Deilie' /91( n0 Ne !4 . Kolr Liberty Building MIdMAlI.D AWMY 124 South Miami Avenue MYCOMMISBIONro1167 ra Miami, Florida 33130-1605 EXPIRES: Apttl 24,2013 'rFa Wad Vino IWOMay 3oibM -46-