Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2017-05-25 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com _ 01 O p//111111 < L j 11 ppp �`` ,// : # 1, * INC69P°RATED * � 19g96 4f 0 R Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 9:00 AM Planning and Zoning City Hall City Commission Keon Hardemon, Chair Ken Russell, Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner, District One Frank Carollo, Commissioner, District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner, District Four Tomas Regalado, Mayor Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 9:00 AM INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chair Hardemon, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Gort, Commissioner Carollo and Commissioner Suarez On the 25' day of May, 2017, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:01 a.m., recessed at 12: 00 p.m., reconvened at 2:34 p.m., and adjourned at 10:44 p.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chambers at 9:02 a.m., Commissioner Suarez entered the Commission chambers at 9:33 a.m. and Vice Chair Russell entered the Commission chambers at 11:05 a.m. ALSO PRESENT: Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the May 25, 2017 meeting of the City of Miami City Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Wifredo Gort, Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez; Ken Russell, the Vice Chairman; and me, Keon Hardemon, the Chairman. Also on the dais are Daniel J. Alfonso, our City Manager; Victoria Mendez, the City Attorney; and Todd Hannon, our City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Gort, and 1 will lead the pledge of allegiance. All rise, please. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 PROTOCOL ITEM 2349 Honoree Presenter Protocol Item Service Milestone Awards Mayor & Manager City of Miami Pins Erika Ender Mayor Regalado Key to the City Raul Perez-Liste Comm. Russell Salute 29 Bayside Foundation Scholarship Mayor Regalado Certificates of Honor 6 Bayside Foundation Scholarship Commissioner Gort Certificates of Honor Daphne Campbell Mayor Regalado Salute Parks and Recreation Department Fla Department of State Certificate Ulises Calzado Mayor Regalado Certificates of Merit 14 Police Officers Commissioner Suarez Certificates of Merit City of Miami Page 1 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Amy Klose Commissioner Carollo Proclamation RESULT: PRESENTED 1) Mayor Regalado and City Manager Alfonso presented Service Milestone Awards to various City of Miami Employees, recognizing and commending them for their years of service, dedication and commitment to the City of Miami 2) Mayor Regalado and Commissioners paused in their deliberations to grant the Key to the City of Miami to Erika Ender, award winning music composer and singer. Ms. Ender graciously accepted the Key to the City. 3) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Gort paid highest tribute by honoring and commending Raul Perez-Liste for his many contributions to the community. Mr. Perez-Liste has had a distinguished career, with more than forty (40) years of experience in the broadcasting industry, including the areas of television, radio, audio recording, engineering, and satellite communications, in addition to being a recognized leader in his field and has inspired many with his work ethic, know-how, social skills, and professionalism. Elected Officials paused in their deliberations to proclaim May 25, 2017 as "Raul Perez-Liste Day". 4) Mayor Regalado presented Certificates of Honor to twenty-nine (29) recipients of the Miami Bayside Foundation scholarships and paid tribute to the students for their dedication and commitment while they successfully completed their academic programs. 5) Commissioner Gort presented Certificates of Honor to six (6) Miami Bayside Foundation's Commissioner Willy Gort Scholarship and paid tribute to the students for their dedication and commitment while they successfully completed their academic programs. 6) Mayor Regalado paused to celebrate the significant contributions of Haitian culture to the community and the richness of Haitian history, and paid highest tribute to the Honorable Daphne Campbell, District Thirty -Eight (38) Senator for the State of Florida. Senator Campbell is originally from Haiti and has been a registered nurse for over thirty (30) years. She has helped pass several bills, including Medical Malpractice, Affordable Housing, Haitian -American Nurses Awareness Week, Haitian Independence and Flag Day, Haitian -American and Caribbean Heritage Month, and road designations within Transportation Facility Designations. 7) Mayor Regalado and the Florida Department of Health presented a certificate to the City of Miami Parks and Recreation Department, recognizing them for their service and commending them for their dedication and commitment to the City of Miami. 8) Mayor Regalado presented a Certificate of Merit to Mr. Ulises Calzado and saluted his thirty (30) years of work in Univision Radio and for his impeccable trajectory of service to the community. Elected Officials paused in their deliberations to pay highest tribute to Mr. Calzado for his contributions to the community. 9) Commission Suarez presented Certificates ofMerit to fourteen (14) City of Miami Police Officers while paying highest tribute and commending them for their dedication to the City of Miami residents and community. 10) Commissioner Carollo recognized Ms. Amy Klose, City of Miami Human Resources Director, for her outstanding contribution and honorable service. For over six years, Amy Klose used her skills and expertise to provide first class service to residents and city employees alike for the betterment of the community. Ms. Klose was instrumental in spearheading efforts to effectuate positive changes to the culture and morale of the Department of Human Resources. Elected officials paused in their deliberations and wished her well in her ongoing success. City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: We will now make our presentations and proclamations. You all may, be seated. Presentations and proclamations made. AM - APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: AM.1 City Commission - Planning and Zoning - Mar 23, 2017 9:00 AM MV - MAYORAL VETOES NO MAYORAL VETOES MOTION TO: Approve RESULT: APPROVED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve the regular meeting minutes of -- Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved -- Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded. Any unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Chair Hardemon: First, Mr. City Clerk, are there any mayoral vetoes? City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 ORDER OF THE DAY Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much. END OF MAYORAL VETOES Chair Hardemon: We will now get back to our regular meeting. The City Attorney will state the -- read the procedures to be followed during this time. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Thank you, Chairman. Any person who is a lobbyist, including all paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision by the City Commission must register with the City Clerk and comply with the related requirements, for lobbyists before appearing before the City Commission. A person may not lobby a City official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available at the City Clerk's Office or online on wwwmunicode.com [sicJ. Any person making a presentation, .formal request or petition to the City Commission concerning real property must make disclosures required by City Code in writing. A copy of this Code section is available in the City Clerk's Office or online at wwwmunicode.com [sic]. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office, and online 24 hours a day at wwwrniamigov.com [sic]. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before the City Commission takes action on such proposition. The Chairman will advise the public when the public may have the opportunity to address the City Commission during the public comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the member of the public may state his or her first name, his or her address, and what item will be spoken about. A copy of the agenda item titles will be available at the City Clerk's Office and at the podium for your ease of reference. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item. A video of this meeting may, be requested at the Office of Communications, or viewed online at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. No cell phones or other noise -making devices are permitted in chambers; please silence those devices now. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted. Any person making offensive remarks or who becomes unruly in Commission chambers will be barred from further attending Commission meetings, and may be subject to arrest. No signs or placards shall be allowed in the Commission chambers. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of the deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The meeting will end either at the conclusion of the deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m., or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda; whichever occurs first. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. At this time, the Administration will announce what items, if any, are either being withdrawn, deferred, or substituted. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Daniel J Alfonso (City Manager): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your -- Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. We would like to request the continuance of item PH 7 to the June 22 agenda. We would like, at the request of our Police Chief, who couldn't be here today, to defer item RE.5 to the June 8 agenda. We are requesting to withdraw item RE.6; deferring item RE.9 to the June 8 agenda; RE.10 is being requested to be deferred to the special meeting on May 30; RE.11, an indefinite deferral; and Attorney/Client Privilege Session 1 will also be an indefinite deferral. Chair Hardemon: Are there any other items that Commissioners want to have withdrawn, deferred, continued? Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Just for the record, on the PZ (Planning and Zoning) agenda -- we won't defer it now; well defer it after 2 p.m., but giving everyone a heads up that I would ask- for a deferral on PZ.3, PZ.1 1, and PZ. 12, which are all within District 3. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: As Commissioner Carollo basically said, as well, 1 have some -- I'll be withdrawing PZ. 1 and PZ.2 from the Planning & Zoning agenda, as well. They obviously can't do it until then, but the applicant has decided not to go forward, based on community input, and based on the fact they sold the property; 1 and 2. Commissioner Gort: So PZ.1 and 2 is withdrawn? Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Commissioner Carollo: Right. But we can't take the vote now. We're going to have to take it after 2. Commissioner Gort: No, I understand that. Commissioner Suarez: I'm just writing it -- Commissioner Carollo: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE), for you guys to write it down -- Commissioner Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Suarez: -- jor your plan and purposes, and fbr anyone in the audience who may be watching. Chair Hardemon: And Mr. Manager; can you repeat the items that you want continued and withdrawn so that -- Commissioner Suarez: Please, please. Chair Hardemon: -- they're on the record? City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Alfonso: Yes, Mr. Chairman. PH 7, to 6/22; RE.5, to 6/8; RE. 6 is withdrawn; RE.9, to 6/8; RE.10, to May 30; RE.11 and AC.1, indefinite. Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion in accordance? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved; seconded by the Chair. Any unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR REGULAR ITEM(S) Chair Hardemon: So at this time, I'm going to open the public comment period for the morning agenda, so that's the public comment period for our consent agenda, our public hearings, second reading ordinances, resolutions, and all that is not Part 2 of the PZ (Planning and Zoning) agenda. So at this time, once again, I'm going to open up the meeting for public comment. If you're here to comment on any item that is on the morning agenda, now is your time to do so. You'll have two minutes to address this body. If you've come to address the body, please state your name, your address, and what item you're here to speak about; you don't have to, but it's always courteous. You're recognized, sir. Max Green: Good morning. My name's Max Green. 1 work at -- my address is 406 Colony Street, in Melbourne Beach, Florida, and I'mhere in support of RE.2. Good morning. I'm the vice president of Public Safety and Professional Communications Business at Harris Corporation. I'm proud to represent Harris Corporation, a Florida company, with its headquarters in Melbourne and the Space Coast. On behalf of all of us at Harris, especially our Miami -based team, we thank you for placing your trust in us in making the right decision for the City. We appreciate the City Manager's recommendation and your decision to award this very important project to Harris. We'd like to also commend the City for managing a flawlessly transparent procurement process. Without a doubt, the team that carried out the selection and negotiation process was highly professional, competent, and fair. They looked at the.facts and objectively chose the best solution for the City. Our work with public safety and mission critical agencies in Miami - Dade County, the State of Florida and all over the country, including our extensive work with United States military gives us the experience needed to provide the best possible solutions and services to the City of Miami. We're excited that our high quality communications technology and solutions will soon be in the capable hands of.the Citv's first responders and support staff. Our company's 121-year history is rich in stories of innovation and invention, and you can trust that you're getting the best technology available. Harris is proud to be of service to this great city, along with your neighbors and partners of Coral Gables, Aventura, West Palm Beach, Miami -Dade County, Collier County, and Florida Power & Light. We're honored to contribute to the safety and security of Floridians, and Americans in general. Harris is a company completely centered around providing cutting technology -- cutting edge technology -- for mission -critical applications. You have our commitment, and we look forward to establishing a mutual valuable and long- lasting partnership with the City of Miami. We're excited to get started. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, sir. Albio Castillo: Yes. Good morning. My name is Albio Castillo. I live in 2235 Southwest 16th Terrace. My question is from the thing from the State of Florida Transportation. I'd like to know is, how do you going to work for these business that are going under? Is the State going to reimburse them? Is it going to be loan or straight out? I don't know how the City's going to work that, but I believe you better start getting your act together in that area. I believe you have to, because these businesses, some of them have been there jroyears; others, they haven't, they're new. They opened it up and this is taking too long. I don't blame you. It should have been the contractor that over -extended himself That is what I'm bringing to the table. Thank you. City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Castillo: Any question from you? Chair Hardemon: No, I don't have any, sir. Thank you. Mr. Castillo: Thank you. Miguel de Grandy: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. May I proceed? Chair Hardemon: Yes. Mr. de Grandy: For the record, my name is Miguel de Grandy. My address is 701 Brickell Avenue, and I'm here on behalf of Harris Corporation, in support of Resolution RE.2. Now, Commissioners, this open and transparent procurement process has been long and complex, and rightfully so. It involves essential communications systems for your Police, Fire Rescue, and GSA (General Services Administration) Departments, which involved critical life safety issues. The losing bidder, Motorola Corporation, has raised frivolous objections, alleging bias by two selection committee members. Your staff provided a comprehensive response rebutting these, frivolous allegations. But not satisfied with that response, Motorola filed the same complaint against these two public servants in the Miami -Dade County Commission on Ethics. The Ethics Commission fully vetted the complaint, and found -- and 1 quote -- "This complaint is not legally sufficient and should be dismissed. It fails to allege the respondents violated any portion of the Miami -Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics," unquote. Now, knowing that this complaint would not stand the light of day in an administrative challenge, Motorola elected not to file a protest. And Section 18-104(C) of the City's Code clearly states the failure to file a timely notice of intent to protest, quote, "Shall constitute a forfeiture of such party right to file a protest," unquote. Now, we understand when the item is called, Motorola will ask you to violate your own Code and allow them to present their protest anyway, or to defer, in order to further delay and try to derail this important procurement. We respectfully urge you to decline that invitation. In closing, we urge your approval of the item, and we'll be available to answer any questions you have when the item is called. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Ron Book: Mr. Chairman, good morning. For the record, Ron Book, on behalf of Motorola. Each of you have received copies of correspondence we have submitted previously on this issue. I'm most amused by both the Harris representative and Mr. Grandy's representations that the issues that we have raised are merely frivolous. I would not consider an expenditure in excess of $10 million to be frivolous, and I would not express to you that something is frivolous when your process became a process hijacked by individuals outside of the City of Miami. I quote to you from the police officer who served on the selection committee, Captain Sean Mac Donald; communicated emphatically to the other committee members that the Harris radios, as proposed, were unacceptable to the Police and other committee -- and Police Department when he stated, "The issue is that we are losing functionality that we have today, and I do not find this radio to be useable to the Police Department." Commissioners, you have a procurement process that quite appropriately brings in outside individuals to serve. Unfortunately, a bid protest would not deal with the public policy issues of throwing out a high and low scorer, which this Commission has spoken about. The fact of the matter is, the three City representatives -- IT (Information Technology), Police and Fire -- all ranked Motorola number one. All of them expressed concerns about the Harris City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 proposal and the functionality on the record. The fact of the matter is that the two outside evaluators -- and number -one evaluator, the gentleman, Mr. Arce, from Hialeah -- not only ranked Harris with perfect scores, but intentionally subverted the individuals serving that were representatives of this City, the users, lower than anyone else by far, in an effort to taint the process. And Mr. de Grandy and the Harris representatives can represent whatever they want to you. The fact of the matter is, two outsiders -- the individual from Coral Gables, who by his own admission, the Ethics Commission could have found the complaint legally insufficient, but it doesn't change the fact that the Coral Gables representative did a sole source selection of Harris in the past and in -- if you will, had a YouTube Facebook video supporting Harris at the time he came here to serve on the selection committee, and ranked Harris higher because of that. We can call it whatever you want to call it. The fact is, while I respect the review that the Manager made over the last days before this iteni came before you, I would expect selection committee members to support an outcome. But ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners; the process was hijacked by outsiders. They can say whatever they want. Look at the scores. I sent them to you in a voluminous packet of materials yesterday so you would have everything in front of you. I would have sent it to you sooner. We were going through the proper administrative process when we did not protest. And by the way, the contract wasn't done until after the protest period had expired on top of it. And on top of it, the dollars and cents don't add up, either. And you're getting far less for far more under the proposal, including the BAFO (best and final offer) process. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Book: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Mr. Book. I've been here for almost four years, and this is the first time I get to see Mr. Book in action, so never thought you would come back to the City of Miami, but here you are. You're recognized, sir. Felix Lassarte: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Felix Lassarte, with offices at 3250 Northeast 1st Avenue, on behalf of Motorola. Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to launch a bid protest. I know you have a process for that. But what I do want to raise are certain policy considerations that 1 believe that it is within the purview of this Commission, under your Charter, as a legislative body, to look at some of these issues. Look, we got a President that got elected by saying that America gets into bad deals. This is a bad deal. I'm not going to get into the minds of the selection committee members; although, clearly, one member totally, skewed the scores and created a mess, and it's a mess. Quite frankly, it's a mess that this board has spoken about, saying, "Look, we should eliminate the high and the low scores." But I'm not going to get into the motives or the mindset of those people on that committee. Look, they're serving there for free, and I respect them for doing that. But this is a bad deal. You have a contract that doesn't have a liquidated damages provision. That was removed during the negotiations. You don't have a warranty. There was supposed to be a five-year warranty; that's removed. These are important issues that, when you are evaluating this, you got to say to yourself,' "Why did we do this? Why did we do this during a BAFO process?" These were things that were required under the RFP. Why were they removed? Is this the best deal? You should have a little more time to consider it and vet this out. I mean, why, the hurry to push this along? Again, these are just policy considerations for this board to think about, and I respectfully request that you defer the item. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any other person from the public that'd like to speak on any item on the agenda? You're recognized, sir. City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Miguel Soliman: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Miguel Soliman, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here in front of you. What I want to speak about is Flagler. Flagler is of great concern. It was spoken on by the State Representative Richardson, and I'd like to speak a little bit on that, because a few months ago, a few months back, I stood in front of this Commission and I humbly suggested an idea -- I think you may remember, Commissioner Carollo -- to do a monthly meeting on Flagler and 1st Street, where the State Representative and the State Senator, along with yourself; FDOT director; the contractor that is currently working on Flagler and 1st Street, and the press to meet there in a monthly meeting and discuss the progress of Flagler, because I didn't see it going anywhere; I still don't see it. I offered myself since I am a professional in that field and have done that in the past, to serve and to be there in that meeting. You told me the City had professionals that did that. Well, after today, I see a greater need for that meeting. And I have walked Flagler, 1st Street. I found an 85-year-old woman that has not been able to leave her apartment to get groceries or medication, because she simply cannot cross through all the barriers, the pile of dints [sic]. Business owners are going under, as we all know. The State isn't going to be able, from what we heard today, do anything financially; the session is over. But at least, Ifeel, we can try to save the businesses we have there. And we have put together a -- I'm part of the committee that is looking at 8th Street and serve, and State Representative Richardson and State Senator Rodriguez last attended that meeting at our request to show up with Secretary Wolfe, from the FDOT, to make sure that this does not happen on 8th Street, and to get an answer for Flagler. The answer isn't going to do anything -- any good to the business owners that are losing their businesses there. I still firmly believe that a monthly meeting right there on Flagler; right there where the people that apparently don't care anything about our neighborhood like we do, will be of great service, especially with a lot of media exposure. It'll put pressure on them to at least get the job done sooner, because right now, there's no end in sight. And that's what I would like to request ofyou, Commissioner Carollo; to consider that request again. And again, 1 offer my services, I offer myself I'm part of the committee on 8th Street. 1 would love to be there present, because the contractor's not going to be able to tell me a story, because I've done the work he's doing, and 1 would welcome the opportunity, and I would request that you please consider it. Thank you very much. Renita Holmes: Good morning, Commissioners. Madam Holmes, Our Homes, Business and Property Service; Wave of Women in Public Housing, Education and Finance. I think the gentleman spoke eloquently and realistically in regards to the situation of traveling. I have a common issue now in most of the public hearings and advocacy in regards to being persons with disability. I'm constantly traveling. Everybody's not on Uber; most certainly, not our seniors. Some have not navigated the system. And as a professional in the area of safety and health, not just a speaker -- oh, I walk the talk -- and a community person, this surrounds my community quite a bit. Many of the families -- "La familia esta alli"-- serve. And so, it hurts me when I go over there -- and even in my community of District 5 and downtown and Overtown -- that people propose to do all of this building, without any consideration for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and for safety and health. Please, I implore you, it does need to engage the people; it does need to have a human factor; it does need to have health, and planning and zoning. We need to have some accountability. We need to have foreseeability, and that most certainly does deter litigation. And I hear the argument of attorneys in regards to whose right it is, but whose right-of-way is it, and what statutes do we have in regards to participation? Those are the statutes I'm mostly concerned with when we talk about "righ fully so" and "right-of:way. " And so, this is a big situation that needs to get taken care of I know a lot of folks will be coming in here with canes City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 and staffs and the rest, and I do believe that this gentleman has the ability, the public relations, the influence and the affluence, and the communication to do so. But then, we already have the responsibility to do so. I'll close this and say, you know -- and this is my agenda: Participation with the folks that really have to walk the walk, talk the talk, go the way needs to be considered. It's too easy to walk in here and just talk about what you want to do, and don't realize who you're doing to, let alone who's paying for it and who's got to go through it. And I love the City Manager's budget, the way -- the methodology it used to involve the people. I think that should be applied everywhere else, that standard of participation; that way, we can avoid and prevent some things that are quite costly, and add some moral and value to the process again. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir. Marshall Wright: Good morning. My name is Marshall Wright. I'm with Motorola Solutions for 40 years. I live 1615 Girvan Ridge Drive, Johns Creek, Georgia. What I'd like to talk about here is a very brief concept that I have, which says your RFP is over a year old now. You're just now making an evaluation, you're getting ready to decide, but the world of public safety has changed in the last 12 months with the announcement of FirstNet, with the announcement of a national broad band network for public safety, and with the award going to AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph). I feel as though this decision that you're making is probably going to be a 15- to 20-year decision, so therefore, I would think it would only he appropriate that the City of Miami, since the RFP was issued, take a look at the latest technologies that have come forward; take a look at the next generation applications that have come forward; take a look at all the converging technologies and applications that are going to be movingforward in the next 10 to 15 years. As a steward of the City of Miami, I'm sure you want to make sure that the investment that you're fixing to make is the same investment that you'll get the most return from, 12 to 15 years from now, as you've done in the past. 1 was very fortunate to he the lead sales manager on the project that was awarded to us, I guess, 15, maybe 17 years ago, and we've been taking care of trying to provide to the best of our ability your communication needs during that period of time. But with all the advancements that are taking place now, with video, with body -worn cameras, with satellite technology, with sensors, and all the other things that you can add to this network that you're fixing to buy, I would like to request that you bring in both of the vendors, let them give you a presentation on next generation technology. Let them show you what's -- how the companies are making investments and the investments that they're going to be making in the future, and put that in your decision tree, too, so that you know that the investment you're making is not just responding to an RFP, but you're making an investment to a communications company that's got the resources and has got the experience to do what it's going to take to invest in the community going forward. On behalf of Motorola, we've made three acquisitions in the past year. We made one in the first quarter of this year, we'll be making one next month, so we're continuing to invest in public safety communications. It's the cornerstone of our business. It's 90 percent of our entire business, and that's the future that I would hope you'd take into consideration. I don't know how a 30-day deferral to have one more presentation of what I would describe as next generation technologies could be anvthing but the right decision. Thank you very much for your consideration. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Is there any other person? You're recognized, ma'am. Brenda Betancourt: Good morning. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. This morning I want to support SR.2. I think the Park director is doing such a great job at Virginia Key, but I think the banning has to be maybe expanded to City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 CA.1 2141 Department of Fire - Rescue other parks, because that's not the only place where it's being -- going to be damaging to our environmental. I know that in the morning, it's just more -- nothing else; that the morning agenda, but unfortunately, I have another commitment and I'm not going to be able to hear it. I just want to express my -- PZ.23. The Little Havana Neighborhood Association have voted a resolution to support Commissioner Suarez' proposed legislation amending Miami 21. We want to make sure that the Commission understand that the City, being co -applicants with a lot of different projects, sometimes it make it harder for people to complain about it So we want to support that, and as a member of the Little Havana Neighborhood Association, we want to make sure that we respect our -- not just our T3, but to respect our parks. They belongs to the City since we pay taxes, and not to give our parks to a project or a school, like we have Little Havana Riverside Park is being used by a private school. And us, as a resident, we're not allowed to use it after 4 p.m. So I know that most of you don't go to Little Havana, but for those who live there, we having a little issue with it. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no other person here for public comment, I'm going to close the public comment at this time. CA - CONSENT AGENDA The following item(s) was Adopted on the Consent Agenda RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED "EMS COUNTY GRANT #5013 AWARD FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017," IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $33,377.00, CONSISTING OF A GRANT APPORTIONED BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PROGRAM ENTITLED "FLORIDA EMS GRANT PROGRAM COUNTIES"; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE GRANT LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING/AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY OTHER NECESSARY RELATED GRANT DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO IMPLEMENT ACCEPTANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF SAID GRANT. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0240 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.1, please see "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 CA.2 RESOLUTION 2172 Department of Real Estate and Asset Management A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ("FDOT") AIRSPACE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, PROVIDING FOR THE LEASE OF FDOT-OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS FDOT PARCELS 3831 AND 4236, LOCATED UNDERNEATH INTERSTATE 95, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE AGREEMENT ("LEASE AREA"), ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AT NO COST TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, FOR AN INITIAL TERM OF TEN (10) YEARS WITH ONE (1) OPTION TO RENEW TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN (10) YEARS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM TRAINING GROUNDS, AND SECURED PARKING, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0241 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.2, please see "End of Consent Agenda." CA.3 RESOLUTION 2197 Department of General Services Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-82(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, CLASSIFYING ONE (1) DODGE RAM 2500 PICKUP TRUCK, MODEL YEAR 2005, VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 3D7KR28D75G828752 AS CATEGORY "A" SURPLUS STOCK; DONATING SAID VEHICLE TO THE URBAN PARADISE GUILD, INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ("UPG"), UPON THE EXECUTION OF THE APPROPRIATE RELEASE DOCUMENTS. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0242 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.3, please see "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 CA.4 RESOLUTION 2208 Department of Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AERIAL EASEMENT ("EASEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH DT MIAMI, LLC FOR ALL ABOARD FLORIDA RAILROAD TERMINAL ENCROACHMENTS OVER AND ACROSS THE CITY OF MIAMI RIGHTS -OF -WAY KNOWN AS NORTHWEST 3RD STREET BETWEEN NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY METRORAIL NORTH CORRIDOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; WAIVING CERTAIN USER FEES REQUIRED BY SECTION 55-14 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, FOR THE RAILROAD SYSTEM COMPONENTS OF THE ENCROACHMENTS OVER THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GRANTING OF THE EASEMENT; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF THE EASEMENT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0243 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.4, please see "End of Consent Agenda." CA.5 RESOLUTION 2198 Department of Parks and Recreation A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN CAPACITY BEYOND THE CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY OF $50,000.00, FOR INVITATION FOR BID NO. 577384, AFTER SCHOOL SNACK PROGRAM PROVIDER AND ADMINISTRATOR, WITH FLORIDA INTRODUCES PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND NUTRITION TO YOUTH, INC., THE SOLE RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, EXTENSIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0244 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.5, please see "End Consent Agenda." of City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 CA.6 RESOLUTION 2201 Department of Parks and Recreation A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A GRANT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($30,000.00), FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ("FDEP") ADMINISTERING FEDERAL FUNDS FROM THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATIVE ("NOAA") COOPERATIVE AWARD COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FDEP NO. CM311), TO THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ("DEPARTMENT")AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ALLOCATE AND APPROPRIATE A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,048.32 ("CITY MATCH") FROM ACCOUNT NO. 00001.296001.512000.0000 FOR LABOR, COMMENCING JUNE 1, 2017 THROUGH MAY 31, 2018, FOR THE RESTORING COASTAL MIAMI 2017-2018 PROJECT ("PROJECT"); FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT ("GRANT AGREEMENT"), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, RENEWALS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE GRANT AGREEMENT AND TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0245 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.6, please see "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 CA.7 RESOLUTION 2202 Department of Parks and Recreation CA.8 2273 Office of the City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $918,000.00 IN THE FORM OF ONE (1) REIMBURSEMENT GRANT FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA ("FLORIDA") AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ("APD") TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ("PARKS") FOR HOME AND COMMUNITY -BASED SERVICES AND FAMILY AND SUPPORTED LIVING PROGRAMS ("PROGRAMS") FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES; ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT, ENTITLED "PROGRAMS FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED 2017-2022," TO FUND SERVICES AND PROGRAMS FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED ADMINISTERED BY PARKS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CREATE A NEW PROJECT NUMBER FOR THE PROGRAM, TO CREATE THE NECESSARY ACCOUNTING STRUCTURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE GRANT FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND TO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY APD AS GRANTOR; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEDICAID WAIVER PROVIDER RENEWAL AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WITH THE FLORIDA ADP, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM; AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, RENEWALS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO IMPLEMENT THE ACCEPTANCE OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE GRANT AWARD FOR SAID PURPOSES, FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2017 THROUGH DECEMBER 30, 2022. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0246 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA. 7, please see "End of Consent Agenda." RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY INTERSTATE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC THE TOTAL SUM OF $175,000.00, IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, UPON EXECUTING A SETTLEMENT, IN THE CASE OF INTERSTATE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC V. THE CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-008371 CA 25, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, UPON THE EXECUTION OF A GENERAL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AND A DISMISSAL OF THE DEFENDANT WITH PREJUDICE; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO. 50001.301001.545013.0000.00000. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0247 City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item CA.8, please see "End of Consent Agenda." END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Hardemon: Commissioners, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Commissioner Suarez: So moved Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and accept -- it's been properly moved and seconded that we accept the consent agenda. Is there any discussion about any of those items? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS PH.1 RESOLUTION 2166 Department of Parks and Recreation A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-92 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF SOOFA SMART BENCHES AND COMPONENTS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FROM CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS, INC. DBA SOOFA, THE SOLE PROVIDER FOR SOOFA SMART BENCHES AND COMPONENTS, ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM A GRANT FROM THE MIAMI FOUNDATION FOR THE INITIAL PURCHASE; ALLOCATING IN -KIND FUNDS FROM THE USER DEPARTMENT FOR ALL FUTURE PURCHASES, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY MODIFICATIONS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0260 City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Chair Hardemon: Commissioners, we have a number of public hearing items. The Chair is willing to accept a motion to approve the public hearing agenda, with discussion, if there is any on any of the items. Commissioner Suarez: So move. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Chairman, I believe there are certain -- just amendments. First, if we can just discuss them if you're going to take them all? Chair Hardemon: Okay. Can you discuss the amendments first so that we can make those amendments known, so they can be adopted in the motion? Ms. Mendez: For PH.1, the solar powered benches, there's modifications to the legislation regarding the funding source, so just the funding source was amended. For PH.3, which is the Big Brothers, Big Sisters allocation, also has modifications, which, 1 believe, Mr. Vickers was going to distribute. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): We had a typo. It was -- we listed the salary to be paid at $8.05. It's $8.10, so just a correction there. Commissioner Gort: What was that again? Mr. Alfonso: $8.05 per hour to $8.10 per hour, so it's additional 5 cents per hour -- Chair Hardemon: Go ahead. Mr. Alfonso: -- to be in compliance with the law. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Ms. Mendez: And then, finally, PH5, the Summer Youth Reading Program, that one was to be amended on the floor to include Belafonte Tacolcv Center, and correct a typo in the title. Commissioner Suarez: Move motion as amended. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved; seconded by the Chair. Is there any discussion about any of these items? Hearing none, all in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.2 RESOLUTION 2185 Department of Procurement PH.3 2212 Office of Community Investment A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-92 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A"; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES AND APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF ON -GOING INCINERATING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI FIRE -RESCUE DEPARTMENT AND CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM WHEELABRATOR SOUTH BROWARD INC., THE SOLE PROVIDER OF INCINERATING SERVICES IN SOUTH FLORIDA; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0249 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.2, please see item PH.1. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 00001.980000.881000, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000.00, TO BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MIAMI, INC., FOR THE SUMMER LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0250 City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.4 2213 Office of Community Investment MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.3, please see item PH.1. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 TO BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF MIAMI, INC. FOR THE BIGS IN BLUE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO COMPLETE THE ALLOCATION. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0251 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.4, please see item PH.1. City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.5 2224 Office of Community Investment RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-86 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A,"; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TO OVERTOWN YOUTH CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ("OVERTOWN"), FOR SUMMER READING PROGRAMS ("PROGRAM") AT THE OVERTOWN YOUTH CENTER, SHENANDOAH PARK, JOSE MARTL PARK, AND ELIZABETH VIRRICK PARK; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE ALLOCATION, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0252 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.5, please see item PH.1. City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.6 RESOLUTION 2217 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,000.00 TO INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, INC. FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS IN A BOX PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO COMPLETE THE ALLOCATION. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0253 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.6, please see item PH.1. City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.7 RESOLUTION 2218 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000.00 TO GREATER MIAMI S. FLORIDA POP WARNER, INC. FOR GENERAL PROGRAM FUNDING; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO COMPLETE THE ALLOCATION. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: Item PH.7 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.7, please see "Order of the Day." City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PH.8 RESOLUTION 2234 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MAYOR'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC. FOR CENTRO HISPANO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0254 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.8, please see item PH.1. PH.9 RESOLUTION 2235 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S) BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MAYOR'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 TO HISPA, INC., FOR A PROGRAM THAT PROMOTES STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0255 City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.9, please see item PH.1. PH.10 RESOLUTION 2236 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING, AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS ATTACHMENT "A," THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE MAYOR'S SHARE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00, TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC., FOR THE SAGRADA FAMILIA CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0256 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH10, please see item PH.1. END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES SR.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1756 Commissioners and Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 2 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/DEPARTMENTS/PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT" MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 2-212, ENTITLED "NONCONFORMING USE PILOT PROGRAM", TO REINSTATE THE NONCONFORMING USE PILOT PROGRAM FOR PRIVATE USES THROUGH AUGUST 1, 2017; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13684 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): SR.1. I believe this was going to have a change, but 1 don't know that we have the language yet. I would ask, then, if we do not -- Okay, we do. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Hold on. We're ready. We're good. Ms. Mendez: Will you be stating amendments on the floor? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, I will. Ms. Mendez: Okay. Mr. Garcia: For the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. Chair Hardemon: Before you move forward, Madam City Attorney, do you want to read the title into the record? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Mendez: This is the amended title. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Discussion. Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded for discussion. Commissioner Suarez: Quick -- just -- you know, I guess you'll talk about it. I know we talked about which ones we were going to bring into this, and which ones we City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 weren't, and we had -- we discussed this in the briefing, and Ijust wanted you to put it on the record. Commissioner Gort: Let me give you an example. One of the problems we had on Northwest 20th Street, we had the -- a lot of retail stores. They're not only retail, but they've been there for quite a while, and they're also wholesale. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Commissioner Gort: Now, when they passed Miami 21, they eliminated the wholesale, so all those people, they vacate and someone else comes in. They're not able to get the BTR (Business Tax Receipt). Commissioner Suarez: I got you. No, and I'm good with it. Commissioner Gort: That's why -- Commissioner Suarez: I'm good with. Commissioner Gort: -- they're changing this one right here. Commissioner Suarez: I'm good with it, yeah. I think he explained it. I think we're good. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Suarez: No. Chair Hardemon: Any unreadiness? Commissioner Suarez: No. Chair Hardemon: Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 SR.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1940 Commissioners and Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 38/ARTICLE II OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION/USE REGULATIONS", BY CREATING A NEW SECTION 38-78, ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS REGARDING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE PRODUCT(S) IN CITY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITY/FACILITIES, INCLUDING BEACHES THEREIN"; ADDITIONALLY, AMENDING CHAPTER 38/ARTICLE VI OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "HISTORIC VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK", BY CREATING A NEW SECTION 38-248, ENTITLED "ESTABLISHING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ZONE IN CONNECTION WITH PROHIBITIONS ON POLYSTYRENE PRODUCT(S) IN HISTORIC VIRGINIA KEY BEACH PARK"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13681 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item SR.2, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s). " Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, can you read into the record, the reso -- Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- the title for SR.2? Ms. Mendez: SR.2. This one is sponsored by Vice Chair Ken Russell. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to move it. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Do you have any discussion about it? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Sorry for my tardiness this morning. This is very important for us. Obviously, Biscayne Bay is such an asset to our community for work, for play, for tourism. Environmentally, it's very important. And if you've ever been to a beach cleanup, you've seen the Styrofoam, you've seen the polystyrene. It's City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 not there in chunks; it's in small little bits. It breaks up, and it affects our environment. Where we cannot preempt -- where we are preempted by State Government -- We can take action where we do have our own jurisdiction, and that is our parks system and our beaches, so I welcome your support on this item on second reading and final. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: There is no further discussion, not further unreadiness? All in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. SR.3 ORDINANCE Second Reading 2173 Commissioners and Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), WAIVING THE SIDEWALK CAFE FEES SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 54/ARTICLE VI/SUBSECTIONS 54-224(B) AND (D) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS/SIDEWALK CAFES/FEES AND SECURITY DEPOSIT", SPECIFICALLY WAIVING SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT FEES ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 54-224(B) OF THE CITY CODE AND THE SECURITY DEPOSIT ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 54-224(D) DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAGLER STREET BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT ("PROJECT") UNTIL SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS PROVIDED HEREIN FOR DOWNTOWN MIAMI SIDEWALK CAFES LOCATED IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE WEST SIDE OF NORTHWEST/SOUTHWEST 1ST AVENUE ON THE WEST, BY THE NORTH SIDE OF NORTHWEST/NORTHEAST 1ST STREET ON THE NORTH, BISCAYNE BOULEVARD ON THE EAST, AND BY THE SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHWEST/SOUTHEAST 1ST STREET ON THE SOUTH, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; PROVIDING FOR A SUNSET PROVISION; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13682 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, SR.3. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Sponsored by Vice Chair Ken Russell. City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to move it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I thank you for your support on this item. This is the least we can do for downtown and Flagler. I think it's a mitigation to a bit of a delay that's going on. I want to thank the Administration for working together with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), and I know it's been tense at times, but we do understand the frustration of the business owners there. This is also something that will really help inject new life into the cafe area of the Central Business District so that the outdoor cafes can flourish, and maybe we'll see more of them and some more activity on the streets there. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Any, further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. END OF SECOND READING ORDINANCES City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.1 2203 Bayfront Management Trust RE - RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 29, 2016 PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS ("IFB") NO. 668381 FROM FEDERAL TACTICS SECURITY, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE PROVISION OF CROWD MANAGEMENT AND PARKING PERSONNEL SERVICES FOR THE BAYFRONT PARK MANAGEMENT TRUST ("TRUST") ON AN AS -NEEDED BASIS, FOR AN INITIAL PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS WITH TWO (2), TWO (2) YEAR OPTIONS TO RENEW; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE TRUST'S OPERATING BUDGET SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0209 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Chair Hardemon: Okay. Let's just go in order. Instead of checking the list, is there a motion to approve RE.1? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Carollo: Move it. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved; seconded by the Chair to approve RE.1. That's the crowd management and parking personnel services. Is there any unreadiness or any discussion about it from the dais? Seeing none, all in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of 'Violin Page 31 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.2 RESOLUTION 2189 Department of General Services Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED AUGUST 30, 2016, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 592382, FROM HARRIS CORPORATION, THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE PROPOSER, TO PROVIDE AN 800 MEGAHERTZ DIGITAL TRUNKED SIMULCAST NETWORK SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE -RESCUE DEPARTMENT, AND GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, FOR AN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NEGOTIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("PSA") AND SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("SLA"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORMS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FUNDING TO BE DETERMINED, INCLUDING NEW SOURCES OF FUNDING THAT MAY BECOME AVAILABLE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS, LICENSE AGREEMENTS, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, EXTENSIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PSA, SLA, AND SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0248 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon,Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.2, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: RE2. Is there any discussion about RE.2? I'm sure there's big discussion. Commissioner Suarez: What is this one? Is this the radio system? Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Got it. I'll be back, guys. I'rn going to the restroom. I'm not going anywhere. Ricardo Falero: Hello. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. If you would, can you just introduce the item? City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Falero: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Because I know we're going to have some discussion. Mr. Falero: This is Rick Falero, Department of General Service Administration. A resolution of the City of Miami City Commission, with attachments, accepting the proposal received August 30, 2016, pursuant to the Request for Proposal 592382, from Harris Corporation, the highest ranked responsive and responsible proposer, to provide 800 megahertz digital trunked simulcast network system for the City of Miami Police Department, Fire Rescue Department, and General Services Administration Department, for an initial contract period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional two-year periods; authorizing the City Manager to execute the negotiated professional service agreement and software licenses agreement, in substantially the attached forms; allocating funds .from the sources of funding to be determined, including new sources of funding that may come available; further authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute any and all necessary documents, including any subsequent financial agreements, license agreements, and maintenance agreements, amendments, renewals, extensions, and modifications to the PSA (Professional Service Agreement), SLA (Service -Level Agreement), and subsequent agreements, in a .form acceptable to the City Attorney, as may be necessary, for said purposes. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Ortiz, we've had public comments about this item. 1 know we're about to have some discussion, so before we move into -- Commissioner Suarez: 1 got to leave in five minutes to pick up my son, so. Chair Hardemon: So we want to have some discussion. We may need you. We may ask for your opinion. Javier Ortiz: 1t would -- I just want to say that we're in full support of the contract. That's it. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I got to leave in five minutes. Chair Hardemon: Discussion. I mean, you could leave. Discussion. I know you have to leave, so. Commissioner Suarez: No, I -- my discussion is simple. Having listened to both sides on this, they didn't put a protest in, so that's a problem. I'm not sure if you protested whether you could question the scores; in other words, I'm not sure that's something you can protest. But, certainly, we could have had a process where -- and I think we have, subsequent to some of our RFPs (Requests for Proposals), had processes where, if there's an outlier type of score, we don't count the score. I don't know that it was in this one, and I'm not so sure that you can sort of undo that; that it wasn't in this one. But we've done it, I mean, in the past, and it's probably not a bad idea, because that oftentimes is what creates a lot of these protests, when there's one score that's way out there. The other thing -- the last thing that caught my attention on both parties is this: You know, we're seeing a trend -- okay? -- of people after the fact saying that board members -- or not board members -- that committee members were biased. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Right? They had conflicts, they were biased, or whatever. I told you this on the Virginia Key one. I said, you know, you should select your committee early. You should sort of find a way to open up a period for people to do due diligence on committee members, and sort of like they do with the jury system, you have peremptory challenges or whatever the case may be, to avoid this from happening on the back end. I would love for this -- these kinds of bias -type arguments to somehow be vetted on the front end, and if there's someone that has a potential conflict, whether they do or don't, or whether that affects their judgment or not, you can resolve it on the front end, and then we don't have to deal with this. Do you understand what I'm saying? So from a process perspective, that's what I get into. Obviously, I created the whole procedure by which you could have a protest, and, you know, and then there would -- you would go to a special master and all that, and they didn't avail themselves of that. So, I mean, you know, that leaves me to question why. But as far as the other things, I mean, I do think there's something about the outlier issue, and I do think there's something about, ,from a process perspective, the bias issue. Chair Hardemon: Is there any. further discussion. from the members of the board? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. And I apologize. I didn't hear the earlier discussion on the item. For me -- obviously, we're big fans of taking up protests of RFPs and such. It's an important thing, and it's serious. For me, if there was any issue that would have unfairly disallowed someone from filing a protest; if there was a problem with the timing issue, or some unfairness in it that would not have allowed them to protest, 1 certainly would be interested in hearing that. But. for lack of actually filing a protest, it's hard for us to hear the actual protest afterward. That's my thought. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Gort: I believe about a month ago, we set up a system to avoid politics from being involved in the decisions. Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Gort: And that -- and it was very clear what the position is, and how they can have a bid protest and what are the ways they can do it. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes, Commissioner; just in this case, it was a process that was set up by special masters that we can hear a bid protest at that time. However, in this case, procedurally, this Commission is just barred from hearing any protest, because it was not timely filed, pursuant to our Code. So it's just a very simple -- You know, if they had a bid protest, they should have filed it. Commissioner Suarez: But -- okay. I'm fine with all that, and I agree with that. My issue is just simply -- I don't -- I mean, it's more -- its sort of a macro thing. We really should -- and I said this in the Virginia Key one -- we really should -- particularly the bias argument, because that -- it's a recurring argument, you know? Someone had a conflict that they were, you know, in a video of somebody, they work for somebody. You know, I've heard that a hundred times. So, I mean, I think the better way of'doing it is, you get that person's -- if they're really a bias, you get them disqualified on the front end, not on the back end, after the award has been given. The second thing is the outliers. You know, there is a huge procurement battle right now going on at the State that has to do with, you know, a small margin of error, but there was a huge outlier. So, you know, those are things that from a process perspective we should be learning, and so that we don't have to -- Just like we created that process. We created the process of the special master because we had, you know, two or three of these books that we had to go through to make a decision, City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 and we also wanted to depoliticize the process. Well, we should make the process better -- sorry, buddy. Chair Hardemon: So, Commissioner Suarez -- Commissioner Suarez: We should make the process better and better, every single time. This is a recurring theme. Chair Hardemon: -- is there a motion you'd like to present, Commissioner Suarez? Commissioner Suarez: No. I'm just saying that we should fix the process. Chair Hardemon: No, no, I get that. I'm saying, but we're on RE.2, so -- Commissioner Suarez: I get it. Chair Hardemon: -- I'm asking, is there a motion? Commissioner Suarez: I'm just generalizing. Chair Hardemon: No, no, I -- Commissioner Suarez: I'm pontificating. Chair Hardemon: -- wanted to invite the discussion so that we could have some discussion. 1 know that you don't have enough time -- Commissioner Suarez: 1 got it. 1 got to go soon. Chair Hardemon: -- to get direction. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Gort. Is there a second for RE.2? Seconded by the Chair. Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve RE.2? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. More than anything, at least for my part, this is a public safety issue. So, Mr. Manager, do you have anyone from the Fire Department? And I know we have Mr. Ortiz here from the Police Department. Does anyone from the Police Department or the Fire Department have any issues with the company that won the award or won the bid, or is in first place in the bid? Chair Hardemon: And before we move into this line of comment -- I don't know where this is going -- I will say this: When you have selection committees and you have representatives on the selection committee, I'm assuming that we put these representatives on there because they have value that they can add to that committee in selecting a person to be -- a winner of a contract. I'm sorry. Earlier, we heard discussions that -- some of them were described as "outsiders." And to me, they're all insiders, because they're all on that same committee. And so, with this being said, if -- My position is that if there's someone that should not be voting on the committee, then you don't put them on the committee. But I think discounting them for their line of work is not the way that we go about doing it. And so, I don't -- like I City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 said, I don't know where this is going, but I just want to be clear that any time we have a selection committee, whoever is on the selection committee is of value, and their comments is of value. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: And I agree with Commissioner Suarez that -- Commissioner Suarez: That's the thing, yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- you know, you have to be able to address the outliers, and we have ways of doing that. And now that we've -- If it didn't happen in this, then every one of them moving, forward should have a way of doing that. Commissioner Suarez: Can I just real quick, Commissioner? Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner. Commissioner Suarez: Real quick. But to the first part, you know, the bias issue -- the supposed bias issue, because I'm not saying that somebody is biased or isn't biased, right? But by not dealing with it on the front end, we're giving people ammunition to try to use it on the back end, and that's what I'm trying -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- it's what I'm trying to get at. Chair Hardemon: Right. That's why I'm saying -- Commissioner Suarez: So I'd rather somebody say that a committee member, within the first 10 days of a selection committee being submitted, has a bias problem -- Chair Hardemon: You're absolutely correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- because they showed up in a video of another company -- Chair Hardemon: I absolutely agree. Commissioner Suarez: -- or because they worked 20 years ago for someone connected to -- Chair Hardemon: Right. I absolutely agree. Commissioner Suarez: -- you know what I'in saying? Just like aptly, right? Chair Hardemon: No, I absolutely agree. Commissioner Suarez: Let's bounce them and we'll find someone else who's qualified that will -- that is willing to do the work. But by failing to do these kinds of things, we just open ourselves up to somebody coming back and embarrassing us by saying, "Hey, this person did a video." Chair Hardemon: But, you know, one of the things that -- and you know this as a trained attorney. One of the things that many attorneys will do is, they won't bring up some of these issues so they can have that out in the end. It's a risk. Commissioner Suarez: I got you. City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: And -- but I think you make it more difficult when you say, "Hey, you had an opportunity to challenge the bias of a committee member." Chair Hardemon: 'And you did not." Commissioner Suarez: 'And you didn't do it." Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: You know what I'm saying? Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) responsible. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Very simple. Listen, I've been on the other side of that radio. I understand the importance of it. So whether the committee member was biased or not, listen, 1 don't know. You know who I want to hear from? The men and women that are going to be on the other side of that radio, and 1 want to know if they have an issue with it. Chair Hardemon: And 1 understand that completely. And all -- I'm just cautioning everyone that 1 don't know what people's experiences are with one particular radio or not. My mother served in the military. I don't know what type of radios they used when she was in the military. Some of you probably served in the military. 1 don't know what radios you used. 1 don't know -- well, I think we have Motorola now. So we have Moto -- we don't have Motorola now? Mr. Alfonso: No, I'm sorry. The military uses Harris. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Joseph Zahralban (Chief of Fire): They use Harris. Chair Hardemon: But we have Motorola now? Chief Zahralban: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Right. So I know that we have Motorola now, so you have experiences with that radio. And so, wherever we're going. what I'm saying to you is that everyone's individual experience with whomever brand that they're dealing with is their experience. I have AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph), I've had Sprint, and I have had issues with every single one of the companies I have. Now I just think that all phone companies are -- you know. They drop my calls. Commissioner Suarez: I got to go. Now we're going to have to table it. Chair Hardemon: All right. So this is not about that, though. This is about public safety, so I'm going to allow, you to make your comment. I'll allow you to make your comment, also, Mr. Ortiz, so we can move on. You're recognized, sir. City of 'Violin Page 37 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chief Zahralban: Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. Joseph Zahralban, Fire Chief, Department of fire Rescue. I share the sentiments of Commissioner Carollo in that our concern is dependability and public safety. Is this tool going to give us what we need to be able to go out and deliver the highest service possible to the citizens of Miami? I can tell you that we were involved in the process as a stakeholder. We were involved in the process from beginning to end, and I have subject matter experts that participate and advise us. My subject matter experts have not expressed any concern to me. They are fully supportive of the process and the contract. And I, as the Fire Chief have no concerns moving forward. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Chief Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Ortiz: Thank you. Javier Ortiz, president of Fraternal Order of Police. I'm here on behalf of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police). Sony, Chairman, I wasn't here earlier. I was on a bicycle, in a bike training. Anyway, back to Motorola. The FOP is in complete support with Harris. The County uses Harris, the military uses Harris, and the only thing I can tell you about Motorola are the amount of complaints that I've gotten from my Miami officers. I don't rely on my radio when I'm out on the street, okay? I don't -- I really don't rely on it, because I can't tell you how many times this radio _fails; sometimes on a weekly basis. It says, fail" (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It doesn't work. Okay, so it is a huge public safety issue. I know that the Manager has been working for quite some time in getting this RFP process together. We're not the only ones that are having problems with Motorola. It's really hard to get parts. And in regards to the committee member, which 1 know is, you know, a big concern, Captain Sean Mac Donald, who is also an FOP member, 1 don't know anyone that is more qualified than Captain Mac Donald, and for him to have his integrity questioned, or whatever Motorola said is outrageous. There's a reason why we have a process, and we are in full support of the Harris contract. Thank you. Ronald Papier: Good afternoon. Assistant Chief Ron Papier, Assistant Chief of Administration. Just like the Fire Chief said, we were completely involved in the process from beginning to end. We are completely satisfied with the process, and we are satisfied with final product. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Chief. Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there any more discussion from the board members? Commissioner Gort: Let me -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Gort: We changed procedures, because every time you have someone that loses a bid, they're going to complain. And we have a big one coming up now. Unidentified Speaker: In about two months. Commissioner Gort: So we have a process that we have, and we have to follow it; if not, who's going to be answering RFPs in the City of Miami? Chair Hardemon: Okay. All right. Seeing no further discussion, there is a motion on the floor. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. RE.3 RESOLUTION 2029 Department of Real Estate and Asset Management A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND HYATT EQUITIES, L.L.C. ("HYATT"), WHEREBY THE CITY SHALL FINALIZE SEVERAL PENDING DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CITY AND HYATT, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE REVISIONS AND NON -SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS TO SUCH AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS NEEDED FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0261 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Hardemon Note for the Record: A motion was made by Commissioner Suarez and seconded by Commissioner Carollo, and was passed unanimously, with Chair Hardemon absent, directing the City Manager to begin a discussion with River Park Hotel regarding site control. Commissioner Gort: We've done (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Chair Hardemon: No. That's already taken care of The -- Commissioner Carollo: 3, RE.3. Chair Hardemon: RE.3. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): And Chair, we still do have DL3. It was just mentioned earlier this morning that they were going to try and, I believe, get the chair for the UDRB (Urban Development Review Board) here for the afternoon. And we're good to go, Chair. Chair Hardemon: Call the May 25, 2017 meeting back into order. Are we ready for RE.3? You're recognized if you are, sir. Daniel Rotenberg: Commissioners, Daniel Rotenberg. Good afternoon. Department of Real Estate and Asset Management. RE.3 is a resolution of Miami City Commission, authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute a reconciliation agreement between Hyatt and the City. City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Discussion. Chair Hardemon: And seconded. We'll have some discussion. Commissioner Carollo, you're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking with our Asset Management director and our Auditor General, there's a difference of about $243, 000, more or less, that's been added to the number. for contingency, and at least I felt that that number was too high; it should be less or not half It should be the actual amount, since they put up that money. And then the rest of the money, we had actually budgeted for the repairs. Mr. Rotenberg: Could I be recognized? Just to correct a little misstatement, this was budgeted for the fall amount of the $4, 019, 000. We didn't add anything on. We actually negotiated some of the numbers with Hyatt down a bit. So what was left there, and instead of us leaving zero contingency in there, we thought, "This is a construction project. I don't want to in hare hones." Commissioner Carollo: We're talking two different things. When we originally budgeted for the repairs that the City never did, that was the amount we did. When we did the midyear adjustment, that's when you budgeted the whole amount, or you wanted to budget the whole amount. Mr. Rotenberg: Correct. Commissioner Carollo: But the original was the seven fifty, three fifty-one, and the one thousand, one hundred sixty-six thousand [sic], that was the original amounts budgeted that the City never did those repairs. That was -- Mr. Rotenberg: That was 2.268 million. Commissioner Carollo: Right. And that's why I'm saying that we added. So you're going from the midyear adjustment, but the bottom line is that from the number that they have, there's an additional -- for argument's sake, an additional quarter of a million dollars that I don't think needs to be there. Vice Chair Russell: Meaning that we're leaving it on the table? Commissioner Carollo: Leaving it on the table in case something comes up. But if something comes up, I mean, we're only a few months away from, you know, having a budget discussion. Come back and say, "Hey, you know, these are some additional repairs we need, " or not. So it's -- I mean, it's a quarter of a million dollars; it's not pennies. Mr. Rotenberg: It's okay either way with us. We can amend on the floor from the actual resolution to the exact dollar amounts that are within the reconciliation agreement right now. That's -- if you would like to go that way -- Commissioner Carollo: I'll move it. Mr. Rotenberg: -- if fthe Commission desires. City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: I'll move it then. I'll move it with that amendment. Mr. Rotenberg: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: I'll move it with that amendment. Vice Chair Russell: I was the original mover, yeah? Commissioner Carollo: Oh. Sorry. Vice Chair Russell: Was the seconder --? Commissioner Gort: I accept it. Mr. Hannon: Well, no. Initially, the mover was Vice Chair Russell, with a second by Commissioner Carollo. So some sort of -- Vice Chair Russell: So you're offering an amendment? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: The mover accepts. Thank you. How tied in is this with the future negotiations to extend the lease and hopefully get this on the ballot as -- I recognize the timeline of what we're working with. In our last discussions here, we brought up the settlement issues and the referendum issue regarding the lease. How intertwined are these two items? Mr. Rotenberg: Regardless of what happens, this has to move forward as a reconciliation agreement. Moving forward, it is the City's decision to go ahead and move ahead with the deal with Hyatt. It's the Commission's decision. Vice Chair Russell: But the amounts negotiated in the settlement are not in any way contingent on the future agreement regarding the lease extension? Mr. Rotenberg: That's correct. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. I don't have any other further comment. I assume I'm the chair for the moment. Is there any comment from the public on this item? No? Any more from the dais? Commissioner Suarez: It's a bad deal. Vice Chair Russell: The settlement is? Commissioner Suarez: No. I mean, this generally -- I mean, I talked to you about it in the briefings. We should never -- If we're doing a 75 year lease or a 99 -- huh? Vice Chair Russell: Your microphone, please. Commissioner Suarez: If we're doing a 75- or a 99-year lease, then, in essence, the tenant is almost like a fee simple owner, so they should -- You know, in the future -- and I want to give, you know, Dan credit. He's been making our leases much more in line with what's commercially -- what the private sector does; let's put it that way. Right? And we're getting better deals, but they should be responsible for this, for the O&M (operations and maintenance), I mean, and in the future, any deal that we do, the person should be responsible for the O&M. They're financing the building, City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 they're buying the building, they're getting what amounts to almost a fee simple, very, very -- you know, hundred years. I mean, it's -- how many generations is that? Vice Chair Russell: So your opinion is we shouldn't even be settling on the previous Commissioner Suarez: No. My point -- it's kind of like -- goes back to kind of like the argument I was making on the procurement thing, you know, which is, this is a bad deal. Vice Chair Russell: The settlement or the further lease? Commissioner Suarez: No; the lease. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: The lease that requires us to pay O&M on the building -- okay? -- That required us to fix the air conditioning system; that required us to do all these things. We shouldn't have to -- we shouldn't -- that should be built into the lease. They should be the ones that are paying that -- Vice Chair Russell: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- those capital expenses. I'm just -- I'm venting. Vice Chair Russell: And a lot of it has to do with the -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- convention center being under our management, and then -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- there were some share things. Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: It was complicated. Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: If this new deal does go through, I'm sure you're addressing all that for the future. Mr. Rotenberg: It will look very different. Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And that's -- I'm sorry. I was just sort of venting again. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. I didn't -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Vice Chair Russell: -- get what you were venting at; whether it was the past lease, the future potential lease or this settlement. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I was -- I don't think I was very clear, so I apologize. City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: And Mr. Rotenberg, now that you mention that the future will look very, different, I -- after our last discussion, I talked about dreaming about what this project could be, and I wanted to make sure that whatever current negotiations are going on, don't preclude us from having an open pallet to -- a blank slate to paint upon with what the will of the people may be. And so, we talked about master - planning the area. As many people know, the City owns all of that from the Brickell Bridge, including the Hyatt spot, the Knight Convention Center spot. We don't own the next spot, which is the River Park Hotel. We do own the next spot after that, which is the Fort Dallas. This is a tremendous piece of land, which could be such a focal point for the City, such a hub of potential multimodal transit, to use another fancy word again. But we have water taxi opportunities, we have Metromover opportunities. Commissioner Suarez: Good point. Vice Chair Russell: After I brought that up on the dais last time, I was visited by Mr. Zyscovich -- not to chauffeur his book here -- but he brought this book to me, and there was a master -planning that was done with the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) several years ago; several years ago, in which some of these renderings came about. And the cover of the book happens to be the Hyatt property and the Knight Convention Center. But rather than just a hotel taking up the entire space, you see an open green space on the water. You see a park here that has boat access. You see the historic property being preserved and activated, and you still see space .for the hotel activities, parking, multi -use. So there is a really exciting potential future for this lot. A big linchpin in it is if -- whether or not we're able to get site control over the River Park Hotel. And at the moment, you know, pricing is an issue. But 1 don't want us to tie our hands for the future on what negotiations we make. And so, 1 understand from Mr. Rotenberg that going forward, as we are with these discussions -- not with this settlement here today -- but as the discussions go forward, toward the ballot this fall, nothing we're agreeing on will preclude us from master -planning and tying together a potential -- something that could even look like something like this. Mr. Rotenberg: That is correct. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I would just say that -- one little cat lick, one little addition: There -- the lot that just sold, right next to the Epic, which is two buildings away from Hyatt, was -- it sold for $125 million, one acre, the dirt. So just keep that in your -- the back of your mind as you think about the value of this parcel on the water. Vice Chair Russell: We may not be able to value the parcel as a whole. Oh, you're talking about the motel that we don't have control of. Commissioner Suarez: You know what I'm saying. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah; a perspective of how valuable it is. I'm not saying that -- I'm just trying to give you a perspective of how valuable it is, that parcel -- Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: -- in comparison to the parcel right next to it. Vice Chair Russell: Of course, don't tell that to the person who owns the parcel we don't have yet, because that's the one that's so expensive, we can't get a hold of But after we get through with this settlement issue, perhaps we can bring direction for the Manager to start discussions, if they're not already happening, between both the Hyatt and the owner of the River Park Motel to see if there is a partnership; whether or not a buyout, perhaps there's something as we move forward with this lease on the Hyatt where Hyatt can partner with them -- Commissioner Suarez: That really makes sense. Vice Chair Russell: -- to redevelop everything, because I really think this is an opportunity that doesn't come more than once in a lifetime (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: But you put it out there and you see who's interested in it. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: You know what I mean? Vice Chair Russell: So let's get the settlement out of the way, and then we'll direct the Manager on that, if that's the will of the board. Any. further discussion on the settlement issue? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Carollo: As amended. Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Commissioner Suarez: As amended. Vice Chair Russell: As amended. Motion passes. So would anyone proffer a motion directing the Manager to negotiate or at least open discussions, truing to --? Commissioner Suarez: I'll do that. I don't have a problem with that. I'm always willing to -- Commissioner Carollo: Discuss. Commissioner Suarez: -- discuss. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Mr. Manager, are these talks that have already begun, or is this something that you all have worked on in the past? Mr. Rotenberg: My apologies. I didn't -- please re -- Vice Chair Russell: We're looking to give direction to the management to open up talks or seek avenues for cooperation or site control over the River Park Hotel. Mr. Rotenberg: We've had some discussions with them, but they have not gotten anywhere at this point. We -- If you give us direction, we can resume negotiations and see where we go. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez has made a motion. Is there a second? City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Second for dis -- second, yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so, yes; I second it. Vice Chair Russell: I'm having a little trouble hearing you. Commissioner Carollo: Sorry. I forgot that my mike was off. Yes, I second the motion that the Manager entertains discussions with regards to that parcel. Vice Chair Russell: Any comment from the public on this? Any comments from the dais? All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Motion passes. Mr. Rotenberg: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Later Commissioner Suarez: Question. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Question. Sorry. Backtrack. On the negotiations for the Hyatt, can 1 just have a point of order on that? Something to think about: If we end up demoing the Hyatt, or if they end up demoing the Hyatt, keep the right to be able to keep it as a staging ground for the Brickell Tunnel. Vice Chair Russell: Could be a left turn into their underground parking lot. Commissioner Suarez: No, a stage -- staging for the construction. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Because that could be significant in terms of like eliminating the chaos that would be created by trying to build a tunnel in that area, having a huge staging site there; just build that in, build it in. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I think they staged in the -- for the Port Tunnel, they staged on Watson Island, as well, so. Vice Chair Russell: Right, that's correct. City of 'Violin Page 45 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.4 RESOLUTION 2292 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 16-0433, ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 8, 2016, IN ITS ENTIRETY; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CHARTER"), FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD CONCURRENTLY WITH THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 7, 2017, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ELECTORATE, TO AMEND SECTION 12 OF THE CHARTER, ENTITLED "FILLING VACANCIES FOR MAYOR AND COMMISSION," TO PROVIDE THAT A CANDIDATE ELECTED IN A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILLING A VACANCY SHALL SERVE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT UNEXPIRED TERM. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0258 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: 1'll get to the big boys soon. Is there -- RE.3. Can you present RE.3? RE.3. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: If we could table RE.3. As of a few minutes ago, we were still receiving information, so if we could table it, at least till the beginning of the afternoon? Commissioner Gort: What happened to RE.2? Chair Hardemon: Well, we're going to get -- we'll get to it. RE.4. I just want to kind of knock out some of the small things that we have. And before we accept the motion on that, there's something I wanted to ask the City Attorney about with this, Commissioner Gort. RE.4, of course, is our -- the item that's amending the Charter of the City of Miami. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes, Chairman. This has to do -- We actually brought this resolution earlier this fiscal year. We brought it in 2016. We're bringing it again, because it has to be within a certain time period of when it goes into the ballot, so we brought it a little earlier than we were supposed to, and it's basically, sponsored by Commissioner Gort to prepare a Charter amendment so that when filling vacancies for the Mayor and the Commission, provides that the candidate in a special election will fulfill the remainder of the unexpired term so that there doesn't have to be an election every single year left in the unexpired term. Chair Hardemon: And I understand you have the war wounds from that, Commissioner Gort. City of 'Violin Page 46 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Gort: The reason I bring that is when I came back in 2010, I had three elections within one year, so this is trying to avoid that. Chair Hardemon: The -- and I don't think there is anything wrong with the legislation in that sense, Commissioner. I ask that the City Attorney's Office help me with this, because, basically, the way that it says "serve the remainder of unexpired term," if there's a vacancy, we know that in the City of Miami, as well as in other cities in the State of Florida, there have been vacancies that have been created because of removals from office -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- or some other things. And particularly in one city -- I think it was like Miami Lakes -- Mayor Pizzi was removed, and he was acquitted of all crimes, and he was supposed to be reinstated back into his seat. The Governor did not allow that. The City kind of fought it, as I remember, and he eventually sued to get his seat back. Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Hardemon: And so, I say that to say that I think there needs to be some language that's included that can be added to this that says that if someone is removed from office that creates that vacancy and they -- their seat is -- if someone - - for instance, they -- some -- If you're removed from office, most likely, there's going to be a special election, and someone else is going to come in. Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Hardemon: That -- If that person is acquitted or has a right to come back to that seat that they have an opportunity to come back. Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Hardemon: And I asked the City Attorneys Once to draft something that gives me that language. I didn't attempt to make that -- Commissioner Gort: We had that happen here in the City of Miami. Chair Hardemon: Huh? Commissioner Gort: We had that happen here in the City of Miami. Chair Hardemon: Yes, yes. Ms. Mendez: Right. So if Commissioner Gort allows that friendly amendment for when we bring back the legislation -- We toyed with some language, but don't have anything exactly concrete, but it would be something as simple -- along the lines of Unless the person -- unless the vacancy is created by someone who is removed from office, f that person is reinstated, then this provision shall not apply; something very simple to make sure that it addresses that they could be reinstated. Chair Hardemon: Right, because I don't want to ajjkct his provision. What I just want to affect is that if the person is reinstated back into office that they can serve -- Ms. Mendez: Right. City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- the remaining term. Ms. Mendez: They fulfrll the term, yes. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Gort: So I'm all for it. Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Chair Hardemon: So I assume that'll be a motion from Commissioner Gort -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- and I'll -- and second by -- Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Suarez, with those considerations that we stated on the record. Okay. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): That doesn't need to amend the legislation, though; does it, Madam City Attorney? You'll just incorporate it into the record. Ms. Mendez: So that it's crystal clear, we will amend the legislation,. just placing a little "whereas" clause showing the intention of the Commission on how it's supposed to come back, so thank you. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, all in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Mr. Hannon: As amended. Ms. Mendez: Thank you. City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.5 RESOLUTION 1701 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COMBINED INTERLOCAL AND MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A JOINT ENFORCEMENT ZONE, PROVISION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND CREATING A MULTI -AGENCY ANTI - PROSTITUTION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING TASK FORCE PURSUANT TO THE MUTUAL AID ACT, CHAPTER 23, PART 1, OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: Item RE.5 was deferred to the June 8, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.5, please see "Order of the Day." RE.6 RESOLUTION 2245 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND GRADING SYSTEM FOR CITY OF MIAMI STREETS (COLLECTIVELY "GRADING PLAN"); FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL WITHIN ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) DAYS OF THIS RESOLUTION. MOTION TO: Withdraw RESULT: WITHDRAWN MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.6, please see "Order of the Day." City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.7 RESOLUTION 2237 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO DEVELOP A LIST OF POTENTIAL PROJECTS RELATED TO A PROPOSED MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE, AND TO DEVELOP SUCH LIST THROUGH DIRECT COOPERATION WITH THE PUBLIC AND CITY COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICES; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE SUCH LIST TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ITS REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION NO LATER THAN JANUARY 2018. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0210 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: RE.7. Is there a motion for RE. 7? Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it -- second. Commissioner Suarez: Oh, I'm sorry. Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion about it? Commissioner Carollo: Discussion. Chair Hardemon: Sure. You're recognized, Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman, ifI could. Chair Hardemon: Yes. You're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: I -- so I support this wholeheartedly, and even if you see the "whereas" clauses, it states, "Whereas the intent of the multimodal impact fees is to generate the necessary funding to offset the increased volume of vehicular and pedestrian congestion resulting from new construction and development, " my problem with this is that I don't think it's going anywhere, and I'll tell you why. Because you had a fancier name, "multimodal impact fees„" I had a more specific name, "transportation impact fee," back on September 24, 2015 Commission meeting, where I requested pretty much the same information, and then I followed up at the January 14, 2016 meeting to see where we were. As a matter off act, I think -- Commissioner Suarez: It's a sunshine meeting on it. Commissioner Carollo: You know, Commissioner Suarez was involved in that and had something similar. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Still nothing. So now, we revisit pretty much the same legislation that we passed, and we discussed, changed the names a little bit, but you're asking the exact same thing that I brought to this Commission and asked back in September 24, 2015; still hasn't received anything. So although I support you, I have no faith that -- nothing's really going to happen, and to a certain degree, that's what I really think we need to address. Where is what we requested back in September 24, 2015? Because it's the same exact thing as what you're requesting now. So, realistically, what you're requesting now -- let's say we pass it, because I support you -- we should be getting it today. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, 1 -- You know, obviously, I support what both of you are trying to do. And as the Commissioner said correctly, we both sort of had similar ideas at about a similar time. We both -- we had like a legislative conference where we both talked about it, and we even talked about whether the impact fee would be within the impact, fee envelope, or in addition to the impact, fee envelope, et cetera, et cetera. And so, I -- we were told, I think, at the time that they had to do some sort of study. You can't implement an impact fee without a study. And so, I don't know if that study has been completed or it -- Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: Let me just -- I'm almost finished. In this particular case, 1 like this particular resolution, because we do need to develop a project list, and I'll tell you why. You know, obviously, we have the Brickell Tunnel that is something that, you know, that 1 put forth, and it's gotten a lot of support. But there's -- We have a Transportation Trust Fund, in addition to the impact fee, which we, you know, can also collaborate together; and we'll put it all together. But I do think that it's always smarter for us, and I can tell you as an MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) -- or TPO (Transportation Planning Organization) board member now -- to the extent that we prioritize things, and then take them to the next place, wherever that is; whether that's the TPO or whether that's FDOT, or whether that's US (United States) Department -- wherever we take it, that's what they're going to require us to do, anvways. So I think what we're doing is, you know, we're talking about two slightly different things. One is the generation of this impact fee that we've been talking about. And by the way, I'm going to be requesting a deferral on PZ.4 and the DRI (Development of Regional Impact) Increment 3, because I don't think it's something that we need to do today. I mean, I think we can wait a little bit. But we need to loop in to increase development capacity, particularly for the downtown area, into projects like the tunnel. And there is a component of impact fees that are part of the DRI planning process. So I -- you know, we're on the same page; I couldn't agree more. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Gort: Go ahead. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. And I sponsored this item, because I do recognize that the will is there; that transient and transportation, and City of 'Viand Page 51 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 traffic is one of the biggest headaches in our City. It's something that we have to deal with. With as little power or jurisdiction as we have over it, we have to find ways to affect it for our constituents, and we've done that in many ways. I think when the transportation impact fee discussion came last year, I noticed a hesitation from the Administration. I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seemed that there was a feeling that it would be very difficult to measure specifically impact from transportation, or how each unit could then offset that transportation with an impact fee, and how that would be used. I don't want to take credit for inventing this concept. This is something that the Administration is working on, and perhaps from their briefing now, may have even come out of the -- as an evolution of the transportation impact fee that we had discussed a year ago. But what this does is, it includes transportation and public transit, and all multi -modes of how we connect, so it could involve cycling, it could involve ride sharing, it could involve trolleys, trains, you name it, light rail. And the idea can be very specific to when a building goes in, what is needed to connect that building to that first mile? How do we get that building and all the new. folks that are suddenly in that spot? Whether it's downtown or anywhere, how do we get them to that trolley or to that Metrorail, or the Mover? And so, this is meant to create a project list. It can be big iconic things; it can also be things that are a little more closer to home of where that impact happens so that that connection is made. And so, it creates a -- it says, "If you're going to build a building here, you have an impact and a responsibility to help connect those people, " which will reduce the need for parking, which will reduce the cost of that housing. So I think we're all on the same page here, but that's the general concept. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Gort: The -- Let me tell you, I think the biggest impact that we have in the City of Miami is caused by the growth of Miami -Dade County. We just had a meeting last night of the transportation, and most of the roads now are used for the people that don't live in the City of Miami, but they, commute to the City of Miami. Especially with the new software now, you got a software now that tells you how to go through the neighborhoods in order to get quicker to wherever you're going. I don't have any problem with this. I think we need it; but also, I'd like to know, because we have two cities -- a lot of people don't understand -- doing a impact fee. What is the cost right now? My, understanding is -- how much is it? Well, the different impact fees that we have today. Daniel 1 Alfonso (City Manager): Well, right now, impact fees accumulate a little over $10, 000 per unit when you're doing a building. Commissioner Gort: My question is -- Doing it in downtown Miami, in Brickell, there's no problem. But trying to do it in some of the neighborhoods, that would avoid buildings to go up, and this is something that I would like to see them -- Vice Chair Russell: It'll add to the cost is what you're saying. Commissioner Gort: Right. It's adding to the cost of the -- anyone that wants to build a single-family home. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gort: So we got to make sure that we coordinate it the way it is, and what kind of economic impact we'll create in certain neighborhoods. City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo and then Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Ijust want to circle back. I think, again, we're all on the same page, and it starts with the Administration, I mean, so I get it, and I get the one mile to -- you know, from the building to mass transit. But it still starts with: Do we have an impact fee, and how can we establish one? How much will it generate and all that? Which was discussions that we had more than a year ago, back in 2015, and we still have gotten no production, from what I've seen. So I think -- and again, I'll pass this, I'm along, butt haven't seen any traction [sic], whatsoever. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: I think what Commissioner -- and I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but the frustration that he's voicing -- I know, you're going -- I'll get you, I'll let you respond -- but I think the frustration he's voicing is -- I'll give you another example that's very similar. We talked about -- and I'm pretty sure we passed a resolution on a transportation master plan, right? We talked about that concept. So that's not too dissimilar to all these things that we're talking about; in .fact, they're all sort of interrelated. But what I think his frustration is -- and I can understand it -- is that, look, every couple of months or every three months or every quarter, or every half year, if you haven't -- you know, you should come back to us on an issue that we have resolved to get action on from the Administration without us having to say, "Hey, we need you to bring it back." You should proactively say, "Hey, this is the status," okay? If the status is we need money, then, "We need money." If the status is we need to get further direction from you, "We need further direction"; whatever the status is. But I think letting the amount of time go by that has gone by, 1 think is a little bit -- You're looking at me like if you've done that already. Okay, go ahead. I'm going to let you cut me off. I'm going to let you cut me off. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Chair Hardemon: We'll yield the time to the City Manager -- Commissioner Suarez: Prove me wrong. Chair Hardemon: -- hoping we won't have much more discussion about an item that we're going to pass, but -- Mr. Alfonso: Commissioners, we were directed to conduct a study to determine impact fees for transportation. We have done that. We have also requested to meet with all of vou before we bring it to the Commission so that you understand what it is that we're going to be bringing to Commission. As a matter of fact, yesterday, we had a brief discussion about that, and you made a request about that. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Alfonso: We've met with a couple of you already. We've requested meetings with all of you to explain how the impact fee would work and then trying to get an understanding of what the direction is going to be as to how we're going to apply it. Are we going to apply it on top of the existing impact fees, within the existing impact fee structure? Are we going to break the City up into districts, or is it going to be one entire district? Because that will affect how we do that. So we can do that full board here, or we can try to talk to you individually and get your feel. Commissioner Suarez: That's neither here nor there. I don't have a problem either way. I think the issue is it's taken a long time. And so, the question is -- You know; I think, generally speaking, when we're resolved to do something, particularly a big sort of idea like that, you know, I think you should come to us every few months, City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 every, quarter, every half year, if it's taking time, and say, "Look, this is the update. The update is we need money," or "The update is we're going to procurement," or "The update is" -- whatever it is. And so, that way, we stay in the loop so it doesn't -- a lot of times, it doesn't come back. And then, somebody puts in a -- an item that is, you know, similar in nature to what we've already discussed and talked about and resolved, and then, we don't have like a discussion of "Why hasn't anything, you know, been accomplished in this timeframe?" That's all. Is that fair? Mr. Alfonso: Fair enough. The fact is we're ready to go. Commissioner Suarez: Got you. Mr. Alfonso: We can bring it to Commission as soon as -- Commissioner Suarez: Got you. Mr. Alfonso: -- we can get through the Legal Department. No problem. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- I'd like to take a vote on this item. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Suarez: That was easy. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes on RE. 7. RE.8 RESOLUTION 2080 Department of Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT CAPACITY FOR THE "US-1 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT M- 0087" WITH SFM SERVICES, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $101,758.21, THEREBY INCREASING THE CONTRACT CAPACITY FROM A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $93,220.00 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $194,978.21; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM SPECIAL REVENUE ACCOUNT NO. 13000.202000.534000. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0212 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: Is there any discussion about RE.8? Commissioner Suarez: Move it. City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.9 1995 Commissioners and Mayor Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Commissioner Gort: Second. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: Seconded that we approve RE.8. Commissioner Suarez: I wanted to do this for Coral Way, too, please. Please, I need Coral Way. I don't know if you need it, but I need it on my side. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion on RE.8 -- The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. RESOLUTION TO BE DEFERRED A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ESTABLISHING A CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HOUSING POLICY FOR SMALLER RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS ("GUIDELINES"), ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS EXHIBIT "A", AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT SAID GUIDELINES. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: RE.9 was deferred to the June 8, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.9, please see "Order of the Day." City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.10 RESOLUTION 2334 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A NOTICE OF DEFAULT TO FLAGSTONE ISLAND GARDENS, LLC ("FLAGSTONE") OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO ENTER INTO GROUND LEASE ("AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT TO ENTER") AND THE AMENDED AND RESTATED GROUND LEASE(S) ("AMENDED AND RESTATED GROUND LEASES") AS APPLICABLE, DUE TO FAILURE TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY THESE AGREEMENTS; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR GENERAL CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF THESE AND ANY OTHER RELATED AGREEMENTS WITH FLAGSTONE TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE OTHER BREACHES. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: RE.10 was deferred to the May 30, 2017, Special Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.10, please see "Order of the Day." City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 RE.11 RESOLUTION 2050 TO BE DEFERRED Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Attorney ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE CASE OF 1000 BRICKELL, LTD., F/K/A 1000 BRICKELL, INC., AND KAI PROPERTIES, LTD. V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 14-11755 CA 23, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO EFFECTUATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MOTION TO: Indefinitely Defer RESULT: INDEFINITELY DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.11, please see "Order of the Day." END OF RESOLUTIONS City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 BC.1 2291 Office of the City Clerk BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AS CHAIRPERSONS, VICE -CHAIRPERSONS AND/OR MEMBERS ON VARIOUS TRUSTS, AUTHORITIES, BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTED AS CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Carollo of the Bayfront Park Management Trust Commissioner Russell of the Downtown Development Authority Commissioner Suarez of the Midtown Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Russell of the Omni Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Hardemon of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency APPOINTED AS VICE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Gort of the Midtown Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Suarez of the Omni Community Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Gort of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency APPOINTED AS MEMBER: Commissioner Hardemon of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau Commissioner Suarez of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Commissioner Suarez of the Florida League of Cities Commissioner Gort of the Miami -Dade County League of Cities Commissioner Hardemon of the Miami -Dade County Tourist Development Council Commissioner Carollo of the Miami River Commission ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0259 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Russell, Suarez Chair Hardemon: RE.3 is still going to be to the afternoon, as I understand. City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Gort: What's RE.3? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, please. Chair Hardemon: All right. Boards and Committees, Mr. Clerk. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that all the appointments to chairman and board members to all the different committees remain the same. That's my motion. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Seeing none -- Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: Okay. All in. favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion approved. END OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES City of 'Miami Page 59 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 BU.1 1510 Office of Management and Budget BU - BUDGET BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEM MONTHLY REPORT I. SECTION 2-497 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES (RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) II. SECTION 18-502 (CITY'S ANTI -DEFICIENCY ACT) III. SECTION 18-542 (FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES) RESULT: DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: All right. BU.1, the budget update. I know you guys can hear all right. We're just trying to get by. Christopher Rose (Director): Good morning, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management and Budget. The books for the month of April closed on May 8. We're 58 percent of the way through the fiscal year, but revenues and expenses are rarely linear. Overall projected revenues minus projected expenditures are currently trending toward a yearend surplus of -- net surplus of 26.6 million; a surplus of approximately, 27.8 million in the general fund; and a deficit of 1.2 million in the internal service fund We continue forward with budget development for next fiscal year. We're not in balance yet. We've had meetings across the City in all districts in association with the general obligation bond process, and we've gotten really good feedback on both the GO (general obligation) bond and the operating budget. We're -- we have no departments that we are projecting to be over budget in the current year at this time, and we're just keeping an eye on everything. So be happy to take any questions you may have. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: My question is, I know you've had the public meeting. I was part of one of the public hearings, and I'm sure there's a lot of different needs, according to the different public hearings you in. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: The one that you were in my district, there's a lot of -- much requests for parks, improvement in the parks and street improvement, police force, and all that. And that's something that I hope when you put the whole program together, all of this is taken into consideration. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. If I recall correctly, lighting was a large issue in your district, as well. Commissioner Gort: It was, very much. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Mr. Alfonso: Pei may ask him a question? Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. Alfonso: Chris -- Mr. Rose, can you please talk a little bit about -- When you talk about the surplus, what is the breakdown of that surplus that is due to excess building permit revenue? Mr. Rose: Certainly. Both permitting and inspections in the Building Department, we are projecting them to be $7.3 million over budget. And if you will recall, the audit that has just closed on last fiscal year, building revenues can only be spent on building -associated activities. So it does create a restricted amount of money in the general fund that cannot be spent on anything else. Chair Hardemon: Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, sir. Mr. Rose: Thank you. END OF BUDGET City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 DI.1 2209 Department of Finance DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE QUARTERLY NON - REIMBURSABLE GRANT EXPENDITURES FOR QUARTER ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2016. RESULT: DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: Discussion items. DI. 1, quarterly non -reimbursable grant expenditures. Erica Paschal (Director): Good morning, Commissioners. Erica Paschal, for the Finance Department. Per the City's .financial integrity principles, the quarterly report. for the period ending December 31, 2016, there were $70,909 of expenses, primarily related to the City's South Florida Workforce grants that were disallowed and deemed non -reimbursable. Chair Hardemon: Any questions for her? Commissioner Gort: 1 understand there were some changes made in the regulations, and that could cause a lot of problems. Ms. Paschal: Yes. Lillian Blondet (Director, Grants and Sustainable Initiatives): Yes. This -- the reimburse -- the un-reimbursable amounts are related to -- Commissioner Gort: And you are? Chair Hardemon: Can you introduce yourself for the record, please? Ms. Blondet: Lillian Blondet, with the Office of Grants Administration. It has to do with a few contracts that we had, so we closed about five awards now, and it's still basically related to monies that either we went over by line items that were not approved; or were approved for payments, and it was a little bit too late for us to go back and record those amounts, so they just compounded and added up, unfortunately. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I thought CareerSource was going to cover this. Ms. Blondet: This is for previous years. They did cover last year, but when they submitted -- when we submitted some information, it was after the contract closed, and they wouldn't go back and reimburse it. Commissioner Carollo: So this money comes out of the general fund? Ms. Blondet: Yes. City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: How could we make sure we prevent this from happening again? And by the way, I cautioned everybody when we first got into the whole South Florida Workforce CareerSource and the Career Center that it's highly restrictive funding; that, you know, I didn't want this to happen, and I sort of foresaw that this was going to start happening. How do we make sure it doesn't happen again? Ms. Blondet: We have been tracking the amounts and the expenses, and revenues this year, which have been short. The expenses for the program are more than what the funder gives us, so we'll have a shortfall inherent to the program being more expensive than the monies we get from the funder. Commissioner Carollo: What's the shortfall, Mr. Manager? Ms. Blondet: We're going to be -- I think right now, it's going to be between two and three hundred. We left some positions empty, so it's going to be, you know, not filled, to cover some expenses, so it's going to be a shortfall. When we started this program, it was a cost reimbursement all the way. Now it's been changed to per placement, which has put us a little bit behind on the revenues. This year, we -- you know, we conversed -- we had a conversation with the executive director, and he was here, and he said he was going to make us whole -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Ms. Blondet: -- so we wouldn't lose money. We still have not -- we're still pending approval of that request in writing, so that we can make sure that before the year is closed and the program is closed, which is June 30 is when this program closes, that we can provide all the paperwork in a timely manner. Commissioner Gort: I have to tell you, the problem is some of the people are really difficult to really put in a job. And they go to a job, and within three days, they leave the job so that we -- they can't get credit for it. And I can tell you, my office is working very close with them and we've been able to place a lot of people and they have kept the jobs, and they're doing very well. So the program works. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Gort: Maybe we might need to change it. Mr. Alfonso: Yeah. This is going to be a policy decision for the Commission to make. Clearly, the program does work. Last year, we placed over 400 folks into jobs. But the funding is not going to be sufficient to cover the cost, or we're going to be very close all the time with the provider of the grant to maybe modify the grant at the very end to maybe cover the cost or not. So we're running a little bit of a risk, but this is a policy decision as to whether we think it's worth the 300, 000, the 200,000, to place 400 people into jobs, or cut out the program if we don't want to absorb that risk. Chair Hardemon: I don't think there's any further discussion. Thank you very much. Commissioner Gort: Let me add to this. I think putting people to work is one of the most important things that we can do here, and for a cost of $200,000, I'm sure we can work it out with the directors where we can make some changes in there. But I mean, to get people to work, to me, it's the most important thing to -- well, to get City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 DI.2 2227 City Manager's Office them out of the problems that they could be having. Once you have a job, you have a salary, and you can improve your family's status and the quality of life for yourself and your family. Chair Hardemon: Completely agree. Ms. Blondet: Let me clarify two things. There are two ways we're getting -- we're having a shortfall this year. One is because the cost to run the center is higher than the money we get, and the other one is when they're paying per placement -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Ms. Blondet: We may not have enough placements. So there's two ways that the program is going to be short. Commissioner Gort: No, but at the same time, some of the requirements, some of the placements are very difficult to place, because they don't -- Ms. Blondet: And we may not get paid. for it. We place the person, then -- Commissioner Gort: You will not get paid, for it. You work. for it, they go to the job, and then they come back, and then they go hack, and they do it two or three times for the same job, because I'm very familiar what is happening in there. Ms. Blondet: Yes. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Ms. Blondet: Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. RESULT: DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: DL2. Fernando Casamayor: Good morning, Commissioners. Fernando Casamayor; Assistant City Manager. DI.2 is a discussion regarding the work that we've done with the general obligation bond, the potential general obligation bond in our public meetings. Over the last couple of weeks, we've met with the public in different areas. We've had five public town hall type meetings. These meetings have been interactive. They've used design thinking techniques in order to maximize participation and data collection. And those of you that have attended some of these meetings, you've seen the Post It notes and the interactive -- you know, folks getting up and talking, and actually us vetting through some of the ideas that they had. We didn't try to limit any of the ideas that they were putting on pieces ofpaper. Some of the feedback we've been getting can qualj as capital needs; some of them have been operational needs; some of'them were just -- neither operating or capital; just very aspirational kind of large goals. But I think we've gotten a good amount of feedback from the community. It's been well received. Most of the members of the public, whether they're supportive of our budgets and our potential general City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 obligation bond or not, they've been very supportive of the format and the technique that we used in order to gather the public comment. So as for the format itself the first thing we do is we have our Chris talk, which is our budget director has a video about the budget process and how that works. And then we get into a little bit of just -- we do a video of the projects that were funded during the last general obligation bond; the Homeland Defense bonds that were issued previously. Then we get into the public feedback side, where use, again, Post It notes and comments for either plus or minus, and then the ideas. We do give them some categories for them to be able to put their Post It notes in, and then we will discuss whatever was placed on those Post It notes in order to get -- sometimes, you need a little more information regarding what exactly it is that people were asking for or what they were supportive of. There are some photos of the process itself. It's up on the screen now, with all the Post It notes that have been put up; some of our staff, certainly, members of the public. And then some of the ideas that we've gotten, you know, broken up into three categories: More lighting, as Mr. Rose mentioned before; cameras to regulate and monitor potential crimes; police stations and fire stations on the roadways. On the flood side, more pump stations, better drainage, seawalls, road improvements. And then on the park side, skate parks, dog parks, amphitheaters, bay walk, Olympia Theater, and then more community gardens. We also asked about, "How are we doing? Are we doing well? Are we not doing well? And where is it that we're doing well, and where do we need some improvement?" Some of the things that were positive: Our trolley system, some of the improvements that we've -- been made on Coral Way, our police presence, our parks, and our trash and garbage collection. On some of the things that we need to improve on, we need to have better, you know, cleaner sidewalks; a more beautiful city; we need to have more Code enforcement; we need to have some additional community parks -- parks programming was something that was a large discussion; more trees, and do something with the amount of vacant lots that we have. There's also some requests for more information booths out in the community. Now some of the questions and concerns that we got from the public as we did these meetings; a lot of questions regarding the oversight of these projects. How is it that you're going to go and spend this money? Should we grant you the ability to go do this? "How can we trust you?"pretty much was the question. So that's some concern there. Some concern regarding the displacement of low-income families in case some of these large projects are built; some discussion on, "Is 275 million enough? Is" -- "Can we off' -- "Can we get more?" Some more regarding, "Well, are we ever going to be free of bond debt? Because every time we go to retire some bonds, we issue more. And how is it that we're going to continue to inform the public and how much time are they going to have to digest the projects before they have to vote on it?" Those are some of the concerns that we got during this process. So we will continue to meet with the public as we get requests to come. If your Commission offices, you guys know of any particular civic groups or neighborhood associations that would really benefit from us going out and presenting to them, we look forward to working with you and going forward. We hope to come to Commission on June 22, with a list of projects, and hopefully go forward from there. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Vice Chair Russell: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much, Mr. Casamayor. I'd certainly like to commend the Administration on this year's ejjbrt of public outreach and participatory activities around the GO bond. I see a lot of activity. I hear a lot of chatter on social media. People are interested, people are learning, people are articulating what it means for them to be in favor or against this, and they're certainly weighing in on the things that they would like to see us spend it on. The City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 concerns you raised are valid. People do have that worry that, are we going to spend it on what we promise we will? And so, what I've been making an effort to do is let them know to get their ideas in now, because when we potentially vote this to be put on the ballot, the list is locked in at that point, correct? And so, only an oversight committee at that point could change it in the future date. I would like to see some -- more look at the public transportation aspect, perhaps our trolley; and where not necessary, if other transportation modes exist to connect all districts to the major items that we call citywide assets. A lot of them happen to fall in D2, but I don't always look at them as D2 items, per se; the bay walk, for example. But if it doesn't connect to the other districts, well, how can you really say it's a citywide asset? So if existing good public transportation exists to get from District 1 to District 2 to the bay walk, then we don't need to consider anything; but if that is lacking, and maybe a connection through the trolley system or whatever might suit, I'd like to look at that as one of the line items. As we look at each of these items, how do they connect to the rest of the City? Thank you. Mr. Casamayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Gort: Let me tell you, for the first time, I've seen within my district the public participation that has taken place. And what that tells you -- and both last night -- we were there until 8 o'clock in the transportation meeting that we had, and it shows that people want to get involved and want to he part of it. So 1 thank for -- all of you. But I agree with you, we -- I know we're looking at the district, but we have to look at citywide, with impact of citywide. This is something I been talking about, the trolleys. The trolleys got to be able to connect the whole city, and some -- Just yesterday, the League of Cities had a transportation committee meeting, and we talked to the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and we discussed that again. The County should be able to work with the cities to be able to set up the routes so they can really benefit the individuals. Sometimes, we set up the routes by political decision, and I think the professionals are the one that got to sit down and set up. This is how we can conduct this route to really benefit the public. So I agree with you on that. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. So, yeah, obviously, the public process has created a list that's probably bigger than what we can fund We've given ourselves a new problem, which we expected, but I don't think that's a bad problem. We can make these tough choices with the community, and at the end of the day, it will be their decision. Some of the things that I've heard the community talk about which would be large, impactful things would be restoration of the Olympia Theater. We've done a great job up to now, but the facade on the outside is structurally crumbling to a dangerous point. Even the Coconut Grove Playhouse is something that I know the Mayor had talked about putting within the general obligation bond as an investment of the City to take part in that, to be a stakeholder in that. The bay walk and river walk, I mentioned; trolley access; the bay link; the Brickell Tunnel. Some of these wouldn't be necessarily our assets, but I -- if I understand correctly, we would be able to allocate general obligation bond dollars toward a partnership with another layer of government -- correct? -- so that we could help fill that gap in funding for some of these major projects and step up. Water transit system; dockage, transitory dockage for residents; and permanent restrooms downtown. These are all just some of the ideas that I've heard of that will be for sure as part of the list, but I look fbrward to seeing the whole thing. City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Casamayor: Well be meeting with you guys, hopefully very soon, to give you the list of projects that we got, and then what we would recommend with it. Vice Chair Russell: Do you need any action from the Commission and is -- are we all on schedule to --? Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): We're on schedule to come back on June 22 with the Administration's proposal and all other -- list of all other projects that are un -- you know, by different folks, and then we'll let the Commission decide how you want to structure that. There is an idea that was given to me, and well probably discuss it with you, but to break the question; instead of having one question for the entire thing, to perhaps break it up into three different components. It's been done before in other referendums so that -- but that's something that we can discuss. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I would like to discuss that, because I think -- I hate to divide the whole thing. I'm sure we're going to have a request. for a billion dollar. We have to prioritize what's best for the City, as a whole. I understand each district has their own needs and they have their own request, but we got to look, make sure that we -- whatever we do is the benefit for the whole City of Miami. Unidentified Speaker: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: I'd be in favor of one ballot item. What would be the logic, though, or reasoning that we would go with three? Mr. Alfonso: Well, some people feel that perhaps that if somebody's dead set against something on the list, they would vote against the whole thing, and throw out the baby with the bathwater. Vice Chair Russell: There wouldn't be three different categories; there'd be the list broken into three so people could pick and choose? Mr. Alfonso: It would be three separate questions, and you could pass all three of them or pass two and not a third, you know -- Vice Chair Russell: I don't want to do it. Mr. Alfonso: One. Vice Chair Russell: I'd rather do one. Mr. Alfonso: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: I don't know if the other Commissioners would want -- Commissioner Gort: I mean, if we can come to an agreement and come up with the priorities, and I think we can do that. Mr. Alfonso: I understand. Commissioner Gort: Then we should have one, because you're going to divide the community. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 DI.3 2239 City Manager's Office Mr. Casamayor: Thank you, sir. DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING A PRESENTATION BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FOLLOWING BOARDS/COMMITTEES CONCERNING THEIR ANNUAL REPORTS: - URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DL3 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Chair Hardemon: DI3, annual report, Boards and Committees. Francisco Garcia: Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. D1.3 is the annual report by the Urban Development Review Board. We are attempting to contact the chairperson or the vice chair to see if they can be available this afternoon to make a presentation. They're not here at present. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Then we don't have any other items to address on the morning agenda, so I will put this meeting in recess. As 1 understand, Mr. Vice Chairman, are we starting the -- will we be starting the -- Commissioner Gort: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- CRA (Community, Redevelopment Agency) meeting now? Vice Chair Russell: We have a brief CRA meeting, but I believe Commissioner Suarez had asked to be present for it, for the discussion and the items, but he's not available at this time, so -- until at least 12:30 -- so it would be up to you if you want to -- Chair Hardemon: I mean, would you like to -- for us to break for lunch, come back at 2 o'clock, and then we can move on with the rest of the agenda? Vice Chair Russell: I think that's good. Chair Hardemon: All right. So we'll -- Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): And just -- Mr. Chairman, just as a reminder, there's also an executive session that the Manager has asked for, and there's a shade meeting concerning Airbnb. City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. It won't be in the afternoon, though. It'll be after our meeting. Mr. Min: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: So we'll break now and come back at 2 o'clock to finish the rest of the agenda. Mr. Min: Thank you, sir. Chair Hardemon: Meeting is in recess. Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Later... Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that concludes the morning's agenda. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): We do have DI. 3. I'm not sure if Mr. Garcia was able to get a hold of anyone that was to present, but if not, it can always be put on a future agenda. Vice Chair Russell: DI.3. I don't believe they're here; is that correct? They're not here? Mr. Garcia: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, for the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. As pertains to D13, I was in communications earlier today with the chairman of the Urban Development Review Board. He had an unforeseen medical procedure done today; he apologizes. He'll be here at the meeting of June 22, if you so wish. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Give him the best. I hope he's well. And that'll conclude -- Mr. Hannon: Chair, if I could just get a motion to continue the item? Vice Chair Russell: Can I get a motion to continue the item, please? Later... Vice Chair Russell: All right. Any further discussion on the morning's agenda? I think we're good. Mr. Hannon: DI.3, I still need the motion. Vice Chair Russell: DI.3, you have a motion -- I believe we moved it before his comment. Commissioner Suarez, we're deferring item DL3. Commissioner Suarez: Fine. Move it, I guess. City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Second. Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Russell: Motion passes. END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 AC.1 2357 Office of the City Attorney AC - ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE MAY 25, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF 1000 BRICKELL, LTD., F/K/A 1000 BRICKELL, INC., AND KAI PROPERTIES, LTD. V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 14-11755 CA 23, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING WILL BE CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY SESSIONS RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS X. SUAREZ; CITY MANAGER DANIEL J. ALFONSO; CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN; AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE -CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION. MOTION TO: Indefinitely Defer RESULT: INDEFINITELY DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item AC.1, please see "Order of the Day." City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 AC.2 2358 Office of the City Attorney ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE JUNE 8, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF AIRBNB, INC., ET AL. V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 2017-008999 CA 01, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING WILL BE CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY SESSIONS RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS X. SUAREZ; CITY MANAGER DANIEL J. ALFONSO; CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE -CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: Item AC.2 was deferred to the June 8, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): I have to read three scripts, so just -- Chair Hardemon: No, go ahead, but -- Ms. Mendez: -- let me know when I can. Chair Hardemon: -- they're free to go. City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: You can go. Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: Do I have to stay? Chair Hardemon: No, you don't have to stay. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Just a second, Chair. Madam City Attorney, then are we going to be doing something with AC.2? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Ms. Mendez: AC.2 is going -- I'm reading -- I'm going to read again into the record to have it next -- Mr. Hannon: But do we need to take some action on it to defer it to the next meeting? Ms. Mendez: The thing is that -- yeah, I get -- yes. It's going to be deferred, but I have to read it anyway into the record. Chair Hardemon: Well, without any objection from the board, AC.2 will be moved to the specially set meeting -- Ms. Mendez: To May -- No, June 8. Chair Hardemon: Is it? No? Oh, okay, to June 8. So, is there any objection? Hearing none, that motion passes. Ms. Mendez: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, I'm requesting at the City Commission meeting of June 8, 2017, we hold an attorney -client session, closed to the public, for purposes of discussing the pending litigation -- Chair Hardemon: Just to clarify the record, Commissioner Gort, he moved it. I -- you know. All right. Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) do that? Chair Hardemon: No. You moved the meeting to the next meeting. Mr. Hannon: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: The June 8 thing. You made the motion on the June 8 -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Chair Hardemon: Yeah, okay, that's what I thought. Commissioner Carollo: What about executive session? Chair Hardemon: That's the -- I don't think -- Commissioner Carollo: No. Chair Hardemon: -- you need a motion for that one. City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: The -- Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Mendez: No. That -- the executive labor session, that's being moved also to the 30th, I believe. Commissioner Carollo: On a special Commission meeting? Ms. Mendez: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, that's what -- okay. At noon? Ms. Mendez: -- pending -- Yeah. END OF ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) Chair Hardemon: Okay. So as I stated before, I'm about to open the public comment. Peter Ehrlich: Mr. Chairman, Peter Ehrlich. Will the public be allowed to speak after the items have been presented; the upcoming items in the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) agenda? Chair Hardemon: The public will have public comment now. If there is some item that requires for the public to speak that the Commissioners want to hear from particular communities about it, of course, it will be allowed. Mr. Ehrlich: I think we benefit. from hearing the presentations from the folks. Chair Hardemon: I -- you know, the -- and I completely understand where you're coming from. One of the things that, you know, I've been thinking about -- for instance, how we talked about earlier, we were describing that they want to see plans before an up -zoning, right? Mr. Ehrlich: Right. Chair Hardemon: It's just not going to happen, because that's not how an up -zoning works. Up -zonings don't happen because of the plans. Plans are documents that can be changed that have to fit within the zoning, so your plans actually depend on your zoning. And so, plans are very expensive to actually create, too. So for you to create plans, you might want to have the zoning, you know, that's there. And if you have, from what I've -- If you have created plans and you don't have the zoning, the next thing that's going to happen is the community is going to say, '7 told you." They've been working on this thing for two years. The Commissioners are with it, because they have full plans. Why would they create the plans -- why would they spend $300, 000 on plans if they didn't know they had the zoning? So it's kind of like you're damned if you do; you're damned if you don't. And I think what we've seen is that the zoning -- the application is always the same. But, like I said, if there is anyone that wants to speak, particularly after a certain presentation, we'll make time for that to happen. Mr. Ehrlich: I'll be brief Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: No problem. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to open up the public comment period for the rest of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda. So if there's anyone from the community that'd like to speak on a PZ item, now is your time. Please, if you may, state your name, your address, what items that you're speaking about, and present your statements. You're recognized. sir. Williams Armbrister: Williams Armbrister again. PZ.7, the Frankie Rolle Center. We've seen no plans, but as it is proposed or desired to be up -zoned, it would be an insult to this community, because it falls within the NCD (Neighborhood Conservation District)-2, for one thing. Grand Avenue should have -- was before three stories, and when this Commission agreed to -- for up -zoning on Grand Avenue -- I have a five -story apartment building with three levels of units looking down into my living room, and any up -zoning abutting a residential community is just out of place. And what they're -- whatever their plans are for up -zoning, from -- at that Day Avenue -- Frankie Rolle. If Frankie Rolle -- it's -- they could go up as many as City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 eight stories, and that's overlooking a residential community. We're already having a problem, as you're aware, with up -zoning in this Bahamian -African -American community. And for them to exceed five -- if they wanted five stories -- on the U.S.1 side, is acceptable, but on the Day Avenue side, it's unacceptable to the residents living in that area, and we ask that you deny any request for up -zoning of that property from its current zoning. And I thank you so much for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized. Debby Stander: My name is Debby Stander. Ilive at 830 Northeast 74th Street, and I'm speaking in support of PZ.15, in support of the appeal being brought by Morningside Civic Association and Elvis Cruz. I was actually present at the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board hearing on February 7, when the certificate of approval was issued, and I left there feeling just devastated, because it seemed to me that so many red flags and questions had been raised as to whether or not the property that is slated for demolition could properly or was properly being classified as noncontributing. And subsequent to that hearing, I had the opportunity to carry out several public records requests, and become a lot more informed about the situation and circumstances. And so, I'm -- obviously, I think Elvis will speak for Morningside, and I'm just speaking as a member of the public, but as someone who went to the hearing, certainly, I can say that there was a great deal of information, very important information that would have helped the HEP Board to have established very conclusively as to whether the property was contributing or noncontributing, and that information was not provided to the hoard at that hearing, and .for that reason, 1 think that the certificate of approval should be reversed. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ma'am, you're recognized. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues: Good afternoon, Chair. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues, with the law firm of Bercow Radell & Fernandez. I'm here representing residences at Vizcaya, LLC (Limited Liability Company), to ask that you reconsider the deferral of item 16. I believe it was done in error at the very beginning of the meeting. Someone from the neighborhood came up and may have represented themselves as an applicant. This is a City application. It was not part of the public comment. I understand that the City is okay with moving forward today, and I did express the fact that 1 would be asking for this reconsideration as part of this meeting, and urged the neighbors to all star, and I believe there's' some in the room, as well. Chair Hardemon: We'll come back to that, and that's going to be a tough one, because we started the PZ hearings, I mean, around like 2..40. And so, at this time, it's 4, you know, 4:38. And so, what I'm worried about is -- for instance, the individual -- I don't know who the individual was, but the individual that left, I mean, obviously, they were there -- Vice Chair Russell: Judge Bloch. Chair Hardemon: Oh, that was the Judge. Oh. Yeah. I mean -- Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: I informed him that we were going to be asking for this reconsideration; that he didn't have a right to ask for a deferral without informing the applicant, which is the City of Miami, so it was very -- I mean, very strange the way that it occurred. I was in the room and didn't hear it myself Vice Chair Russell: I had intended to defer the item, with or without his input, honestly. City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: I do feel there's more discussion that needs to be had. We met with you in the office, as well as your client and the neighbors, and I'm not ready yet. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Understood. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Migdalia Lagoa: Hi. My name is Migdalia Lagoa, 720 Northeast 69th Street. I'm here to request that this Commission reject the appeal of the HEP Board approval of the Bayside Project, which Mr. Cruz is requesting. Those of us that lived in Miami for a while clearly remember what the Upper Eastside of Biscayne looked like before Avra had the vision and the tenacity, and the courage to buy five abandoned or poorly maintained motel buildings that housed the prostitution and drug trades that thrive on the boulevard. Her development has been thoughtful, community -minded, and as of right. The project in question is the last of the .five motels. She has been very concerned and very thoughtful of how each of her projects impacts the community. This project -- and Avra does her research before she buys properties -- was considered noncontributing. That now the issue is being raised again is unfair, and it's not right. So I request that you hear the evidence that's going to be presented today, and that you affirm the HEP Board decision. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. You're recognized, ma'am. Esther Knicely: Yes. Hi. Esther Knicely, 3331 Florida Avenue. I'm just here to recommend the deferral of items for PZ.7 and PZ.8, since they weren't able to give us specifics about the covenant, and so, we kind of need to know more information. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Esther. Bill Riley: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Bill Riley. I'm an attorney with the law firm of GrayRobinson, with offices located at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. I was in the back of the room whenever PZ.14 got called up, and I didn't want to jump in front of everybody. We represent the applicant. We'd like to be heard on the deferral if that's appropriate, and I'd like to give the board some background with regard to that application. Chair Hardemon: I believe our District 2 Commissioner asked for the deferral on PZ.14. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, I did. A significant outpouring has come into my office, even today, from the community that was looking for more notice and input on this issue. It seeins like a very minor thing, and it very well may be, but I need to take that into consideration. Mr. Riley: May I speak on that, Commissioner? Vice Chair Russell: You may. Mr. Riley: Briefly. We have been at this project, which is a very narrow issue, for over a year now. We had every department and all the other boards recommend approval of it. I have a series of emails that I can enter into the record of us discussing the project with our neighbors, and we want to be good corporate citizens and discuss the application with the neighbors. Unfortunately, the reason that the neighbors have asked for a deferral -- and I have it in emails here -- is because they told us that they want to purchase our property, and they are trying to attempt to use City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 the board and ask for deferrals in order to create leverage on us to sell them the property. I'm more than happy to sit down with them; we told them that. We have offered to sit down with them. We've offered that whenever a development program is compiled, we will sit down with them to make sure all their concerns are addressed. We've said that in writing several times. We just don't think that's appropriate to ask for a deferral on this narrow issue on an alley closure that is a remnant alley that doesn't go anywhere. This property is -- was part of the Finger Properties application, which developed the entire block What we're here on today is a holdout parcel; that whenever that holdout parcel wasn't included in the Finger Properties application, a remnant alley that doesn't connect to any streets was not included within that vacation, and because it wasn't included, it's there today. And there is no development program that we're asking for approval of This is just a first step in a series of many steps; it's going to take a long process. We just don't think it's appropriate for neighbors to use this board as leverage to try to purchase property. And I have the emails. I'd like to introduce then to you if I could. Vice Chair Russell: Sure. I don't think we need to actually debate the merits of the item itself at this point. Really, the players are what's relevant here, and it's -- it seems to be neighbors that are writing to me; not buyers. And I don't know if these specific residents are the ones who are interested in buying the property or what, but 1-- this will be the last deferral on this; I promise you that, because there's only so much to discuss about an alley closure. Mr. Riley: Fair enough. Fair enough, Commissioner. Vice Chair Russell: And we will definitely hear it at -- I believe we deferred it to the second meeting in June. Mr. Riley: Okay. 1 appreciate that very much. Vice Chair Russell: You have my word on that. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, counselor. Mr. Riley: Thank you. Meena Jagannath: Good afternoon. I'm here to speak on PZ.7 and 8. I would like to urge the Commission to defer this item. The -- as written, the restrictive covenant that was proffered by the developers is sorely lacking in detail, but the developer has indicated that they're willing to negotiate or confer with the community, and the community would like the time to do so to get more details about the number of affordable housing units that are being offered, what is going to happen to the Frankie Shannon Rolle Center as construction is happening, as well as the restoration of the center and the services in the project being proposed. So I would urge that you defer the item. And in addition to that, I just wanted to make a comment that dovetails off the comment that I had made with respect to the Day Avenue properties. This property does fall in the NCD-2 zone; and so, especially given the scale of the retail space that's being contemplated in this project, I think it would be important to evaluate whether the proposed project is actually, in keeping with the guidelines in the NCD-2, and the City should devise a tool or some protocol to ensure compliance. Thank you. Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue. The police asked me to make an announcement that whoever parked the frog out in front of City Hall, you're about to be towed. On a more serious note, I'm here to speak -- Chair Hardemon: Is there a frog out there? City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Kurland: -- I'll give the audience a moment for that to clock in. I'm here to speak in favor of PZ.23. I agree with the recommendation of the Planning staff to approve this item. I agree with the 10-nothing vote of the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) Board to approve the item. For those of you who don't know what PZAB is, this would prevent the City from joining private developers as a co - applicant. As Commissioner Suarez has pointed out many, many times, this offers an absolute smell of conflict of interest and offers absolutely no avenue of opposition for the residents of the City of Miami. Thank you. Brittany Thomas: Again, Brittany Thomas, speaking on PZ.7 and 8. I would also recommend deferral of this item since there are a lot of things that the developer's attorney had offered to us and kind of told us in the hallway, but they're not particularly in the covenant, and they haven't really been discussed to their full extent. But if this is approved, maybe on the first reading, it would be nice if there were some sort of provisions put in there for the recommendations or for the things that they were going to offer to the community; one was meeting with us, meeting with your offices and making certain changes to the covenant that would keep Frankie Shannon Rolle where it is, and keep the community center like going. So just whenever the applicant conies up to be considered, maybe keep some of those things in mind from first to second reading. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner. Vice Chair Russell: In case you don't have another opportunity to speak, what was - - Would you like to put on the record what was proffered to you verbally? Ms. Thomas: So -- yeah. So in -- apparently, in the lease with the County that hasn't been approved yet, Frankie Shannon Rolle Community Center would come back to the current location; it would just be in the building. But that's not in the covenant that they're offering to you today, and they said that they would be willing to put that in there, which would be nice, just to give us some affirmation, because Frankie Shannon Rolle is so important to the community members of the Grove. Also, they were indicating that if you -- so they changed the covenant for the 40 percent of units be workforce or affordable. They said that they would seek funding from the State to offer 60 units at affordable housing, 60 percent AMI or below, so some sort of agreement put in place so that if they do get that funding, we can be assured that the 60 units will be affordable at 60 percent or below. Chair Hardemon: Of the area median income -- Ms. Thomas: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- or of the -- Ms. Thomas: Area median income. Chair Hardemon: -- block? Vice Chair Russell: So that's -- that is 40 percent, or 60 units? Ms. Thomas: No -- yeah. So in the current covenant that you have, it's 40 percent affordable and workforce; 40 percent of the units to be affordable and workforce. They've offered, in addition, to seek funding to provide 60 units at afJbrdable housing, or at 60 percent AMI or below. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. In addition to the 40 percent? City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Thomas: Well, I'm not a hundred percent clear, which is -- Vice Chair Russell: We'll hear when -- okay, I'm getting a finger wave. Okay, thank you. Manny Rodriguez: Good afternoon. This is in regards to PZ.15. My name is Manny Rodriguez. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents, Manuel and Josefa Rodriguez, who are standing beside me, who lived at 410 Northeast 52nd Street, which is in Morningside, and directly abuts the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. I repeat, these are your -- these are the neighbors of the building that's proposed to be demolished. Even though we are immediately next door to the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard property, with an undeniable causable legal interest, which is adversely affected by the HEP Board's decision being challenged here today, we never received notice of the HEP Board hearing to demolish the building. We are aggrieved parties, and ask to be recognized in this proceeding as qualified intervenors. We are making an appearance on the record in support of this appeal, and in opposition to the HEP Board's uninformed decision to allow demolition of the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. From our understanding, the HEP Board decision was made without knowledge of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. Neither the applicant nor the City informed the HEP Board of the existence of those legal binding documents. The HEP Board's decision is in conflict with the legally binding settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. It is highly unlikely that the HEP Board would have voted to allow this demolition if they had been aware of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which do not allow demolition, but instead, expressly require an -- require the preservation and maintenance of the building. The HEP Board's uninformed decision does not supersede the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. We support the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which resolved a long -running legal dispute on this property, and did so in a very generous fashion to the property owner. But after receiving and transferring millions of dollars' worth of TDRs (Transfer development rights), the property owners have not done a thing to fulfill their obligation to restore the buildings. There are many, important questions surrounding this case. Why did the City not tell the HEP Board about the existence of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant? Was that a deliberate omission to the critical material facts? Has there been an investigation into that omission? My parents live right next door, and I visit them frequently. We are eyewitnesses to the fact that the property owners left this building unsecured, with open windows. Their own architect inspected and reported it to be safe and sound in 2014. The building is now in poor condition, and they have claimed -- as they claimed, and it is further proof to the breach of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which requires them to preserve and maintain the building. They have not done a thing to preserve and maintain this building. Having worked in commercial real estate for over 10 years, and being involved in numerous real estate deals in almost all 50 states, I'm baffled at what I've been made aware within the past few days. The major points are as follows: The declaration of restrictive covenant and settlement agreement were executed in 2014; specifically, refer to both buildings as being historically designated, and both are to be preserved and maintained, in accordance with an existing condition and improvement report and maintenance schedule report that was provided by the property owner to the City of Miami. Chair Hardemon: Sir. Mr. Rodriguez: In conclusion -- Chair Hardemon: Before you continue on -- City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Rodriguez: -- yes. Chair Hardemon: -- noting your time is expired, you asked us to determine whether or not you should be qualified as an intervenor; and so, that's something that, you know, since you made the request and you're near the property, that I'm sure that the City Attornev's Office is going to be prepared to test that to see if you are, indeed -- or should be considered a qualified intervenor. So what I'd like for you to do is have a seat, and give us the time to go through the public comment, and we'll come back to you to make that determination. And this is on PZ.15 -- Mr. Rodriguez: 15. Chair Hardemon: -- to determine whether or not you are, indeed, a qualified intervenor. Mr. Rodriguez: Sure. Chair Hardemon: But I want to make you very aware, as a qualified intervenor, you typically become a party to, you know, what's occurring. I'm not sure in this matter to what degree that means, what -- but I will tell you, though, that each party typically has a lawyer. I assume that you came prepared to present evidence, not just statements that you're making, because I assume that you're not the lawyer. And if you are the lawyer, you understand that there -- that you have to put evidence on, and so, you do that through witnesses or other types of evidence that you have to present, so -- Mr. Rodriguez: I'm not a lawyer. I just read through the documents -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Rodriguez: -- that were provided. Chair Hardemon: So I understand that very well. And what happens is, you also are subject to cross-examination, and you're allowed to direct. And so, there are a number of things that occur when you become a qualified intervenor. And the next thing, the next question, the next hurdle you're going to have is whether or not that item should be continued to give you an opportunity -- if you are determined to be a qualified intervenor -- an opportunity to hire a lawyer. And I think that that's going to determine a number of different facts, as well. And opposing counsel is going to want to give their opinion about that, as well. Mr. Rodriguez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: So this is -- it's not a quick process that we can just decide over the next two minutes. Mr. Rodriguez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: But if you allow us to finish the public comment for those who want to say something about other items that are on the agenda, we'll get to you. Fair? Mr. Rodriguez: Fair enough. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, sir. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Alfred Sasiadek: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Alfred Sasiadek. I live at 26 -- 463 Northeast 55th Terrace. I'm a 26 year resident of Morningside. I'm going to try and give you a two -minute history of what the neighborhood has gone through to fight the development along -- that abuts Morningside. The first one happened -- there was a 263-foot building that was going to be built right next to my house, covering two blocks, and that started the developments, one by one, on each of the blocks. We had to fight in court, one by one. Over $30,000 was donated in funds from the neighborhood for legal and court fees, plus untold pro bono legal and citizen hours spent to fight these things. Now, PZ.15 was the last of these individual fights that we had to go through. 5101, 5125 originally was planned as an eight - story building, abutting the last gentleman's house, okay? It started in 2004. It's gone to the City Commission five times; this is the sixth time. It went to the Eleventh Circuit Court three times, and it went to the Third District Appeals Court twice. Okay? It was resolved in 2014, long after the creation of the MiMo (Miami Modern) Historic District and the 35 foot height limit. How did it get resolved? The City generously gave the applicant a TDR multiplier of 4; 4, compared to the MiMo District's 2.25 for contributing and 1.75 for noncontributing. They got money for renovating, not demolishing. Why would you go and give them 4 if they're going to demolishing -- demolish the building? Okay? So here we are in 2017; we're back. The decision was made in 2014. Nothing has been done to the property; they've let it deteriorate. What have they done with the, funds that the City allowed them to have? Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, ma'am. Allison Greenfield: Hi. How are you doing? Allison Greenfield, 728 Northeast 67th Street. I'm here actually on behalf of the Bayside HOA (Homeowners Association), whose president, Jane Graber (phonetic), was here earlier, but had to leave, and so I'm just going to speak quickly as to what the Bayside HOA would like to say, which is that we are -- We would like to reject the appeal by Morningside Civic Association; that we are in favor of the affirmation of the HEP Board approval for item number 15, the Bayside Motor Inn. The reasons are as the following: This is exactly the kind of development we want along the boulevard. The historic contributing structure is being preserved while they adaptively reuse -- the adaptive reuse of the noncontributing structure by a well-known operator and developer, who has been tested in our neighborhood, and has shown to be very community oriented, and done the job the right way; the way that we would like to see it done. The noncontributing structure will have a new, modern, architecturally interesting building, with retail at the ground floor and creative office above, and parking underground; parking, one of the things that we desperately need in the neighborhood; adaptive reuse to spaces that can do something more than house prostitution and vice. The new building will also be within the 35 foot height limit, which we are very interested in preserving in our neighborhood. And the offices above will allow for the restaurant -- for us to -- this allows the restaurant to use the office parking at night, while the parking for the offices are there during the day. The current motel has been vacant for many years, as we've all heard, and we don't feel that just because a building is in the Historic District, it needs to be contributing; and if it was noncontributing when Avra bought it, then that should be respected, even fit was a mistake by the City. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Elvis Cruz: Mr. Chair, as the appellant, I'd like to cross-examine that witness, iip may. Chair Hardemon: It's not the time. Right now, it's public comment, so what she was putting on was not testimony, but was a public comment on the item. City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: There will be a time when the item will be called where you'll be able to put on evidence, cross-examine evidence, test the evidence, and that's the time when von should be most concerned with the things that are being done. Mr. Cruz: So then, as a procedural question, is the public hearing that's happening today, right at this very moment, in lieu of speaking when an individual item comes up? Chair Hardemon: So to be very clear, part of the reason why you want to separate public comment from presentation or the actual application, the arguments between the attorneys is because, for the record, it gets very muddy; it's unclear. You can't tell what was evidence; you can't tell what was public comment. And so, I want to be able to preserve the record as best as possible to allow the record to be clear, to show what is the evidence that's being put on by the individual sides, and have -- people have an opportunity to fairly test that evidence. So now, when there is another appeal, which typically happens, you have a clear record to go upon; and so, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make this a very clear, easygoing process, where there is no confusion by the Commissioners, the board members, or the people who are here participating of what is actually being put on, and what's to be considered to be evidence. Understood? Mr. Cruz: 1 understood, but you -- It wasn't exactly what 1 was asking. I wasn't necessarily referring to the appeal that I am here as an appellant. In general terms, 1 was asking, can 1 speak to an item after it comes up and is presented by the City and the applicant, or 1 can only speak now, during this public hearing? Chair Hardemon: If you are -- you mean if you are a -- Mr. Cruz: 1 believe you lost quorum, sir. Oh, I'm sorry, there's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: -- so you mean if you are from the public and you want to make a comment on the item; that's what you're asking? You may be allowed to speak after an item has been presented. Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: That is something that -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- is up to the board members to decide, if they're willing to hear some information, yes. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're very welcome. Anyone else? Lucius McSherry: Hello. My name is Luke McSherry. I live at 440 Northeast 53rd Street, Morningside. My house is 500 feet or less from the Bayside Motor Inn. I oppose the demolition of the property and proposed development. One of the reasons why I oppose this is because my wife and I chose to live in Morningside due to the historical character of the neighborhood and the surrounding MiMo, Buena Vista, Bayside, and Palm Grove Districts. I have a lot of respect for the development City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 that has happened over the last few years, especially the work that Ms. Jain has done before on some of the other hotels. However, this development does not make any sense for the area, and as far as I can tell, is not in compliance with the Historical District. I urge the Commission to stop the demolition of these historic buildings and, you know, to stop this ultra -modern luxury building from being put up in our neighborhood. That's it. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Sarah Hayter: Good evening. Chair Hardemon: Are you his wife? Ms. Hayter: I'm his wife. I'm speaking -- Chair Hardemon: You're going to do a better job than him? Ms. Hayter: We're speaking -- Chair Hardemon: No, I'm just joking. Ms. Hayter: -- in reference to PZ.15 -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Hayter: -- to be clear. We were expecting to speak after the appeal was heard, so some ofmy comments assume that some statements have already been made -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Hayter: -- to the Commission. I'm just going to read and be brief. We live at 440 Northeast 53rd Street, within 500 feet of the subject property. Luke spoke about the inconsistency of the development, and I want to speak about the illegality. The appellant will point out that there was a restrictive covenant and a settlement agreement that was entered into between multiple parties; the City being one of them and the appellant, and the developer. So the property is currently bound by those legal documents. There seems to have been a recurring theme today. I've been watching the meeting at home. The City has a track record of accepting covenants from developers in exchange for significant benefits, and then these covenants fail to be enforced. There was a gentleman that said, "These covenants are as valuable as a piece of toilet paper under water," which I think was pretty spot on. In this case, it's plan and clear from the covenant, which you'll see from Mr. Cruz' presentation that the developer knew the property was a contributing structure to the MiMo Historic District, and agreed that it would not be demolished when they reached a settlement many years ago, but now they claim otherwise, because they have likely intentionally allowed the property to go into disrepair and now face higher costs for renovation. Simply put, demolition of the property will be in direct conflict with both of those legal documents. And if the Commission upholds the decision of the HEP Board, I would expect a lawsuit would probably ensue, and I don't fbresee this being upheld in a court of law. Personally, as a taxpayer of the City, I believe it would be a gigantic waste of my tax dollars to have to fight that fight again. I urge the Commission to reverse the decision of the HEP Board and require that Ms. Jain and her development team preserve the property and develop the property consistent with the plans that were agreed upon some 10 years ago. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, ma'am. City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Alicia Cepeda: Hi. Good evening. I'm Alicia Cepeda, 531 Northeast 76th Street. Commissioner Gort: Speak into the mike. Ms. Cepeda: Sorry. Alicia Cepeda, 531 Northeast 76th Street. Most of you know I'm not a very good public speaker, so I went ahead and ivrote some comments down so I'm a little bit clearer, and I can get out what I'm trying to say. While I'm an avid supporter of historic preservation, I realize that not every structure can be saved. I believe this is the case with the Bayside Motor Inn at 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. If anyone could save a building, it would be Ms. Jain and her team, as they've done with numerous other buildings in the district, such as the Vagabond and the Knoxon Motels; and now, the Miami River Inn. For the Bayside Motor Inn, Ms. Jain's team has done a good job of preserving what they could preserve and refreshing the site with the planned project. This type of project is what we've been asking for for a number of years, in the MiMo Historic District. This project would not be a one- story warehouse -box -style strip center, with too little parking in the front. It brings new and old together, and creates an inviting space on Biscayne Boulevard. It checks off a lot of boxes, such as underground parking, which we've been begging for in this district. It will provide relief for the surrounding neighborhoods, and it'll also add some additional on -street parking inventory. It is my opinion that this project will activate a section of Biscayne Boulevard that is currently underutilized and bring needed office space into the MiMo Historic District, along with daytime foot traffic to support the already existing businesses, many of which are struggling. And these projects that have been completed, such as the Vagamond and the Knoxon, have also provided jobs in the area; all different kinds of jobs. So thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir. Steve Sauls: Mr. Chairman, I'm Steve Sauls. I'm president of the IOS on the Bay Condominium, 720 Northeast 62nd Street, also known as Martin Luther King Boulevard. I'm also here with the steering committee of the Biscayne Bay Marine Health Summit, planning for -- in June. I'm here to speak in behalf of PZ.23, and in support of the Planning staffs recommendation in support of this item, as well as the 10-0 vote of the PZAB Board. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, sir. Bruce Weil: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Weil. I reside at 5901 North Bayshore Drive, which is in Morningside. I've resided there for over 20 years with my wife, and we've raised two of our children there. We've seen this entire district change over the last 20 years. The last 10 years, thanlcfully, it's been somewhere -- an area where people want to come eat, live, et cetera. The residents there are thriving and wanting a development such as this, such as the Bayside Motor Inn. We want places where we can live and work. We want restaurants, we want retail, instead of having to go 10 or 20, or 30 blocks away. I am a member of the Morningside Civic Association. I can tell you that Mr. Cruz does not speak on behalf of Morningside. When he says he's here on behalf of Morningside, Morningside Civic Association is not a homeowners association. It is a voluntary HOA. There are 450 homes in Morningside. Only 62 are members of the MCA (Morningside Civic Association). There are only 62 members for a reason: Because they don't agree with the objectives and what the MCA does. In this particular instance, the MCA, at the steering of Mr. Cruz, is doing something that the majority of the residents do not agree with. In fact, I was at the MCA meeting where Mr. Cruz convinced the board to maintain this appeal. And when Mr. Cruz convinced the board to maintain this appeal, he showed the MCA a document, which was a draft of a document of what was to be considered contributing and noncontributing. City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 In the final draft document, the north structure was noncontributing. In the draft document that Mr. Cruz showed to the board members, it was contributing. So understand, we have someone who's using their personal agenda to use the MCA to come up here and say, "This is what Morningside wants" or "doesn't want." Morningside wants this Bayside Motor Inn. The -- it's within 35 feet of the height restriction, and most of the amount of people who say they live behind this particular structure that's going to be built, when they bought it -- except for the couple I heard, who just moved here recently -- when they bought their properties years ago, a 12- story building could have been built there. Now they're complaining about a three- story building. When they bought the property, they were on notice that something four times higher could have been there. So I urge you, Commissioners, to deny the MCA appeal. And if you look at the settlement agreement, it attaches an exhibit, a restrictive covenant which shows that the north side was noncontributing. The MCA signed that document with an exhibit, saying, "It's noncontributing." And now, what they're coming and saying is, "The City made a mistake." That would mean that the MiMo bible that everybody relies upon in determining contributing and noncontributing is wrong, and you're going to have to go back for the last 12 years and change everything. from everybody else who's done projects. Thank you. for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Cruz: Mr. Chair, may 1 cross-examine that gentleman? Because what -- Chair Hardemon: No. This is -- Mr. Cruz: -- he was saying is -- Chair Hardemon: -- not the time. Mr. Cruz: -- strictly testimony, personal testimony and not evidence. Chair Hardemon: That's correct. Mr. Cruz: That is correct; personal testimony and not evidence. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Sir, sir -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- to me, talk to me. You're recognized, sir. John Calkins: Hi. My name is John Calkins. I live at 431 Northeast 51st Street. I live approximately 150 feet from the proposed redevelopment of this property. I strongly oppose the building -- the demolition and building -- rebuilding of a totally new property, which will be one and a half times as large as the existing property. I heard earlier today a lot of remorse and ahnost gnashing of teeth that we have all these covenants in the City that we do not enforce. Well, I'm here to tell you today you have a great opportunity to enforce an existing covenant. You all probably have a copy of this. You certainly have it in your packets. This is the covenant that came -- that was negotiated between the developer, who I've heard is wonderful. And I have no qualms with the developer. I think the Vagabond that she redeveloped is wonderful. I wish she'd do that with the property that's in question right now. But it was the -- it was negotiated between the City, the developer, the Morningside Civic Association -- and I'm basically reading from your document here, from your covenant -- and various residents. And this wasn't an act of charity by the developer by any stretch of the imagination. She was given nearly a half million square feet of City of 'Violin Page 86 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 development rights, of which she has, I understand, cashed in 320,000 so far; not having done anything to the property at this point. Now, I think that even if those are only worth $5 a square foot -- and I don't think that's anywhere near what they're worth today -- that would be two and a half million dollars that she got for signing and agreeing to this covenant. Now, what does the covenant say? I got in the mail, because I'm a homeowner within three -- 500 feet of this proposed development -- something which I think crystalizes the problem here that we're talking about. And I think the problem resides somewhere in City Government. This is about the renovation of a contributing structure and demolition of a noncontributing structure. Well, in this covenant, that is not what's spelled out. This covenant spells out that both of those properties are contributing; not only does it spell it out, it gives you the square footage of the two buildings combined. It says -- and I'm reading. It refers to the sending property, and the sending property is defined above as being 5101 and 5125, collectively referred to as "the sending property." I'm quoting from the document. "The sending property is presently developed with a two-story historically designated and contributing building." Historically designated and contributing building. Now, that's what this covenant that we want to enforce says. It says -- and it's currently a/k/a (also known as) the Bayside Motor Inn. "It consists of approximately 15,492 square feet of existing building area." Now, that's on the .front page of this covenant, that it's considered -- those two properties are considered -- now, I don't know what's happened since then, but I don't think that this covenant has been amended so that it no longer is considered one contributing and one noncontributing, because this says they're both contributing. What I want you to do is to enforce this covenant; that's all that's being asked here. On a personal note, I've lived in my house for 40 years. I put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into the house, developing it, making it a nice house .for my ,family. My wife and 1 raised three children there. We put in a swimming pool. We entertain often. We have our children and grandchildren come visit. And what I'm going to have now is an observation deck looking into my backyard if this three-story building is permitted. Not only is it going to be out of character with the neighborhood; this is going to be a building that is built out of glass, reflective glass; brown, I think, or gold or something that is going to reflect -- not only provide an observation tower, it's going to provide a sunrise in the west for me. And 1 think it's obscene that this can even have gotten to this point. There was an agreement that was reached and negotiated by the City and by all the parties involved. Now how in the world can we be even questioning this? It's in the covenant. It's on the first page of the covenant that it is spelled out. Now, unless you change the covenant or choose not to enforce it, you're making a serious mistake. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Chair Suarez: I need a copy of that covenant. Debby Stander: Debby Standen; 830 Northeast 71st Street. Actually, I just want to comment on item 23, which would prohibit the City from being a co -applicant with private developers on rezoning or special area plans, and simply to express my support for the legislation, and hope that the Commission will pass it. As I think you all know, I was one of the people involved in trying -- in opposing the Legion District SAP (Special Area Plan), and I think you know what kind of angst the community went through; I think angst that the City went through. And I think the fact that it is a conflict of interest for the City to join in with private developers on these types of developments really can't be questioned. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. PART B: PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Planning & Zoning. Commissioner Suarez: When are we deferring it to? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir. Madam City Attorney? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): We will now begin the Planning & Zoning items. PZ (Planning & Zoning) items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak must be sworn in by the City Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have been briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. The members of the City Commission shall disclose any ex parte communications, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 2860115 and Section 7.1.4.5 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before the City Commission takes action on such proposition. The Chairman will advise the public when the public may have the opportunity to address the City Commission during the public comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the member of the public may first state his or her name and his or her address, and what item will be spoken about. A copy of the agenda item titles will be available at the City Clerk's Office and at the podium for your ease of reference. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring City Commission approval, the applicant will then present its application or request to the City Commission. If the applicant agrees with staff recommendation, the City Commission may proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. The order of presentation shall be as set forth in the Miami 21 Code and the City Code, providing the appellant shall be -- shall present first. For appeals, the appellant will present its appeal to the City Commission, followed by the appellee. Staff will be allowed to make any recommendations they may have. The persons testifying must be sworn in. The City of Miami requires that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action, pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the City Commissioners that have not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Clerk. Mr. Hannon: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you will be speaking on any of today's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand? The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning items. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Mr. Garcia, are there any deferrals today? Francisco Garcia: A few, sir, yes. Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director, Jrothe record. I have -- I'd like to ask everyone affected or involved in any of these items to pay special attention. There were a number of late requests as pertains to continuances. And so, I'll go through the list that I have, but I would welcome anyone adding to it or revising it, as appropriate. The ones I have are as follows: City of 'Violin Page 88 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Items PZ.1 and PZ.2 are to be withdrawn; item PZ.3 is requested to be continued to the July 27 meeting; item PZ.4 is requested to be continued to the June 22 meeting; items PZ.11 and 12, which are companion items, are requested to be continued to the June 22 meeting; item PZ20 is to be withdrawn; item PZ.22, requested to be continued to June 22; and item PZ.24, requested to be continued to June 8. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. So that means we're crossing off PZ.1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 20, 22, and 24. Mr. Garcia: That's correct, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Are there any other additions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry, can you go over them one more time? Vice Chair Russell: Sure. We're getting rid of 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 20, 22, and 24. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Do you need a motion? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: I make a motion to move on the deferrals, withdrawals, and everything that our -- well, Mr. Garcia mentioned with regards to the deferrals and withdrawals. Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved; second by the Chair. Is there any comment from the public on these items that are to be deferred with regard to the actual motion of the deferral; not necessarily the substance of the issue? Would anyone like to speak on any of these deferrals? No? Hearing none, I'll close public comment. All in favor; say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Motion passes. PZ.5 and 6. Mr. Garcia: I believe, sir, that there is one additional request for deferral made privately by the appellants. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. You did have a public comment, and I didn't recognize you. Ines Marrero: Yes. No, it's -- Vice Chair Russell: You were standing there waiting. I completely ignored you. Ms. Marrero: -- it was not part of the items that were requested by the director. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ines Marrero, and I'm the attorney who represents the appellant on item PZ.25. That concerns a matter in your district, Commissioner Russell. It is an appeal of a tree permit, a decision of the HEP (Historic and Environmental Preservation) Board. We're requesting a 30-day deferral of this appeal. We are trying to assess our ability to comply with the conditions that we are appealing. And so, we respec fully request that the matter be deferred so that we can determine if we can comply, which would render the appeal moot. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. That's PZ.25. City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Marrero: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: That's the HEP Board decision appeal in Coconut Grove. Ms. Marrero: I have spoken to Mr. Kurland; he's here. I spoke to his attorney and advised him yesterday. Mr. Kurland is here. He wants to address the Commission regarding that appeal. I think he's in agreement with the deferral. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Nathan Kurland: Thank you. Nathan -- Vice Chair Russell: Oh, did you want to speak, Mr. Kurland? Mr. Kurland: Thank you very much, Commissioner. Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue. We accept the request for a continuance to June 22. Jason Bloch: Yes, Commissioner. Jason Bloch, 3501 West Glencoe Street. We're requesting a deferral on PZ.16. We've had discussions through the Commissioner's office. Those discussions are not yet completed, so we're requesting a deferral, as well. Vice Chair Russell: So that's PZ.16? Commissioner Carollo: And 25, to what date; I'm sorry? Ms. Marrero: For us, the 25th. The 25th for PZ.25. Commissioner Carollo: June 20 -- Ms. Marrero: 22nd, I'm sorry. PZ.25. Commissioner Carollo: June 22? June 22, Judge Bloch? Mr. Bloch: June, July -- June. Vice Chair Russell: I think one month we ought to be able to deal with it. Mr. Bloch: Okay, we'd request that. Commissioner Carollo: So I will make a motion to defer PZ.16 and PZ.25 to the June 22 PZ meeting. Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved; seconded by the -- Commissioner Gort: Second. Vice Chair Russell: -- seconded by Commissioner Gort. Let me see if, there were any others that we're (INAUDIBLE). Any further comment from the public on these deferrals? Hearing none, I'll close public comment. Any comments from the dais? Commissioner Suarez, any PZ items that you'd like to defer? Commissioner Suarez: I think they already announced it. I was going to withdraw PZ.1 andPZ.2. Vice Chair Russell: Already been done. City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: All right. We're dealing with 16 and 25. Any further discussion from the dais? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Russell: The motion passes. The following item(s) shall not be considered before 2:00 PM: PZ.1 1030 Department of Planning and Zoning ORDINANCE Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 SOUTHWEST 14 STREET AND 2611 SOUTHWEST 15 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: RESULT: MOVER: SECONDER: AYES: ABSENT: Withdraw WITHDRAWN Frank Carollo, Commissioner Ken Russell, Vice Chair Russell, Gort, Carollo Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.1, please see "Order of the Day." Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ1, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1031 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-R, "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED", TO T4-L, "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED", FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2610 SOUTHWEST 14 STREET AND 2611 SOUTHWEST 15 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Withdraw RESULT: WITHDRAWN MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.2, please see "Order of the Day." Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.2, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " PZ.3 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1049 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1247 SOUTHWEST 4 STREET AND 1244 SOUTHWEST 3 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM T4-L, "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED", TO T5-O, "URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN"; ACCEPTING THE VOLUNTARY PROFFER OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.3 was deferred to the July 27, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.3, please see "Order of the Day." City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.3, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " PZ.4 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1220 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ("DDRI"), ENCOMPASSING AN AREA OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ("DDA") WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA ENCOMPASSING THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ("SEOPW DRI"), AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PURSUANT TO AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL PROPOSED BY THE DDA; AUTHORIZING AN INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER; APPROVING SAID DDRI AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE CITY'S PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER ATTACHED HERETO AS "EXHIBIT A", THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING THAT THE INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER SHALL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION AND THE AMENDED DDRI INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT AS DESIGNATED HEREIN; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE INCREMENT III DEVELOPMENT ORDER; PROVIDING FORA TERMINATION DATE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.4 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ4, please see item PZ.5. Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.4, please see "Part B: PZ-Planning and Zoning Item(s). " City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.5 ORDINANCE First Reading 1035 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1.07± ACRES OF THE REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865 AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.5 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.5, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " Vice Chair Russell: Now we're ready for PZ.5. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. I'll present briefly items PZ.5 and PZ.6, who are companion items, before you on first reading, and they involve the request for a land use change -- land use designation change and zoning change for properties at 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, and 3875 Day Avenue. The request involves a change in the land use designation from duplex residential to low -density restricted commercial, and from a zoning designation of T3-O, with an NCD (Neighborhood Conservation District)-3 overlay to T4-O, with an NCD-3 overlay. The Planning & Zoning Department has recommended approval, partially: Approval for the land use and zoning changes for the properties to the north; those would be 3875, 3865, 3851, and 3841 Day Avenue; and denial for the land use designation request change and for the zoning change request for the properties to the south, south of Day Avenue; those would be 3860, 3850, 3840, and 3830 Dav Avenue. The Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board recommended denial for all of the items, for both the land use designation change and the zoning change for all properties involved. And what I'll say lastly, and then I'll yield to the applicant or back to the Commission, is that if one were to look at the Zoning atlas of the City of Miami, along Day Avenue, one will find that the parcels to the north are actually surrounded by higher density, higher intensity zoning designations; and, in fact, in part, they also front South Dixie Highway, which, as we know, is a major thoroughfare, a major corridor for traffic throughout the County. It is a regional corridor. And so, we think it is best to have the properties to the north rezoned to be more contextual, better contextualized with the surrounding area. However, as pertains to the parcels to the south, we do find that that block and the blocks to the south are predominantly single-family or low -density residential in City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 character, and that is the reason for our recommendation. Happy to answer any questions. I can yield back to the applicant, if you'd like. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Like to hear from the applicant, please. How are you, Mr. Wasserman? Ethan Wasserman: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ethan Wasserman, with Greenberg, Traurig, 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue, here on behalf of the applicant. What we are requesting today is a future land use map amendment from duplex residential to low -density restricted commercial, and from T3-O to T4-O. Now, following staffs footsteps, 171 treat this application as kind of two parts. We have the north side of Day Avenue and we have the south side of Day Avenue. And turning to the north side, 171 take the north side first. This is the north side of Day Avenue, where we have direct frontage on U.S. I, because we all know -- and this image is in your packets, in case I'm blocking anyone. As we all know, U.S.1 is an intensely traveled commercial corridor. Immediately next to us is this auto -related commercial site, taking up a good portion of the block. We have the Frankie Rolle Service Center over here, and it's actually cut off. You have the gas station right here. So the predominant character of this block is commercial. Right over here, we have the Metrorail Station, and that's important, because we have a unique opportunity to satisfy certain land use and transportation policies and objectives in the comp plan, providing quality housing within a stone's throw of the Metrorail. You can basically live here without a car, and access anywhere in the City. Turning to the -- not the "as built," but the actual zoning designation, you can see here, as you work your way from north to south on U.S.!, you have this clear T5 corridor going all the way down. You have T5 along U.S. 1. It actually gets more intense on our block. 1t turns to T6 on our block, and then we are the only T3-zoned property on this entire block. It goes T5, T6, T3. So this current zoning is out of context with the existing "as built," and out of context with the existing zoning. Now, turning to the zoning on the south side, the zoning on the south side is all T3, but when you look at what's there, it's -- the majority of the block is almost all a multi family housing development, and that's what our request to T4 allows us to do. It allows us to operate as a multi family; the same treatment as the rest of the block. When you look at this application, in terms of the larger community, where we are, you can see that we are buffered by commercial uses to the east, and we are buffered by multi- family uses to the east and south, so we are not creating the commercial uses on this area, we are not creating the multi family use that's in this area, but the T4 will allow us to fit into the block. Turning to the commercial uses, from day one, staff has said Day Avenue is the dividing line for commercial uses. Commercial uses are inappropriate south of Day Avenue. The community has said that, as well, and we immediately agreed. And we have proffered a covenant that says we will not provide -- we will not allow commercial uses south of Day Avenue. Now, turning to the larger issue, after meeting with staff after meeting with local stakeholders, local activists, local organizations; and quite frankly, listening to the will of Commission over the past several months, if not year, where you have actively tried to encourage affordable housing, private property owners, private developers to income -restrict their property and provide affbrdable housing, my client is one of the first, if not the first, to actually do that. And we have proffered a covenant that says we will provide 14 affordable housing units on this site. Now; this is important. I want to take a minute to talk about this. If you look at this property today, it's one acre in size. Under T3, you could have 18 units per acre, so we could have 18 units; under the rezoning, we could have 36. So we're getting 18 units, max. My client is proffering 14 units to be income -restricted. It's not a sliding scale, it's not a percentage, it's not -- T4 is envelope zoning, so it doesn't mean we can max out density. We have to fit it in with setbacks, with green space, with parking. So even if' we could only fit 16 units, 14 of those units will be income -restricted. City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: How many units are there right now? Mr. Wasserman: There is six duplexes and two single family, so 14. Vice Chair Russell: Exactly. That was the intention of the covenant, was to make sure that those exact amount of affordable units that are there now remain affordable. Mr. Wasserman: Correct, correct; exactly right. And turning to the affordability, we had a community meeting a couple weeks ago, and I didn't have some of the raw data on the income ranges and what it meant, so I just want to clam for the record exactly what the income restriction is, so bear with me as I read from my notes. We have eight workforce housing units, which is 65 to 140 percent AMI (area median income). And according to my rough math, that conies out to about $33,000 to $71,000 in income. We have six low- to moderate -income units, which is 40 to 80 percent AMI, and that roughly translates to about $20,000 to $40,000 in income. Now, I want to make clear that the property, as it stands today, is not affordable housing. It is privately owned, and he has the right and the ability to charge market rate. It's through the rezoning that we're proffering this income restriction going .forward. Chair Hardemon: May I ask you a question? Mr. Wasserman: Sure. Chair Hardemon: What is the market rate that they're paying right now in that property? Mr. Wasserman: It's about 1,300 to 1,800. Chair Hardemon: A unit. So would you -- Mr. Wasserman: Depending on the size, yes. Chair Hardemon: -- and when you say, "depending on the size," is the smallest unit a one -bedroom or a two- or three -bedroom? Mr. Wasserman: I believe it's two -bedroom. Chair Hardemon: So the multi family housing development that's just near it, would you say that the market rate that the people are paying in the property site is similar to the market rate that's in the multi family, or is the property that we're discussing a premium to the multi family housing development? Mr. Wasserman: I don't know what the multifamily housing is charging on the -- You're talking about the County -run site, right below it? Chair Hardemon: Yeah, just below it, yeah. Mr. Wasserman: I'm not sure what their rents are. Chair Hardemon: I'm just trying to understand what your market rate is, because market rate, to me -- Mr. Wasserman: It's determined -- City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- is reflective of what the area is. And so, when you say that it is privately owned, it is not -- Mr. Wasserman: Subsidized. Chair Hardemon: -- subsidized. Mr. Wasserman: Correct. Chair Hardemon: It would still be -- even if it was renovated, if the zoning or whatever changed, it would still be market rate. Mr. Wasserman: Mm-hmm, correct. Chair Hardemon: But the market determines its affordability is what you're telling us. Mr. Wasserman: The market determines what he can charge for rent, absolutely. Chair Hardemon: All right. Vice Chair Russell: Aside from the covenant, where you are mandating. Mr. Wasserman: And then we're subject to the HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) income rentals and HUD rental limits. Vice Chair Russell: Now, you mentioned that the average unit there is currently renting for 1,300, but didn't those rates just recently go up over this past year? What were they before the rates changed? Mr. Wasserman: I'm not sure. Before he did some renovations, 1 don't know. He put some money into the property. I believe he improved some of the units, and he was able to charge more for the rent. I don't know what it was a year ago, a year and a half ago. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. And I know you gave an average income amount, but could you translate that into laymen's terms of what that would equate to in a monthly rent payment for the workforce units and for the six low- to moderate - income units? Mr. Wasserman: So I'm looking at -- and I apologize; I didn't bring extra copies to hand out, but I could submit this into the record. This is the 2017 income limit and rent limit for FHFC, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, which mandates the rents that could be charged. So, just as an example, at 80 percent AMI, for a one - bedroom unit, is $1,133; and for a two -bedroom unit, it's $1,360. If you were to go down to 50 percent AYH, a one -bedroom is $708 and a two -bedroom is $850. So, again it's dependent on which category you're in. Vice Chair Russell: But that's -- the six low- to moderate -income will be between $708 and $850 per unit? Mr. Wasserman: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. What else have you got? Mr. Wasserman: I could pass this out if you'd like to see it. So in terms of where those units will be, we don't know if they're going to be on the north side, if they're City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 going to be on the south side, if they're going to be split between the two. We will obviously work through that with staff during the design development process. But in conclusion, the purpose of this application is to allow multi family and commercial uses on the north side of the block and to allow multifamily on the south side of Day Avenue, and it will allow my client to provide affordable housing. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Wasserman. The commercial aspect use has not been decided yet, though, what that might be? Mr. Wasserman: On the U.S.1 side? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Wasserman: No. We don't know yet. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Wasserman: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: We don't have a motion on the floor, but 171 open up -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'll open up the public comment on this item; anyone who'd like to speak on the Day Avenue issue, PZ.5 or 6. Williams Armbrister: Praise the Lord Jesus, and good afternoon to every man, woman, and child at the sound of my voice. And before my time begins, 1 need to know -- The ground rules, as they are stated, of two minutes, is that for each item addressed? Or if I'm addressing eight items, is it for 16 minutes? Chair Hardemon: The ground rules are these: No punching, no biting, no -- Mr. Armbrister: This is serious. Chair Hardemon: This is very serious; it's called "humor." The only item that we're addressing right now is, I believe, PZ.5 and 6, so we haven't opened up for public hearing for the entire agenda. Right now, the Commission is listening for PZ.5 and PZ.6. Mr. Armbrister: Exactly. Chair Hardemon: So you have two minutes to address PZ.5 and PZ. 6, sir. Mr. Armbrister: Well, I'd like to begin with correcting this gentleman here, because Day Avenue is the beginning of the residential community that falls within the NCD- 2 of Miami 21. And so, the commercial that is currently on the north side of Day Avenue shouldn't be there, because those were houses where -- those motorcycle places, so where they are on U.S.1, that property was houses, and at the time, they were consumed into those businesses facing U.S.1. We, the people, had no say-so, so there was no public hearing. The houses were eliminated, and then that property was infused into the U.S.1 housing: Our neighbors, the Coral Gables Bahamian community on the west side of Brooker, when you look at the transition from the west side of Brooker, where Coral Gables look after their residential communities and you look at the transition that is, it is currently insulting, but it would be a greater insult if you allow that zoning to be increased. So you're not really looking out for our -- on our -- for our effort. And this has been two -- almost three years, this one item has been able to wear us down. And we are worn down; we're fed up with it. The rent before, up until about a year and a half ago, was between six and seven City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 hundred and fifty dollars a month. And just like -- I'll tell you, these covenants have as much value as toilet paper under water. And to -- you come on, give me a smile. All right. And so, anyhow, this is serious. I did say this is serious. Chair Hardemon: You didn't want to hear my humor, so we don't want to hear your humor. Mr. Armbrister: Yeah, that's right, that's right. So these covenants -- Gibson Plaza, the covenant was 559 a month for 55 years old and up. And because so many people in the community qualified to move into that building, when moving time came, it was 700 -- over $700 a month, and 62 years old and up. And here, we're looking at three, maybe four years later; and the rent is over a thousand dollars a month for a one -bedroom. So covenant agreements that are written by a developer has no value, whatsoever. You know, we had -- a previous Commissioner didn't look out for this community, and we have a Commissioner now that's spending a lot of time -- loving you still -- addressing fun things and things, for every community, except this one that he made so many promises for. So we're going to need the rest of the body to look out, for this community. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Your time is up. Vice Chair Russell: I need a moment, and I wish -- Mr. Armbrister: Well, 1-- Vice Chair Russell: -- if 1 could respond to Mr. Armbrister. Mr. Armbrister: 1 would like for you to. Vice Chair Russell: Because, Mr. Armbrister, this is a beautiful chance for us to discuss this in public and -- Mr. Armbrister: No, not in public, no. Let's do it in private. Vice Chair Russell: No, no, no. Honestly, I really -- Mr. Armbrister: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- because I recognize how you feel, and the results that are in the community reflect how you feel. There's a lot of work yet to be done. Nothings been done that we need to move on. Mr. Armbrister: Zero, yes. Vice Chair Russell: On this particular project, and why it's been sitting here for over a year, I've worked so hard to try to find a solution between the community and the developer. I've -- and part of my Jennings disclosure on this item would include church meetings with the residents, meetings with Professor Alfieri, from UM's (University of Miami) Center for Ethics and Justice, with regard to up -zoning and displacement, and gentrification; meetings, of course, with the developer himself, with his attorney at the time, Ryan Bailine; Mr. Wasserman. All the covenant that was proffered here came out of long negotiation to say, iif you were to have this additional amount of height, of intensity and density, does this benefit the community, or does this hurt the community? And I'm struggling with it really hard, because for lack of this zoning change and for lack of this covenant -- let's not talk to the -- at this moment -- to the veracity of the covenant and how strong it is and what teeth it has, and what permanence it has. For lack of that, they are going to put in City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 high -end luxury residential duplex or townhomes that will displace all 14 units of people that live there now; that will no longer be affordable to anyone that's currently in that community. And I'm fighting to try to stop the displacement and to maintain affordability, and to find the cooperations where development that we cannot stop, that is coming can at least be steered to benefit the community. So when I went to the first community meeting, I thought, "Wow, I think I might have solved this." And to recognize from the community that, "No; not only do we not want the up -zoning, we do not want the covenant, because we don't trust it. We don't want the second story on these buildings, and we're willing to give up the displacement gentrification protection that it would provide," is that how you feel? Is that the will of the community that this doesn't happen, and it's worth losing that affordability and losing the folks that live there? Mr. Armbrister: What this community wants is a fair deal for everyone, because we've always been reasonable people. If they're going to bring in 90 units, we want 30 for low income, 30 for workforce, and 30 for affordable. You know, we want a fair deal for -- we're fair people, and we want a fair deal. And to say that we're already partially commercial is an untruth. We -- that street has never been commercialized. It was just at a time when the people in this community had no say- so. The government -- the City officials weren't listening to us that they allowed those businesses on US 1 to be consumed by the U.S.1 businesses. We had no -- there was no public hearing. If you look at the records, you'll see that there was no public hearing. It's just like Ransom. They want to do what they want to do there, and -- Vice Chair Russell: Let's stay on the subject, Mr. Armbrister. Mr. Armbrister: -- let me give you an example. There's supposed to be notice within -- everyone within 500 feet. I live within 500 feet, and I've received no notice about their desire to put something -- Vice Chair Russell: We're not talking about the issue about -- Mr. Armbrister: Okay, we're not talking about them now. Vice Chair Russell: There -- please. Mr. Armbrister: That's okay. Vice Chair Russell: There have been public meetings on this issue. Mr. Armbrister: Well -- Vice Chair Russell: I know that the developer themselves have hosted then, the City has hosted them multiple times, and you have attended them. So I know -- you know, to say that this has been done in the dark -- Mr. Armbrister: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- absolutely incorrect. Absolutely incorrect. And I've been very open with the community and with the advocates and proponents, and opponents on all sides to see if there is a solution here. Mr. Armbrister: Certified mail, that's the solution. Certified mail, public notice. And so, what we would like to do -- because you've been saying -- not this morning -- about -- I was watching you on television. Will of the people, will of the people. City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Right. Will of the people is that you do what you are elected to do, and protect the interest of a community which you're unfamiliar with. Vice Chair Russell: 100 percent agreed. And when there is no entitlement being asked for, a developer, as of right, can do whatever he wants within his zoning rights. Mr. Armbrister: Within the zoning rights. Vice Chair Russell: So for you to say, 'protect us, protect us" -- Mr. Armbrister: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- I have no ability to tell them what they can or cannot do with that land. Mr. Armbrister: I agree. Vice Chair Russell: Only once they have now come to us for an entitlement, a value, a gift to their developer that would multiply the number of units they can have there - - they are actually offering, it sounds to me, what you're asking for; that if those 14 units that are currently there are now able to be multiplied into 36, that 14 units of those 36 will remain at the same value as what they are now; will be made available to those who actually, live there right now, which they did promise to me verbally before. I don't know if it's in the covenant. It seems to he that what they're offering is a potential solution -- if you trust the covenant -- to what you're asking for. So if that's not your local government trying to find a method to protect from the lack of affordability and the displacement, what else would you like us to do? Because, short of this agreement that they're offering and this zoning change, they're on their merry way to do whatever they want, without -- and then we have zero say in the matter, whatsoever. Mr. Armbrister: The covenant, black and white, and for 50 years. The covenant in black and white, and for 50 years, 5-0 years, okay? And then we can -- and then they can come to the community and we can begin negotiating. But we need it in black and white for 50 years, because we need time for this community to be regrown. We need to rebuild this community, you know, and the $200 million -- this over $200 million bond, there's not one dollar in that bond proposal for this community. True. Not one dollar. Vice Chair Russell: That's not true. Mr. Armbrister: That is true. Well, when I say, 'for the community," I mean for homeownership, not for affordable housing, because Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) has no experience in providing communities with homeownership. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Armbrister, the bond has not been decided yet, so -- Mr. Armbrister: Right, right, right. Vice Chair Russell: -- if you have a proposal for a line item in that bond on how it should be spent -- Mr. Armbrister: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- that is still wide open and very welcome. City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Armbrister: Well, the appointment I been trying to make with you, squeeze me in before the developers and let's have that discussion. Vice Chair Russell: Gladly. Mr. Armbrister: I've been waiting three weeks. Vice Chair Russell: And thank you, Mr. Armbrister. Mr. Armbrister: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Armbrister. Mr. Armbrister: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: All of our calendars tend to be very busy, because a lot of people, like yourself want to meet with us. And so, we -- I know -- I don't run his calendar, but I will say that we appreciate the tenacity in trying to have meetings. Sometimes it's very difficult getting those meetings in. But one thing I want to remind you: 50 years from now, we're going to be having this same conversation about affordability in Miami. And I say that to you to say that I know that it's important for us to he able to have affordable housing. And many times, I struggle with when the City gives land -- not this situation -- but when the City gives land to a developer and say, "Hey, .for the next 50 years, these have to be affordable." Well, 50 years from now, I might be here, my grandchildren will be here, and lots of people will still be dealing with the lack of affordability. And, unfortunately, what they'll have are the rental units, and not much homeownership for them to be able to live in. And that brings up a whole lot of issues that are coming -- peeking its head into not only the City of Miami, but all over the world, with the lack of affordability, because of certain types of housing that's being introduced into the neighborhood. So this is a issue that I think that all of us really have to think long and hard through. And I commend the Vice Chairman for putting the thought into it. Not everything that we come up with is going to be the best thing to do, hut 1 appreciate that you have at least the wherewithal to engage and test the ideas, to make something that's better for the community. But I want it to be better for the community, for all of us, and so, how we go about doing that, that's what we have to decide. So we appreciate the work that you're doing over there, and like I appreciate the work that he's doing up here. Mr. Armbrister: I can make you a guarantee; a guarantee, if you give us the tools we need, 50 years from now, it might happen in Miami, but not in Coconut Grove. I can make that guaran -- because we look -- we know how to learn how to fish. Chair Hardemon: The one thing that's -- Mr. Armbrister: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: The one thing I can say about Coconut Grove. sir -- Mr. Armbrister: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- is that Coconut Grove, for black Miami, has been one of the best examples of how to have ownership in the community. The type of ownership that existed in Coconut Grove didn't exist in Overtown, because a lot of the land was not owned by blacks in Overtown. Mr. Armbrister: It's the first community. City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. So -- Mr. Armbrister: And the most ignored. Chair Hardemon: -- you know, we look forward to trying to tackle this issue with you, okay? We appreciate it, sir. Mr. Armbrister: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. You're recognized, sir. Elvis Cruz: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. As you know, I've stood before you many times, speaking very poorly of rezoning by covenant, and here's another example of it today. The City of Miami has a very poor track record of enforcing covenants, as Commissioner Suarez noted at the April 27 meeting with his motion, and the rest of you voted to support. So I have two questions, which I'm directing through the Chair, to whomever in the City staff is appropriate to answer them. Who is responsible in the City. for enforcing covenants? And two, does the general public have standing to enforce a covenant? And if not, I would ask that you initiate legislation to empower the general public to have standing to enforce covenants; especially the neighbors, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? So 1 -- that's a great question, the question about -- well, they're both good questions, hut question number one is specifically a good question, and I think -- you know, 1 think at the end of the day, part of the reason why I brought forth the legislation that 1 brought is because we talk about covenants -- they are legal documents, they should be enforceable, they are enforceable. 1 mean, there -- they have the force of law. But if you don't enforce them, over time, they become -- they just don't have the same -- you know, they don't have the same effect, right? And I think, you know, first, we didn't -- we don't even know how many there are out there. I mean, there's probably thousands of covenants out there. So 1 think the first -- my first step was, we need to find out how many there are. We need to do like a database of who has a covenant. And by the way, from this point forward, we should be data -basing them, and specifically if we're going to do this. Second thing is, you have to audit to see if the people are actually complying with the covenants. I could tell you there are covenants that I know we've approved in my district; one in particular that I can think of off the top of my head -- and I think the lawyer for that covenant is in the back there somewhere -- that I don't think that they're actually fulfilling the covenant. So I think the third step is what you described, is who's going to enforce the covenant? And I think -- I mean, I think the City would enforce the covenant by and through a lawsuit. So we would either have to empower the City Attorney directly, or on a case -by -case basis, and say, "Look, we authorize you to enforce this covenant," and I think we just haven't done that, and we should do that. And I think once you start doing that -- it's like everything else in life -- then people will start to take covenants seriously, and then the idea of having a covenant is not going to be something that people just, you know, sort of laugh at, I guess, if you will, you know? Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Please. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Cruz, if we were to enforce covenants properly and make them more difficult to reverse, would you feel that something like what's being proposed here is a good opportunity Jrothe community that would stave off displacement, that would create affordability, at the expense of a little bit of density? City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: Commissioner, I confess, I've not studied the particular details of this specific situation, so I can't comment to that. I was speaking to covenants in general. Vice Chair Russell: In general. And I wouldn't disagree with you. I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater if there is a good proposal to be had. And trust me, this is not something the developer came and simply proffered. This was fighting tooth and nail between my office and them to say, "How could this benefit the community?" And I felt in my heart that it does, but when I hear the community still saying, "No, this is not benefiting us, "I have to listen, and I have to understand better why this is not a good option for the community. So I recognize very much and I look to our City Attorney to see how our covenants not only could be enforced better, but how we could keep then from being reversed. Madam City Attorney, I mean, how often are covenants actually reversed by the City Commission? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): We were actually talking about that the other day, and I believe in at least the 13 years I've been here, maybe one or two, max, and that's because the restrictions weren't viable anymore. So this Commission really is not active at all about reversing covenants or changing them. Commissioner Suarez: I think -- I hear what he's saying, but I think there's a -- there's two things, so 1 agree with that; that's a good question, "How many covenants have been lifted or have been undone?" Ms. Mendez: Right. Commissioner Suarez: 1 know I've modified one, but in eight years. But what is -- a different question is, "How many are enforced?" which is -- if someone's not following the covenant. And I think -- I mean, 1 believe a hundred percent in Vice Chairman Russell's ability to -- and stick-to-it-ness on a covenant of this magnitude in his district. What I'm talking about is a general problem, not a specific problem. Like, 1 think -- I have absolutely no doubt that you will make sure that this covenant is followed. And 1 would say that this could end up being the test case for us, or the first lawsuit that we file; just like there was a first lawsuit to foreclose on a special assessment lien when I got here, and we weren't doing, and now we've collected how much money since then? Ms. Mendez: About 3 million, over 3 million. Commissioner Suarez: About $3 million. So, yeah. So what happens is, once you start, the message sort of percolates and people -- you know, the public can rely on them, the development community understands that they're going to be held accountable, and I think, you know, this is as good a time as any, you know, to make that statement, you know. And -- Ms. Mendez: The City Attornev's Office has no problem going to court and enforcing covenants, I mean. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you jbr saying that. Now let's starting doing it. Mr. Cruz: Commissioner, rj1 may? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: The big problem with covenants is, if they're allowed to happen, then no neighborhood is safe, no zoning is safe. A developer can come along with just the City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 right amount of sweetness, and up -zone, and cause problems. There's a long line of people standing behind me today because of this situation. And in closing -- and I -- you've been very generous with your time. In closing, when was the last time the City of Miami enforced a covenant? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's what I just said. That's what I just said, yeah. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: The City of Miami is not famous for its institutional memory, so I would please urge you to initiate legislation to grant the general public standing to enforce covenants, in addition to the City. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Cruz. Next speaker. Brittany Thomas: Good afternoon. Brittany Thomas, 8340 Southwest 65th Avenue. I just need a couple points of clarification. So back in 2015, this developer offered a covenant, which includes the exact things they're asking today. And then they submitted a covenant with the application, for zoning, which does not include the 14 affordable housing units that Mr. Wasserman just promised. So I'm not sure if maybe there was a miscommunication, but it is, word for word, the exact same covenant, but deleted the portion with the 14 affordable housing -- that's what's on the agenda. So I just want to make sure that, you know, everyone knows that that was actually what was submitted; not with the 14 affordable housing units. But also, for clarification, the City doesn't need to pass an ordinance giving the community members standing. All we need to do is put provisions inside each specific covenant. So if this covenant is supposed to benefit the people of the West Grove or the people of Coconut Grove, give them inside the covenant standing to enforce it so that we don't have to wait for a lawsuit; so that we can go to the developer themselves and say, "Look, this is what you promised us. How about you do it?" Or we can, on our own, not bypass -- we can bypass the City and do it ourselves. But the West Grove is suffering from a housing crisis; everyone knows that. The City of Miami is suffering from a housing crisis. What -- this developer wants us to take units that are already for housing and transfer them to commercial use. They're already duplex and two single-family residential homes. Now, instead of that, they want to up -zone to T4-O for commercial use, so depleting the amount of housing that is currently within this district. I don't understand how, if they have no plans, and if they've submitted nothing for what they're going to do, we're just going to say, "Yes, let's offer them this zoning." We don't know what they're going to do with the properties. We don't know if they're going to sell them, we don't know if they're going to develop them; we're just not sure. But if this covenant doesn't give more, why would we allow them to just rezone their properties? It's obviously not what the community members want, and it isn't -- it doesn't seem to be in the best interest for you guys. I was at a meeting, the same community meeting that Mr. Wasserman mentioned, where they told us that these 14 affordable housing units would he there. It seems like a misrepresentation to myself if I'm looking at the covenant you offered and it's the same thing you offered two years ago. Nothing has changed. You didn't come to us - - he didn't come to community members and say, "Look, this wasn't enough." Obviously, it wasn't enough in 2015. They've deferred it for two years and then gave us nothing more; instead, said, "Just accept the scraps we are offering you." Is that really what we're going to require developers to do when they seek to take away the housing stock that's already limited inside the Grove? I personally don't think so, and I think we should start asking a little more questions before we just rezone properties. Come with a plan. Tell us what you're going to do. Offer us exactly what you're saying, and don't misrepresent yourself Like, I have -- I just looked in the application documents. It doesn't include this 14 affordable housing units. So how are we supposed to be assured that those are going to be in there if they're not City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 even in the document they provided to you? It -- to me, it seems fishy, and it doesn't - - If it's an accident, it seems weird that it would be the exact same wording as the covenant from 2015. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I'll -- in a moment, I'll let the applicant speak to that, as well as our City Attorney, as to what's in the covenant, specifically, that we're dealing with today. But my question to you would be, if 14 out of 36 affordable, eight of which being extremely low incomes and moderate income -- Pm sorry -- six being low to moderate income and eight being workforce is not enough, what would be enough that the community would feel this is a fair trade in terms of the value that's being given in the up -zoning? Now, keep in mind, he's not -- this affordability is not out of any subsidy or government -- you know -- tax rebate or anything. This is simply him doing the numbers of what value he's receiving from the up -zoning, and how much of that he's willing to leave on the table to create affordability. So -- Ms. Thomas: So I -- as I understood it, six units were going to be affordable housing and eight units were going to be workforce. In my opinion -- and I can't speak, for everyone -- that's not really affordable. Workforce housing isn't affordable; it's just not. If you give them a range and give them the option to go from 80 to 140 percent, they're going to go to 140 percent. And as we know and we've seen, 140 percent can be above market value. If we do the affordable housing units, again, that's 40 to 80 percent. That is not affordable; that is not what the people who actually live in the Grove can afford. So something a little more; something with a little more teeth. Maybe actually have them require ELI (extremely low income) housing. Have them put some of these units to the actual amount of money that the people from Coconut Grove make; not just these general County -based 140 to 80 percent AMI. It's just not what people who live here can afford. Vice Chair Russell: Do you believe that the six low- to moderate -income range of 708 to 850 is not low enough? Commissioner Suarez: No. Ms. Thomas: I mean, I personally don't live in the Grove, and I don't -- I wouldn't be one of the people living there. I can only speak from what community members tell me, and they can't afford it. So I -- If it's your guys' job to provide them housing that they can afford and they're telling you that this isn't something they can afford, isn't it -- You know, shouldn't you be providing them housing that they can afford; not stuff that's above the limit that they can reach? Like, at some point, we've got to ask whether just saying, "700 to 800 sounds affordable," when it's really not, for the people who live there. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: She's stating the reality, not just in the West Grove; in the City of Miami. And that's what I've been saying since my time here. We keep saying "affordable housing, " but it's a myth, because the majority of the people that live in the City of Miami, it's not affordable housing, and that's why I pushed the ELI component -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: -- because we kept missing that. Now, the ELI, it's a little difficult, because we need other units to subsidize the ELI component, because it's 30 City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 percent ofAMI or less. However, the majority of the City of Miami -- and you could include Little Havana; Allapattah, I'm sure Commissioner Gort will tell you. Realistically, they -- seven, eight hundred up, too much, can't afford that. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you very much. Counsel, would you like to reply to the covenant issue; any change in the covenant and any inconsistencies in the covenant? Mr. Wasserman: Right. So the original covenant that was submitted with the application -- after understanding staffs concerns and the community's concerns with the commercial -- that was the original covenant. After working with your office over the past year and a half, we added to the covenant; added the affordability, added the income restrictions, so I think you had it reversed. You -- Ms. Thomas: Wait. Now, is that the one that was submitted with your application? Because the down -- the documents that we downloaded don't have that. Mr. Wasserman: Staff could probably speak to this better than I can, but the original application and the original plan -- recommendation that went to the Planning & Zoning & Appeals Board remains the application. It was during the process that we supplemented and submitted the recent covenant, which is still several months old, but it's the covenant you had before you that has the affordability in it. So the affordability covenant came after the commercial covenant. Ms. Thomas: Yes. So -- Vice Chair Russell: You are correct that nothing has changed in this last year. We haven't had any negotiations or anything over the past eight, 10 months, since the last time this was brought before us. It slept through an indefinite deferral, basically. We just lobbed it for six months. Nothing has evolved or changed since then. Mr. Wasserman: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: So you are correct in that. Ms. Thomas: Asking if the covenant that they're submitting, before you rezone these properties, actually have the 14 affordable housing units? Because we can't find it in the documents that they submitted. Vice Chair Russell: Madam City Attorney, there's a question with regard to the actual covenant that's being proffered with this zoning request. Ms. Mendez: Well, right now, the -- I believe what she's saying is that the one that's in the packet is the two pager that was submitted two years ago -- or a year ago. Vice Chair Russell: No. She's asking whether what's being submitted to us today -- What we would be voting on today, does it include the 14 units showing the six and the eight at the different levels? Ms. Mendez: Right. If that is a voluntary covenant that's being proffered by -- Vice Chair Russell: Is it -- no. Is it in our documents today? Ms. Mendez: What I said before was that the packet that she is talking about is the other covenant. I don't think you have a copy of the proposed voluntary covenant by the developer. City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Why would the covenant, as agreed before, not be in the backup for today? Mr. Wasserman: It was submitted to staff It was submitted in the application. Commissioner Suarez: Why don't you guys talk about it? Mr. Wasserman: It's the same; exactly what we proffered, exactly what we discussed at the community meeting, and exactly what I said today on the record. Vice Chair Russell: Was it simply an omission in the backup? Ms. Thomas: It's just not in the documents? Mr. Wasserman: I'm happy to circulate it as we -- Ms. Thomas: What the -- I just want to make sure before they rezone your properties, as your client would want, that there's actually -- at least something; not that the covenant has a -- Vice Chair Russell: Clearly, in writing, enforceable. Ms. Thomas: -- but that there is something in there. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. For the record, our recommendation, it has to be said, is independent of the covenant proffered. Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Mr. Garcia: The covenant is for you to consider as appropriate. The latest information that we have that we have submitted along with the application reflects a covenant that I think the City Attorney has just read into the record, and it doesn't have information pertaining to 14 units or affordability. Vice Chair Russell: Does or does not? Mr. Garcia: It does not. The copy we have -- the latest copy we have does not; however, whatever that covenant includes, whatever terms that covenant includes can be augmented or revised on the record, live, by the applicant as a proffer, and accepted by the Commission. Nothing precludes you from doing that. Vice Chair Russell: Of course, but you can understand what -- the hesitation of the community with regard to the enforcement of covenants and their trust in covenants. The fact that we actually don't have it in our backup doesn't exactly instill trust in the community, that we are going to enforce something that's not even in writing. I would certainly not want to simply do it on the floor, without it being properly noticed. And thank you for bringing that to our attention. Ms. Thomas: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: We'll continue with public comment. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Gort: What I'm hear [sicJ, even if they put the covenant, the prices that he stated, people cannot afford; they want even more. My understanding is what they can afford maybe is $500, or $400 a month; that's what they're looking for. They need to understand, it's not that (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: That's what Pm hearing so far. And one thing I would like to hear from anyone in the community that does have a record, what the rents were in these units before the rents were raised over this past year; because if we're replacing a true $1,300 rent, it may not be reasonable to ask for a $400 rent. But I do believe, and I do recall that the rents were quite a bit lower than the $1,300. Please, Mr. -- Steve Solomon, Jr.: Good evening. Steve Solomon, Housing for All. I believe, as an initial matter, clarification is needed from the Commission with regards to the NCD- 2. It is incumbent upon the City Commission to up -come with a worksheet or some other tool by which the Planning Department can determine whether new zoning applications are in keeping with the NCD's requirements. Until such a worksheet or tool is developed, there should be a moral -- Unidentified Speaker: Moratorium. Mr. Solomon: Yeah. -- moratorium on rezoning with the NCD-2. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Thank you very much. What Commissioner Carollo said is absolutely correct with regard to citywide affordability. What 1'd like to point out that might actually be a little bit ironic is that although in my district, this is a smaller area of need, it is on the higher target of gentrification and displacement right now, because it is surrounded by the market rate luxury of Coconut Grove and Coral Gables. The rate at which we are at risk of displacement is very high here, and so, this is very important that we get this right. If this is an opportunity, we need to consider it. If this is a mistake, we need to recognize it. So, please, we'll continue. Kristy Wallace: Good afternoon. My name is Kristy Wallace. I live at 117 Frow, and I'm just going to go ahead and read my statement. I want to make sure that I get it clearly said. And so, notwithstanding the moratorium that Steve was just mentioning, the northern properties should not be converted into commercial use. The northern parcel should be redeveloped as housing that fronts onto Day Avenue and gives its back to U.S.], to ensure preservation of existing housing, and to avoid rezoning that would be out of sync with the NCD-2. This is particularly true as the developer has provided little information as to what will be done with the properties after they are rezoned; no plans, renderings, details on what the buildings will be like. He's not provided anything for us to really be able to say this is a good idea. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. You all are welcome to use both lecterns so we can alternate more quickly; please feel free. Esther knicely: Hello. My name is Esther Knicely, and I am a concerned resident of West Coconut Grove, and I live at 3331 Florida Avenue. Pm also going to read a statement, and then share a little bit of other stuff as well. While I recommend denial of this rezoning, I must also mention that the covenant proposed, as Brittany pointed out, totally lacks detail and does not reflect what the developer has publicly promised in terms of affordable and workforce units. Any covenant proposed for the properties in this area should be specific and clear as to how it will be enforced; and at a minimum, it should be provide -- it should provide for restrictions on use, explicit numbers and details on the new units that will be affordable, where they will City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 be located in the buildings, and the level of AMI at -- the developers are targeting, and kind of the numbers that were not somehow on the document; explicit numbers and details on the units that were designated as workforce, where they will be located, how many units for each level of the AMI, instead of the proposed -- a block of units in the broad range of 60 to 140 percent AMI, which I don't -- I can't afford that, practically; a specific provision on how the community on whose behalf the developer is presumably making the covenant can enforce the covenant; and, at the very least, it should outline a process by which the covenant can be enforced that includes community involvement, which was mentioned earlier. The other thing that I wanted to discuss is that at the Grove 2030 meeting, which Ken Russell was at, present -- I think it was last night -- Sue Troan (phonetic), from the Planning & Zoning Committee, who is the Community Planning Division liaison, stated that the recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Committee made was made in 2015 by a staffer who is no longer there. I went to a meeting with a bunch of neighbors. from Coconut Grove that she was at, as well as the developer's representative, and the entire community said, "no"; they were not interested. And then, when I asked her at that meeting what are -- why would they continue of the entire community is saying no, they do not want this up -zoning, she basically said, "Well, your comments will be included." And I have no idea, actually, if the comments even are included. And then, when I talked to her last night, asking her kind of similar questions, she basically told me that the Planning & Zoning Committee doesn't really hold that much weight in the process, so I wanted to reflect that on the record. And I think the other comment 1 just want to make is that in the covenant, we don't know if they can just up -zone it and then sell it off which we know they'll make a pretty penny on if they do, and so, 1 think that that should also be included. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Esther. Kristin Hart: Good afternoon. Kristin Hart, 3334 Charles Avenue. 1 also have a written statement, but I first want to say, Commissioner Russell, 1 think we all hear your efforts and your frustrations, and I just want to acknowledge that; that I really appreciate what you're trying to do, and I appreciate your openness to our hesitation for -- to make sure that this is right before we move forward, so thank you. But I do hope that we're making sense about why -- you know, we also want a solution that's good for the community. We don't want to just say nothing, but it doesn't seem like it's good enough, as it is. So the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), with good reason, recommended denial, because of the failure of the applicant to provide specific details on what will be done with the property once it has been rezoned, which Esther just alluded to. Grove residents are also suspicious of the intentions of the applicant. We have yet to see anything concrete showing what will be done with the property, and the covenant doesn't inspire more confidence that the applicant will do what they've orally promised; specifically, the 14 units. So this has already been said, but again, I just wanted to also submit my concerns for the record. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Fabienne Boughton: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Fabienne Boughton, 50 Northeast 50th Terrace. As it stands, the Day Avenue eight properties are actually incompatible with NCD-2, which contains the Village West Island District and Charles Avenue. And the boundaries, as per Miami 21, Appendix 'A," Section 2.1, are as follows: It is bounded by Douglas Road on the west; U.S.1 and Bird Road on the north; McDonald Street and Abitare Way on the east; and Franklin Avenue and a portion of Marler Avenue along the south. Section 2.2, the intent of NCD-2, is as follows, and that is that the areas are designated to illustrate the incomparable legacy, of the African -American community to the City of Miami. The intent ofNCD- 2 is to identify and recognize this historical significance; to promote gateways, gathering places and activities corresponding to its culture and heritage; to City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 complement the character of the entire community, and promote the history of the Island District, and to promote its successful revitalization and restoration. If we don't have any plans from the developer as to what they plan to do with the Day Avenue eight properties, there is no possible way to make sure that they're in compliance with NCD-2, because we have no idea; we have nothing to check NCD-2 against. So I'm just wondering, I guess, what criteria the City used to -- or what PZAB was using to pass these Day Avenue eight properties, when there were no plans to even compare to NCD-2 in the first place. So at the 2030 meeting that I attended with my colleague last night, you were present, Vice Chairman Russell, and you, I believe, said that you guys were actively working on changing the legislation of NCD, and that many citizens have complained that NCD is not being enforced. And I wanted to know, will this legislation include a requirement that developers provide the City with concrete plans before these plans can even be said to be in compliance with NCD in the first place. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. With regard to compliance to NCD before plans are approved, absolutely. With regard to whether or not plans need to be approved prior to any zoning change, I'm going to defer to my City Attorney and Planning & Zoning Department, because I don't believe that we can require a rendering or a plan to consider the zoning change and the use change; am I correct? Ms. Mendez: You're correct. Vice Chair Russell: Of course, it plays a factor, and when a developer conies with a plan, it gives the community a much better vision of what their intention is. But let's say the zoning does change, the covenant does hold. They still cannot go forward with actual construction without complying with NCD-2, because that part of the Code, with that strength and part of the Code is what's meant to guide their actual plans from that point on. Whether that has the teeth it should at this point or not, I'd venture to say, "no." So, yes, I'm looking at changing that; yes, I'm looking to strengthen that; yes, I'm looking to make sure that the character of what's intended in the NCD, the Neighborhood Conservation District part of our Code, the spirit of that is honored in the letter; and is enforced. Thank you. Ms. Boughton: Thank you. Meena Jagannath: Hi. Good afternoon. Meena Jagannath, 3000 Biscayne, Miami 33137. So I had made my comments based on the covenant that was included in the application, and since the covenant that Commissioner Russell has mentioned, it was not available for review, I would like to actually see those documents before asking for -- or before making a comment on that. I do think that what we saw lacks specificity. I think that to include workforce housing at the 140 percent AMI range is well out of the range of the residents who live in that area, so I look forward to working on that covenant to make it more specific. And I do want to speak to Commissioner Suarez' proposal on reviewing all of the covenants. I think that the enforcement issue is very important, and it's important to -- in addition to including provisions in the specific covenants on how the community can get standing to review the covenants, I think it's important to -- that the community have a process by which they can ask the City Commission to review all covenants that they believe are not being adhered to in their community, because, obviously, the community is -- are the eyes and ears of the Commission. And so, in that sense they should be able to appeal to you all to review the covenant, failing an actual provision within that, that gives community standing. And the last thing that I just wanted to mention is about the NCD-2 overlay. I think, in addition to -- I would urge you to consider, if you are considering passing further legislation that would give the NCDs teeth that that include a protocol or worksheet that can be submitted with an application to the City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Planning & Zoning Department about their compliance with the provisions within the NCD overlay. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, ma'am. Linda Williams: Good afternoon. I'm Linda Williams, a long-time resident, born and reared. I'm not here representing the many organizations and boards that I sit on, but a resident here. We do have a very unique problem with the owner of this property in that it is all private. And when we start talking about affordability, he does not have to meet the guidelines of the State, HUD, or Housing Affairs. I've tried to encourage the residents that we don't want to lose everything, and we are aware that he can simply swipe the table, and everything's market rate. I'm encouraged with the 14 units being offered. If we go -- could go to 16, that would even be better. I'm looking at the possibility of people being housed under the circumstance that we have with lack of housing right now. At our last meeting, Mr. Wasserman gave me a nod when I asked if he could flip the numbers; rather than eight workforce, could we start with ELI, at low to moderate, and he gave me a nod. I know you can't include a nod in writing, but I was encouraged, and would hope that he would consider that. The only other thing I'd like to say, we don't have any drawings. We would like to see what's going to be offered there. And I'm a layperson. I don't know if a covenant can be -- can go with the land as opposed to the owner; therefore, if he does sell it that that covenant would still be enforceable. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And, yes, it would. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: No, no problem. Professor Alfieri, 1 don't know if 1 should stand when 1 refer to you or if I should stay seated. Anthony Alfieri: Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Professor Anthony Alfieri, University of Miami Law School, appearing today on behalf of the Coconut Grove Ministerial Alliance of Black Churches, of which I'm a board member. We're here to report our preliminary findings and conclusions. Our law students have reviewed nine years -- nine years -- of up -zoning decisions by the City of Miami. Our preliminary conclusion is that the City of Miami is engaging in a policy and practice that violates the 1968 Civil Rights Act, also known as the Fair Housing Act. It violates it in three ways, each of which is a cognizable cause of action, according to the most recent Supreme Court decision in 2015 by Justice Kennedy. The first violation is that the City's policy and practice of up -zoning is having a disproportionately adverse effect on predominantly African -American and minority neighborhoods. How? Because up -zoning is causing the mass inner city eviction and demolition of low-income rental housing and displacement out of inner city neighborhoods, including Coconut Grove Village West, and that displacement and demolition, and out -migration constitutes a disproportionately adverse effect. Two - - it is also recognized by the Supreme Court -- perpetuating segregation. What the City policy is doing is essentially suburbanizing inner city black neighborhoods and low-income residents out into Florida City, Perrine, Goulds. And we are, in fact, now expanding our outreach into those communities, and we can corroborate this outflow of displacement and perpetuation of segregation, and indeed, conditions of hyper -segregation in those neighborhoods. Third, the violation goes to the purpose and intent of the Fair Housing Act, which is to affirmatively further fair housing. If the City -- and we believe it is -- engaging in a policy and practice that is having a disproportionately adverse effect on inner city low-income communities of color, like your neighborhood, Commissioner Hardemon, and like the West Village, and is, in fact, destroying low -- extremely low-income and low-income housing, then it is clearly violating its statutory duty under the 1968 act to affirmatively further fair housing. At the most recent meeting of the Planning & Zoning officials that was City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 referred to earlier, we specifically asked for compliance documents that would in any way corroborate good faith best efforts by the City of Miami to comply with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. We were assured that those documents would be provided. They were not provided In light of this nine-year study that we will be concluding in the fall, and in light of the reliable conclusions that we have that the City is, in fact, engaging in a citywide policy and practice of up -zoning and spot - zoning that is violating the Fair Housing Act, we would urge you not to approve this up -zoning, and, in fact, order a citywide moratorium on up -zoning and spot -zoning that will result in the eviction and displacement, and re -segregation of inner city low-income tenants of color until my former student at the -- who is leading the City of Miami's and the Planning & Zoning Board and Department can establish substantially that the City is in compliance with the Fair Housing Act. And our conclusion at this moment is that the City is not, based upon nine years of review. Chair Hardemon: May I ask, Professor Alfieri, what years did you study from -- to and, from to -- from and to? Mr. Alfieri: From 2017, nine years back. Chair Hardemon: Nine years back. And the second thing I'd like to ask you is, what you describe when you describe "up -zoning," are you describing -- Does it take into account where there's up -zoning that is created to allow more intensity so that you can have more affordable housing, or is it only up -zoning that allows you to have intensity, hut not necessarily affordable housing? Mr. Alfieri: The -- to the best of my knowledge -- and it's hard to keep up with this new generation of law students, I confess. My understanding is that the primary focus was on the latter; that is to say, up -zoning that is the proximate cause of the eviction, both lawful and unlawful, of low-income tenants of color in predominantly African -American and minority inner city neighborhoods that is resulting in their eviction, the demolition of that property, and the displacement and out -migration, and re -segregation that we are witnessing. I was in Perrine this morning, visiting ministers; that ministers are observing in Goulds, in Perrine, in Florida City, and Homestead. So the City is essentially effectively suburbanizing poverty by reason of this policy and practice. Chair Hardemon: So, particularly, you're describing locations where there is, for instance, maybe rental property, not necessarily homeownership, in that particular parcel, because what -- I -- there are a number of things that happen in what you've described, and what I'm trying to figure out is that -- There are certain parts of our communities that are high in property ownership, homeownership, black and brown homeownership. And so, the up -zoning of those properties, are you saying -- what I'm not hearing is that the up -zoning of those properties leads those homeowners to sell those properties. Parcels are then accumulated, and then you have larger developments that are going up. What, in fact, you're saying is that it is a -- for instance, an apartment building that allows 16 units, and then we allow them to go up -zone, and they provide 40 units; but they're evicting the people who lived in those 16, and those 16 cannot afford to come back -- or people like those 16 cannot afford to come back into those neighborhoods. Mr. Alfieri: Right; that's exactly right. The primary focus has been on low-income rental properties, multiple dwellings; though, the homeownership hypothetical that you just presented, there is, in fact, evidence of that kind of property accumulation, as well. But these are preliminary conclusions that we will be confirming in the fall, but our position at this time, based on these preliminary findings and conclusions, is that the City is in violation of the 19 civil --1968 Civil Rights Act. City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman, please. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And thank you, Professor Alfieri. I very much enjoyed speaking with you and learning a lot about the situation. I certainly understand the premise that you're proffering here, but wouldn't you agree that this particular case doesn't apply to that study? Because without the up -zoning, the displacement of those 14 units is going to happen, inevitably. The affordability will be gone; the people will be gone. So can it be said that any up -zoning is the cause of that displacement? And to go further, couldn't it be said that by utilizing the covenant and the leverage that is created by them actually coming to us, needing an entitlement that we could be actually preserving and staving off some displacement, utilizing the up -zoning mechanism? Mr. Alfieri: Well, it's -- with all due respect, Commissioner Russell, that strikes me as optimistic speculation. And, you know, with all due respect to another former student, Ethan Wasserman, the larger point is this: The City has a Federal statutory and constitute -- a Federal statutory duty under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and a constitutional duty under both the U.S. Constitution Equal Protection Clause and the Florida Constitution Equal Protection Clause to refrain from engaging in policies and practice that have a disproportionately adverse effect -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Alfieri: -- on these inner city communities. To the extent that granting up - zoning in this case will result in the eviction of the -- a protected class of residents -- and this is a protected class -- then it falls within the analysis of the Fair Housing Act, and triggers a violation of both the Fair Housing Act and arguably -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Alfieri: -- the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Vice Chair Russell: So it's irrelevant that not granting the up -zoning will also, still, anyway, result in the evictions. Mr. Alfieri: Well, it -- that would be a matter of conjecture -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood Mr. Alfieri: -- and it's difficult to -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Alfieri: -- predict. Chair Hardemon: If I may -- Commissioner Suarez: But that's -- Commissioner Gort: That's important. Commissioner Suarez: -- I think that's kind of important, because I think -- you know, I think it's important to note that eviction law is separate and apart from entitlements, zoning entitlements. So, I mean, whether a landlord decides -- and I'll be honest with you. Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Russell in the last Commission City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 meeting passed a notice extension that was allowable under State law. I didn't even think it could be done, to be honest with you, as a real estate practitioner. I never thought that you could actually extend the notice provisions for 30-day rentals, because the -- you know, because, unfortunately or fortunately, depending on, I guess, whose side of the coin you're on, the reality is that the landlord/tenant laws in the State of Florida are very favorable to landlords. Mr. Alfieri: Right, right. But, you know, at the risk o_fsounding like a law professor, it's important to highlight this very important point: A claim of zoning entitlement does not exist in a legal vacuum. A claim of zoning entitlement exists within a Federal statutory and constitutional framework. The City of Miami is a municipality that has constitutional and statutory duties and responsibilities. And thus, to suggest that any property owner, landowner has certain zoning entitlements, those entitlements have to be analyzed in the context of the constitutional and statutory duties of a particular municipality. That's -- When congress enacted the Fair Housing Act in 1968, very clear and expressed about that purpose. And when the reconstruction congress enacted the 14th Amendment, it was equally clear. And so - Commissioner Suarez: I'm sure you're. familiar -- Mr. Alfieri: -- claims of zoning entitlements don't undermine a Federal statute or the Federal Constitution. Chair Hardemon: Professor Alfieri, the -- much of the discussion we've been having is about evictions and how these change of zonings or enhancements to the zoning will create an eviction process. The evictions -- they evict people from their properties. What about if these is no eviction? So what about if the property owner decides to allow the leases to expire, and then there is no lease, and the tenant is holding at its will, and they do not want to renew the lease? Mr. Alfieri: Well, the issue -- Chair Hardemon: Does that violate the Fair Housing Act? Mr. Alfieri: -- well, the issue -- Commissioner Suarez: No, of course not. Mr. Alfieri: -- is one, as you recall from your 1L year, the issue is one of State action. In that particular example, there is no State action. But if you approve this up -zoning or spot -zoning, you are in -- you are acting under color of law, and you are investing that zoning re -designation with State action and with the color of law, and therefore; ,vou are triggering the application of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: So do you believe that just because there is a change of zoning that means that everyone who has a parcel of land that has been impacted by that change of zoning, so they've gone from T3-R to T3-L, that they now will automatically, try to improve upon their property, so much so that it would cause an eviction to tenants? Because that's what I'm hearing now. When you say to me that there is an up -zoning, that just because there is an up -zoning, someone will be evicted, it seems to me that if there is an up -zoning, it can remain up -zoned for as long as the property is there, and it's up to the owner, for them to make a change in City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 the actual property itself; to make an improvement that would cause the eviction of someone. Mr. Alfieri: Right; a nice question. And the best answer is that a municipality like the City of Miami can be liable under the 1968 Civil Rights Act and under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution for both action and inaction. And the inaction that your good question raises is the inaction in failing to take affirmative duties to affirmatively further fair housing. And so -- and the best exhibit that we can point to is the current condition of Grand Avenue, where up -zoning was granted, where low-income tenants were evicted, both lawfully and perhaps unlawfully. We have insufficient evidence on that. They were displaced, those rental units were demolished, and they have been re -segregated and displaced across the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County, we would submit, in violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the '68 Civil Rights Act. Commissioner Suarez: So just -- last question; I'm actually enjoying this. I'm a real estate practitioner, so I actually find this, fascinating. So would it be possi ble. for me, also, to demonstrate an example where up -zoning actually creates affordable housing; in other words, where an entitlement -- a package of entitlements has actually led to the creation of a significant amount of affordable housing? Mr. Alfieri: There are examples across the nation where up -zoning -- where, for example, certain municipalities -- for example, the City of South Miami is refusing to permit up -zoning on -- we would argue, in violation of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, because it is refusing to up -zone to allow the greater intensity needed for affordable housing in that community. And the key here -- and we are grateful ,for your time. The key -- Commissioner Suarez: The key is the ultimate impact, is what you're saying. Mr. Alfieri: Well, precisely. And that's precisely what the Supreme Court held in last -- in the 2015 summer in inclusive communities. But the other key is compliance. Is there evidence of compliance with the requirements of the 1968 Fair Housing Act by the -- by Planning & Zoning in the City of Miami? And we would submit that we have no evidence of compliance with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. We specifically requested evidence of that. In this particular case, we were assured that it would be provided. It has not yet been provided. And again, we reiterate the need for a moratorium on up -zoning that is going to have a disproportionately adverse effect on all of the neighborhoods that you represent, both Hispanic neighborhoods and African -American and Afro -Caribbean neighborhoods until the City can demonstrate substantial evidence of compliance. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: May I ask a question? Commissioner Suarez: Sure. I have a question, too. Chair Hardemon: Okay. The -- from what you just stated, so then what would be your opinion on up -zoning that occurs in these same neighborhoods that allows for ELI and low-income properties to come into the area? So the question then being, to expound upon it, does the concentration of ELI and low-income housing in certain particular areas -- Overtown, Liberty City, West Grove -- is that some sort of violation? So its particularly -- And I think that opens up a greater question of should Aven -- well, not Aventura, because they have some affordable housing; they have trailer parks or so there. But, say, should Pinecrest and all these other well -to - City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 do areas, should they open up their arms and doors for affordable housing because of these types of issues? Mr. Alfieri: Well, exactly right, and they should. And, Commissioner Hardemon, you point out one of the key insights to the 1968 Civil Rights Act, and that is to say there are three principles at issue. One is the principle of displacement, one is the principle of perpetuating segregation, and one is the principle of affirmatively furthering fair housing. And a municipality, in order to discharge its statutory and constitutional duty under the 1968 Civil Rights Act has to keep all of those foundational principles in consideration as it moves ahead. And we would submit that the City of Miami has lost its way in terms of complying with those channeling principles. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Please. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Couple things. One is -- I'm going to kind of go back to the last statement that I made, and then I have another sort of point. The last statement that I made was, would it surprise you to know, or would it be possible. for me to demonstrate that this Commission has passed an entitlement package -- not necessarily up -zoning, because up -zoning has a specific connotation -- hut an entitlement -- 1 would call it more broadly an entitlement package -- that has resulted in a thousand units of affordable housing? Is that something that you would be interested in knowing about? Mr. Alfieri: Well, certainly. And again, you hit right on the mark, because the question that you raise is, "Is the City of Miami discharging its duty to affirmatively further fair housing?" And we cannot answer that question until we get a count from the City of Miami on how many -- however you define it -- affordable units, workforce units, low income, extremely low income -- have been lost in the last decade or more, and then, how many have been replaced, because we would submit to you that it is highly likely and foreseeable that the City of Miami has permitted the destruction, widespread destruction and loss of affordable workforce, low income, extremely low-income housing, and has failed in its statutory duty to replace with an equivalent number of units. Commissioner Carollo: But what he -- Commissioner Suarez: I have a follow-up. I'm sorry. I love this discussion. I think it's a great discussion. Chair Hardemon: Because I wonder -- Commissioner Gort: I don't think we are going to get out of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: -- is he talking about standard housing, though? Is he describing housing that is suitable for living? But go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Well, you can get into the minutia of this, because I think this is a very deep discussion, but I would -- I was going to make a second point, and the point I was going to make -- and I don't know how it interrelates with the broader theme that you're talking about, or with compliance or noncompliance with the Civil Rights Act. But the broader point that I would make is, would it be surprising for you to learn that the City of Miami has the most progressive laws on extremely low- income housing creation, affordable housing creation, and workforce housing creation, maybe, in the nation? City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Alfieri: It would be surprising. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. And I would -- and so, I would like to have that conversation with you, because I would also suggest that there is a possibility that the number that you're requesting is a net positive. Now, there's two sub pieces to that. One piece is that -- and it goes to the whole definition of "housing," in it full spectrum. It -- you -- We could have lost some ELI units through renovations and things of that nature; not necessarily through entitlements. Are you talking about specifically through entitlements, or are you talking about just generally speaking? Mr. Alfieri: Well, the -- Commissioner Suarez: It would have to be State action? Mr. Alfieri: Well, State action is triggered by either action under color of law, so the approval of this up -zoning, but it can also be triggered by inaction. And, as we would submit, there's -- triggered by the fact that there don't appear -- there doesn't appear to be a net positive; in.fact, there appears to be a net loss. But the other -- just -- Commissioner Suarez: No, wait -- Mr. Alfieri: -- Commissioner; just one quick point. Commissioner Suarez: -- bejbre you get in there -- Mr. Alfieri: The other principle that you have to hear in mind is the commitment. And, you know, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in inclusive communities underscored this point that the second principle of the 1968 Fair Housing Act is the principle of perpetuating segregation; that municipalities have a duty -- right? -- to refrain from patterns and practices -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Alfieri.. -- that perpetuate segregation. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Alfieri: And that is precisely what all of you are witnessing in communities across inner city Miami. Commissioner Suarez: Listen, I don't necessarily disagree with that, that broad point. I -- My question to you is -- and I got a chuckle from the audience, so I want to sort of explain it a little bit more. I want to explain a little bit more what I meant. You can be as -- you can be progressive in terms of legislation that doesn't always manifest itself in creation, okay? Because there are economic dynamics at play. Vice Chair Russell: I'm ready to make a motion. Commissioner Suarez: What's that? Commissioner Gort: Look -- Vice Chair Russell: I don't mean to interrupt the legal geekfest that we've having -- City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. Vice Chair Russell: -- but I'm ready to make a motion here. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. Commissioner Gort: I want to -- Commissioner Suarez: I apologize. Chair Hardemon: See, part of the problem is that Professor Alfieri has taught probably most of the (UNITNELLIGIBLE) in here. Commissioner Suarez: Come on, I got into it. I'm sorry. Chair Hardemon: That's the.first thing. But you know if -- I have a quick question. It doesn't take the -- Commissioner Suarez: I think it's, fascinating. Chair Hardemon: -- is -- Would you characterize the City's response to an up - zoning as State action, or would you characterize a City who proposes an up -zoning itself as State action? Mr. Alfieri: The key question is, "Is the City operating under color of law?" Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Alfieri: And so, the City can operate as -- so if you approve, you would be operating under color of law, and that triggers State action. But the failure to affirmatively further fair housing and to allow the net loss of units and to perpetuate segregation, and create this out -migration, that is also State action. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Mr. Alfieri: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Look, I just had an analysis of my district, and we have over 6,000 new affordable housing that we have created in the district. And we have one building where it's -- half of it's market rate, but the other half' is also affordable housing, which integrates the community, because sometimes, we tend to create ghettos, and I agree with that. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I am this close from making a motion to deny this request, but my hesitation is that we're going to blink and everyone will be evicted, and it will not be -- what goes there will not be what you're looking for. Mr. Wasserman, I have a couple questions for you, and I want to be clear where I am on this right now. Chair Hardemon: Can you take down your demonstrative, sir, please? Thank you. City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: With regard to commercial, I'm going to be a "no," 100 percent, and I'll tell you why. If you look at this, you have eight properties across from each other. That's a neighborhood. That's a neighborhood. Those are kids that come out of their driveway and look at their friends in the driveway across the street. And part of our job within Miami 21 is to preserve that neighborhood. So to bifurcate that, just to split the baby, as it were, and make the north side commercial, or allow commercial and the south side, keep residential, that's a compromise, but it's no longer a neighborhood. And as I always say, splitting the baby kills the baby. People forget that part of the saying. Just because one corner of one lot does touch U.S.1 doesn't necessarily mean that that entire upper row of housing should be allowed to be commercial. Just because we changed zoning at some other year or Mize for properties around them to become commercial doesn't mean that that's a mandatory domino that allows this to now become commercial. So when it comes to the commercial aspect, I will be a "no." Now, whether that means -- and this is why I'd like to speak to you at this moment -- if that takes this off the table for you, we're done, and this would be a denial of application. If you're still here and ready to talk, and sharpen your pencil with regard to how we maintain this as a neighborhood going forward, I still have open ears. And I hear from the community and even from the very passionate Williams Armbrister, there is an open ear. He had an ask; a 50- year covenant in black and white, enforceable. Others had some asks. So they're not saying, "no." They're saying, "It's just, in its current form, not protecting the neighborhood." So in a sense, in this very moment, the hall is in your court. But 1 really don't want to drag this out unnecessarily. It's really rough on the community. They've been going through this for a year now. If this isn't going to work for the developer, I'd rather just deny it now and move on. Mr. Wasserman: 1 can tell you, if that's the will of this Commission, we're more than happy to speak further about it. And in between first and second reading, we can meet and discuss the terms of the covenant, sharpen it up. It sounds like the community wants more input, wants more information in the covenant, and we'd be happy to meet and discuss that further. Vice Chair Russell: But the question is going to be: "Can you go deeper in terms of. the affordability that's being proffered?" Because before you came onto this case, I was dealing with Mr. Bailine. Mr. Alfonso: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: And the developer, Mr. (UNINTELLIGIBLE), was in my once, and, really, he said this was the limit of what he could offer in terms of affordability. And when it came back that the community felt that this wasn't going to work, there were literal tears in his eyes. And I know there's no sympathy from a community for a developer, but I'm telling you, I saw him at the end of his rope. And so, I need to know now. If what's been proffered is the best that we can do, it's just a "no." Mr. Wasserman: No, I think there's absolutely room for further discussion. The proffer of 14 at those income ranges works jromy client. If the will is to go to maybe a lower level, maybe less units, but somehow to make it work for the community is something they are comfortable with at those income ranges, we're happy to speak further about it. Vice Chair Russell: Meaning less units, but at more affordability. Mr. Wasserman: I think so. Vice Chair Russell: It's a sliding scale. City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Wasserman: Correct, correct. Vice Chair Russell: I don't think that's going to do it, honestly, because -- Mr. Wasserman: Well, I -- Vice Chair Russell: -- and it's not simply just about negotiating other numbers. It's about maintaining the character of this neighborhood and not displacing the -- more people from the neighborhood than necessary, and especially even from these units, which, if we agreed to this, even in a sliding scale, less units still means more people gone. Mr. Wasserman: If we can keep the tenants that are in the building, we'd be happy to do that under the rezoning, absolutely. I -- he'd be more than willing to discuss that, and keep the tenants that are in the building; not displace them. Vice Chair Russell: That means that's 14 units that -- can't go less than 14 units. Mr. Wasserman: It's 14 units, absolutely. Vice Chair Russell: All right. I'm -- Mr. Wasserman: Again, 1'd have to speak to my client on that, hut if that's the will, I'm happy to have that conversation. Vice Chair Russell: Madam City Attorney, with regard to completely denying the portion regarding commercial, would that need to bring this back in a complete new form and require denial at this point, or is this something that can continue to be discussed and negotiated? Ms. Mendez: 1 think that it could be amended, and then come backfor second. Mr. Wasserman: It would be amending, if I may say, it may be -- it would be amending the covenant to have the commercial restriction on both; that's what you're suggesting. Vice Chair Russell: Yes; amending the covenant, but removing the portion of commercial completely from the application. Mr. Wasserman: It's the T4 zoning. We'd have to restrict it. Vice Chair Russell: Right. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Wasserman: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: It would be -- the restriction from commercial would be within the covenant. Mr. Wasserman: Right. Vice Chair Russell: But not jor just the north side -- Mr. Wasserman: Understood. Vice Chair Russell: -- I mean, not just for the south side, but for the north, as well. City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Wasserman: Understood. Vice Chair Russell: And that's something your client's open to? Mr. Wasserman: I have to discuss with him. He's not here, but I understand. Mr. Garcia: If I may, Mr. Vice Chair, I think the motion that would most closely approach what you're trying to get at is on first reading, recommending an approval of the proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Department, which deny the southern component of the application; and recommending approval of the northern component, but for T4-O -- rather for T4-R, which would preclude any use that is not residential. That would get at the -- eliminating any commercial office or other uses. Vice Chair Russell: So then it wouldn't be through a covenant. We would simply be advocating for T4-R completely, across the board. Mr. Garcia: The zoning itself would preclude any office or commercial use, or any other use, except for residential, number one. Number two, if you were to accept the proffered covenant, that could be enhanced, I suppose, as submitted and reviewed; that, I think, would get us there. Vice Chair Russell: I'm not even inclined to go through on first reading at this point. I feel enough -- we're so far apart still on this that to say 'yes" today, it gives too much momentum to the idea that we're in favor of this at this time, and I'm personally not. 1 haven't heard from the rest of the board, but I've certainly heard .from the community, and I certainly recognize that -- and I'm really glad for this, because 1 thought, "Hey, I solved this thing." I'm so far from solving this thing; we've got a long way to go. But I don't want to deny it at this moment in full, if you're willing to talk to your client, work with the community, and work with my office. We haven't spoken in a very long time. I would rather defer the item, go back to the community and work with my office, and come back with something that seriously protects the neighborhood. If, in our first discussions with your client, we're not -- you know, we're not anywhere near, let's just withdraw this. Mr. Wasserman: Understood. Vice Chair Russell: Let's not go through this again. Mr. Wasserman: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: So I would move to defer this item. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Excuse me, Chair. What date would you like to move it to, sir? Vice Chair Russell: One month from now; the second meeting in June, please. Mr. Hannon: June 22. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Hannon: And the motion will be for PZ.5 and PZ.6. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Is there any unreadiness, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: And motion passes. PZ.6 ORDINANCE First Reading 1036 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-O "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", WITH A NCD-3 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3830, 3840, 3850, 3860, 3841, 3851, 3865, AND 3875 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.6 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.6, please see item PZ.5 Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing itein PZ.6, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.7 ORDINANCE First Reading 1673 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 0.179± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3750 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.7, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: Seeing that there are no further public comments on these items, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time, and I'll bring our attention to PZ.7. Francisco Garcia (Director; Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. I'll make a brief introductory presentation, and yield to the applicant. The property in question is at 3750 South Dixie Highway, approximately 200 feet to the east of the previously considered Day Avenue rezoning proposal. The present zoning designation for this property is -- the subject property to this application -- is T4-O. The request is to go to T5-O. The recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Department is for approval, as was that of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. I understand that the applicant is proffering a covenant, which I will yield to them to cover, and I'll simply introduce, additionally, and then answer any questions you may have that certainly, the context within which the site exists is that of a mixed use, high density, high intensity designation, and T4-O is to be replaced by T5-O. That strikes as an appropriate condition to result. And we also know that additional development capacity and additional density would result from this, which would also allow and enhance the development of the property as affordable housing units, which we understand is the intent. With that said, I'll yield to the applicant. And once again, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. I would also add as they are getting prepared that the site is uniquely located within a transportation -oriented district, in close proximity to a Metrorail station, which would also -- bodes well for its development as a high -density property. Thank you. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues: Good afternoon. I'm Melissa Tapanes, Bercow Radell Fernandez & Larkin, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. We're here today representing Platform 3750, LLC (Limited Liability Company), the prospective lessee of 3750 South Dixy Highway, a County -owned facility known as the Frankie Shannon Rolle Center. With me today are Lenny Wolfe, with ownership; Kobi Karp and Dianne Duran, from Kobi Karp Architecture; Joaquin Vargas, our traffic engineer; as well as my college, Gianelli Mestre. We're delighted to present to you City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 this transit -oriented, mixed use and mixed income project that will truly transform an outdated Miami -Dade County facility into a fresh pedestrian focused gateway into Historical Coconut Grove. We have earned the favorable recommendations from your City's Urban Design Review Board; the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board; as well as your professional staff This exciting project has been a part of numerous articles, as well as community meetings, but I'll take a few minutes to introduce you to the project, as well as then focus on some proposed modifications to the project that have been a result of our ongoing cone ntinity outreach efforts, as well as our ongoing lease negotiations with the property owner, Miami -Dade County. So the property -- and I've -- we have a PowerPoint for you to show you some exhibits. The property is a 2.1-acre irregularly -shaped parcel, located at Douglas Road and U.S.1, an entrance to Coconut Grove. The Frankie Rolle Center is a County office building. It has a pedestrian bridge into the Douglas Metrorail Station. This was -- this project is the result of a County -owned RFP (Request for Proposals) in which the applicant was awarded, and the applicant is currently under the cone of silence for lease negotiations under -- with Miami -Dade County. The neighborhood context is what you see before you. This is looking northwest from the southeast. And in blue, you see the massing of the proposed Douglas Station Redevelopment Project, which is the subject of another recently -awarded County RFP. The applicant is proposing to develop the property as Platform 3750, a mixed use, mixed income transit -oriented development. The proposed structure varies in height from five stories at Day. Avenue to eight stories on U.S.1. To develop the project, the applicant is seeking a land use plan amendment on the southern portion of the property from low density restricted commercial to medium density restricted commercial, and a rezoning of the southern portion of the property from T4-O to T5-O. We are not proposing any land use and zoning changes to the T6-8 portion of the property, which, as you can see, is the majority of the site. The original project that we presented to the various boards that you see before you consisted of 192 rental units, including 20 percent workforce housing, 30,000 square feet of office, and 20,000 square feet of retail space. The project's objective is to introduce new office, retail, and residential units to this Coconut Grove submarket in order to increase Metrorail ridership and help fund the Metropolitan Planning Organizations' Smart Plan. The proposed office space will house County offices, just like they're there today at the Frankie Rolle Center; as well as the developer's corporate headquarters. The proposed retail will focus on opportunities for businesses that provide services and jobs to the local residents, such as a Starbuck's and a grocer. Above all, the project is distinctive, as it'll serve as a direct connection between Coconut Grove through the pedestrian bridge into the Douglas Road Metrorail Station by activating that underutilized pedestrian bridge. Our traffic analysis shows that the project represents a reduction in overall daily vehicle trips than what is currently on the site. This is a quintessential TOD (transit -oriented development) to encourage mass transit by activating the intersection of these two major section line roads, US.1 and Douglas Road with pedestrian friendly mix of uses. As the applicant proposes over 200,000 square feet, the project went to the UDRB (Urban Design Review Board) Board on November 16. We received a unanimous recommendation for approval with -- of the land use rezoning, as well as the numerous -- or few waivers that we have. On December 21, we earned a near unanimous PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) recommendation for approval. I say "near unanimous," because the chair tasted a protest vote, because we were providing too much parking, and they wanted to see us ask for a variance. Notably, we cannot ask jbr more than a 10 percent parking reduction at the site. Although it is a TOD project, it is in proximity to the T3 zoning district, catty -corner across the section line road, so we cannot avail ourselves of that, so we did receive that one protest vote at PZAB. On January 11, we had our first large-scale community meeting. The residents were adamant that they wanted the project to include an ajjbrdable housing component, rather than just the proffered 20 percent workforce housing component. The applicant, who is an experienced affordable housing builder, with a portfolio of almost 14,000 City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 affordable housing units throughout the country, decided to revisit the development program in its ongoing lease negotiations with Miami -Dade County. We did express that to the neighbors, and the leadership of the Coconut Grove Village Council. Initially, the County's Lease Negotiation Committee was reluctant to agree to affordable housing on this site, because of the obvious need to secure its State tax credits in order to make the financial deal work, of which the County is a partner on as landowner, and as part of the original RFP requirements. The State tax credit application requires all local government approvals, including zoning and site plan approval, to be approved and in place at the time of application. We are very pleased to report -- and we reported this to the Commissioner yesterday -- that the -- mainly because of the community's outpouring of support for affordable housing, the County very recently agreed to modify the development program to include affordable housing. The applicant has now proffered a new covenant doubling its original commitment ,from 20 percent of workforce housing to 40 percent of affordable and workforce housing. Most importantly, the applicant is committed to apply to the State for financing to build 60 units as affordable housing units at less than 60 percent AMI (average median income), and this is what some of the residents spoke about earlier during their discussions that we've had those discussions with them, but very -- obviously -- last minute, because these ongoing lease negotiations with the County really impact what we're able to commit to via covenant, because the County will be executing this covenant; not the tenant, who is my client; and the developer. So this is our first opportunity to announce this change to the public. In order to do this, we need to modify the currently proposed plans that are before you between now and second reading. We submitted revised plans, and they're slightly revised. They're substantially similar in the look, feel of the architecture in place, but we did resubmit those plans this morning to the City's Planning Department, and the goal is for us to have site plan approvals between now and second reading of this application. The goal is very clearly to have our land use zoning and site plan in place so that we may avail ourselves of the November cycle for State tax credits in order to accomplish the affordable housing goal. The plans that we submitted this morning to the City provide for specifically 176 apartment units, 40 percent of affordable and workforce, of which we are committing to apply for State tax incentives for 60 units of affordable of less than 60 percent AML And the project also includes 15,000 square feet of office, which will include the Frankie Rolle Center, County offices, which is part of the original RFP that we responded to, as well as 23,000 square foot -- feet of retail. We anticipate undergoing UDRB review, and possibly back to the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board for that parking variance that they so encouraged. We plan to do this before second reading if it's necessary. This time between first and second reading will give us an opportunity to continue our community outreach efforts and present to the Coconut Grove Village Council, tidy up the covenant with some of the issues that were raised prior to as part of the public dialogue. But the goal is, as part of modifying that covenant, we need to have those communications with the property owner, so that's why it takes a little bit more time for us to modify the covenant. For example, the 40 percent workforce and affordable housing is in the covenant and agreed to. The 60 percent that we -- I'm sorry -- Vice Chair Russell: 60 units. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- the 60 units that we are proposing to apply to as part of the State tax program. That is not in the covenant, but we will be working on modifying the covenant to commit to that application process. We realize that this is hurried, but there is simply no other way to bring ajjbrdability to Coconut Grove than have a true public/private community -based partnership, such as the one proposed here, where we have County -owned land; an experienced affordable housing developer, willing to take on the States' application process; as well as the City of Miami and this City Commission, to allow us to have the entitlements necessary to bring City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 affordability to the Village West. To summarize, we are here requesting a land use amendment of the southern portion of the property. It is a small portion of the overall site. We are requesting, as well as a rezoning from T4-O to T5-O, to allow for -- to go from three stories to five stories within the same parcel that is the Frankie Rolle Center, so nothing changes. Today, the Frankie Rolle Center has zero residential, so no residents will be displaced as part of this project. In the alternative, what we're doing is bringing a diverse housing type to the Village West, so this is unique in that sense. It's important to note that we are not coaxing out the density on this site or the FLR (floor/lot ratio). Our proposed plans that were submitted this morning to the City have 176 units where 258 units are allowed. And the additional height is necessary to develop the property as one cohesive project to transition from the U.S.1 Corridor to the residential portion of the Village West. This proposal is not only consistent with the Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan, but it actually implements the goals, objectives, and policies related to encouraging affordability; TODs and mixed uses within a walkable area, in close proximity to mass transit. In addition, the approval of this project will help implement current countywide initiatives, for enhanced utilization of public transit, such as the Metrorail, to encourage and implement the MPO's (Metropolitan Planning Organization) Smart Plan. By doubling the commitment to affordable housing, the applicant is helping to address the affordability issue in the Village West and throughout the City of Miami. We are hopeful that approval of this application at first reading today will allow us the gift of time to move forward and be able to accomplish land use zoning site plan approval, before the November State tax credit cycle, and we are committed to continuing our community outreach efforts and working with the Commissioner on this project. We're available for any questions that you may have, and we thank you for your time. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. I would like to clarify the covenant -- the new covenant. No less than 40 percent of the total number of units developed on the property shall be dedicated to affordable and workforce housing. So that's in the currently proffered covenant, in writing. What would that equate to in terms of number of units at this point? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: 60 units. Vice Chair Russell: Six -- 40 percent is 60? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: So when you go further to say 60 units will be 60 percent or less ofAMI? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: It's -- 40 percent is greater -- is a little bit greater than the 176, but 60 units is what we are committing to apply for; affordable at less than 60 percent ofAMI, and that's to make the deal work -- Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- basically. Vice Chair Russell: Now, so really -- Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: To include some workforce. Vice Chair Russell: -- as it goes forward, then, none would be workforce; everything would be 60 percent or under? City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: There will be -- there is -- the goal is that, but it's because it's a State program, there may be some workforce, as well. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So I need to understand, then, because you've used the word a few times, "would apply for" -- Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: -- "the tax credit." If we offer this change in zoning and the covenant is signed, regardless of whether or not they're successful with the tax credits, they'll still be held to the numbers in the covenant, correct? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: That's correct. And there's also the proffer of the site plan that we are proposing. So it's the development that we're proposing, as well as the number of units. Vice Chair Russell: So, in a sense, they're putting themselves at a bit of risk here. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: A lot of risk, yes. Vice Chair Russell: If they get this and they don't get the tax credits, they're still bound -- I mean, the financial numbers must not work at that point. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: What happens then? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: There's no project. Vice Chair Russell: We're all in this together; then, to get those tax credits. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: This is what I ineant as to a true public/private community - based partnership; the County is doing its role with the land, the developer is taking the risk, and the community must be patient and supportive, as they have been, affordable housing. And we would anticipate working together through the Countv process, and the State process, to ensure that not only do we get the application in; that we get the 100 percent which we anticipate earning as part of the application, but also, that we have a little bit of luck. And the more people that are pulling in our direction, the more luck will come. Vice Chair Russell: What would 60 percent AMI equate to, in terms of a dollar value per unit, in rental? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: 60 percent is about -- so 60 percent is -- for a one -bedroom, it's about $800 a month; and for a two -bedroom, it is about $900 a month. Is it? Commissioner Carollo: Once again, back to my -- what I stated before. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: So it's about 750 jroa one -bedroom, and that includes a utility, allowance. Sorry; I was doing laliyer math. Vice Chair Russell: So at -- and that's -- at most, it'd be at that 60 percent. There -- is there the opportunity for any ELI (extremely low-income) housing, as well? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Yes. The commitment is at or below 60 percent. City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: At or below. That means, though, the commitment is only restricted to that 60 percent. They could all be at that 60 percent. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Correct. Leon Wolfe: If I may? Leon Wolfe, 2601 South Bayshore Drive. I'm with Cornerstone Group. And right now, the State application also requires 5 percent at ELI, so we'll also commit to that. Vice Chair Russell: Of the -- Mr. Wolfe: Of the 60 units. Vice Chair Russell: -- 60 units? Mr. Wolfe: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: 5 percent. I certainly have to thank you, because you have listened to the community. This application is a different animal. from when I first met you over a year ago, and it is significantly more affordable than it was. I'll be happy to move this on first reading, and look. for further discussions between -- and do we need to proffer the amend -- to amend it, as is? I mean, to amend it to reflect the 60 unit, or will that be something we work out between. first and second reading? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Between first and second. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Commissioner, if 1 may? We're working on that 60 units -- 60 percent or less of AML That's something that we need to continue with our negotiations at the County, so that is why we need a little bit more time. We've gotten the County to commit to the 40 percent affordable and workforce, which is in the draft covenant, and we're committing to do that application process, and we're working on modifying the covenant between -- as well as the plans --first and second reading to -- for that commitment to be in writing, being able to be signed by the County. Vice Chair Russell: Sure. I'd like to see the ELI portion spelled out, as well, and I'd like to see -- be more aggressive, if possible. That's what this community needs. We are speaking to the needs, but maybe we're not going deep enough in the sense of making a difference. This is the biggest project to come to the area in a very long time, and it has the ability to make a big impact in terms of an opportunity. And the change in zoning is going to give considerable value to the project, where I'm glad that they're willing to look into this element of affordability. I just -- I'd like to see it spelled out very clearly, what level of ELI there is, and do as good as we can. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: We'll continue to work with the owner, and you can do so, too. Commissioner Carollo: Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Question: Is that a billboard that I'm seeing? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Yes. Unfortunately, there's a gas station at that -- a very strange, very small triangular parcel that is -- let's see -- if you can -- actually, you - City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 - in the aerial that's before you, it's a very tiny parcel that is at that corner, in fact, and it's a gas station, and there is a billboard that exists there today. Commissioner Carollo: So it's an existing billboard? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Now -- Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: We're very -- we have had discussions with the owner. We'll continue to have discussions as this project moves. forward. Chair Hardemon: I heard the motion. I didn't hear a second. Commissioner Gort: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve item PZ.7. Is there any. further comment on PZ.7? Ms. Mendez: Chairman. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.8 ORDINANCE First Reading 1674 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3750 SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FROM "T4-O", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN", TO "T5-O", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.8, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s). " Chair Hardemon: PZ.8. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues: Thank you. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Suarez: Ken, you're going to move it? Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. Move it. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 1314 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF .158± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 28 NORTHWEST 30 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "GENERAL COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort ABSENT: Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.9 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Chair Hardemon: PZ.9. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.9 and PZ.10 are companion items. The subject of item PZ.9 is 28 Northwest 30th Street. The subject of PZ.10 is 26 -- or I should say 26 Northwest 30th Street and 28 Northwest 30th Street. These two parcels are before you on first reading; first for a land use change proposal from medium density multi family residential to general commercial; and the zoning change proposal, which actually encompasses both properties, is from T5-O, the existing zoning designation, to T6-8-O. The Department's recommendation is for denial, and the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board recommended approval of the land use and a denial of the zoning change, by a vote of 5-3. We find that the context of the site is that it fronts residential properties to the north, and as such, we are cautious against the potential adverse impact this development might have at -- as its highest and best use. We understand that the applicant has the intent to proffer a covenant, and we'll stand by to answer any questions you may have. Chair Hardemon: I know Mr. Wernick can hear me. Mr. Wernick -- there you are. It's not going to help you, Mr. Wernick. Go ahead. Wendy Francois: Good evening. My name is Wendy Francois. I'm with Akerman. Our offices are at 98 Southeast 7th Street, in Miami. And I'm here with my colleagues, Nicolas Barshel and Steven Wernick, on behalf of 2944 NMA Gateway Properties, LLC (Limited Liability Company), the property owner. This item has been presented to you before, so we won 't regurgitate a full presentation, but I did want to touch on a new aspect of the application that has not been presented, and it's in connection with the covenant that was originally proffered. Now we're adding to the covenant a provision for a dedicated community space; and, as you know; including it in the covenant, will make it a commitment that runs with the land. City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Being that this property is at the gateway of Wynwood -- and actually, part of the property, is in the NRD (Neighborhood Revitalization District) -- the idea is to have an arts -focused organization use the dedicated space. So in addition to the jobs that the project will bring to the area, the neighborhood will have a direct connection to the arts scene that has been popularized in Wynwood, and this arts focus will specifically celebrate local artists of color. So we have support from the neighbors. And we've discussed this addition to the covenant with the BID (Business Improvement District), and they're fully supportive of this addition, as well as the other restrictions that are in the covenant. We have copies -- we have extra copies of the covenant that we can distribute for your review. It has been reviewed by Planning and by Legal. And you'll see the additional language regarding the community space in Section 2(C). And further, I would like to introduce the director of our partner organization, Mikel (phonetic) Solomon, of Prism, just to tell you briefly about the organization. Chair Hardemon: About Prism? Ms. Francois: Yes. Chair Hardemon: I'm aware of Prism. I know -- before you move further. The -- so this application hasn 't changed since the last time I saw it. And the last time we all saw it, and we voted on it, we voted it down, right? So we're revisiting this. And so, 1 was hoping that it would come back with something a little different. 1 understand now you're saving, "We want a community space." Wynwood is full of community space. 1 mean, that's what they pride themselves upon, having some community space. But it's also full of parking woes: it's also .full of noise, troubles, especially for people who are in the neighborhoods. Many of the homes that are within the Wynwood area that we know and love are -- especially the public housing you -- haven't been moved that's there, because some of the pri -- most of the private housing has been bought up, and either made commercial or it's vacant, and they're planning some sort of redevelopment that has yet to occur. And so, you know, this space that we're describing here on this street is more of the traditional Wynwood neighborhood, and that's kind of what I've been most concerned about. And so, I haven 't seen anything that truly demonstrated that this type of change will be beneficial to those who are in the neighborhood. And then, having the community space, I don't know if that kind of triggers it. I would have expected, maybe, you to have representatives of the people who live on that block, maybe here. I know -- I understand it could be difficult, but certainly, I believe that it's something that could be necessary. Ms. Francois: We do have letters of support from the neighbors in the record. Chair Hardemon: Letters of support sometimes can be a little -- people who sign letters of support -- and we've seen it come before this Commission -- they felt -- I've seen them feel misguided, then they misunderstood, they didn't understand, like -- so sometimes, things like that occur. I'm not saying that that happened here. I'm saying that it does occur. And then people come back and wondering when this new T6-8-O-type structure comes into the neighborhood, how did this happen? Well, it happened because there was an ord -- something that you signed that said that you're okay with it. And so, that's part of what my trouble is with this. Additionally, when I look at the -- for instance, on PZ.9, I mean, you have a PZ.9 where you have a recommendation of denial from the Planning & Zoning Department, and a recommendation of approval on -- from the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), but at a -- at 5-3, you know, so that's not even a full board. So it's no telling, if there was a full board, what it could have come to be. And I think on PZ.10, it's a recommendation of denial from the PZAB, and a recommendation of denial from the Planning Department. So, I mean, the path that you've traveled to City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 get here is one that is marred with blood and gore, you know. It has not been a pretty process for you to get here, and I've already voted against it. And so, you know, I'm kind of at the point where the best that I could do is to go along with what has already been recommended to me by my Zoning & Appeals Department and my - - and PZAB. That's the best that I can do. Ms. Francois: The PZAB approvals were before we had a chance to meet with the BID and discuss their issues. They -- we have not met with them before PZAB. And given that the property is split and part of the property is in the BID, we did -- all the portions of the property that we -- are the subjects of the applications, they're not in the BID, but we did -- after PZAB, we did meet with the BID, and we came -- we included their concerns into the covenant. And so, that's why, by the time we came to City Commission, there was a covenant, and the BID was on board, so. Chair Hardemon: And I completely understand. The BID has been a powerful force within the area, but the BID is not what I'm most concerned with. Those are big boys. They put on big -boy pants, and they represent themselves and their community very well of businesses. It's the residents that -- you know, those are the ones that, "Hey, I got to be to soccer practice. I have to go and work my second job. I don't have a paid lawyer on my staff. I'm just trying to make it by. My taxes are going up. I can't depend on anyone; that's why I elected you, Commissioner Hardemon." Ms. Francois: Right. Chair Hardemon: `1 want you to help me through this." Ms. Francois: Well, in this particular neighborhood, the parcels that are under consideration, they're actually already commercial. And in fact, the uses that are there are more industrial in nature. It's a vestige of the old Wynwood, you know, vessel, mechanic repairs, so it's already commercial. We're not here seeking to convert into commercial; it's already commercial, and it's actually a use that is not really compatible with the neighborhood, given that it's more like industrial in nature. And so, all we're -- what would be gained from these applications is the opportunity to have more flexibility with how this space is used, and it will not -- your approval today will not be used to maximize height or to bring a new use that is not already there. We're just -- with your approval, we will have the flexibility to be able to provide something like a dedicated community space. Chair Hardemon: So, let me ask you a question. Can you not provide a dedicated community space with a T5-O -- under T5-O, urban transectzone? Steven Wernick: To your question, I think what you were getting at before was the neighbors, the immediate neighbors in this area that do live -- you know, the residents that are there, not -- we don 't have any of them here today; we have letters of support, but it's been a while. The most immediate neighbor is Marguerite Penn. She's one of the persons who gave us a letter. Her English is not that good. She was not really comfortable coming to speak. But I think maybe what might be best is for us to reach back out to some of the folks in the community, because it has been some time since we were here. So, in addition to working on the community arts space, I think we can reach back out to folks in the community, make sure they're aware of where the application stands, see if there are some people who might be available at the next hearing to come and speak. We've never heard any objection, but then again, none of them have been here to speak at Commission or have probably not reached out to your office to convey anything. So there has been, on our end, a path that, as you said, is a little bit -- it's not so pretty, in the sense that we've had a lot of back and forth and mixed reactions on different things. We've worked with a lot of different stakeholders, but the residents on the street, and some of them are City of Miami Page 134 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 owner/occupiers, some of them are commercial owners, with -- the Rubells, who recently sold their property. But we could certainly do some additional outreach to make sure people are informed, and that there are no, you know, concerns at this point, if that's something that you think would be helpful. Chair Hardemon: I think that would be a good idea. The -- I need my Vice Chairman's help with this. This is a Japanese art, and it's spelled K-I-N-T-S-U-G-I. How would I pronounce that? Vice Chair Russell: K-I-N-T -- Chair Hardemon: KIN -T-S-U-G-I. Vice Chair Russell: Kintsugi. Chair Hardemon: Kintsugi. Vice Chair Russell: Kintsugi. Chair Hardemon: So Kintsugi is also known as Kintsukuroi. So K-I-N-T-S-U-K-U- R-O-I. K-U-R-O-I. Vice Chair Russell: Kuroi. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So Kintsugi or Kintsu -- Vice Chair Russell: Kuroi. Chair Hardemon: -- that one -- is the Japanese art of repairing broken pottery with lacquer, dusted, or mixed or powdered with gold dust or residue. It's actually very beautiful. So, it's -- when something is broken, they take it -- they take those objects, and they repair those broken objects with this gold. And what it does, in fact, is that it creates objects that are actually much more beautiful broken than they were when they were never broken in the first place. So, I say that to you, is to have some faith. You know, you 've been broken, but if you can get this together, maybe you can move forward in a very positive way, but certainly, someone has to see the value in you in order for you to get here. So I'm not going to let this thing go by today, but I urge you to do the work that's necessary. And what I'll do is I'll continue it till the next meeting -- next like meeting -- and we'll go from there, so do the work. If you need more time, you know, you can request more time, but I want it to be right. Understood? Thank you very much. So with that, I'll take a motion to continue this item to the next like meeting. Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved, and I'll second it as the Chairman. And that will be jbr items PZ.9 and PZ.10. Hearing no unreadiness about it, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Thank you very much. City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading 1315 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 26 NORTHWEST 30 STREET AND 28 NORTHWEST 30 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "T5-O", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN, TO "T6-8-O", URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort ABSENT: Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.10 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.10, please see item PZ.9. PZ.11 ORDINANCE First Reading 1675 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1.05± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 2124, 2126, AND 2130-2132 SOUTHWEST 7 STREET AND 2109 SOUTHWEST 8 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.11 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.11, please see "Order of the Day." City of Miami Page 136 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.11, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " PZ.12 ORDINANCE First Reading 1676 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T4-L", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE -LIMITED, TO "T5-O", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2124, 2126 AND 2130-2132 SOUTHWEST 7 STREET AND 2109 SOUTHWEST 8 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.12 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.12, please see "Order of the Day." Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.12, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.13 ORDINANCE First Reading 2038 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 565 NORTHEAST 71 STREET AND THE WESTERN PORTION OF 7000 AND 7120 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM "T4-L", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE —LIMITED, TO "T4-O", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE —OPEN, AND CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 7010, 7020, 7030, 7100 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND THE EASTERN PORTION OF 7000 AND 7120 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FROM "T5-O", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN, TO "T6-8-O", URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE —OPEN, MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading with Modification(s) RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Russell Chair Hardemon: PZ.13 Francisco Garcia (Director; Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. For item PZ.13, I've been asked to read a special note by the City Clerk, which is brief. It says that, "Due to technical difficulties, the application's supporting documents, Ordinance 13459 and Ordinance 13482, were unable to be uploaded, and the backup documents were not placed in the electronic file for this meeting." These documents are in your packages, so you had received them, so they're a part of the official record. But at this time, it is requested that they officially be submitted to the City Clerk's Office so that the records may be complete. The Office of Hearing Boards does have copy of these items, as well, and they will also be distributed at the May -- oh, and that is today -- the May 25, 2017 meeting for official inclusion into the record. Does that comply with your request? Thank you. And then I'll introduce it very briefly, and yield to the applicant right away. Item PZ.15 -- sorry -- 13 is before you on first reading, and it is the proposed rezoning for a parcel at 7000 Biscayne Boulevard. It includes properties at 565 Northeast 71st Street and 7000, 7010, 7020, 7030, and 7100 Biscayne Boulevard, and those will be rezoned from T4- L to T4-O as a result of this application; T5-O to T6-8-O in the portion -- I'm sorry - - in the portion nearest to Biscayne Boulevard. The Planning & Zoning Department has recommended denial for this application, and the Planning Zoning -- Gilberto Pastoriza: No, no, that's not correct. Mr. Garcia: I apologize. Mr. Pastoriza: Planning & Zoning -- Oh, I'm. sorry. Mr. Garcia: I'll finish talking, Mr. Pastoriza. City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Mr. Garcia: The Planning & Zoning Department recommended denial of this application; the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board recommended approval in part and denial in part. The "A" recommended approval for the T4-L to T4-O change, and not approval for the T5-O to T6-8-O change. Happy to stand by for any questions. I'll yield to the applicants. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, listen. This -- I'm going to make this application very simple, very quick, very easy. If you see before you -- and this is what I explained to the Planning & Zoning Board in the way that they then passed judgment on this application. You see the T6-8-O pink all along Biscayne Boulevard, correct? Chair Hardemon: In the proposed design? Mr. Pastoriza: In the proposed design. We do not want that. We do not want to rezone that. We want to keep that T5 -- Chair Hardemon: "O"? Mr. Pastoriza: -- "0," okay. The reason why we had to bring that in was because the Planning & Zoning Department would not submit this application at a cost of $50, 000, unless we brought all of that land here. We have no interest, zero interest in rezoning those properties along Biscayne Boulevard, okay? So what we are interested in and the purpose of -- Chair Hardemon: 1 don't want to -- Hey, I'm listening. I'm listening very attentively, because 1 don't -- Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. And then the only thing that we wanted out of this -- these are all MiMo (Miami Modern) District properties -- is the back portions that were T4-L to be T4-0, and the reason for that is that we want in -- the properties are in the MiMo, we want to take advantage of the opportunities within the MiMo of TDR (Transfer Development Rights). That's it. This is a simple application that was converted into a very difficult application because of the requirements of the Planning & Zoning Department. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, does that have to do with the amount of frontage needed to apply for a zoning change? Mr. Garcia: Yes. If may very briefly. The requirements are those of the Zoning Ordinance -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Garcia: -- and not necessarily of the Planning & Zoning Department, and they do specify that, "A," the subject property must be composed of contiguous properties, and also that they meet two criteria: that they be 40,000 square feet -- Commissioner Suarez: 200 feet, right? Mr. Garcia: -- and have a linear frontage of 200 feet; that is correct, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Pastoriza: But you -- but what is really unique about this -- and I don't want to get into that kind of argument -- is that two years ago, we brought those properties at the rear just by themselves, without having to add the additional property. But notwithstanding all of that, all that we're really seeking today is the rezoning from T4-L to T4-O on those rear properties. And by the way, the covenants specifies that we can only use it for parking for the properties on Biscayne Boulevard. Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask you this question. Maybe we should have at some other point of the broader conversation about whether that's a public policy that makes sense, the 200-foot requirement of frontage. I don't know; something to think about. Because I know that -- I know we've had this situation before, where you have to essentially up -zone two parcels to down -zone one, or to change the zoning of the back one, or whatever, when you really just want to change the back one, and it kind of makes things -- it confuses people. It certainly confuses the public, I would think. I don't know; something to think about. I don't know if there's a way -- a better way to do it. Chair Hardemon: So the T4-L properties that you have -- all the T4-L properties that you -- those three parcels on what you want to change from T4-L to T4-O, okay, and what benefit is that to you? How does that --? Mr. Pastoriza: The reason is that those properties are going to be part of MiMo -- the MiMo District. Okay? And if you are in the MiMo District, in order for you to take advantage of the TDRs, be able to sell those development rights somewhere else, you need to have a T4-O designation. Okay? Chair Hardemon: So then, for instance, PZ.13, that is the -- that's what actually changed it from T4-O to T5-O. I'm sorry. No, no. Mr. Pastoriza: No, T4-L to T4-O, in the rear portion. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Pm sorry. You're correct. That changed the properties from T4-L to T4-O. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. And then the front stays the same. Chair Hardemon: And then -- but the -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Yeah. Chair Hardemon: And so that's -- if -- my question is to the staff The Planning and Zoning & Appeals Board recommended approved in part and denial in part. And so, their approval in part was the approval of the back portion and denial of the front portion; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: That is correct. Chair Hardemon: And it -- what's your opinion on that part? Because I know you have a recommended denial, so -- Mr. Garcia: Right. We are of the opinion that the objectives that are sought by the applicant can be fulfilled with the present zoning designation; we see no obstacle to it. And given the fact that they are abutting residential properties, the extra step which would be required, which is the warrant, would be, we think, an appropriate vehicle through which to do it, so as to safeguard any potential adverse impacts. City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Pastoriza: With all due respect, sir, we have a covenant on those properties that restricts those properties to parking only. Okay? So to that extent, I don't think that the upgrading to T4-O creates any difference in that property. The sole purpose of creating the T4-O is to make sure that since we are in the MiMo District, we can take advantage of the TDRs that are entitled under the MiMo District properties. Chair Hardemon: So is it that -- is what he stated correct, in that the TDRs only apply with T4-O and greater? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Unidentified Speaker: Yes. I believe so. Commissioner Suarez: I think it's true. Chair Hardemon: You think it true? Commissioner Suarez: I think it's true. Chair Hardemon: I think that's true, what I said. Mr. Garcia: So two responses. The first one is that we cannot take the proffer of a covenant into consideration as part of our analysis, so our analysis is based on the original application, covenants notwithstanding. It is .for you to consider the covenant, if you deem it satisfies your concerns. And with -- Chair Hardemon: But the covenant, he's adding for this first item that we're considering, PZ (Planning & Zoning) -- oh, it's one item. I'm sorry. PZ.13. Mr. Garcia: Correct. Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Mr. Garcia: And so the expanded version of my comment is T4-O opens the property up for a number of uses that we would have concerns about. However, if the covenant restricts that only for parking, so long as that parking is properly buffered, then some of those concerns would go away, subject to the covenant -- Chair Hardemon: Do you have a copy of that covenant? Mr. Garcia: Right. We do on the record, and I hope you have it in your package, as well. Chair Hardemon: Well, I believe -- Mr. Garcia: Right. But that is what the covenant basically does; it limits the use for parking, and as proffered, it can be accepted, I suppose. And the second part of your question is answered in the affirmative. Rezoning the property to T4-O would avail themselves -- avail the applicant of the possibility of applying for TDRs. Chair Hardemon: So we grant this, you get money. Mr. Pastoriza: I'm sorry? Chair Hardemon: If we grant this, you get money. City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Pastoriza: Well, we got to make up for the 50 grand application fee. Chair Hardemon: Let me see a copy of the covenant, just to be very clear, and I want to ensure that the covenant is included on the record and a part of this application. Mr. Pastoriza: I think we delivered that. We delivered it to the staff. Chair Hardemon: Okay. I just want to make sure that there is no -- Mr. Pastoriza: And actually -- Chair Hardemon: -- I want for my staff, City Attorneys Office -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- what we did, we amended the covenant -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: -- because the covenant was already in place. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay? Chair Hardemon: So 1 just want to ensure that there is no -- that what he stated on the record, that there's a covenant that restricts it to parking only, that is in place, because that would limit the -- Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- impact on the residential area. Mr. Pastoriza: This is first reading. I don't -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: -- have a copy with me. Right now, I don't have it with me, but -- Chair Hardemon: I don't hear any objection from anyone from staff. Mr. Pastoriza: -- I have already filed it with the City, and it should be -- Commissioner Suarez: This is the first reading? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Yeah, so -- Unidentified Speaker: Well, you know -- Chair Hardemon: No, no. I'm -- just make sure you have it fbr second reading. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Chair Hardemon: I haven't heard any objection from staff and there was another -- Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: I was wondering why I hadn't heard any objection from anyone from the neighborhood about this T6-8-O. I just thought it was a little odd, you know. Mr. Pastoriza: Well, I think everybody kind of -- when they saw this, they said, "Oh Illy God; everybody's rezoning Biscayne Boulevard." Chair Hardemon: Right, right. Mr. Pastoriza: And really, we're not. Commissioner Suarez: They freaked out. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chair Hardemon: So you have something you want to say? Commissioner Carollo: I have -- what's the current rate on TDRs? Mr. Pastoriza: The market rate, I really don't know. I really don't know. Commissioner Suarez: It'.s -- we have a fluctuating -- Commissioner Carollo: No, 1 understand that, so I'm asking, what's the rate now? Commissioner Suarez: He wants (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yeah. Mr. Pastoriza: 1 really -- I'll find out for second reading. It depends, really. It really depends. Commissioner Suarez: We already have the registration. Unidentified Speaker: $6. Commissioner Suarez: There you go, for that area. Unidentified Speaker: Plus or minus (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. By the way, now you have to register it, and you have to disclose it, so. Chair Hardemon: All right. So the Chair would like to entertain a motion to approve item PZ -- Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: -- approve -- I'm sorry -- a recommended approval in part and denial in part as the Planning and Zoning & Appeals Board -- Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Chair Hardemon: -- recommended. It's been properly moved, and seconded by Commissioner Gort. Mr. Garcia: And if I may, Mr. Chair? Is there an acceptance of the proffered restriction? City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: That is correct. That includes the restriction, the proffer, and the covenant. However, I do want that covenant to be a supermajority covenant of this Commission, not a majority. Mr. Pastoriza: I will say, four members? Chair Hardemon: That's four out offive. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Chair Hardemon: That's correct. Mr. Pastoriza: I'll have to revise it, because it was only a majority. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much. You want -- you -- what's going on? You want to make something -- you want to make a statement? Elvis Cruz: May I speak, sir? Chair Hardemon: Sure. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, the Planning Department was very correct to recommend denial of this, for a very simple reason: It's a spot zoning. Their express purpose. for requesting this change in zoning is for TDRs. They're trying to kill a fly with a sledge hammer. 1f the City wants to allow TDRs in T4-L, simply change the Code. You don't need to start changing zoning. There could be a lot of unintended consequences with changing zoning. You're changing setbacks. You're changing lot coverages. You're changing proximities to other lots, which then can say, "Oh, look, we're already adjacent to this zone; therefore, we can extend by 7128." Also, the protections in 7128, which Commissioner Suarez mentioned, are some of the very few protections for neighborhoods from aggressive up -zonings into neighborhoods, so I'd urge you to not diminish them. If anything, they should be made stronger. And once again, returning to a theme of earlier today, here is a rezoning by covenant. Contract zoning is illegal. Just because it is proffered is essentially a distinction without a difference, so I would urge you to deny this change in zoning. And if the City wishes to allow TDRs for T4-L, do it that way. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I don't have any issue with that. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): I would like to clarify it. This is not contract zoning. Thank you. Nor spot zoning. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Before -- so these -- this current property is T4-L? It's not T3-L, like right -- what's right next to it, right? Commissioner Suarez: T3-R. Chair Hardemon: So T4-L, T4-O, I mean, they're very -- Mr. Garcia: Correct. Same transect zone; different setting, yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Right. Okay. If it were, in fact, that those properties were T3-L and we were changing it from T -- to T4-L, would you consider that to be spot zoning? City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: No, sir. Chair Hardemon: No. Not even T3-L to T4-L? Mr. Garcia: No, sir. The application, as presented, complies fully with the regulations set forth by Miami 21, and as such, it is a valid application. We've defended that in court previously and have prevailed. Chair Hardemon: Sir, you're recognized. Peter Ehrlich: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Peter Ehrlich, 720 Northeast 69th Street, and I'm here speaking in favor of the recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Department, the recommendation for denial. As you can see, there's a lot of people that are trying to put massive development and overdevelopment and up -zoning in the Upper Eastside, and we support the recommendation from the Planning Department for denial. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, ma'am. Debby Stander: Hy name is Debby Stander. I live at 830 Northeast 74th Street. The MiMo Biscayne Association submitted a letter to the PZAB opposing this up - zoning, and we're very concerned, because there seems to be a perception that the TDR incentive system is kind of like free money, but it's not really quite free money. The TDR incentive system, money from TDRs is actually supposed to be re-employed into renovations and maintenance, and preservation of historic resources. So, you know, to me, this seems like a terrible precedent. You're actually changing zoning so that people will be able to, you know, apply for and get this free money, and it's not money that's going to go back to any kind of maintenance or renovations. It's -- you know, you're changing zoning, and it seems like an abuse of the TDR system -- incentive system. And I would say, "No," because it could set a very bad precedent. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you for your comment. Is it, in fact, a requirement that the money, go directly back into the adjacent --? Not to you. Ms. Stander: You're supposed to use -- Chair Hardemon: Not to you. Not to you. Ms. Stander: Oh, I see. Chair Hardemon: No problem. That is -- that it goes back into the property? I know that that is how it is used, but is that an actual requirement? And if it is a requirement, is that being fulfilled in this instance? Mr. Garcia: It is certainly a requirement. Not all of it, but part of the revenues or the proceeds garnered from the transfer of development rights must be reinvested in the property for maintenance and upkeep, and that actually is part old covenant that we require from the applicants prior to the approval of the transfer of development rights. Chair Hardemon: Got it. Understood. Sir. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I mean, I'm going to -- you know, do whatever you guys want, but I think there's two things here. One is, in the future -- not for this application, but certainly, the concept of affording TDRs for a T4-L makes sense. I City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 mean, I don't think we need to rezone. And I think if it would have been available, we wouldn't be here, right? Unidentified Speaker: We would love that. Commissioner Suarez: So that's -- Commissioner Gort: Move to amend it. Commissioner Suarez: -- the first issue. The second issue is, I thought the TDR process was not just to reinvest the money that is generated from maintaining -- you know, for the differential between when something is zoned and when something is set -- made historic. I thought it was, in part, to sort of compensate and offset the potential loss, if you will -- Chair Hardemon: Loss. Commissioner Suarez: -- that someone might come in and say, "It's a Bert J. Harris claim," or "You took my property by designating it historic." So, you know, if the zoning is actually far higher -- like, for example, St. Jude, which is on a property that's T6 -- I don't even know what -- 12 or something -- then there's a -- there's some form of compensation back to the owner for having been essentially handcuffed into maintaining the property historic against the owner's wish. And so, is that --? I mean, is that also not the objective of the TDR program? Mr. Garcia: It certainly is, and it's furthered. That very objective you're describing is furthered by the fact that whenever a TDR takes place from any property within the MiMo District, for instance, only the amount beyond that which they could have been built is transferable. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Mr. Garcia: Therefore, in this particular case, it would have comparatively little development capacity to transfer since they must leave some on site for future development, as appropriate. So really, it's one story worth of TDRs that they would have as a result of this change. Chair Hardemon: That makes sense then. Commissioner Suarez: Not a lot. Chair Hardemon: That makes sense then, too -- Commissioner Suarez: Not a lot. Chair Hardemon: -- because then it wouldn't just be a cash out, because then -- Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Chair Hardemon: -- just the existing property owner will be able to benefit from it and that will be it. You know, you would sell the TDR. If he doesn't invest it back, then the next owner can't sell the TDRs, and it's still in the same condition. Commissioner Suarez: And I think it would be a cash -generation mechanism if we were to allow the T-6-8 on the front end for sure, because you're -- then you're just doing a eight -story zoning on a property you know you can't do more than 35 feet, so you're just creating cash -- City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- in that scenario, for sure. Dean Lewis: Honorable Chair, if I may, I'd like to add a critical piece of information about this application, because I was involved in the TDR application, as well as the certificate of appropriateness that was voted on by the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board. May I very quickly? Commissioner Suarez: Your name and your address. Chair Hardemon: You may, if you announce yourself for the record. Mr. Lewis: Okay. Dean Lewis, DB Lewis Architects, Biscayne Boulevard. We're directly involved with over a dozen projects in MiMo, and all -- the majority of which are involved with TDRs in one, form, as well as certificates of appropriateness and the HEP Board approvals thereof. In this case, the applicant/owner, Mr. Leoni, did come .forward, and I represented him for an architectural restoration of his property, and the HEP Board voted in favor, and fully put on the record the compliance thereof would grant him access to the TDRs, and they are aware of the rezoning. What happened, there was a scrivener's error in the application. In the rezoning process, the application went from T3 to T4-L instead of T4-O, and unfortunately, there's a restriction that TDR -- access to TDR mechanism does not start until T4-O, and that's it. But 1 just want you to know that the entitlements of the TDRs are directly tied to a list -- specific list of restorations to the property that are part of his certificate of appropriateness, and he needs to fulfill those completely before he would be granted a certificate of transfer, and that's on the record, on file. And since his representative, his legal didn't mention that, 1 felt compelled to bring it to your attention. So 1 remain available for any questions. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, sir. Well -- Todd Leoni: Hi, Your Honor. My name is Todd Leoni. I'rn the owner of the property. I, you know, ditto everything that Dean Lewis said, and of course, my attorney. I've been at this for four years. The only way I could get the TDRs is to have -- I would love to have T4-L, and then I wouldn't have to go through this process, but in order to do this, this is what we've had to do, and I've had to spend more money in order to rezone the front property, which I knew would never pass, and you know, that's why we're here. I'm not -- Commissioner Suarez: Square peg, round hole. Mr. Leoni: I'm sorry? Commissioner Suarez: It's a square peg, round hole. Mr. Leoni: Right. And so I'm just here to, you knoii get what -- you know, I've lost a lot of development rights because of the height restriction, and I'm not looking to do anything like that. Okay? So -- Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Leoni: -- that's it. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Leoni: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Henry Patel: Henry Patel, 7150 Biscayne. I'm neither here to support or oppose this particular, but I wanted to throw some light when it came to TDR, or the lady made a comment. I'm one of the so-called, quote, unquote, victim of the down - zoning of CI to T3 and -- with the MiMo. I disagree with the whole notion of saying, the people who sell the TDR should be investing in the property or upkeeping the property. What do you do if a property like me, where I have no violation, my property's up-to-date, I'm a noncontributing, and I sell a TDR? Does that mean that I have to come to City to tell what I have to do? Because the originally TDR were -- came into picture because we lost from 10 story up to 110 feet to 35 feet, so that was something we just offered during that time when Commissioner Sarnoff was our Commissioner, and we had an issue, but Bert J. Harris, as Commissioner, brought it up. So TDR of reinvesting in property or maintaining the property is completely a .false notion. That was offered for us to sell our development rights, because we lost the development rights. Just like what Todd Leoni say, we had -- we were CI zoning at that time, and now we are merely 35 feet. So that's -- just wanted to throw my partic -- two cents into -- about this TDR notion. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. All right. There is a motion on the floor. It's been properly moved and seconded. We have a quorum. Commissioner Francis Suarez is over there. Commissioner Suarez: I'm right here, Bro. Chair Hardemon: So all in favor of the item -- Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair -- Chair Hardemon: -- say "aye." Mr. Hannon: -- ordinance. Chair Hardemon: You didn't read it into the record? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Mendez: As amended. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: No problem. City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.14 RESOLUTION 1915 Department of Planning and Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE A PORTION OF A PUBLIC ALLEY, LOCATED AT 348 NORTHEAST 20 TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 55-15(C) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.14 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.14, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: At this time, I'd like to open up the public comment period for the rest of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, so if you're here to speak on the items that we have left, which are PZ.7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21, I'd like for you to take one of the lecterns, so you'll have an opportunity, to have a public comment on those, period. I'm not calling for the people who are actual applicants or are responding to any of the items, but for purely public comment on those items. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: So when you -- yes. Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to maybe make a little more space by deferring two more items that are still on the agenda, since I took so much time with this first one. PZ.14 and PZ.15, I would like to defer. I've been receiving word that there's still a little bit of discussion to be had, and we don't need to do it up here. Chair Hardemon: 15? Vice Chair Russell: 14 and 15; they're not related. Commissioner Carollo: Till when? Vice Chair Russell: One month from now. Iris Escarra: If I may? With regards to PZ.15, may I ask the reason for the appeal [sicJ? We had a lot ofpeople come today. It had been deferred a couple times. This project has been on hold since February, to be able to proceed forward with the development, and there's a big crowd here today, so I would ask the indulgence of the board's consideration of that appeal. Vice Chair Russell: I'll tell you why. Because, one, it is a very emotionally charged issue with regard to the neighbors and what should or should not go there. But to me, this is a very clear-cut case of either it is or it isn't; it's not whether it should or shouldn't be; and by that, I mean historically contributing. I mean, it is or it isn't. City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 And I see -- I've already found conflicting maps, conflicting testimony, conflicting decisions within our history. There just is -- simply needs -- more research needs to be done. And so, to hash it out from an emotional perspective or what could or shouldn't be there -- we can do the dueling experts right now. And Pm sorry. I should have done this at the beginning, and I had intended to at the beginning of the Planning & Zoning agenda, before we got into the first item. We're now on the second item. But if you want to hear it today, Pm just telling you, I -- my staff is -- has met with both sides very deeply on this, and there seem to be some inconsistencies in the history of our documents as a city on this issue. And so, we won't be able to come to a decision today. Ms. Escarra: Well, if you would at least indulge the public that's here and allow a presentation, and if you feel at the end of the presentation there's still open questions and you wish to defer it at that time, but I would really ask the board's consideration of the public that came to speak today. Vice Chair Russell: To go through public hearing before deferring the item? Chair Hardemon: I mean, you can have public comment, but you described something greater than public comment. Ms. Escarra: Correct. Chair Hardemon: You described public comment and putting on -- Ms. Escarra: Because 1 have a lot of evidence to present. Chair Hardemon: Exactly. So that's not necessarily public comment, so 1 just want the Vice Chairman to be aware of what you are actually requesting. Ms. Escarra: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: And 1 apologize, because this has come to the in recent weeks, and we are digging very deep on this to try to get to the truth, basically. Ms. Escarra: Right. And we have a lot of -- I have a whole booklet that you'll be receiving, with evidence of the history of the site, so that's why I would ask if we could please proceed. Vice Chair Russell: With hearing the item in its full, or just with public commentary? Ms. Escarra: Both, both; at least the public commentary. We need to be able to get their -- a lot of people changed their schedules and everything to come here, and we also have a lot of evidence to be able to present. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman, this board is your district, as well, and I'm open to the will of the board here. I'll tell you right now, we're not going to get to a decision today. I'm open to hearing it; I just didn't want to waste everyone's time -- Elvis Cruz: Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Russell: -- which I already have, so I apologize on that. Chair Hardemon: Yes. City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: If I may, Elvis Cruz, the appellant; also representing the Morningside Civic Association as president, which is also appealing. We are ready to go today; not just myself I have an expert witness, I have an abutting property owner, I have another abutting property owner, I have another property owner, we have people who've been working on this quite a bit; we have a stack of documents, as well, not as thick as Ms. Escarra's, but I can assure you, it's much -- it's very concise and well highlighted, and it will be worth the price of admission. Vice Chair Russell: I don't doubt that at all. Mr. Cruz: So I would ask that it be heard today, please. And don't be afraid. I'll give you plenty of great ammunition to come up with the right decision today. Vice Chair Russell: Fair enough. I'll withdraw my motion to defer PZ.15 -- Ms. Escarra: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Russell: -- and I'll restrict to PZ.14. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Chair Hardemon: I think the seconder will accept that. Is there any -- Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- unreadiness to the continuance o_f PZ 14? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. PZ.15 RESOLUTION 2043 Department of Planning and Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY ELVIS CRUZ AND THE MORNINGSIDE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS THAT WAS SOUGHT FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, DEMOLITION OF THE NON-CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5101 - 5125 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, WITHIN THE MIAMI MODERN/BISCAYNE BOULEVARD HISTORIC DISTRICT. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0262 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.15, please see item PZ.14. Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.15, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: Moving on to PZ.15. I'll allow you all to get set up. For PZ.15, what I'd like to have is a one -minute opening from each party, starting with the appellant. I'll have a one -minute opening. Ms. Escarra: I have a point of order with regards to the appellant standing that I need to put into the record, because in the event that this gets further appealed, I need to make sure that I establish a good record on his standing. The board, as the Commission, may vote to approve the standing, deny the standing, or reserve the vote of the standing until after the merits have been heard; however, I need to put this into the record, because it's clear that the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board rules here aren't being. followed. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Before you move on, and you're going to put that on the record, let me just state what the procedure will be, just in case there is -- we do move forward. There'll be an opening; it'll be by the appellant first, and then by the appellee. The opening is brief; make it one minute, just to state what you -- what evidence you intend to put on and what you'll attempt to prove, and then I'd like to have the appellant present his witnesses and his testimony first through evidence that he puts on, and then from there, then I'll have -- I'll allow the appellee to cross- examine those witnesses, whatever witnesses they he; each witness at a time. And then, if the appellee wants to put on any evidence, I'll allow you to put on some evidence, and 1'll have the appellant cross-examine those -- that -- test that evidence, and then we'll have a short, one -minute closing; and then, if there's someone from the public that'd like to add their two cents at the very end, I'll allow you to say a few things; a very brief public comment section, if there -- if it indeed is necessary, and then well make a decision from there. At this time, is this part of your rules and procedure for the -- for what you want to lay on the record? Ms. Escarra: Correct. I want to just address standing. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Escarra: And then he would have to present the merits, and I'll respond to the merits, but with regards to standing, it's a threshold question on his ability to appeal. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Ms. Escarra: Iris Escarra, Lucia Dougherty, and Carlos Diaz, on behalf of Avra Jain, with offices at 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. I'm joined today by Avra Jain, Seth Heller, and our architect I I Wood. The threshold question regarding standing is a very important one, because it is who can appeal our application within the 15 days allotted in the Code. Here, Mr. Cruz, along with the Morningside Civic Association, filed an appeal within the 15-day period. However, the Historic Environmental Preservation Board, authorized through Chapter 23, has very specific rules. It's the only City board that actually has standing included in their rules and regulations, as opposed to PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) and other boards; you usually go with case law with regard to who is an aggrieved party. So here, HEP Board rule says very clearly, "A decision of the board may be appealed by any aggrieved party who opposed and presented testimony before the board. Such party shall be" -- `file within 15 calendar days a written Notice of Appeal." Here, Mr. Cruz did not appear before the Historic Environmental City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Preservation Board, nor did the Morningside Civic Association. Other members of the community did come to the Historic Preservation Board and speak out for and against the project. However, Mr. Cruz, who's the appellant, did not, and Miami -- and Morningside Civic Association also did not, and therefore, they should not have standing to appeal, because it violates the Historic Environmental Preservation rules which have adop -- which have been adopted by the Historic Environmental Preservation Board, and this gives us guidance as to who can and cannot appeal an item. Secondly, part of Chapter 62 requires that an appellant pay the fees of the appeal and pay the notice fees of the appeal. Here, Mr. Cruz did pay the appeal fees, but did not pay the notice fees timely; he paid them several weeks thereafter, and therefore, did not complete a valid appeal. Secondly, Mr. Cruz is also not an aggrieved party in accordance with Renard, which is case cited at 261 Southern Second, 832, Supreme Court of Florida, where he does not have proximity to the site, because he lives 3, 696 feet away from the site, nearly a mile away from the subject site, and therefore, there is no proximity to the site. Secondly, the character of the neighborhood. The MiMo (Miami Modern) District contains many motels, restaurants, retails, and offices, so we're not changing. We're not asking for a rezoning. We're not asking for a comp plan change. We're developing in accordance with the rules by the Historic Environmental Preservation Board, and we went to a public hearing for our approval. So we're not asking for any changes that would change the character of the neighborhood. The extent of the proposed change is in accordance with the Historic Preservation rules, as well as Miami 21. And last one with regards to notice. Cruz was not within the area that received notice with regard to the Historic Preservation Board. Secondly, the Morningside Civic Association standing is questionable. When Mr. Cruz filed his appeal within the 15 days, he filed on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Morningside Civic Association. Thereafter, he submitted on March 31 a withdrawal of the Morningside Civic Association. So within the time period, he properly filed an appeal on behalf of him and the Morningside Civic Association; it was timely. Then on March 17, he withdrew Morningside Civic Association, and then on March 31, asked to add back in the Morningside Civic Association, so -- and fortunately for us -- Chair Hardemon: Was that all within the 15 days? Ms. Escarra: No, it was after. So within the 15 days, he added them -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Escarra: -- himself and the Association. Thereafter, he withdrew them outside the 15 days, and then he tried to add them back in outside the 15 days. Chair Hardemon: And we're still here. And we're still here. Ms. Escarra: And we're still here, because this is a decision -- after speaking with staff, this is a decision for the board to opine on with regard to standing; City staff cannot really opine to standing. That's why I needed to include this as a threshold question. The other thing that Mr. Cruz may allege is that the settlement agreement that was adopted in 2014 at a public hearing somehow grants him the ability to be able to have standing, and unfortunately, that settlement agreement -- ifI may, I'm going to read you the jurisdiction of that settlement agreement, which clearly states that, "Each party agrees that the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Circuit of Miami - Dade County, Florida, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to enforce and/or interpret any of the terms and conditions of this agreement, and may submit any disputes arising under this agreement by filing an action with the court of law." So, if he has a dispute or something that occurred in the settlement agreement that we were all parties to, he has a venue to be able to do that. We cannot bring breaches of contract before this board and ask this board to opine, nor can this board enter into City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 a contract zoning position that could grant him to be an aggrieved party. Therefore, the settlement agreement does not grant him standing. Secondly -- lastly, I'd like to point out the following: In a case, 352 Southern Second, 119, in the Second District, it clearly states, "It is fundamental that a party litigant must object in an administrative hearing in order to properly, under law, perfect the right to appeal to a higher administrative tribunal." So one of the things that's important here is that this is the administrative body; this is an administrative process. Thereafter there are other rules when you go to a court proceeding, but `During the administrative process, consideration of such an appeal without an objection being lodged before the initial administrative body" -- which, in this case, would have been the HEP Board -- "thereby permitting that body to have an opportunity to pass upon the grounds raised in the appeal constitute a departure from the essential and .fundamental requirements of law." Therefore, and in conclusion, Mr. Cruz and the Morningside Civic Association did not follow the HEP Board rules, because they did not appear at the HEP Board hearing, which other people who contested the hear -- who contested the item did, but they did not appeal. Secondly, Mr. Cruz is not an aggrieved part_v, per the Renard case cited. Mr. Cruz and the Morningside Civic Association did not timely pay the, fee that's required in the City Code in conjunction with the appeal. And Mr. Cruz and MCA (Morningside Civic Association), by virtue of the settlement agreement, have a remedy outside this administrative body, in the event that they wanted to file a breach of contract. Therefore, with that conclusion, I'd like to conclude my standing arguments. Chair Hardemon: 1 have a question before you move forward. Battaglia Fruit Company v. the City of Maitland, the -- which is the first case that you cite on Section "B," it was distinguished by Cook County Republican Party versus State Board of Elections -- 1 don't have -- we don't have a copy of that. 1 believe they're in your backup. Do you know what that distinction was, before 1 start reading into this case law? Ms. Escarra: No, I don't have that backup. I apologize, Commissioner. Chair Hardemon: Can you -- Ms. Escarra: We'll look that up. Chair Hardemon: -- back -call one of your expensive lawyers that you have? Commissioner Suarez: Stop acting like a judge. Ms. Escarra: We will definitely look that up while Mr. Cruz presents. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz -- indeed, this is a dilemma -- the Appeals Board -- I mean, you saw the threshold question that's been presented, and what that essentially means is that we should not get to the merits of this because you do not have the standing to be heard on this item. The rules, as has been presented, state that a decision of the board may be appealed by any aggrieved party who opposed and presented testimony (UNINTELLIGIBLE) before the board. Now, it's good that it says, "testimony"; doesn't necessarily say that it, you know brought any evidence or anything of that nature, but you still have to get past the party -- you still have to get to the point where it says, "aggrieved party," one, "who opposed and presented testimony. " Is there any evidence that you have to show that you are, one, an aggrieved party, and that you presented testimony on the item before the board? Elvis Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been patiently waiting for Ms. Escarra to finish so I could begin my defense on the standing issue. May I begin? City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Ms. Escarra, may I have the handheld microphone, please? Ms. Escarra: Sure. Chair Hardemon: You can have mine. Take mine. Ms. Escarra keep -- well, come get this one. Mr. Cruz: Commissioners, okay, I would like to direct your attention to this superscript Number 6 down here. Now, Ms. Escarra did not include the footnote that that superscript 6 refers to. Chair Hardemon: Before we move fonvarcl, the gentleman that wants to be added as a -- Mr. Cruz: Qualified intervener. Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) intervener. Chair Hardemon: -- intervener. Mr. Cruz: There's two of them. Chair Hardemon: But that's for PZ.15, right? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Now, it's important that we have to get to this part first, because if there is no case that is presented, then there will be no intervener, okay? So we're going to decide this matter first, but please, move forward. Mr. Cruz: Okay. So, that Superscript Number 6 refers to a footnote that says, "It also" -- "this does not replace what's in the City Code. The City Code also applies." Also, let me say that the keyword here is, `A decision of the board `may' - - 'may' be appealed. " It doesn't say you have to appear. It says, If you appear, you may, appeal." It does not exclude people who have not appealed. So if you look at the footnote of Number 6, it refers to the City Code. Chair Hardemon: I'll read the footnote for the members of the board. Mr. Cruz: Please do. Chair Hardemon: It reads, `Appeals shall be as prescribed by law, including the City Code.- That's what it is. Mr. Cruz: 'Including the City Code." Thank you, sir. So I filed under the City Code. And my, appeal letter -- and thank you, Ms. Escarra, for providing me with a copy of it in this very thick. handout -- opens up: "As per Miami City Code, Section 23-6.2(e), this is a written Notice of Appeal of the HEP Board's approval on February 17 of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the properties located," et cetera. So that is how I applied. I did not apply under the HEP Board rules; I applied under the City Code. Chair Hardemon: Before you move, can you tell us what page from that book that you're reading so I can see? And what section are you on? It should be on a tab. City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: What tab? Chair Hardemon: What tab? Ms. Escarra: 1. Mr. Cruz: It's tab number 1. Ms. Escarra: Exhibit "A." Mr. Cruz: Exhibit "A." Commissioner Suarez: Tab 1-A. Chair Hardemon: Tab 1-A. And what part of it? Mr. Cruz: First paragraph of Exhibit "A." Chair Hardemon: My .first paragraph of Exhibit starts with "denied application." One page? Vice Chair Russell: Where are you? Chair Hardemon: Okay, it appears on part one, and when you keep turning on part one, you'll see Exhibit "A." Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: So you're saying, as per Miami City Code, Section 23-6-2(e), this is a written Notice of Appeal of the historic -- HEP Board. Vice Chair Russell: 1 don't know where you are. Chair Hardemon: Okay. If you're on tab 1, just keep turning past the letter from Iris Escarra. Keep turning. If you keep turning, on your left-hand side, you'll see something says, "Exhibit A." So you've gone too far now (UNINTELLIGIBLE). On the left-hand side, you'll see Exhibit "A." Commissioner Carollo: Hold on, because I still don't see it. It's under "A"? Chair Hardemon: It's under 1. It's actually under 1. Commissioner Carollo: It's under 1, before you get to Tab "A." Chair Hardemon: Exactly. Well before you get to Tab "A." Commissioner Carollo: Got you. Got it, got it. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So keep going, keep going, because I see (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Iris Escarra. There we are. Vice Chair Russell: Got it. Chair Hardemon: This is the letter. This is the appeal letter. Now -- Commissioner Carollo: So we have to look at the Code now. City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Well, the question -- right. So, is there a copy of the Code? Can we pull up the Code, 23 -- Ms. Escarra: Exhibit "D"? Chair Hardemon: He says, "as per Miami" -- Oh, you said Exhibit "D" has the Code? Ms. Escarra: 1(D) has the Code section he references. Chair Hardemon: So we keep turning, I'm assuming -- Vice Chair Russell: 26 -- 23-62. Commissioner Carollo: Exhibit `B, " Exhibit "C." I should be getting to "C" soon. Exhibit "D." Chair Hardemon: So are we saying the second paragraph, as per Section 23-62? Vice Chair Russell: Copy. Chair Hardemon: Nah, I'd rather see the Code. What does the Code say? Ms. Mendez: 23-62(d) has to do with records. Chair Hardemon: Wait. He didn't -- Commissioner Carollo: "E." Chair Hardemon: -- apply under "D." Ms. Mendez: `E, " appeals. Chair Hardemon: He applied under `E. " Commissioner Carollo: How 'bout 23-4? Ms. Mendez: "The applicant, the Planning Department, or any aggrieved party may appeal to the City Commission any decision of the board on matters relating to designations and Certificates of Appropriateness by filing within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision written Notice of Appeal with Hearing Boards Department, with a copy to the Preservation Officer. The Notice of Appeal shall set forth concisely the decision appealed from and the reasons and grounds for the appeal. Each appeal shall be accompanied with a fee of $525, plus $3.50 per mailed notice, required pursuant to 23-4. The City Commission shall hear and consider all facts material to the appeal and render a decision as promptly as possible. The appeal shall be de novo and" -- "hearing, and the City Commission may consider new evidence or materials. The City Commission may, affirm, modify, or reverse a board's decision. The decision of the City Commission shall constitute final administrative review, and no petition for rehearing or reconsideration shall be considered by the City. Appeals from decisions of the City Commission may be made to the courts provided by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure." Chair Hardemon: What -- it says, "board." What board does that refer to? What section -- what is that under? Ms. Mendez: I'm sorry? City of Miami Page 157 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: What board? It refers to a board. Ms. Mendez: Oh, from HEP. Chair Hardemon: So that's a section that refers to HEP? Ms. Mendez: Yes, this is a -- Yes. Chair Hardemon: And -- but it gives you two it says, Certificates of Appropriateness, and what other kind of --? Ms. Mendez: Designations. Chair Hardemon: And designations. So is this in a --? Ms. Escarra: A Certificate of Appropriateness. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is there a conflict between Vice Chair Russell: That and --? Chair Hardemon: -- that -- what you just read and the Rules of Procedure? Ms. Mendez: It's not a conflict in -- I -- you know, I'm sorry, Mr. Cruz, but 1 do agree with Ms. Escarra. Unfortunately, there is a couple things here. One, Mr. Cruz had appealed as himself then supposedly with the Civic Association, then not, and then there was a problem with the fee. As you can see in that section, it clearly says that you need the fee. It says that you have to he an aggrieved party. So let's say you don't take into account him appearing below, which I don't necessarily think he had to appeal below, he has to be an aggrieved party. And if you look at the aggrieved party provisions as himself, if he lived, you know, within 500 feet, or what have you, then he would be an aggrieved party. I think there was a problem. If he would have appealed appropriately under the Civic Association, then he would also arguably have standing, but I do think, unfortunately, there's a couple of issues with the standing. It doesn't mean that he can't present all his arguments; the board takes it into account, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that he would be an actual party for the purposes, but -- Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Cruz -- Ms. Mendez: -- there's a standing issue, I think. Vice Chair Russell: -- what was your logic in separating yourself from the Civic Association in the appeal, and why appeal individually? Mr. Cruz: Well, first of all, if I could respond to her briefly? And then I'll -- promise, I'll get to your question, Commissioner. Madam City Attorney, with all due respect,, I'm disappointed that you seem to be rendering a decision before you've allowed me to present the rest of my defense on the standing issue. Ms. Mendez: I was just -- you don't need to -- I'm agreeing that you did not have to be a party below. Mr. Cruz: Right. City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: But there's a second prong to it, but it was just based on everything I reviewed, but obviously, it's their decision, so you could continue. Mr. Cruz: All right. Commissioner, I did not separate myself The settlement agreement, which I will be presenting; which, by the way, I emailed to all of you, in advance. I had wanted them to be part of the packet, but I was told that the City wouldn't do that; I had to bring in hard copies, and I have those hard copies. In that settlement agreement, the Morningside Civic Association is a named party; and I, myself, Elvis Cruzam a named party on that settlement agreement. So I am here presenting -- representing the Morningside Civic Association as the president, and I'm also representing myself as a named appellant -- as a named party, excuse me -- a named party on the settlement agreement. And I'm waiting for them to finish so I can continue my defense on the standing issue. Vice Chair Russell: You may continue. They're listening. They're multi -tasking. Mr. Cruz: Okay, okay. All right, let me hand out my own legal brief. Vice Chair Russell: You guys are wishing we deferred this now, huh? Commissioner Suarez: Oh, my God. Goodness. Commissioner Carollo: You tried. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Commissioners, this case and these parties have a very lengthy history. This case, among the parties before you today, was first appealed in 2004; litigated in 2006, and a settlement agreement was entered between and among all the parties on January 9, 2014 that addresses the very 501 [sic] RE CO, LLC (Limited Liability Company) property that is the subject of today's appeal. Despite these facts, 5101 RE CO, LLC is attempting to raise a standing challenge, claiming that Elvis Cruz lacks standing to appeal. Under Florida law, 5101 RE CO, LLC has waived any objection to the standing of Elvis Cruz. Florida law is quite clear that challenges to a party's standing must be raised in the original action, usually as an affirmative defense, or they are waived. Case law: Coward versus City of West Palm Beach, 255 Southern Second, 673, Florida Supreme Court, 1971; Lovett versus National Collegiate Student Loan Trust, 149 Southern Third, 735, Florida Fifth DCA (District Court of Appeal), 2014; Lyons versus King, 397 Southern Second, 964, Florida Fourth DCA, 1981. Furthermore, even if 5101 had not waived its right to challenge standing, Mr. Cruz, as a party with the right to enforce the settlement agreement that dictates future development on the 5101 parcel, clearly has a legally cognizable interest at stake in these proceedings, as defined by Florida law. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a question? Mr. Cruz: In Upper Keys Citizens Association, Inc. versus Monroe County, 467 Southern Second, 1018, Florida Third DCA, 1985, a plaintiff has standing under the second Renard test by the virtue of the peculiar circumstances relating to the settlement. It is unclear whether 5101 is also challenging the standing of Morningside Civic Association, but in any event, the Association shares Mr. Cruz' legally, cognizable interest in the 5101 property, and further satisfies the requirements of Florida law regarding associational standing. Case law: NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), Inc. versus Florida Board of Regions, 863 Southern Second, 294, Florida Supreme Court, 2003. There is no merit to 5101's standing challenge. City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Escarra: If I may, those cases that were cited were standing to a circuit court. Commissioner Suarez: I have a question. I think that's what -- yeah, it may be a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: IfI may, Mr. Vice Chairman? Commissioner Suarez: Different forum. Chair Hardemon: So we're trying to get past this standing. We're trying to get past this standing -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- thing. For me, the argument that was presented by counsel regarding standing was moving. However, it's the Rules of Procedure for the HEP Board. I would agree that our City Code would supersede, or trump, if you will, the Rules of Procedure for the HEP Board. And the Rules of Procedure within the Code, it states that you have to -- you could be an aggrieved -- I don't have it right in front of me, but you fall with -- into that -- in -- you fall into that category as the Civic -- Morningside -- can you read the people who can appeal again, please? Can you read those people? Vice Chair Russell: Code or --? Ms. Mendez: "Any aggrieved party may appeal to the City Commission any decision of the board" -- Oh. "The applicant, the Planning Department, or any aggrieved party may, appeal to the City Commission any decision of the board on matters relating to designations and Certificates of Appropriateness. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So now, to me, when I read that, I hear "aggrieved party." That's where you claim to be. You did file for the appeal. However, you modified that appeal, and within the modification, as the evidence that was put on the record, you removed the Morningside Civic Association. You said that you was -- continue as an appellant. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Chair Hardemon: So the question -- the first question I have is, when someone sends a letter like this -- this was received by one of the hearing boards. It was signed by Mr. Cruz -- is it at that time that the application is withdrawn, or does this Commission have to decide that the application was drawn [sic'? What triggers it being withdrawn? Ms. Mendez: Well, it's usually the applicant or whoever it is appealing. If they withdraw something, we don't bring it to the Commission to say, "Hey, somebody withdrew. " We -- it 's just -- Chair Hardemon: Just withdrawn? Ms. Mendez: -- withdrawn. Chair Hardemon: We don't have to accept a withdrawal? Ms. Mendez: Right. City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Okay. So when you withdrew it, now the Civic Association is no longer a part of this appeal; you are. Now later on, the Civic Association Board [sic] was going to be added back, but at this point, they're withdrawn, so they -- they're outside of the appeal period. So, in fact, they had missed the appeal period. So the question comes to you, Mr. Cruz -- and I think it would be ,fitting if we can move on to decide whether or not you are, in fact, an aggrieved party, and I think that is the evidence that we should probably all start to consider right now. And I'm sure that you have some evidence to show that he is not an aggrieved party. And Mr. Cruz, I'll give you an opportunity to show that you are in fact an aggrieved party, okay? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Well, just to finish up with the Morningside Civic Association. The vote was done in error and we corrected that vote, and did submit a reinstatement, if you will. Chair Hardemon: I understand that, but what I'm looking at is not the vote that happened at the Civic Association. I'm only looking at the documents that were before the board, the actual -- the appeal and the modification of that appeal that you submitted, that was accepted, that would have been the triggering event for an appeal and for a withdrawal, so that's what Pm considering. Mr. Cruz: All right. So now you're asking me, why do I have standing? Chair Hardemon: I'm asking first for Ms. Escarra to present evidence as to why you are not an aggrieved party, and then I'll give you an opportunity to show why you are. Ms. Mendez: Well, just to clarify for the record then, because Morningside withdrew and then reified outside the timelines, for those purposes, the Morningside appeal does not stand; correct? Chair Hardemon: That's what 1 assume to be true. Ms. Mendez: Because that's just procedural. Chair Hardemon: Right. So right now we're standing -- we're trying to decide whether or not Mr. Cruz is, in fact, an aggrieved party before we go on on the record. Ms. Escarra: Correct. With regards to being an aggrieved party, case law provides in the Renard case, 261 Southern Second, 832, which is in Tab "I" of the booklet provided, there's a four prong test with regards to whether a person is an aggrieved party or not. Proximity is typically the most that the courts adhere to, and that is, Cruz lives within 3,696 feet, nearly a mile away from the properties. In Pushay (phonetic) versus City of North Miami, Tab 1(h), the Third District Court of Appeals held an appellant who lived 2, 800 feet from the subject property had no standing to appeal. He is further away, almost double than the distance of that appellant in that case. The character of the neighborhood is another consideration in regards to his being an aggrieved party. Are we changing the character of the neighborhood? The MiMo District contains motels, restaurants, retails, and office uses. We are proposing office and retail uses, and therefore, not changing the character. Second - - a third prong is the extent of the proposed change. They're asking, how much is this change going to impact him? We are not asking for a rezoning. We're not asking for a comp plan. We're fully complying with the project. Your Historic Preservation Board approved this project, and the proposed uses comply with what's allowed under Miami 21 and comply with the 35-foot height limitation that Mr. Cruz so adamantly pursued. The last prong in the test was, was he one of the parties that City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 actually received notice of the item with regards to the matter before the Historic Preservation Board? And he was not one of the parties that received notice. Therefore, the test of his being an aggrieved party fails. Chair Hardemon: Are you finished? Ms. Escarra: I've concluded. Chair Hardemon: Okay. You're recognized, sir. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Were you able to read my standing argument? I believe you were conferring with the City Attorney when I was reading it into the record. Chair Hardemon: You can rehash, ifyou like. Mr. Cruz: I'm sorry? Chair Hardemon: I -- what's -- where is it? Is it --? Mr. Cruz: I believe I handed it to you. It should be in front of you. I have an extra copy, if you need it. Okay. Chair Hardemon: So you're arguing that they waived an objection to the standing? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. This case first was appealed in 2004, litigated in 2006. So the time to have tried to remove me for standing was many years ago. Chair Hardemon: What body would they have made their argument to? Mr. Cruz: Well, that's the thing. The case has existed long before they came along. That's -- Florida law is quite clear. Ms. Mendez: 1 think this is -- if he is not considered an aggrieved person for purposes, then you would go to the third reason why he feels he has standing, and that would have to be the -- because of the settlement agreement, but we're not there yet. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Mendez: He -- remember, he revamped for a few reasons why. Chair Hardemon: So are you stating that you agree with the counselor that you are not considered an aggrieved party -- Mr. Cruz: No. Chair Hardemon: -- per the case law? Mr. Cruz: I am an aggrieved party. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Can you describe then how you are an aggrieved party? Mr. Cruz: Sure. And let me hand out another brief for you. This is actually something that the City Clerk emailed to all of you, but I know you probably get an avalanche of mails every day, so I'll hand it out to you now. I have it in hard copy. Okay, gentlemen, the -- as you well know, I am a named party on a settlement City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 agreement. There is, indeed, legal support for my being an aggrieved party. In Upper Key Citizens, Inc. versus Monroe County, 467 Southern Second, 1018, Florida Third DCA, 1985, our local DCA: An appellant has standing when they contend that the action of the local authorities was contrary, to an existing settlement agreement." Quote, "The plaintiff had standing to challenge the action of the County authorities, which it alleged was contrary to their earlier settlement agreement. Under the factual situation wherein they contend that the 1982 action of the Monroe County authorities is contrary to their settlement agreement of 1980, they have standing." Chair Hardemon: That's your question that was -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: "We find" -- Commissioner Suarez: No. I think -- look -- Chair Hardemon: No. I was saying that he answered your question earlier when -- about the standing, with the covenants and stuff Commissioner Suarez: No. The question I had was what -- Look, there's different kinds olio.rum that you can have standing, for. He has -- clearly has standing in the litigation context, because it's worked into his settlement agreement. The question is, whether he has standing in this context. Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: You know what I mean? Chair Hardemon: That's what we're trying to determine, correct. Commissioner Suarez: And -- Ms. Mendez: But -- Commissioner Suarez: -- it seems to me like he's confusing a little bit the standing that he certainly will have in court in litigation if he wanted to litigate this from the standing that he would have in this forum. That's just what I'm -- Ms. Mendez: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- perceiving. Mr. Cruz: If I may continue, please? Ms. Mendez: Sorry. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Mr. Cruz: "We find that they would also have standing under the second Renard test by the virtue of the peculiar circumstances relating to the settlement." So Ms. Escarra referenced Renard; there it is in the case law; specifically, settlement agreements comply with Renard. Also, Commissioner Suarez, as someone on this side of the dais for many years, I find it remarkable and inconsistent that, from time to time, counselors for the developers will try to pretend that this is a courtroom when it suits them, and at other times they will pretend it is not a courtroom when it suits them. So a little while ago, she was quoting Renard, and here, the case law City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 speaks of Renard, so which is it? I believe I do have standing. They talk about aggrieved parties. Aggrieved parties is a courtroom construct. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I can -- the only thing I can tell you in terms of nzy interpretation of the Renard case is I'd have to read it, and I haven't read it. So, if somebody wants to give it to me, I'll read it, and I'll give you my perspective on it, but I don't know whether that case talks about standing in the litigation context or standing in the HEP Board appeal context. I don't know. And it sounds like our Code is very specific on standing for appeals of HEP Board cases. I don't know if that's different from standing in a litigation context. Certainly, there are two different kinds of standing. Mr. Cruz: That's not the Code. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. But can somebody give me the case? Chair Hardemon: No. I mean, the -- Ms. Escarra: Tab 1-I. Commissioner Suarez: Tab what? Ms. Escarra: 1-1 in my little booklet. Commissioner Carollo: 1-1. Chair Hardemon: Do you have a copy of the case that you spoke of that quotes Renard? Mr. Cruz: Renard? Chair Hardemon: No, not Renard. Mr. Cruz: Upper Keys? Chair Hardemon: I want to -- yes. That's important that we have that so we can understand the context of the quotes that you're pulling from Upper Keys. Mr. Cruz: Let me see ifI have it. I didn't print out 10 copies, I'll tell you that. Chair Hardemon: I know that. If you got -- if you have one, the City of Miami will raise you, okay? Ms. Mendez: If have one, we'll make a copy. Mr. Cruz: Internet. Chair Hardemon: Say it again. Ms. Mendez: Right. Mr. Cruz: The City of Miami -- Ms. Mendez: Do you want us to pull it fbr you? Mr. Cruz: Please. City of Miami Page 164 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: Okay, we'll pull it, if you give us a second. Ms. Escarra: If I may read the finding section from the Upper Keys case that he was kind enough to provide me with a copy? It says, "The District Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs appeal to the Circuit Court was timely; and, two, the plaintiff had standing to challenge the action of the County authorities, which it alleged was contrary to their earlier settlement agreement. " So they did give him standing in a court, which I have alleged he's able to go before a court if he feels that the settlement agreement is not being adhered to. Here, he is appealing a 2017 HEP Board approval, not the 2004, not the 2000 -- not the previous applications for which he is trying to -- confusing the standing positions. His current position is he's appealing a 2017 HEP action before an administrative body. Chair Hardemon: So -- Mr. Cruz: Would you read that again slowly, please? Ms. Escarra: Sure. It's this little section right here. It said, "The District Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs appeal to the Circuit Court was timely; and, two, the plaintiff had standing to challenge the action of the County authorities, which it alleged was contrary to their earlier settlement agreement." Mr. Cruz: Yeah, there you go, "contrary to the earlier settlement agreement." As I was saying earlier, the -- my opposing counsel seems to want to claim that this is a courtroom when it's to her advantage, and then wants to claim that it's not a courtroom when it's to her advantage. Commissioner Suarez: But what --? Chair Hardemon: Let me ask you, so the Renard case, you're using to show what an aggrieved party is, not what standing is; just what an aggrieved party is. Ms. Escarra: Correct. Chair Hardemon: And you're using the Code to show what standing is. And so what they've described in Renard is -- their argument is that you are not an aggrieved party. The Code requires you to be an aggrieved party, right? We're not talking about -- so, if you cannot show that you are, in fact, an aggrieved party, you will lose standing; meaning you would not have had it to appeal in the first place. That's what they're basically making argument about. They're not -- so when you talk about -- your argument is really centered around standing, that you have standing; and you have standing because this case, Upper Keys, says you have standing. But she distinguished that case by saying that you -- that case shows that you have standing in an Appellate Court, so in a different court, not this administrative hearing, not this quasi-judicial hearing that we're here before today. So what we're trying to decide is, does Mr. Cruz -- is Mr. Cruz an aggrieved party? Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: Renard is clarifying if -- she's using Renard to show that you are not an aggrieved party. You have not shown any testimony to the contrary of that. And if you can't show any testimony to the contrary of that for us to weigh, it leads me to conclude that, per our Code, you are not an aggrieved party; thus, this is not an appeal we should hear. Mr. Cruz: Commissioner, if I may? Mr. Chair, Renard states, "An aggrieved or adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally City of Miami Page 165 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 recognizable interest, which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question." In this case -- Chair Hardemon: To sue, to sue. Mr. Cruz: Well, are -- I'm being asked, "Am I an aggrieved party?" Are you looking for --? Chair Hardemon: Aggrieved party, but I'm not looking for "to sue." They're using this case to define what "aggrieved" is. Mr. Cruz: The City Code speaks of an aggrieved party. Chair Hardemon: Does the City Code have "aggrieved" in its definitions? Ms. Mendez: Okay. So the City Code says, "an aggrieved party," and let's try to separate, because there are three ways here that Mr. Cruz is trying to establish standing in this case. The .first one was the Civic Asso -- through the Civic Association cis president, and we concluded that that wasn't timely based on the in, out, in. The second that he's trying to prove standing as an aggrieved party is because he would have some sort of injury that's beyond somebody else's injury. And in the past -- just being consistent with the way that we've had standing here in the past -- is if you were right next door, across the street, you know, two houses down maybe, those types of things, as Mr. Cruz himself as an aggrieved party, then you would have standing as an aggrieved party. Unfortunately, I think you live like a mile away? Mr. Cruz: This has nothing to do with proximi Ms. Mendez: Right. So 1 understand, but those are one of the things that the Renard case has as to being an aggrieved party and standing, and all those things. Then the third reason -- so then, if this Commission suggests that -- or makes a decision that you are not an aggrieved party for purposes consistent with other -- you know, how we rule for standing, then you go to your previous case that you were a party to. When you look at that, you have standing, definitely, in a court of competent jurisdiction to revisit that case and enforcement of that case, but that doesn't translate into a new case having to do with a HEP appeal. So for those purposes also, you don't have standing, in my opinion. Mr. Cruz: I would respectfidly disagree with your analysis, counselor. Ms. Mendez: I would not accept -- Mr. Cruz: Let me remind everybody here that I have been a named party on this action before this City Commission and your predecessors, and perhaps even you -- I'rn not sure. Ms. Mendez: I attended depos and stuff: Mr. Cruz: -- going back to 2004, and never did anybody on the Commission or the City Attorney or the opposing counsel -- and there's Lucia Dougherty sitting right over there -- never did they challenge my standing. Ms. Mendez: In that case, you are correct. In that case, you have standing forever. Mr. Cruz: And that case -- City of Miami Page 166 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: In that case, not in this case. Mr. Cruz: -- is what gave birth to the settlement agreement on which I am a nanied party. Chair Hardemon: So is this an appeal of the settlement agreement? Mr. Cruz: No. This is an appeal of a HEP Board decision, which is adversely affecting the settlement agreement of which I am a named party, and therefore, I am aggrieved. Chair Hardemon: So let me ask you a question. Would it have been appropriate for you then to file for some sort of injunctive relief to keep this from happening so that the court that you are in, when you're in suit, should know that, "Hey, there's a HEP Board hearing going on, and I want to keep that HEP Board hearing from occurring; there may be some harm that'll be caused to me in this case because of something that is going on in another case," which is this that's before us? Do you think that that would have been better? Because I'm inclined to believe that there's no standing here. But had a judge come in and said, "You should not have this hearing, because it's going to negatively affect the case," that may be different. Then I wouldn't be -- we wouldn't be hearing this. We would be waiting until that court would decide whether or not, in fact, the standing issue applied here, because this would have been an argument that you would have argued somewhere else. Mr. Cruz: 1 have to confess, 1 wasn't able to followyour line of -- Chair Hardemon: Who's on first. Mr. Cruz: What's on second. Commissioner Suarez: I'm reading the case. I'm dizzier now. Mr. Cruz: Well, I have my counselor reading the case over there. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: I'm feeling like an aggrieved party right now. I'm inclined to hear Mr. Cruz. I really do hope that the standing is there. I -- it may be left up to the court of competent jurisdiction that can make that decision, but I really want to hear this on the merits, because, like I said at the very beginning, it either is or it isn't, and I don't want it to be on procedural basis; perhaps, that will prevail, though. But, you know, I believe we have two parties in good faith here that believe their side. I don't believe Elvis is here misrepresenting what he truly believes. He may, be wrong, but that will be found out in the facts, and -- Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman, what you could do, you could hear the evidence, and you could defer the ruling on standing until a later time. So you could actually hear the evidence that you want, come up with a decision, and -- Mr. Cruz: It would save time. Chair Hardemon: -- go f om there. Vice Chair Russell: Let's do that. Chair Hardemon: It may or may, -- it may -- I don't know if it will save time, but certainly, we've heard the arguments about the standing. And so, with that being City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 said, since we're going to reserve ruling on standing regarding this issue, we'll move into the merits of it. So like I said, let's start with an opening by Mr. Cruz as the appellant, followed by an opening by the appellee; one -minute long each, and then from there, well move into the appellant's argument or him -- Ms. Mendez: With regard to -- Chair Hardemon: -- I forgot. Ms. Mendez: -- the intervener. Chair Hardemon: We have the intervener. Ms. Mendez: Right. So we -- in our HEP procedures, we have no procedures for intervention by any parties or for interveners in Chapter 23 or in our HEP appeals section. This is an appeal, so nothing is really provided, for with regard to being an intervener. However, he could finish reading his statement into the record, as he was doing, as a part of the public information; you can all take that into account and move on, but unlike zoning -- our zoning processes that allow for interveners, this is an appeal, so. Chair Hardemon: So what I'll do then is when we have the public comment section at the end -- because some people may want to say a few things -- I'll allow the gentleman to continue on with his statement to provide it into the record. And if he wants to submit it -- because 1 know you were reading it -- you can do that, as well. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: So at this time, I'll take your opening statement -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Commissioner. There is another neighbor back there who had hoped to be a qualified intervener, as well, and he refrained from speaking when he heard you put a pause on that, so he'll speak also later. All rights. Gentlemen, I am the appellant, appearing -- well, on my regard, a pro se party on the settlement agreement attached to the property in question. This is the most bizarre case I've seen in my 37 years of civic activism. There has been a settlement agreement and a restrictive covenant in effect on this property since 2014. Those documents state that the two original buildings on the property, 5101 and 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, are historically contributing, and the documents require the preservation of both buildings. The applicant appeared before the HEP Board on February 7, 2017, requesting approval to demolish one of those buildings at 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, even though that request is in conflict with the settlement agreement and the restrictive covenant. The applicant's application documents did not mention the settlement agreement or the restrictive covenant. The City staff report to the HEP Board did not mention the settlement agreement or the restrictive covenant; nor was there any testimony at the hearing which mentioned that there existed the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which prohibit the demolition of either building on the property. So some questions for City staff and the attorney at this time. Are you familiar with the settlement agreement and the restrictive --? Chair Hardemon: That's not what this for. The opening statement, you're basically just telling us what you're going to prove, so what evidence you're going to put on, City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 who you have as witnesses to show what you're going to prove. That's what this is about now. You're not going to question anyone here. Mr. Cruz: So I'm not putting on my case in full at this point? Chair Hardemon: No, not just yet. You're just telling us what you're going to show - Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- so we're going to rule in your favor. Mr. Cruz: I'm going to show that the HEP Board was not given very important evidence. It's essentially, evidence was withheld from the HEP Board. I will also delve into the substance of that evidence, the settlement agreement, the restrictive covenant, and other important documents, and I will show that the HEP Board was given erroneous information regarding the historically contributing status of the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Cruz: And 171 call up an expert witness. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Counselor. Ms. Escarra: Good evening. In opening, in order to respond and briefly go over some of the points raised by Mr. Cruz in his opening, the TDR (Transfer Development Right) covenant that we entered into, post settlement agreement, is not impacted by the approval of the site; meaning, the TDRs that were sold, the TDRs that were resolved when she gave up an eight -story building in order to develop in accordance with the Historic Preservation rules was not impacted by the approval that the HEP Board did. Therefore, the TDR covenant was not a subject jor the HEP Board to opine on. Secondly, the settlement agreement is also not in violation, because the settlement agreement clearly states that we will build in accordance with Chapter 23 of the City Code, and therefore, that is why we went back to the Historic Preservation Board at a public hearing; presented our project that we are proposing now. With that said, 171 preserve my other comments for the body of the action. Chair Hardemon: All right. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Who would you like to call first to present your evidence? Mr. Cruz: Well, I'd like to present evidence. Chair Hardemon: How are you going to present it? Mr. Cruz: I'm going to hand it to you now. Ms. Mendez: Mr. Cruz, here's your -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mendez: I gave everybody a copy of your Upper Keys case -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Mendez: -- and the Renard case, and here's a copy for you, if you want to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: Thank you so much. Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: I'm sorry? Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: I'm ready. I'm waiting for Commissioners to show up. There we go. Vice Chair Russell: Oh, we're here. Mr. Cruz: Okay. Do I have -- shall I continue? All right. So where was I? So some questions. for City Attorney and Planning staff. Ms. Mendez: This is an appeal -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Mendez: -- de novo. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Ms. Mendez: It is a hearing. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Ms. Mendez: You'll get to present your evidence and ask questions. Mr. Cruz: Right. Ms. Mendez: But you will not ask questions of the City Attorney's Office; it just doesn't happen. You don't go to court and ask questions of the judge. So obviously, call your witnesses -- Mr. Cruz: They're the judges. Ms. Mendez: I understand, but it's the same idea. You ask questions of the prosecutor? You ask questions of the defense attorney? Mr. Cruz: Am I allowed to ask questions of staff? Ms. Mendez: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. For the Planning staff' are you familiar with the settlement agreement and the restrictive covenant? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Not entirely. On the former; I have heard of it; I'm not particularly familiar with the details; on the latter, yes, of course, we are. Mr. Cruz: Are they still in effect? City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: I will refer myself exclusively to the covenant, which I am, once again, familiar with, and the answer is, yes. Mr. Cruz: Okay, so the covenant is still in effect. Was the existence of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant mentioned in the applicant's application documents? Mr. Garcia: I don't believe so. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Was the existence of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant mentioned in the staff report to the HEP Board? Mr. Garcia: I don't believe so. Mr. Cruz: Was the existence of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant mentioned during testimony at the February 7, 2017 HEP Board hearing on the application by staff or by the applicant or by anyone? Mr. Garcia: I don't believe so. And respectfully, I believe this is the appropriate time for me to introduce the concept that both documents, we believe, are immaterial to that particular application. Commissioner Carollo: Are or are not? Mr. Garcia: Are immaterial to that particular application. Mr. Cruz: Okay. Was the Planning staff familiar with the settlement agreement and the restrictive covenant prior to writing up the staff report on this property for the February 7, 2017 HEP Board meeting? Mr. Garcia: To clarify, when you're referring to the restrictive covenant, you're talking about the covenant that was proffered as part of -- or actually required as part of the transfer of development rights, the answer is, yes, familiar; once again, immaterial. As pertains to the settlement agreement, yes, we are vaguely familiar. I personally am vaguely familiar with it, but once again, it was not included, because we believe it is also immaterial. Mr. Cruz: Okay. So you believe it's immaterial. I'll get back to that in a little bit. Commissioners, because the HEP Board did not have the opportunity to consider those binding legal documents, their decision should be quashed and the appeal upheld. I have a procedural question. Can this be remanded to the HEP Board? Rafael Suarez -Rivas (Assistant City Attorney): What the Code provides on appeal is that the Commission can affirm, modify, or reverse. There is no expressed mention of referring it back in the Code. Mr. Cruz: So it cannot be remanded? Ms. Mendez: However, the Commission can, if they feel that they don't have enough information, or what have you, send it back, but they obviously have to give, you know, good reasons why they feel that they did not have enough information. And obviously, you've heard from Planning staff that it was not relevant to the -- to what was before them. Mr. Cruz: All right. So let me make sure I understand what Planning staff is saying. Even though the settlement agreement and the restrictive covenant expressly prohibit the demolition of the building, and require it to be preserved and maintained, you City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 feel that that was immaterial to an application, which was asking to demolish the building? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Well, if may, I think that question has been asked and answered. Mr. Garcia: I am happy to elaborate, because -- but I'm also going to ask -- and perhaps, the City Attorney's Office can advise on this. The way the question was phrased was perhaps somewhat leading. Now, I don't want to rephrase your question for you, but I am happy to address why it is we think both documents are immaterial, if that pleases the Commission. Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. As pertains to the settlement agreement, although it seems to restrict development to a site plan included within it, it does not preclude the possibility of a substitution of that site plan as we understand it. It simply makes mention of the fact that any alternative development of the site shall be subject to the provisions in Chapter 23 of the City Code. That happens to be the Historic Preservation chapter of the City Code. That is, I think, as helpful as I can be as pertains to the settlement agreement, which I will, once again, state for the record, I am not entirely familiar with; it predates me. But again, we did not opine that it precluded the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board from considering alternative development proposals. As pertains to the covenant, the covenant, 1 will explain, is one that we require any property owner that wishes to have their historically designated property, or a property that is a part of a historic district, for transfer of development rights. The purpose of a covenant is to submit a plan for review that will account for how the proceeds of a transfer of development rights will be reinvested on the property and will ensure its maintenance and upkeep in perpetuity. That covenant contains within it release language, which I would like to read verbatim into the record. It's a concise paragraph. It reads as follows -- Vice Chair Russell: Where are you? Mr. Garcia: 1 am going to make reference to the declaration of restrictive covenance that runs with the subject property; in this particular case, it references Bayside 5101, LLC, and it makes reference also to properties at 5125 and 5101 Biscayne Boulevard, the subject properties. And Section 4 of said covenant addresses modification, amendment, and release of the subject covenant. And within Section 4, the following is set forth: "This instrument may only be modified, amended, or released as to the sending property or a portion thereof by a written instrument, executed by the then -owners of the sending property, including joinders by all mortgagees, if any, provided that the same is also approved in writing by the Historic Preservation officer, the director of the Planning Department, the Zoning director, or its designated representative, and with legal form approved by the City Attorney." Therefore, although the covenant, once again, is intended to fulfill the purpose of having revenue thrown back into the line for maintenance and upkeep, it is also stipulated that a change in the plan for upkeep can be presented, and said change may then be considered and approved administratively upon consultation with the City Attorney's Office. In this particular case then, what we believe we have been presented with is a proposal by the property owner as the applicant to make a different arrangement than the original arrangement pertaining to this property to -- instead of simply maintaining it, redeveloping it. Of course,, said change has to go under the review and ultimately the approval of the HEP Board, which is why the proposal was referred to the HEP Board for consideration. And then, upon receipt of a Certificate of Appropriateness, if that were the case -- in this case, it has been, or subject to this particular appeal -- the applicant would be able to submit a revised set of plans, which would be attached to the new covenant, and the covenant -- one City of Miami Page 172 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 covenant would be released and a new covenant would be put in its place, and the purpose of the ordinance would have been complied with. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia, with the covenant making such reference then back to HEP Board, why would it be immaterial to their decision? Why would the covenant and the settlement be immaterial? Mr. Garcia: The covenant makes reference to the Historic Preservation officer, so it basically makes it administrative in nature. The modification amendment and release is subject to administrative modification -- right? -- so it's an administrative duty. What is certainly the subject of the HEP Board is the content of the proposal for development that is the alternative to the existing proposal that is part of a covenant, and that was properly referred to the HEP Board. So the HEP Board, in our opinion, is not concerned with whether the covenant will be modified. The HEP Board is concerned that any development that happens on that site complies with all the regulations in Chapter 23, and that's what actually went to the HEP Board, under the heading of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Vice Chair Russell: Right. But if I'm understanding correctly -- and we haven't fully gotten there yet, but if I'm understanding correctly, the settlement and the covenant, in Mr. Cruz' opinion, imply that the 5125 property is contributing; and if the HEP Board didn't consider -- or consider it as noncontributing they issued a Certificate of Appropriateness without even taking into the option that it was contributing, because there was an assumption that it was not; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Not only is there an assumption that it was not -- it's not an assumption that we made -- it is actually factually supported by the documents that we have on file. So our position is that the subject property, the subject property that is proposed to be demolished, is not -- I repeat, not -- a contributing structure. Vice Chair Russell: So -- Mr. Garcia: And our records indicate as much. Vice Chair Russell: -- now it's been stated unequivocally by Mr. Garcia to that effect, and I know -- I believe I know where you're going with this, and that's why I'm saying you may be right, you may be wrong. You're implying that the covenant and settlement lay out the fact that 5125 should be contributing; that it is contributing; that it's an error on the side of the City that 5125 is not contributing. Is that correct? Mr. Cruz: Those, and other documents, as well, yes. Vice Chair Russell: So, if they're in conflict -- let's say the covenant and the settlement assume it as a contributing structure, but the HEP Board and previous documents, and the inaps that have been applied before say they are not, doesn't -- don't those supersede this covenant and settlement? The settlement can't state something that's in contradiction of -- I mean, it can, but it won't win. Isn't that --? Mr. Cruz: Actually, there's previous documents that state it is contributing, and I'm going to cover all that if allowed to -- Vice Chair Russell: I know we'll get there. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: It's an early night. City of Miami Page 173 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Oh, man, come on. Vice Chair Russell: I'm just trying to lay out where I see it going so that I'm on the same -- I'm watching the same channel as everyone else. I just want to make sure. Mr. Cruz: Thankyou, Commissioner. Vice Chair Russell: Really. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Commissioner, if I may, just as a point of procedure. Commissioner Russell, when property is going to be reclassified as contributing versus noncontributing -- recall the Commission, not that long ago, heard some appeals on -- I believe it was Buena Vista, having to do with those reclassifications; just to point out that that would not be done at this level. That is done originally at the HEP Board -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- through the processes and procedures that exist under Chapter 23. That would not be something that, you know -- with all due deference, I think that the appellant body could -- Vice Chair Russell: No, no. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Vice Chair Russell: I'm not implying -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Even if you were think -- okay. Vice Chair Russell: -- that our job here today is to be (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Right. Yes, okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: I'm trying to look historically to see whether it correctly was contributing or noncontributing. Mr. Cruz: If I'm allowed to continue. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: Thank you so much. All right, gentlemen, Exhibit "A," settlement agreement. If you could, open it to the second page, and let's follow the highlightings; I'd like to walk you through it. Vice Chair Russell: Exhibit "A." Mr. Cruz: Page 2, it says at the bottom -- and I've got highlighted there under "recitals" -- "5101 Biscayne Boulevard and 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, collectively, the property, " so this settlement agreement refers to both 5101 and 5125. Turn the page to page 4, the existing two-story historic structure, historic structure, Bayside Motor Inn, located on the property, consists of'13, 511 square feet. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, question for Mr. Cruz. Vice Chair Russell: Of course. City of Miami Page 174 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry for interrupting you. I think the question that the Vice Chair was asking is, clearly, the settlement statement -- and you highlighted it at various place -- refers to the property as historic. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: And I don't think that's disputable. But the question is, could the City have a contrary analysis or a contrary determination of the property on file, or made its own determination, and that could be different from what's in the settlement agreement? That's, I think, the question he was asking you. Is that possible? Commissioner Carollo: And does that trump this covenant? Commissioner Suarez: Settlement agreement. Commissioner Carollo: I think -- I -- yeah. Mr. Cruz: Well, that's a question for you all to decide once you've heard all the evidence, I would imagine. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So then, let me ask the Planning director. So there's a settlement agreement, and this settlement agreement is recorded in August of 2014. At what point -- and obviously, you weren't -- you didn't draft this agreement. You didn't draft this agreement. This was drafted between the parties. This doesn't really even involve the City, per se. This involves two private parties -- or multiple private parties, 1 should say. The fact that they refer to the property as historic, what -- In your opinion, in terms of your analysis of the property, in terms of your recordkeeping, how does that impact the way the City legally views the property? Mr. Garcia: The City would have to make reference always, and base any reports or any findings always on official action taken by the City through any of its bodies or boards or department. In this particular case, as pertains to the subject property, there are multiple structures, of which, some are clearly contributing; some are clearly noncontributing, and I will explain that further. But the entire property happens to be within the MiMo Historic District. That is not disputed at all here. Now, in reviewing our files and our records, we have found that the Preservation officer at the time took the position and presented to the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board that one structure was contributing and the other one was not. The one that was deemed ultimately by the HEP Board not to be contributing is the one that is the subject of the proposal for demolition. That's part of this application. Commissioner Suarez: Understood, understood. But when -- Mr. Garcia: And so, that is the information that we based our analysis on. Commissioner Suarez: -- was that determination made? When was -- when -- was that a reclassification from a previously -- from a previous determination of a declaration of it being a contributing structure? In other words, did the -- did your department, in combination with the HEP Board, at some point change the classification from the property from noncontributing to -- from contributing to noncontributing? Mr. Garcia: The answer is, no. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. It was always noncontributing? City of Miami Page 175 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: It was always noncontributing from the point in time in which the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board made its original decision when the MiMo District was actually implemented. I am being told in 2006. Right? And from that point forward, the structure that is the subject of the proposed demolition has consistently been noncontributing up to this day. Commissioner Suarez: And so the fact that it's referred to by a variety of documents as historic -- the restrictive covenant refers to it as historic, as well; I think historically designated -- you -- that means nothing? Mr. Garcia: Every action the City has taken officially has consistently treated the subject property as noncontributing, the property subject to the proposal for demolition. I will say, hopefully in an effort to clarify, that we are aware of the fact, and we've stipulated to the fact that the original analysis and report prepared by a consultant at that time, roughly 2005/2006, did suggest that the structure proposed for demolition might be considered contributing. However -- and I emphasize -- the Preservation officer at the time and the HEP Board, in taking an official action, deemed it not to be contributing, and it has been so ever since. Commissioner Suarez: So what you're saying is that there was debate about whether or not the property was contributing or noncontributing, but ultimately, it was deemed to be noncontributing through the proper process? Mr. Garcia: That is correct. Mr. Cruz: 1 disagree. And if I'm ever allowed to continue with my case -- Vice Chair Russell: You'll get there. You'll get there. Please continue. Commissioner Suarez: 1 was actually following up on your point, which is -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: -- you're referencing the fact that these documents say that the property's historic, and I wanted to try to drill down on the significance of that. Mr. Cruz: Sure. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Cruz, the board is allowed to ask questions any time. Mr. Cruz: I understand, and I enjoy hearing them. But to mention -- to speak to something that was mentioned just a moment ago about this only being a settlement agreement between parties, and the City is also a party to the settlement agreement. I just want to make that cleat; and the City did sign the settlement agreement. So if we may, gentlemen, let's go to page 5 -- excuse me -- it says, page 6, handwritten at the bottom. The highlighting says, "The City agrees" -- so the City is a party, as I mentioned -- "that in order to encourage the preservation of the historic property, the City agrees to issue a TDR, subject to the following: The property qualifies as eligible contributing resource for the purposes of participating in the TDR Program." Commissioner Suarez: Where is that? Is that in the settlement agreement? Mr. Cruz: Yes. I'm reading it. It's highlighted. It's at the bottom of -- Vice Chair Russell: Page 5. City of Miami Page 176 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: Says 5 of 19, and then there's a handwritten 6. Commissioner Suarez: Got it. How do you explain that, Mr. Planning Director? Mr. Garcia: My apologies. Commissioner Suarez: How do you explain the fact that a document that's signed by the City says as one of its assertions, "The property qualifies as eligible contributing resource for the purpose of participating in the TDR Program." Mr. Garcia: Let me check that document for a moment, then I'll be glad to answer in a second. Mr. Cruz: But to continue on that, this settlement agreement allowed the TDRs, predicated on the fact that the property qualifies as an eligible contributing resource. Commissioner Suarez: It couldn't -- I mean, could it qualify for TDRs if it wasn't a contributing structure? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, in MiMo. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Cruz: But it says it's contributing. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, it says a contributing resource for the purposes participating in the TDR Program. of Mr. Cruz: Right. And the big debate is -- Commissioner Suarez: Eligible. Mr. Cruz: -- is it contributing or not? It says it right there in black and white: "The City agrees to issue TDRs, subject to it being a contributing resource." Vice Chair Russell: This is a little bit of why I wanted a little more time on this issue beyond today. I really wanted our Planning & Zoning director -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: I wanted to sit with him on the settlement agreement and go through this. Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: Or we could do it now. Mr. Cruz: I'm ready to continue any time. Vice Chair Russell: Actually, let -- if you -- Mr. Cruz: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: One moment, please. City of Miami Page 177 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: I am trying, to the best of nay ability, to discern what here makes specific reference to one structure versus the other. I am seeing references to a Class 11 Special Permit, which immediately lead me to believe that this makes reference to documents that have been placed for a very long time -- and again, what I'm looking for specifically is reference to the structures present on the site to discern their respective eligibility or status, and I'm not finding that. So what I would say -- and again, I'm happy to look at this more closely -- but what I would say, based on what I'm reading at present, is that this paragraph under `B, " transfer of development rights, is somewhat vague. And in order to interpret it and apply it appropriately, I would have to make reference to official decrees by the City of Miami, and I would then restate what I said previously, which is that one structure has not been found to be contributing. Vice Chair Russell: Meaning that this actually could just be incorrect? Mr. Garcia: Or simply that it doesn't have to be read to imply that the entire property, including all its structures, are contributing. It simply makes illusions to determinations of a higher level; not the specific level of whether one structure is contributing and the other one isn't. Vice Chair Russell: So, ij I read it in my laymen's terms, because I'm not one of the attorneys on the dais, transfer of development rights: "The City agrees that in order to encourage the preservation of the historic property" -- capital "P" -- "and then later, under "A," it says, "The Property" -- capital "P" -- "qualifies as eligible contributing resource for the purposes of participating in the program, " the TDR Program. And in the beginning, the definition of `property" is listed as both addresses, 5101 and 5125. So it seems that this settlement is not only working on an assumption, but expressly states that both are eligible and contributing. Now, when it says, "For the purpose of participating in the TDR Program," could that be interpreted that it's simply just talking about it's within the MiiVlo District, and it does apply to the TDR, whether or not it's contributing as a historic structure? Mr. Garcia: That's a reasonable way to read it, and I'll add a little more detail to it. I'll say, the property is correctly identified. It has been consistently throughout time a unified development site, with both of those addresses registered and on record. It is within a Historic District. Therefore, I think it qualifies as a historic property, generally speaking. And I'll add one more detail that may be relevant, which is that the multiplier -- for purposes of TDR, the multiplier makes reference back to a settlement agreement entered into some time ago, and that multiplier of four does not conform with the regulations in Chapter 23; it exceeds those. And that multiplier is a part of the original settlement agreement, which is why that may, be made reference to here, and the Class II Special Permit itself as well, is made reference to here. However, this document simply does not have the ability to supersede the regulations clearly set forth that determine that one structure is contributing and the other one isn't. A specific action was taken as pertains to that by the HEP Board. I keep having to refer back to that. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask another --? I know you're making your presentation, but -- because we're getting -- Vice Chair Russell: Are we interrupting your grove? Commissioner Suarez: -- really caught up in these very technical things, like standing, and contributing or noncontributing. And the fact of the matter is, you can -- you may or may not have standing, it may or may not be contributing, but you could still demolish a property that's contributing. So -- I mean, there's -- I think there's review by the HEP Board -- right? -- as to whether or not a property is City of Miami Page 178 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 demolishable, let's say, without getting into whether it's contributing or noncontributing. They've decided that the property can be demolished, right? I mean, I think that's a fair thing to say. Vice Chair Russell: But not necessarily on the assumption that it was contributing. Commissioner Suarez: Understood. And I mean, I -- if you -- I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is they've decided the property can be demolished Now, whether they -- I guess you can make that nuance and say that maybe they would have not -- maybe they would not have said it that way if it wasn't considered a contributing structure. I don't -- Vice Chair Russell: But at the end of the day -- and we'll get to the end of the day -- I'll let you continue in a moment. Commissioner Carollo: If you let him continue. Vice Chair Russell: If we ever get to the end of the day. Commissioner Carollo: You'll get there. Vice Chair Russell: What Mr. Garcia's saying actually is very correct. I believe that this settlement, from my interpretation of it, does assume contributing. It says the words "contributing." And how many different definitions of "contributing" can there be? 1 think the spirit of this is under the assumption that both are contributing. Now, going hack to what Mr. Garcia says, though, the actual -- you know, the earliest and most appropriate solid decision that is binding would supersede this, though, and that's where we're trying to get to the bottom of. You may be very right that that's what this settlement is implying and assumes. Whether that holds or trumps the other decision remains to be seen. Please continue. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Next highlighting, `Bayside will apply to the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board (HEP Board) for approval of the rehabilitation project prior to receiving any TDR certification." So they had to do a rehabilitation prior -- apply for rehabilitation prior to receiving any TDRs. The City recognizes the additional costs and requirements associated with the rehabilitation of this historic property, and so they gave them a multiplier of four; and as you know, the standard multiplier is 2.25; they were given 4. 15,000 square feet of existing historic structure. Turn the page, page 8 of 19: "The agreement is binding upon Bayside and also upon its heirs and successors. This agreement shall serve as a covenant running with the property. This agreement is a covenant." So there's two covenants now: the settlement agreement, and the restrictive covenant we'll get to later. Turning the page, page 19 -- excuse me, page 9: `Bayside expressly agrees to adhere to the requirements far the preservation of eligible historic resources." Commissioner Russell, I know you're going to be the decision -maker on this, and I'm very glad that you're the intelligent man that you are, and that you know English. "They will adhere to the requirements for the preservation of eligible historic resources." Next page, `Bayside will provide an existing conditions report. They'll provide a maintenance plan for the repair and maintenance of those items that have been identified as deficient, deteriorated, or nonexistent in the existing conditions report." And on the next page, it speaks of renovation of the property. So the settlement agreement said five times that the property, referring to both buildings, was historic, contributing, et cetera. The word "noncontributing" appears nowhere in that document. It said five times that both buildings are to be preserved, rehabilitated, restored, or renovated. The words "demolish" or "demolition" do not appear in the documents. And the property City of Miami Page 179 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 owners signed and agreed to that settlement agreement. Let's go to Exhibit `B" now, the restrictive covenant. Commissioner Suarez: Wait. He wants to jump in there. Wait, hold on, before you get to "B." Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. I would just -- since there is a significant amount of information being conveyed, I'd like to convey additional information that is at least, on a timely basis, set forth for your consideration, vis-a-vis what Mr. Cruz is setting forth, and I'll say that the simple way to explain the hypothetical questions he is posing is, "A," that I think the entire property is deemed historic. No one is challenging that. Certainly, both structures -- or all structures on site are eligible, simply by virtue of their age; more than 50 years. No one is disputing that. And no one is disputing either the fact that there has been, at a certain point in time, the intent to maintain all structures on site and refurbish them. So none of those assertions are being challenged at present. The simple way then to explain how we have moved forward since is that at some point in time, recently, there has been a change of mind and there has been an intent on the part of the property owner to demolish one of the structures and redevelop that site; obviously, in compliance with the applicable regulations in Chapter 23. And to the extent that we know, and what our records shows, is that they have availed themselves of the recourse and the process to do it, and they have followed that process all the way through to the meeting before you today. So I find that what has been presented so far, nothing to give me concern that the process has not been correctly followed. Mr. Cruz: May 1 continue? Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I have a question. Vice Chair Russell: Oh, my goodness. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I'm not doing it on purpose. But is it possible that the decision that we make today in terms of whether or not this HEP Board process that concludes in our decision on this appeal is separate and apart from the rights that he may have as a litigant? In other words, we may very well say, for example, that we agree with the HEP Board's decision. Let's use that as a potential, something that we could do. Yet, the -- he could sue, potentially; and potentially, a court could say, "We agree that it violates the settlement agreement." I mean, is that possible that that could happen? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: The settlement agreement, Commissioner•, is enforceable in Circuit Court, and I believe that it says that, "Each party agrees that the Circuit Court of Miami -Dade County shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to enforce and/or interpret the terms and conditions of this agreement, and to submit any disputes arising under this agreement by filing an action at law with that court for determination in accordance with Florida law." So the Commission, if it was your will, could make a determination here based on Chapter 23 and the regulations and City of Miami Page 180 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 what you have before you, and recognize that there is a separate ability to pursue remedies under the settlement agreement. Commissioner Suarez: Got two -- he's got two abilities, because he could sue based on the settlement agreement; and he could sue based on our decision, whether our decision is arbitrary or capricious, or whatever, if we were to agree with the HEP Board. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes, correct; that your decision was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by competent substantial evidence, and so forth. Correct. Ms. Escarra: If I could interject just for one second. I have an Exhibit 6, which is the HEP Board transcript of what occurred and what they opined on. Mr. Cruz wasn't at the hearing, so he doesn't know what happened. They discussed this at the hearing. So if you want to read the transcript of your HEP Board hearing, Tab 6, page -- starts on page 30, you're welcome to read what the HEP Board opined on. Mr. Cruz: May I continue my presentation -- Commissioner Gort: Let him -- Mr. Cruz: -- uninterrupted? Commissioner Gort: -- why don't we let him finish -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Gort: -- and then let them answer and -- if not, we're going to be here until 5 in the morning. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Exhibit "B." Chair Hardemon: When we set up the procedure, the opening, the appellant, the appellee, you know, I anticipated that we would have some sort of limitation on the time that it would take to make these presentations. And this is not the court of law, as you said yourself. I mean, this is in the quasi-judicial hearing, and so there should be some limitations as to how long it takes you to present your evidence. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Mr. Cruz: Commissioner, what I said was that -- Vice Chair Russell: We've cut him off a few times. Commissioner Suarez: We've cut him off. Vice Chair Russell: We have. Mr. Cruz: -- it's either a court of law or it's not, depending -- Chair Hardemon: It's quasi -- no. It's quasi-judicial. Mr. Cruz: No, I understand that. Chair Hardemon: Right. City of Miami Page 181 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: But what I'm saying is -- what I said was, there are people who will come here and say it is akin to a court of law, and sometimes it's not, depending upon what they're trying to achieve. However, I can assure you, I've done a very small percentage of the talking so far. Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: May I continue? Chair Hardemon: Of course, you may. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Exhibit "B, " highlightings on the front page: 5125 and 5101 Biscayne Boulevard collectively, referred to as "the sending property." The sending property has a two-story, historically designated and contributing building, consisting of approximately 15,000 square. feet of existing building area. Again, that applies to both buildings; and it states, in no uncertain terms, that it is historically designated and contributing. Next page, highlighting at the bottom. Are you with me, Commissioner? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. "The sending property shall be preserved and maintained in accordance with the provision of this declaration and the City Code." "Shall he preserved and maintained" That's quite specific. There's no ambiguity there. There's no vagueness there. Next page, "Any construction on the sending property shall be completed pursuant to the Special Certificate of Appropriateness, as approved by HEP Board Resolution 14006. " You'll see that shortly, but 1 can assure you, it requires preserving the building. And once again, the highlighting, "The building shall be preserved and maintained in accordance with the existing conditions and improvement report and the maintenance schedule report"; again, no ambiguity. I've got two lawyers on the Commission. We all know what the word "shall" means. The restrictive covenant mentioned that the property, referring to both buildings, is historically designated and contributing. The word "non- contributing" appears nowhere in that document. And it states three times that both buildings are to be preserved and maintained. The words "demolish" or "demolition" do not appear in that document. The property owners agreed with and signed that restrictive covenant. So if you look at all these legally binding requirements, this appeal is a no -brainier. In exchange for 460,000 square feet of TDRs, the property owners are bound by a settlement agreement and restrictive covenant to preserve and maintain the building, period. They've already sold 340,000 square feet of TDRs. As a conservative estimate based on newspaper articles about the price of TDRs at the time, they made over $2 million selling the TDRs. They have enjoyed the benefits of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant without fulfilling their obligations. They are in breach of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. They have not pulled any building permit on this property since this settlement agreement and restrictive covenant were signed. The bigger question is, why hasn't the City moved to enforce the covenant? Commissioner Suarez, thank you again for your excellent points about the lack of enforcement on covenants. The covenant has been in effect since September 2, 2014. They've done nothing to preserve the building. Please look at the last page of the covenant. You see those signatures? Do you recognize any of those names? I hope you're as troubled as I am. Why didn't anyone mention these documents to the HEP Board? Was there an amnesia epidemic, or was it deliberate? Shouldn't there be an investigation? Now look at page 5. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia. City of Miami Page 182 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: It was not deliberate. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: What was that? Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry? Vice Chair Russell: It was not deliberate -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh. Vice Chair Russell: -- to not include the covenant in the settlement in the HEP Board decision. Mr. Cruz: Now look at page 5. The City can move to enforce the covenant, and you'll even recover attorney's fees and costs, with no. fear of having to pay attorney's fees if you lose, which is highly unlikely. Please, initiate enforcement of this covenant immediately, starting by approving this appeal. Exhibit "C. " Ms. Escarra: If I may, that exhibit is incomplete that you've been provided. The fitll copy of that covenant that's recorded with drawings is located on Exhibit 12-C of my packet. Mr. Cruz: Looking forward to doing cross-examination when you present that evidence, counselor. Chair Hardemon: You can 't cross-examine a lawyer. Mr. Garcia: Through the Chair. Mr. Cruz: Exhibit "C." Mr. Garcia: Through the Chair? I would kindly request your consideration for the following statetnents: I certainly welcome any evidence proffered by Mr. Cruz. I would kindly request this Commission's consideration that Mr. Cruz ceases to cast aspersions as to the intent of the Planning & Zoning Department, the Planning & Zoning director, the Preservation officer, or anyone else in the Planning & Zoning Department employ. Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Exhibit "C, " page 2, highlighting 5101 and 5125; it refers to both. Building disposition: An existing two-story CBS (concrete block structure), free- standing, U-shaped building connected with a one-story common space lobby building, 15,000 square feet; 460,000 feet of TDRs. And now the scope of work -- and again, this is what's required by the restrictive covenant. As per the City - approved HEP Board plans of February 2014, restoration and interior remodeling of existing courtyard buildings. Restoration, not demolition. Turn the page, please. Page 3, the building's historical status: `All new work to be performed in accordance with the City HEP Board -approved project plans." They submitted plans; they were approved by the HEP Board. And now page 5; very important page, gentlemen. Page 5. The highlighting, "We conclude from our inspections that the existing building is structurally safe and sound, and was built in compliance with the requirements of the City -approved plans and specifications." So there you have it. Their own architect inspected the building and found it to be structurally safe and sound. That's important, because you're probably going to hear an argument that the building is in bad shape. If the building's in bad shape, their own inspections said it was safe and sound when it was inspected. And lastly, page 6, scope of work. City of Miami Page 183 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Can I ask you -- Mr. Cruz: They've done a full study. Chair Hardemon.: -- a quick question? Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Can a contributing structure be partially demolished? Mr. Cruz: That's a question that goes for the HEP Board for them to decide. Commissioner Gort: HEP Board to decide, okay. Mr. Garcia: The answer is, yes, sir. Mr. Cruz: So if you're .following along, on page 6 of the maintenance schedule report, they've done a complete analysis of everything needed to replace all those systems and bring the building up to speed, restore it, $840,000. Okay. Now I'm going to speak about this whole contributing thing, and to prove that point, I'm going to walk you through a brief timeline, and if the -- okay, let me back up here. Okay, here we go. Okay, so there's the building. The 1525 building is on the left. It was built in 1947. 5101 is on the right; built in 1952. In the 1980s, there was -- Commissioner Suarez: That's supposed to be historic? That's historic? Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: This is what we've been talking about this whole time. Mr. Cruz: Yeah, that's the building. Ms. Escarra: This side. Mr. Cruz: Well, the right side is historic. There's no question about that, apparently. And let me -- if I can continue? So in 1980, the -- Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: -- building came under common ownership, and afterwards, it was only referred to as 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. If you look it up on the Internet, you see it only comes up as one address. But the criteria for determining whether a building is contributing or noncontributing -- Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz, may I interrupt you one second? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: The Exhibit "C" that you gave us, the existing conditions and improvements report -- Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- for what reason did you provide this report to us? What were you trying to demonstrate with this? City of Miami Page 184 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: Oh, a few things. Let me go back to that. Chair Hardemon: Because on Part `B" of this report, it says, "Scope of work, as per City HEP Board -approved plans" -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- "COA (Certificate of Appropriateness), February 2014." Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: You highlighted for us the restoration and interior remodeling of existing courtyard buildings. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: And you further highlighted "restoration." Mr. Cruz: Yes. Yes, that -- they're required to restore the buildings, not demolish them. Chair Hardemon: Okay. But the second line says, `Demolition of the non -historic, one-story entrance, lobby, and the altered one-story wing at the southwest corner of the property. " Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: And then it does also allow for some constructions: repair, refinishing of walls, installation of doors and windows. So, you know, it does allow for a demolition, so is the demolition that's allowed for in this document that you provided to us the type of demolition that they're going to be doing? Mr. Cruz: No. What they want to do is completely demolish of -- In fact, if you look at the screen -- Chair Hardemon: But is the HEP Board approval for a complete demolishment, or is it for a partial demolishment? Mr. Cruz: This is for part -- well, this document is from 2014, when they first went before the HEP Board, and they requested a partial demolition. And if you look at the picture on the screen right now -- okay, the two buildings -- two separate buildings were connected by a lobby that was added in the 1980s, and that's what they want to demolish, or that's what they proposed demolishing in 2014. Since then, they want to demolish the entire left side, the 5125 building. Chair Hardemon: And is that the contributing side or is that the noncontributing side? Mr. Cruz: That's the side that the City says is noncontributing, but I and others maintain is contributing. Okay, so ifI can continue then? Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. The criteria for determining whether a building is contributing or noncontributing includes whether it retains the majority of its architectural features. The 5125 building still has the majority of its architectural original features; the most prominent and significant of which is the City of Miami Page 185 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 horizontally articulated stair step front facade, and the vertically articulated parapet wall facade. Coincidently, there's an almost identical twin building one block south at 5061, also built in '47, and it is contributing. So then in 2003, the City begins a historic survey of Biscayne Boulevard. A Class II Permit is allowed in 2004, and the court actions begin. In late 2005, the City decides to move forward with historic designation, and on June 6, 2006, the Historic District is designated; easy to remember, 6/6/66. Chair Hardemon: What year is this building built? Mr. Cruz: The one on the left is 1947. Vice Chair Russell: No, no. Chair Hardemon: No, the one on the screen now. Vice Chair Russell: On the screen now. Mr. Cruz: Oh, that's also a 1947, and it's an almost identical blueprint. It was possibly built by the same builder. Chair Hardemon: Wait. But -- Commissioner Suarez: What year was that one? Chair Hardemon: -- go back to the one again, because this is one building, correct? Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: These are two different buildings. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Those are two different -- well, that's a great question. They're two different buildings that were connected -- Commissioner Suarez: That building's nice. Mr. Cruz: -- with a lobby in the middle. Chair Hardemon: So -- Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. Chair Hardemon: -- the connection was like an addition -- Commissioner Suarez: Come on, guys. Mr. Cruz: The lobby in the middle was an addition. Chair Hardemon: -- so you could walk from one to the other. But before, they were separate? Mr. Cruz: Correct, correct. They were separate. Chair Hardemon: Two different addresses? Mr. Cruz: Before, yes. City of Miami Page 186 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Not like the next picture. Ms. Escarra: Still -- Mr. Cruz: I'm sorry? Chair Hardemon: Not like the next picture. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Chair Hardemon: And it was connected in the `80s? Mr. Cruz: No. In the -- okay, in 1980s, they built the lobby between the two that you see in the middle there. Chair Hardemon: So what -- so before, were they -- what -- I'm assuming, if they built a lobby, they were using it as a -- what? -- a hotel? Mr. Cruz: Yes. They -- Chair Hardemon: So were both sides used as hotels, separately? Mr. Cruz: At that point, 1 believe they were both as motels. Chair Hardemon: Separately? Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Same ownership? Mr. Cruz: No, not until 1980. Chair Hardemon: So different businesses? Mr. Cruz: Yes. And then in 1980, they came under common ownership, and the common owner built the lobby connecting the two that you see in the middle there. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a question? Mr. Cruz: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Just because the buildings are old doesn't mean they're historic, right? Mr. Cruz: That's correct. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Cruz: There's criteria that is gone through, and I was kind of mentioning it now, but it still remain retains the majority of its architectural features; the articulated front Iheade, the parapet wall, et cetera. Vice Chair Russell: If I may, though, our job today is not to decide whether this is historic or not historic. Mr. Cruz: Correct. City of Miami Page 187 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Our job is to -- and our job is also not to deem whether or not this settlement and covenant had been broken or not. That's for another level of jurisdiction to decide. Ours is to decide whether or not the HEP Board made the correct decision with the right information. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: That's our job today. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Chair Hardemon: I just want to understand the information, that's all. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Russell: Sorry. I didn't mean to sound -- Chair Hardemon: No. That's okay. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: I'm trying. Mr. Cruz: Okay. So -- well, my bad. Let's go to Exhibit "D." And Exhibit "D" is this one sheet. This is the cover page, from the plans that were submitted to the HEP Board in February of 2014. This is what was proposed by the property owner to the HEP Board in February of 2014. And the picture shows it is a restoration of the building; scope of work: Exterior facade, renovation of historic MiMo motel. Chair Hardemon: Addition of new lobby (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: And they were going to -- exactly. They were going to demolish the existing old lobby and put up a fancy new one. The architect is somewhere around here. Where's Dean? There he is. And you did a great job on that design there, Dean. So Exhibit "E." So the City of Miami does a staff report on that HEP Board application, and it's Exhibit "E." And the highlighting: It applies to both 5101 and 5125 Biscayne Boulevard. And what does the City, of Miami Planning Department say? The motel is listed as a contributing building. The property appears to have originally been two separate motel or apartment building structures that were later modified through the construction of a one-story entrance lobby that attaches the two structures together. Chair Hardemon: I have a quick question. Mr. Cruz: So there you have it. Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: The analy -- where -- the analysis is, and where it states that, does this staff report -- they're the ones that came up with the conclusion that it was a contributing structure, or were they making acknowledgment of something else where it listed that it was a contributing structure? Mr. Cruz: You're asking me how did the staff make up their --? Chair Hardemon: No. I'm -- Vice Chair Russell: What was the purpose of the document at that time? Chair Hardemon: Like I'm reading here, and it says, `Analysis: The two-story motel in the MiMo District was built in 1952 in a simple mid-century modern design." City of Miami Page 188 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: Right. Chair Hardemon: And it says the motel is listed as a contributing building. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Chair Hardemon: And then it goes on to other things. That's not the determination that it was contributing. That's just a statement that it was listed as contributing. So I'm saying, is there another place -- and I'm assuming you may get there -- there's another place that determine where it was a contributing structure? Mr. Cruz: There are other places that say it's a contributing structure; yes, that is correct. But Commissioners, let me get off script. for about 10 seconds and say, I'm getting the impression that there may already be some minds made up before I'm delivering all my stuff. I hope not. Chair Hardemon: Let me say this to you: We take what you just said very seriously. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: And in fact, I know I speak for all of us to say that no one has made their mind up, because I tell you what. If they did had made their mind up, this would have been decided many hours ago -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- when we first started. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: But it has not. We're giving you an opportunity, and we're deviling into the detail -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- that you presented. If in fact, we sat here and didn't listen or respond to you with any question whatsoever, and then moved on and heard questions -- or the position of opposing counsel, and then made a decision without any sort of discussion, that still wouldn't say that we had made up our minds, but it would certainly leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, because you don't even know if you were really considered in this whole matter. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, sir. Chair Hardemon: But since you seem to, feel as if us continuing to ask you questions is something that you don't want us to do, I know that I'll refrain from asking you questions, and I'll let you present. Mr. Cruz: No, no, please. I welcome your questions, Commissioner. Commissioner Gort: Let him finish. Mr. Cruz: So -- Yes -- the motel is listed as a contributing building, as per the City Historic Preservation staff and the proposed scope of work: Restoration and interior remodeling of existing courtyard buildings. Again, the City staff said it was contributing. The HEP Board approved that COA, and the restrictive covenant was drawn up to enforce the COA with the existing conditions and Maintenance Report City of Miami Page 189 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 that I mentioned, and TDRs were released. Exhibit "F," and this is a Certificate of Transfer that shows from both 5125 and 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. Under the Special Certificate of Appropriateness, they were given 460,000 square feet of TDRs. They sold off -- to do the math -- about 340, 000. They're left with about 120,000 square feet of TDRs. So the TDRs were granted, predicated on it being historic. The staff report said it was historically contributing. They were given the TDRs, and the TDRs were sold. Commissioner Suarez: Let me ask you something. Are the TDRs that were given based on the entirety of the property, entire square footage? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: How do you reconcile that? Ms. Escarra: The entire property's in the district. Anybody in the district can sell TDRs, even if you're a vacant parcel. Commissioner Suarez: You can sell TDRs if you're -- if the height limitation is less than the zoning -- Ms. Escarra: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: -- envelope? Ms. Escarra: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Even if you're a vacant parcel? Ms. Escarra: Even if you're a vacant parcel. The City makes you reserve the square footage for a three-story building, and you're eligible to sell the difference. Mr. Garcia: That is correct. Commissioner Suarez: Wow That's generous. Mr. Cruz: So then in 2016, the property is sold to a new owner. And then Exhibit "G, " the new owner applies for a new COA. So here's Exhibit "G, " which I believe was written by Ms. Escarra, and let's look at the highlighting on that. "The Bayside Motor Inn Motel, located at 5101 and 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, the resource." Turn the page. What does it say? "The resource is a contributing structure located within the MiMo District." So here the applicant herself has written that the resource is a contributing structure, as depicted on the MiMo District's contributing structures reap, attached as Exhibit "B." And there's Exhibit `B, " that map that you see behind it, and I have a red arrow that I've drawn to point to the two buildings; and both of them, as you can see, have been appropriately color -coded by the legend. This map has a title; this map has a legend, and the legend shows that they are both contributing. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia? Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: This map, do you recognize it from a City document? And if so, at what point in time would this map have been created? What would have been the reference for this map, as it does actually show that property specifically in the legend as being contributing? City of Miami Page 190 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Garcia: I am looking at the map right now. My apologies. As you may know, none of my colleagues who are presently with the Preservation officer seem to have been a part of this particular analysis. What I can tell you definitively -- and this is the competent and substantial information I would beseech you to consider and give appropriate weight -- to the extent that this official document by the City of Miami shows that both structures on this site are contributing, this document is in error, because what there is no question about, none whatsoever, nor has any shadow of a doubt been cast by anything that Mr. Cruz has said, is that at the appropriate time, when the MiMo District was composed along Biscayne Boulevard, was any action by the City taken that did not say that one structure was contributing and the other one was not. And no matter how many potential errors or references to resources, or other generic language has been proposed forward by Mr. Cruz, it doesn't negate -- he cannot negate, he cannot cancel out or supersede the original official action that was taken by the HEP Board, as you well know. Commissioner Suarez: Can I follow up on that? So you're saying that the HEP Board originally, in its establishing of the MiMo District, that they officially declared a portion of this or a part of it that wasn't attached, or whatever, as noncontributing? Is that what you're saying? Mr. Garcia: In the year 2006, fact. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Garcia: In the year 2006, there are the same two structures on site as there are today. And at that time, the southern structure at 5101, separate parcel, separate lot, separate folio number was deemed contributing. And the structure at 5125, the northern structure, separate lot, separate address, separate folio number was deemed noncontributing. That action taken then by the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board has not been changed, revised, or overturned in any way whatsoever. Commissioner Suarez: Well -- I mean, I think von have then a subsequent action, which is on February 7, 2017; they issue -- the HEP Board issues a Certificate of Appropriateness, and they base that on the fact that they claim that the other property, the adjacent property is not contributing. That's according to their -- because that's their resolution? Mr. Garcia: Correct, based on facts presented by us that are on record. Vice Chair Russell: In alignment with the original -- Commissioner Suarez: Correct. So what I'm saying is that if -- let's say we were to remand it tomorrow -- today to the HEP Board for tomorrow -- from whenever they meet again, do you decide that this is contributing or noncontributing? I mean, they've already issued a Certificate of Appropriateness based -- I mean, I'm reading it from the resolution -- the demolition that -- of what was considered a noncontributing structure. Mr. Garcia: And that finding is correct, and that finding is supported by the facts presented to the HEP Board and with the record that we have presently. And admittedly -- and again, I cannot vouch for the other -- the City. I'm happy to make sure that it is authentic. I have no reason to doubt that it is authentic; I should emphasize that. But if it is, in fact, an authentic document, issued by the City of Miami, this document, to the extent that it identifies both structures as contributing, is in error. City of Miami Page 191 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: And what would be the means by which an appellant would appeal that determination of Certificate of Appropriateness that that part of the structure is in fact noncontributing? Wouldn't it -- would it not be this forum right now? Commissioner Gort: No. Mr. Garcia: So -- Commissioner Suarez: In other words, this appeal can be -- Mr. Garcia: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- on the basis that he feels that it was in error for the HEP Board to determine that that property was noncontributing. Vice Chair Russell: In its original -- in this recent decision of the HEP Board or the original decision of the HEP Board? Commissioner Suarez: They've issued a Certificate of Appropriateness -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- to demolish. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: You can demolish, based in part on the finding that it was not contributing. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Right? So is that what he's appealing? Is he appealing the fact that they've considered it to be noncontributing, and he feels that it should be contributing? Vice Chair Russell: He feels that they made their decision in error, not that they made the wrong decision; that they relied on the wrong facts; that, in fact, this is a contributing structure is the case that Elvis is making. Commissioner Suarez: But he could have -- I'm assuming he argued that at the HEP Board? Mr. Cruz: No. Commissioner Suarez: You didn't go to the HEP Board? Mr. Cruz: No. I had a conflict that day, and -- Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) one. Mr. Cruz: -- it was inconceivable to me that the City would reverse course after the history that I was aware of with the settlement agreement and the restrictive covenant that I've read to you; and that in 2014, as I've already shown you, the City said in the staff report, it is contributing. The map that I -- that you have in front of City of Miami Page 192 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 you, that Mr. Garcia says is in error, that map is online on the City historic website as we speak. Vice Chair Russell: So does a map that says District 2 goes up past 70th Street. That's still online, too. Commissioner Suarez: Don't -- but don't you feel, to a certain extent -- because you're very diligent about attending meetings that matter, right? And I think you can say that fairly about you. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, with what's at stake here, in your opinion. You know what I'm saying? Like -- I mean, if there was a debate as to whether or not a property is contributing or noncontributing, and you have the comp -- the body of competent jurisdiction, which is the HEP Board, the specialized board -- you know, that's the board we rely on -- and they are making a determination to issue a Special Certificate of Appropriateness for demolishing a structure, don't you think that would have been the proper forum for you to be there and say, "Hey, you guys are making a mistake. This is not contributing. This is" -- I mean, "This is" -- "You're making a mistake. This is not a noncontributing structure; this is a contributing structure. There's evidence all over the place of both things, and you're making a" -- you know, "You should use your discretion as the Historic & Environmetnal Preservation Board to err on the side of caution; don't issue the Certificate of Appropriateness. This is a contributing structure"? And you didn't go there and make those arguments. Mr. Cruz: Well, Commissioner, 1 know I must seem like 1 have super powers, but 1 am human, and occasionally -- Commissioner Suarez: No, 1 know. Mr. Cruz: -- I have things that happen in my life -- Commissioner Suarez: I get it. Mr. Cruz: -- that keep me from being able to come down here. This is like my 160- something visit to City Hall -- Commissioner Suarez: This year? Mr. Cruz: -- doing this. No, since I started keeping track. There's actually a few more. But at the time, I saw this map and, call me stupid, but I believed it. Commissioner Suarez: No, I don't -- Mr. Cruz: This is the map -- Commissioner Suarez: -- think anybody would call you stupid. Mr. Cruz: -- that's online, as we speak, on the City of Miami's Historic Preservation website. I had total reason to rely on the accuracy of this map. I had no reason to doubt it; and yet, we're being told, "Oh, no, that's a mistake." Vice Chair Russell: You certainly identified inconsistencies, and I believe this is the appropriate forum for us to decide whether the HEP Board made their decision City of Miami Page 193 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 correctly or not. And so, I'll be glad to let you proceed and get done so that we can move on to the other side and get to that decision. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. So after the -- Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. What's wrong? I'm -- please speak up, because I -- Pm sorry; I didn't see you. Mr. Garcia: No trouble, at all. I'll wait patiently, as everyone else; there's no trouble there. So Mr. Cruz is certainly not the only one who apparently encountered this anomaly. In the proceedings of the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board, as I am given the transcript presently, also published online, the chairman, Mr. Hopper, asks the following question when he's posed with a notion that one of the structures is noncontributing. I'm quoting, reading directly verbatim from the transcript. Chairman, Mr. Hopper, asks: "Not according to the map." To which Ms. Logan, the Preservation planner, replies: "Oh, I see. Yes, that is not the correct map, but the map that I show you in my staff report is the one that is actually part of the Designation Report that was voted on. And that map, the one that was provided to the HEP Board, based on which the HEP Board made the recommendation and decision they made, does show correctly that one structure is contributing and the other one is not." Vice Chair Russell: Dueling maps. Please continue. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. So as I mentioned, the application letter says it's contributing. They show the map that says it's contributing. But then a strange thing happens. They turn around and say they want to tear down the noncontributing structure. They want to demolish it. And then an even stranger thing happens. Exhibit "H." Exhibit "H" is the staff report. And here the staff the City staff says, it's contributing and noncontributing. It's a complete 180-degree reversal of what the staff report said in 2014. Vice Chair Russell: So which document is this? Mr. Cruz: This is Exhibit" H." Vice Chair Russell: "H," got it. Mr. Cruz: And highlighting on page 3, as shown on the map, within the Designation Report, the structure located at 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, on the northern corner of this project site, was determined to be noncontributing to the MiMo/BiBo (Biscayne Boulevard) Historic District, and you see the little picture on page 2, they have a little piece of the map, and we'll get to that map in a little bit and talk about that. As I mentioned, that staff report does not mention the Sullivan agreement, nor the restrictive covenant. It does not mention the fact that in 2014, the same staff said both buildings were contributing. They reversed themselves. And the HEP Board was not informed of this when it voted. Vice Chair Russell: So we've identified contradicting staff reports, one from 2014 and one from 2017. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Now, I wanted to follow up and do some more questioning as to what happened here. Why is there all this inconsistency? But the two City employees who worked on that staff report left the City's employment shortly after that HEP Board meeting, so I started doing some research. I met with the new City staff and I went through their files and found some remarkable facts. Exhibit `I. " In order to create a Historic District, each building is surveyed, so here are copies of City of Miami Page 194 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 the original survey forms. The one that I have up front, 5125 Biscayne Boulevard, Statement of Significance: "This motel retains its integrity, and is representative of the architecture of the Biscayne area. Additionally, it is historically associated with the development of the Biscayne area. Therefore, this building is considered a contributing resource within the proposed Biscayne Historic District." So that was a survey done by Janus Research; more specifically, Ellen Uguccioni, who later would become the Historic Preservation officer of the City of Miami. The other page is 5101, same thing; both are listed as contributing, the same Statement of Significance. Vice Chair Russell: Now, just to speak to how official these documents are and how binding these documents are, this is a survey conducted by a third party, which is an official decision; or it is an opinion rendered to the City, by which they will then make an official decision? Mr. Garcia: This, sir, is where I begin to wonder whether I need to be clearer than I have been. This document, prepared by Janus Research -- I'm looking intently at Mr. Cruz, in the hopes that he listens to what I amsaying and understands the words that are coming out of my mouth. This document is the one prepared by Ms. Ellen Uguccioni, who, at the time, was a consultant to the City of Miami, who prepared a report which, as stated previously, recommended that both structures should be contributing. Said report was considered by the then -Preservation Office and Preservation officer, who happened to disagree with those findings; prepared then a final report, which was submitted to the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board. And at a meeting, in a public hearing, the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board sided, agreed with staff recommendations that one structure be considered contributing and the other structure he considered noncontributing. That fact has remained exactly in that manner since the year 2006. Vice Chair Russell: You have been clear. I just wanted to clarify that these are draft documents on the way to a decision, not necessarily the final decision. Mr. Garcia: That is correct, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Chair. Mr. Cruz: If I may speak? Oh, go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: No. I was just going to say, you know, a lot of the complication here is that -- you know, in fairness to everybody who here, who's confused on this -- you're combining two different properties together, and so sometimes -- maybe when you're discussing one, you're -- you know, it's -- you -- that's, I think, what's creating a lot of the confusion. Vice Chair Russell: Please continue. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, so that's a survey form, and those survey forms resulted in the issuance of Exhibit "J " And by the way, Janus Research is the consultant that also did the City website. So here's Exhibit `J " This is the Biscayne Boulevard Historic Designation Report. Vice Chair Russell: What year? Mr. Cruz: This is probably late 2005, because the building on the cover is the Mall building; it was demolished in 2006. So there it is for the audience to see. And this City ofMiami Page 195 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 exhibit is an excerpt of that Designation Report. It has a map that I've shown you. The map has three pages. The first page is an overall view. It has a title. It has a view of the northern half of the district, and it has a view of the southern half of the district. And the map also has a legend; and as you see, it has both buildings listed as contributing, and it has a list of all the buildings in the district. Now, this is very important. This is the list of all buildings in the district, both contributing and noncontributing, and you can see that both 5101 and 5125 Bayside Motor Inn, are listed as contributing. There's the overview of the map, and there's a picture for the audience, contributing resource, and there's the listing underlined; 5125 was listed as contributing. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Okay, so then, today, the City website shows this document as the Designation Report for the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District. And the second page says that it was passed and adopted on June 6, 2006. I have a question for City staff. Is it the City's position that this document is what the HEP Board voted to adopt on June 6, 2006, when the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard District was designated? Vice Chair Russell: Are you looking at document "K" now? Where are you? Mr. Cruz: It would he "1,," but I haven't gotten there yet with exhibits, so I'm just working off of the slides right now, Commissioner. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Garcia: It is the City's position, simply, that the official report in our files that has been presented to Mr. Cruz is correct. And the official report, which 1 have here and is on the record as part of your backup, correctly identifies 5101 Biscayne Boulevard as a contributing structure and 50 -- Vice Chair Russell: 5125 -- Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry. What is the address for the other building? Unidentified Speaker: 5125. Mr. Garcia: And 5125, I'm looking for it. Ms. Escarra: Not listed. It's not listed. Mr. Garcia: It's not listed -- Mr. Cruz: It's not listed. Mr. Garcia: -- as contributing. Where is it? Mr. Cruz: But Mr. Garcia, with all due respect, sir, my question was, is this document, the one you're holding in your hand, the document that you referred to earlier when you said that on June 6, 2006, the HEP Board voted to accept a Designation Report, and that Designation Report said that the 5125 building is noncontributing? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I just don't -- he -- the director can answer to the best of his knowledge, but I -- he was probably not personally present there, but he can answer to the best of his knowledge. City of Miami Page 196 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: All right, let me rephrase the question then. That document that you have in your hand, sir, is the document that is currently on the City of Miami's Historic Preservation website as the official Designation Report for the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District. Would that mean it is the document that was voted on by the HEP Board? Mr. Garcia: I expect it to be so. I -- that is my understanding, yes. Mr. Cruz: That would make sense, wouldn't it? All right. Vice Chair Russell: This is L" we're talking about now. Mr. Cruz: This is that right there. Vice Chair Russell: "J" or L"? Mr. Garcia: No, sir. I'm sorry. I have no way to ascertain whether the documents handed to you by Mr. Cruz can or cannot be reliable. I say that with respect. Mr. Cruz: This is "L." Mr. Garcia: 1 will make -- I am making reference not to "L," as 1 don't know what its contents may be. Mr. Cruz: Mr. Director, I'm not asking you to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Garcia: 1 am making reference to the official report by the City of Miami. Mr. Cruz: Correct. But as the Planning director just said, the document that's on the City website, the image of -- the cover image of which is right there -- and you have an excerpt of it as Exhibit "L" -- that that is the official document that was voted on by the HEP Board on 6/6/2006. All right, Commissioners, it is impossible that this document was voted on or approved by the HEP Board that day. Every PDF (portable document format) document contains hidden metadata, which can be revealed by using the `File" menu, then selecting "Properties." Here is the metadata of the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic Designation Report. The metadata shows the document was created on June 29, 2007. That is one year and 23 days after the June 6, 2006 HEP Board meeting when the district was approved. Therefore, it is physically impossible for the HEP Board to have voted on this document that day, because it did not yet exist and would not exist jroover another year. Exhibit `K " In preparing for this case today, we tried to find -- we tried to get the City to give us exactly what document it was that the HEP Board had voted on that day. Exhibit "K" is an email from Ms. Vicky Toranzo, who is a Preservation planner -- Did I get your title right? -- with the City. Highlighting, starting from the bottom in chronological order for the thread: Files in the Preservation Office do not indicate what version of the Designation Report was reviewed by the HEP Board. We have not been able to determine what version of the report went before the board. Vice Chair Russell: Back in 2004? Mr. Cruz: 2006. Vice Chair Russell: 2006. Mr. Cruz: 6/6/06. Easy to remember, 6/6/06. City ofMiami Page 197 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Cruz: Exhibit "L" is an excerpt from the MiMo Biscayne Boulevard Historic District Designation Report. The map in the MiMo District -- in the MiMo version looks very different from the Biscayne Boulevard Designation Report, and the list of contributing and noncontributing buildings is also different. As the Planning director noted in the official document that's online, the 5125 building is not even listed. Now, this list is supposed to be a list of every structure in the entire district, regardless of whether it is contributing or noncontributing, as you can see in your handout on the last page; every building, but it's not listed. Why would the 5125 building not be listed in what is supposedly a later version of the document that came after the Biscayne Boulevard version that I showed you earlier? Vice Chair Russell: By this point, they were conjoined by the new lobby, correct? Mr. Cruz: Well, that had happened in 1980. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Mr. Cruz: Long before -- Vice Chair Russell: Before any of this. Mr. Cruz: -- any of this took place. Vice Chair Russell: But you're asserting that 5101 refers to both? Mr. Cruz: 1 believe it does. You're getting a little ahead of me, but 1 believe it does. Vice Chair Russell: I'm trying. Mr. Cruz: But perhaps this is why they're not mentioned. Vice Chair Russell: All right. Mr. Cruz: This next item is Exhibit `M. " Exhibit `M" was in the file at the City HEP staff, in the file for the MiMo District. This is apparently a worksheet that one of the historic preservationists used when they were formulating the Historic District Report. Let me draw your attention to the highlighting at the top, where you see there was 5050 Biscayne Boulevard entered twice. And they wrote, "Two addresses?" question mark, and they lined out one of them. It was a duplication. And then let's drop down, and they write in the highlighting, "Two of the same name?" question mark. There's a star next to 5101 Biscayne Boulevard, but there's an arrow next to Bayside Motor Inn. You drop down two lines, there's 5125 Biscayne Boulevard. Vice Chair Russell: Crossed out. Mr. Cruz: Bayside Motor Inn, with an arrow next to it, showing there was the same name twice; "contributing," they scratch through it, and then they write, "Come back. Couldn't f ind. " Couldn't find. Vice Chair Russell: Got it. Mr. Cruz: Can't find. Why can't they find a building? Why not? The building never disappeared. Perhaps this is why: In this old picture from when the historic survey City of Miami Page 198 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 was done -- and this picture came from the Historic Preservation Office -- it shows only 5101 listed as the building's address number back then. Here's a recent picture. If you go by there today, as I verified on my way to City Hall this morning -- or this afternoon -- it lists both addresses, 5101 and 5125. But when the historic survey was done, there was only 5101. This picture may well be the reason why someone wrote "can't find" -- "couldn't find" on that worksheet and thought there was a duplication of two entries for the same Bayside Motor Inn, and deleted one. Vice Chair Russell: Make sense. Mr. Cruz: They went looking for 5125 Biscayne Boulevard and couldn't find it, because at that time, there was no building with that address number. There was only one continuous building with 5101 on it. Exhibit "N." Exhibit "N" is another version of the 'VW° map, which was released in 2011, and it also shows both buildings as contributing. Now let's compare the maps. from what may have been the .first two Designation Reports, Exhibits "J" and `Z "; if you could put them side by side. Remember, the City has not been able to determine what was actually voted on by the HEP Board on 6/6/06. There's the previous map I mentioned. So those are the two Designation Reports. And if you put them side by side, those are the two maps. I'll call them the Biscayne neap and the MiMo map. First, let's look at the Biscayne map. The Biscayne map, as I showed you earlier, has three pages: an overall view, the northern half and the southern half. It has a title. It has a legend. It is clear and sharp, free from stray marks. While it is not the latest map, it does look like a finished product. The MiMo map has only two pages. There's no overall view; only a view of the northern half and the southern half. The MiMo map has no title. A_finished map would have a title. A finished map would also have a legend, but the MiMo map has no legend, so we cannot definitively say what the various markings on the properties mean. The MiMo map is not clear and sharp. It has stray white marks. It looks like a work in progress, like a draft. The MiMo reports list of properties and neap is not even part of the original digital document. If you look at the MiMo handout I've given you, you'll notice that the cover is clean and clear of any stray marks. It is a clean and digital page. But the pages inside, which are 22 to 27 of the actual report, they -- where the maps and the list of buildings are -- they are a photocopy. And if you can look at this document, Commissioner -- Vice Chair Russell: I'm seeing it. I'm seeing it. Mr. Cruz: Okay. You have it in front of you, the paper copy? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Cruz: You can see artifacts, like dirt, that was on the glass of the copying machine, the repeating horizontal lines, and the shadow lines from the edge of the paper when it was scanned and inserted into the digital document. Vice Chair Russell: Why is that relevant? Mr. Cruz: Because this is not part of the original digital document. This was added later into a document. And that was a document that was created in 2007, over a year after the HEP Board voted on whatever it was they voted on in 2006, because the City itself doesn't know. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Commissioner -- Vice Chair Russell: Elvis, whatever they voted on -- and if' nothing else, you've pointed out a serious level of inconsistencies in our maps, in our reports, which is City of Miami Page 199 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 embarrassing in itself -- all that natters at the end of the day is what they voted in 2006, though, correct? Mr. Cruz: But we don't know. That's the thing. Vice Chair Russell: We haven't gotten there yet. I'd like to know. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Well -- Vice Chair Russell: So I think you've made the case very well for the inconsistencies that show one way and then the other; that there is room for interpretation here; that there's a problem. What we need to get to the meat of is, what is the binding decision that was made that counts today? And so, I'd like to see if we can wrap it up and get to that. Mr. Cruz: Okay. If you would like to -- well, let me answer the question that you've posed. What exactly did the HEP Board vote on on June 6, 2006? Lacking a time machine, we don't know. We -- what I have shown you is many inconsistencies. And this, which looks like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy with all these gray pixels, this is part of a document that was created in 2007. The staff has not been able to find what was voted on in 2006. We don't know. However, I have shown you nine different documents that say, 5125 is contributing. Vice Chair Russell: Contributing. Mr. Cruz: You cannot find a single document that says 5125 is noncontributing. Even what the Planning Department believes is the official document does not even list 5125 anywhere in that entire document. And as I've shown you, it is my belief -- and 1 believe it's a very reasonable one -- that the reason it's not in there is because there was no building with 5125 Biscayne Boulevard on the building back in 2004, '5, and '6, when that would have been formulated. Commissioner Suarez: But -- Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: So I guess my question is, there may be -- there's definitely some documents that claim that the building is historic, for sure, but the HEP Board decided to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the fact that they considered that property to be noncontributing. Mr. Cruz: It depends what year you're speaking of sir. Commissioner Suarez: No. I'm talking about in February 7 of 2017, a month -- a couple of months ago. Mr. Cruz: But in `14, they said it was contributing. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Cruz: And the City told them it was contributing. Commissioner Suarez: Fine. Let's assume that that's true, Jrothe purpose of argument. Even if we were -- let's assume we were to remand this back to the HEP Board for a determination as to whether the property was contributing or noncontributing. Don't you think --? I mean, don't you think that the decision that they made, based on all the evidence that they heard, is diapositive of that question? City ofV1iami Page 200 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Or do you think that they were going to hear all this evidence and change their mind? They're now going to now think that the property is contributing when they just a month ago or two months ago, after hearing all the evidence, decided that it was not contributing? Mr. Cruz: There was great questioning on the part of the HEP Board. I have seen the video. Mr. Garcia also already mentioned that the chairman questioned why is this suddenly noncontributing. Commissioner Suarez: But why didn't they say -- because they could have also said, it's contributing, and we either don't issue a Certificate of Appropriateness; or it's contributing, and we do issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. In other words, we consider it contributing because of -- for whatever reason, because it was combined with this other property, or whatever, or because there's enough confusion in the record or -- we haven't even gotten to the crux of whether it's contributing or noncontributing, historically, right? Whether it has architectural features, the amount of time, et cetera, et cetera; all that that goes to the analysis of whether it is or isn't. So I mean, do you think that --? I mean, don't you think that their determination that it's -- By issuing a certificate and by saying that it's noncontributing, you don't think that they weighed all that evidence -- Mr. Cruz: No. Commissioner Suarez: -- and --? Mr. Cruz: 1 believe they were given misleading and erroneous information. Again, the City itself doesn't know. They cannot tell you definitively what was voted on on 6/6/06. And up until this HEP Board meeting of February 7, the entire history of this property was that it was contributing, including from City staff itself in 2014. I've shown you the staff report when the City staff said, "This building is contributing." Chair Hardemon: If the building is contributing -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- can the HEP Board still allow partial demolition? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Cruz: They could, but it's -- Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Mr. Cruz: -- very unlikely that they would have allowed the demolition of the entire north building, the 5125. Ms. Escarra: I have to object. He can't say what the HEP Board would have voted or not voted. Commissioner Suarez: That's true. Vice Chair Russell: So I think he's made his case. I think we can move to the other side, right? Gentlemen, this is just practice for the Grove Playhouse. We're just getting -- City ofMiami Page 201 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Do you -- are there any witnesses or anything else that you want to put on before we -- Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- allow cross-examination? Mr. Cruz: I -- Chair Hardemon: Unless -- Mr. Cruz: -- feel I'm getting the hook. Chair Hardemon: -- what I'm saying is that -- Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- unless she wants to test some of his evidence right now on cross-examination, because, really, I mean, he presented documents. He didn't really -- Ms. Escarra: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- present a witness for you to cross-examine, so you don't really have that opportunity. Ms. Escarra: Can 1 challenge the documents he's presented? Chair Hardemon: Of course you may. Ms. Escarra: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You want to do that in your presentation, or you want to do it in cross-examination? Ms. Escarra: 171 do it as part of my presentation. I'll let him -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. So then I'll allow him to con -- you should come to a conclusion. Mr. Cruz: I'll come -- Vice Chair Russell: Right. Yes, yes. Mr. Cruz: -- to a conclusion, yeah. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Let me just go ahead and read through this very quickly; and then 171 conclude. Commissioner Suarez: He said, I feel like I'm getting the hook." You've been on the hook. You've been on there for a while. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Please conclude. City of 'Miami Page 202 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: In summary, there is nothing in any document that definitively states the 5125 building is noncontributing, and I have shown you nine different documents that say it is contributing. In closing, I have the orange document, which is what we're asking for, respectfully, to remand it to the HEP Board. If that's not possible, then please affirm the appeal and reverse the HEP Board's decision, and initiate legislation to change the Code so remanding is allowed. I'm asking you to enforce the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant on the property. I'm asking you to initiate legislation which would empower the City to rescind a COA when there are errors or omissions. I'm asking you to please reimburse the appeal fees of $889, because it was the City's mistake that the HEP Board was not told about those key documents. And lastly, I'm asking you to initiate legislation which would require the City to check a property for covenants as part of any Planning and Zoning action. And I'm now going to call an expert witness, Architect Robert John Graboski. He will talk about the TDR application process, and covenants required to be filed at time of transfer of such rights. Chair Hardemon: What makes him an expert in TDRs, because he's an architect? Mr. Cruz: I'm about to tell you, sir. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Cruz: He has been a Florida registered architect since 2003, and is currently a director of the American Institute of Architects, Miami Board; has worked on TDR applications for 11 properties. He served on Miami's Historic Preservation Board for four years, which included the first appearance o_f this property before the HEP Board on February 4, 2014. Here he is. Chair Hardemon: Would opposing counsel like to --? Ms. Escarra: 111 ask -- Mr. Cruz: You want to voir dire the witness? Ms. Escarra: Oh, yes, I will be asking questions. Chair Hardemon: Do you want to allow -- are you okay with him being considered to be an expert witness? Ms. Escarra: Well, I'd have to question him to -- Chair Hardemon: Right, you would have to voir dire him -- Ms. Escarra: Correct. Chair Hardemon: -- before he provides any testimony, is what I'm saying. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Chair, if I may, just for the record? A series of things that were said in closing. I just -- the Commission, of course, can affirm, modify, reverse, remand, but the thing about -- there were various things said about legislation, about fees, and things that go beyond the scope of the appeal and -- Commissioner Suarez: Elvis, do you have the exhibits to the declaration? Mr. Cruz: Pm sorry? City ofMiami Page 203 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Do you have the exhibits to the declaration? There's two exhibits. Mr. Cruz: Exhibits of the declaration. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, the restrictive covenants. The covenants. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Oh, oh. Commissioner Suarez: You have two exhibits, an "A" and a "B. " Mr. Cruz: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Do you have them? Mr. Cruz: Yeah, I have them in front of me. You want to refer to them; is that it? Ms. Escarra: They're not in the package he gave you. Commissioner Suarez: No. I'd like to have them. I'd like to see them. Mr. Cruz: Oh. No, I don't have them, but they do in their big fat book. Ms. Escarra: It's the great big book of everything. It is Exhibit 12-C. Commissioner Suarez: All right. Ms. Escarra: If 1 may? From what year to what year did you serve on the Historic Preservation Board? Robert Graboski: It was from 2010 until 2014. Ms. Escarra: What month in 2014? Mr. Graboski: I believe it was March. Ms. Escarra: Did you vote on the 2014 Certificate of Appropriateness? Mr. Graboski: I did vote on that, yes. Ms. Escarra: Are you -- where did you study? Mr. Graboski: At the University of Miami. Ms. Escarra: And what was your degree? Mr. Graboski: Bachelor of Architecture. Ms. Escarra: You have a master's, LL.M (Latin Legum Magister)? Mr. Graboski: Not a master's, no. Ms. Escarra: What do you currently, do? Mr. Graboski: I'm a practicing architect. City ofMiami Page 204 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Escarra: If you voted on -- I just want to raise a point of objection for the record. If he voted on the matter at the time, I don't know that he's necessarily able to speak Did you vote for or against? Mr. Graboski: For. Ms. Escarra: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: At what time? I'm sorry. Ms. Escarra: In 2014, supposedly, he voted for this item, if he's truly served through March 2014. Vice Chair Russell: And you voted. for what? What was it you voted on? Commissioner Suarez: He voted on this issue. Ms. Escarra: He voted on this issue. Mr. Graboski: In 2014, it was for the complete rehabilitation. There was just the small partial demolition of the connecting structure; and on the southern contributing building, there was a small demolition to add the roof deck terrace. Ms. Escarra: If 1 may, I'm just going to put an objection into the record on his testimony, since he was a voting member at such time in 2014. Vice Chair Russell: Why is there an objection? Chair Hardemon: So are you objecting for him to be as a expert witness, or would you like him to be a witness? Ms. Escarra: I'm trying to disqualify him, because -- Chair Hardemon: Right, as an expert witness. Ms. Escarra: -- since he voted on this item -- correct. Chair Hardemon: And why? I mean -- I understand what you're saying, that he voted, but what's the harm? Ms. Escarra: Because he's impartial [sic]. I think that if you voted on the item, and now he's coining in and speaking on the item, you know, either which way, he can't necessarily represent the whole board. He can only represent his own. Chair Hardemon: So you're basically, saying that he would be validating his -- as an expert witness -- weli, he's trying to validate his prior action. Ms. Escarra: Well, what's -- he voted in favor of it, but he's here speaking against it. So to me, it's a disqualification of him, because he's taking an action that's adverse to the action he took when he was a public official. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: I think she's saying he's biased. Commissioner Suarez: Right, right. No, he's right. That's what she's saying. It's just he said it more bluntly, more artfully. City ofMiami Page 205 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz, you have a little issue. I need you to inform this board why we should not allow him to -- why we should allow him to serve as an expert witness. The objection has been raised of bias, and so, you know, it's up to you to sway this board to show that he is not biased; that he's going to give an objective opinion, because expert witnesses, you know, their opinions typically take a little bit more weight. Mr. Cruz: Sure. Chair Hardemon: We can believe things to be true. They can give conclusory statements many times, with some backup, and so, you might want to tell us why he should be allowed to be an expert witness. Mr. Cruz: Over the four years that Mr. Graboski served on the HEP Board, he probably heard a hundred cases, if not more. So the idea that, because he ruled on one specific case one specific way somehow invalidates him, that really has no merit. It's basic defense tactics, hying to take out an expert witness. And what you should do is just listen to his testimony and see if it has merit, question him, as I'm sure opposing counsel will do on the merits of his testimony. Chair Hardemon: The objection is noted for the record. I'll allow you to come in and say something Madam City Attorney, but I will also like to say that -- I mean, you could allow expert testimony or just layman testimony, not necessarily expert testimony, or you could allow the expert testimony and just take into consideration that he could possibly have a bias, or you can do another thing and allow him to have lavman's testimony, knowing that he could have a bias. It's really up to the hoard. Ms. Mendez: Thank your Chairman. I wanted to articulate that if the board didn't want to see him as an expert witness; just as a plain witness of him being at the vote. And also, 1 just wanted to make sure that he was sworn in under oath. Yes, please, Mr. Clerk. Thank you. The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those giving testimony on zoning issues. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Thank you. Mr. Graboski: And just for the record, it's Robert John Graboski, at 6011 North Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida. Chair Hardemon: So Mr. Vice Chairman, is there any particular way you'd like to hear the testimony; expert witness, plain witness? Vice Chair Russell: I believe Iris is questioning him now. Chair Hardemon: Are you complete? Ms. Escarra: I have questions as he presents his testimony; or at the completion of his testimony, I'd like to cross-examine him. Chair Hardemon: Right, right, right. No. At the completion of his testimony, you will cross-examine him, but a threshold question: Whether or not he should be considered a expert witness or a plain witness. City ofMiami Page 206 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: I'm personally okay with him as either. I think he's as biased as he was when he was serving on the board, or unbiased as he was when he was serving on the board. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Typically, the difference, an -- expert witnesses kind of guide themselves a little bit more too, but I guess we'll allow you as a expert witness, if there's no objection, and then we'll move forward. Mr. Graboski: And I am here mostly to try to talk about also is the TDR specifically, that whole process, as opposed to getting into a bunch of other things. What we've been talking about, you know, if the project is eligible. In -- as we know, this has been started before it became Miami 21. You know, Miami 21 was initiated in 2006. Just a couple weeks ago, you guys were talking about taking inventory of all these covenants that are being put out there, and that's why I think that this is important, because the TDRs do require covenants to be .filed. Just wanted to start off in just the definition of a TDR, which is, "The sale of an unused development rights to another party upon a binding, written agreement that results in the restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of the historic resource .for a public benefit." When we are going to look at covenants, there's going to be several topics that they hit, and -- which usually has to do with when the sale of the development rights are being done, about the other party, that it's a binding agreement; and then somewhere, they're going to be talking about any rehabilitation, any new construction, and then sometimes they also give a timeline, for that. The intent is also to encourage the preservation of historic resources by creating the process, where otherwise, unusable development rights for historic resources may be converted into an asset that may be sold to a receiving site within the T6 transect, where public benefits bonus may be used. Owners of eligible properties shall be issued a Certificate of Eligibility, following the confirmation that the property meets the criteria established in Subsection 1, or has been determined eligible under the process described in Subsection 3. And as part of the agreement, it was agreed that these properties would be eligible for the TDR Program. In the agreement, too, they also did the calculations, and those calculations for the TDRs were based off of the previous Miami Zoning Code. They were able to use their gross lot area to do their calculations, and now you have to use the net. You have to remove any dedications or undedicated right-of-ways [sic] so it's a much smaller piece of property as to what they're going for. But under Section 23-6.8, requirements for the preservation of eligible historic resources, sending properties, using the provisions of the TDR application process, the process is an incentive to ensure that historic resources are preserved for the public benefit. The requirements that follow apply to all buildings. They don't list contributing, noncontributing. It's to all buildings, which make use of the TDR Program. The use of the TDR for historic resources requires the demonstration and evidence that establishes the sound physical condition of the sending resource, or that the rehabilitation treatments, if needed, urill be undertaken within a reasonable period of time, and that the owner and subsequent owners is covenant to maintain the property. Therefore, the following -- the qualification for the eligible historic resource, the applicant requesting the Certificate of Transfer shall provide the Planning Department with the existing conditions report and the maintenance plan. Again, the TDR Program is only for historic properties. If you're not historic, you can't just go and sell your TDRs. So to be eligible to get that COE (Certificate of Eligibility), you are saying that you are a historic property. And as it says, these requirements would follow -- apply to all buildings; doesn't matter if it's contributing, noncontributing. You're going for all buildings that are taking advantage of the TDR Program. Ms. Escarra: If I may? City ofMiami Page 207 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry to interrupt. And I don't mean to be rude, but we're trying to move through this as efficiently as possible. Is that even relevant to this conversation, though? Because in MiMo, contributing or noncontributing can qualms for TDRs. So that isn't a determining factor of whether or not this is historic -- I mean, a contributing property or not; is it? Mr. Graboski: Right. But if you sell the TDRs -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Graboski: -- you then file a covenant that you are going to maintain the building, preserve it, rehabilitate it. So that's why it's important to understand that in TDRs, once you sell them -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Graboski: -- you're binding that property to these requirements of the TDR Program. Vice Chair Russell: Right, but that's not our decision here today. That's for a higher court to decide if the covenant has been violated and the settlement's been violated, correct? Mr. Graboski: Okay. But we just want to make sure that to participate in this program, it is for a historic property. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Graboski: Okay. And just when we are talking about -- Ms. Escarra: If 1 may interject? I just want to he clear on the record that it's for a property within the MiMo District. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Ms. Escarra: Any property within the MiMo District, even vacant. Vice Chair Russell: We're clear. Ms. Escarra: Okay, just want to be clear. Any property; contributing, noncontributing, vacant. When you get into -- outside MiMo, there's different criteria, but within MiMo, any property is eligible for TDRs. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Commissioner Suarez: Why are we arguing about --? Vice Chair Russell: That's why I'm wondering why we're going into it, because I think it's been established that the TDR -- all properties here are eligible jar the TDR Program. The fact that they utilized it does not necessarily make it contributing or noncontributing. Mr. Graboski: But when you utilize the program -- Vice Chair Russell: You're then bound. City ofMiami Page 208 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: -- you are then bound, correct, and that's what we want to make sure that's very clear. The TDRs had been sold; they had bound that property to the covenant. And let me just go through -- because I do want to go through the covenant in the -- in Sections 1 and 2. When you look at covenants, they start having all the same language and same different items that they're going to talk about. So when we look at a covenant -- and I have two here on the screen -- one is for 5101 and one is actually for the Vagabond. If you look, the Vagabond, all it says is that it's a historically designated building. It doesn't say contributing, noncontributing, you know, so that if we're going to get caught up on this contributing or noncontributing, then the language in these covenants should be very specific to that, as well. Because why is the 5101 -- Ms. Escarra: If I may object. This goes outside his expertise as an architect to be discussing -- Commissioner Suarez: But, I mean -- Ms. Escarra: -- a legal instrument. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I mean, look, we could get really off on a tangent if we start describing what covenants should have and what they should say, because that's a whole 'nother discussion and debate, and I certainly -- Vice Chair Russell: He is making a point, that the covenant does clearly say, "historically designated" and "contributing building," when referring to the Bayside Motor Inn. Commissioner Suarez: Yes, 1 agree with that, but -- Vice Chair Russell: I think the crux of our decision is going to come down to whether or not the HEP Board should have had this covenant and settlement considered before they made their decision. Were they blind to the fact that they were bound and could not, or that this could have restricted them before they made their decision for the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition? That seems to be where we're going here. Is that --? Mr. Graboski: And that's the point that we are -- Commissioner Suarez: Is that their argument? I mean, is that the argument? Vice Chair Russell: They made their decision without the proper documents in front of them, and the assumption is that, had they seen the covenant and the settlement, they might have decided otherwise. That's Elvis' four-hour point. Mr. Graboski: If -- the HEP Resolution in 2014 is referenced in the covenant, because that work is required to be done, and the work has not been done. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Graboski: So -- but I think that you do understand that, you know -- Vice Chair Russell: You're clear on the covenants. I think we're -- I think we understand. Mr. Graboski: We're clear on the covenants. And that also, the language between them is all very similar. They're going to rearrange it a little bit, but you're going to have the same points put into that covenant, whether it's contributing or City ofMiami Page 209 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 noncontributing. So, for one to be able to say that, okay, it's noncontributing and something can be demolished, then what's the point of covenant? Chair Hardemon: But this hearing is de novo, so we can make the decision based off all the evidence that's presented before us. Commissioner Suarez: Guys. Chair Hardemon: We don't have to send it back to HEP Board. Vice Chair Russell: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: The point of a covenant is that you have an additional mechanism by which you can enforce what is essentially a contract. This is a contract between the City and the property owner, and it runs with the land. So if they sell the property, that covenant remains, unless it's released, essentially, by the City and -- by both parties. So the question is, what -- in what way did they violate the covenant? Because I've read the covenant. I just read it. What way do you, feel that they violated the covenant? Mr. Graboski: Well, they're not maintaining the property that they are supposed to, because you're supposed to maintain the property per the 40-year recertification standards -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Graboski: -- which is maintaining and rehabilitating. It's not -- because it also includes that you have to follow the Secretary of the Interior Standards, which doesn 't allow for demolition. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so -- Vice Chair Russell: Unless provided for by HEP under a separate decision. Commissioner Suarez: Which is what this is. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So they're not violating the covenant. Ms. Escarra: Not at all. Mr. Graboski: But if the purpose of the TDRs is to preserve and maintain buildings - Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Mr. Graboski: -- and now they're going to remove that building, that's not the purpose of the covenant. The covenant is to protect the building, and so, it is maintained in perpetuity. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Ms. Escarra: Can I interject a question? What happens when the TDRs are granted on a vacant site? What is maintained? City of Miami Page 210 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: It's actually -- I'm very surprised that the City is allowing that, because I have always been told when I -- Commissioner Suarez: That doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Graboski: -- that I can't do it on a vacant lot, because it has to be for unused development potential, which means that there has to be something on the site. Ms. Escarra: If I -- Mr. Graboski: I've asked the staff, too. There are no instances in the City of Miami where TDRs have been sold and then the building has been knocked down. Ms. Escarra: I'm going to let staff respond to that question. Mr. Garcia: There is precedent. Vice Chair Russell: There is precedent, for what? Mr. Garcia: There is precedent. for granting transfer development rights for sites that are vacant and undeveloped. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Ms. Escarra: Those sites that require to comply with Chapter 23 and the Interior Standards for historic properties because of MiMo. Mr. Garcia: And to add, in those cases, as specified previously a number of times, what we require happens is that some remnant development capacity remain on that site so that it is not deemed to be vacant in perpetuity, but it can in the future be developed, subject to -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Garcia: -- Chapter 23. Commissioner Suarez: Let me just jump in, because when Elvis talked about enforcing the covenant, which, to me, obviously, it's something I'm passionate about, I decided I wanted to read the covenant, so I read the covenant. And one of the things that the covenant refers to is to exhibits, so I asked for a copy of the exhibits. So when -- there's Exhibit -A," there's Exhibit "B." Exhibit "B" -- and I'm not an architect -- but it references a Maintenance Report -- right? -- like you said. And in that report -- when you look at that report -- and again, I'm not an architect, but if -- it's page 18 of 20 that's recorded, recorded documents, so it's in the public record. And that clearly says that the south building is contributing and the north building is noncontributing. Mr. Graboski: In that report? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. It's on page 18. Mr. Cruz: If I may reply to that, Commissioner? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Cruz: I'm looking at -- City ofMiami Page 211 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: I'm sorry? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah, of course. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, thank you. All right. If you look at page 1 of the restrictive covenant, you see that it was recorded at the County Clerk's Office on October 3 of 2014. Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Mr. Cruz: Now, at the February 4 HEP Board meeting in 2014, a set of plans was submitted as part of that application, and those plans were approved by the HEP Board. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Cruz: All right. Now you're looking at something that was recorded in October of that year -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Cruz: -- eight months later. The set of plans submitted to the HEP Board do not say "contributing" or "noncontributing." Commissioner Suarez: But that's -- this is not a set of plans. What this is, is a maintenance schedule. Mr. Cruz: But -- okay. Here's the way it works. A -- an architect, D. B. Lewis -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Mr. Cruz, if I may, just to keep the proceedings going. There -- you were respon -- you were interjecting something, but you're -- this is becoming another testimony. Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no. I -- Mr. Cruz: I want to answer the Commissioner's question. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine. Mr. Cruz: If I may? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Cruz: Just because an architect writes on the secondary set of plans eight months after what was approved by the HEP Board, he does not have the authority to declare something contributing or noncontributing. Commissioner Suarez: Of course not. Of course he doesn't. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: But my point is that you're saying that -- there's a -- there was an assertion made that the covenant was violated, so I'm reading the covenant. I'm trying to figure out in what way was it violated. City ofMiami Page 212 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: The text -- Commissioner Suarez: And I can't find a way that it was violated. IfI read it, I don't see how it was violated based on all the -- Vice Chair Russell: They're asserting that the covenant claims that you -- or states that you must preserve the property. Commissioner Suarez: No. It says you must preserve pursuant to a Maintenance Report, which is Exhibit "B." When you look at the Maintenance Report, that's what says -- a part of it is -- the southern part is contributing and the northern part is noncontributing. So the Maintenance Report itself -- that's a basis of the covenant -- makes a distinction between a contributing and a noncontributing structure. So what I'm saying is that may or may -- it may or may not be true for purposes of all these other things, but for purposes of the covenant itself I don't see how the covenant itself is being violated. Vice Chair Russell: Are you asserting that that Maintenance Report is not correctly connected to the covenant? Mr. Cruz: What I am asserting is that that was a disingenuous act by -- let me go through this. They applied in February of '14. The staff report said it was contributing. The settlement agreement, as I've told you over and over and over, said it was contributing. The text of the restrictive covenant said it's contributing. And then the architect arbitrarily labels one of the buildings as noncontributing, even though all throughout the paper trail up until that point, everything says it's contributing. Commissioner Suarez: But let me ask you this question -- Mr. Cruz: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: -- because when you're going to vote -- when people proffer a covenant -- right? -- they proffer it at the hearing, right? I don't know when the hearing was. You're saving it was in February. This is -- this was recorded, like you said, in October, right? Mr. Cruz: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: So at that hearing, they should have proffered the covenant with the exhibits. Mr. Cruz: Yes. No. Well, they -- Commissioner Suarez: They weren't proffered at that time? Mr. Cruz: The Certificate ofAppropriateness -- Ms. Escarra: The covenant isn't a proffered covenant for like restrictions. This covenant is a TDR covenant. It has -- it's not part of the site plan; it's part of the TDR Program, which is an administrative process. What we did is that the City asked us to attach the plans that were shown to the HEP Board, so the plans that are attached there match what the HEP Board saw in 2014. Subsequent to that hearing, we went through the City process to get it reviewed. If you notice, there's like six signatures from six different departments. City ofMiami Page 213 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Look, we've gone down a -- multiple different rabbit holes here, and I just wanted to explore this particular rabbit hole, because it was one that you emphasized, "Why isn't the City suing to enforce the covenant?" And what I'm saying is the covenant that I'm reading that's recorded has not been violated, from what I can tell. So the answer is, because it hasn't been violated. Mr. Cruz: Commissioner, it has. Again, let me explain. The covenant and the text of the covenant says they have to comply with HEP 6. Commissioner Suarez: Which they've done. Mr. Cruz: No. Let me finish. The plans that they submitted to the HEP Board in February of 2014 do not say "noncontributing" on the plans. They changed the plans when they put it here in this attachment. Vice Chair Russell: Who is "they"? Commissioner Suarez: But it says here -- Mr. Cruz: D. B. Lewis. Commissioner Suarez: Look, it says here in Section 2(a), "Any construction on the sending property shall he completed pursuant to the Special Certificate of Appropriateness, as approved by the HEP Board, pursuant to Resolution R-1406. " That's right, but then the next sentence says, "Any proposed construction outside of the scope of work approved by an existing Certificate of Appropriateness shall be completed pursuant to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, to be approved by either the Citv's HEP Preservation officer or the HEP, as required by Chapter 23, " which is precisely what is here. That is -- you got HEP approval here. So they're complying with Section 2 by virtue of the HEP Board approval. Mr. Cruz: What they're trying to do is completely reverse what the HEP Board approved in February of 2014, when they approved `preserving both buildings," as what was presented to them. Commissioner Suarez: They may be. You're saying they don't have the right to do that? Dean Lewis: Of course we do. Commissioner Suarez: They may be -- they may very well be changing a prior determination by the HEP Board with a current determination. Are you saying that they don't have the right to do that? Mr. Cruz: No. I'm saying -- you're correct, I'm saying they don't -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Cruz: -- because the text of the restrictive covenant says they shall preserve and maintain the building, and they want to demolish (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: No. It says, in accordance with the maintenance schedule that's attached, which is Exhibit "B," which is the one that says that part of it is contributing and part of it is not contributing. Mr. Cruz: But again, what they've attached is different from what the HEP Board approved. City ofMiami Page 214 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: So you're asserting far beyond -- Mr. Lewis: That's not true. That's not true. That's not true. Vice Chair Russell: -- a misinterpretation or a mix-up amongst maps, you're asserting a conspiracy to actually change it on purpose and -- Mr. Cruz: You can -- I have the other plans, ifyou want to see them. Mr. Lewis: As author -- Mr. Cruz: If you want to see the February plans -- Mr. Lewis: -- of the two reports, may I contribute to this conversation, or would you prefer we wait until he's finished? Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman, is this the appropriate time? Chair Hardemon: I wouldn't suggest that we did that. Mr. Cruz: Ms. Stander has some very important information, which I would ask her to convey to you. Debby Stander: 1 was hoping, ifyou would just give me one minute. Chair Hardemon: Well, listen. Wait, wait. One second, one second. Unidentified Speaker: This is very quick. Chair Hardemon: Listen -- Ms. Stander: Very quick. Chair Hardemon: -- to what I'm saying to you. Vice Chair Russell: You have to wait. You have to wait. Chair Hardemon: Has the expert witness finished with his testimony? Can we finish with the expert witness' testimony? Mr. Graboski: Okay. What we just want to get across with the covenants for TDRs is that they are going to have seven basic things part of them. One is going to address any rehabilitation or improvements to the property. Most of the time, they should have a timeline of when those improvements are supposed to be done. Although in this covenant it does state that the work shall be done per that HEP resolution in 2014, there was no timeline given for that work to be done; the work has not been done. The other thing that the covenants are going to cover is the 40- year maintenance requirements; that the building has to be maintained, per the standards of the 40-year recertification. All these covenants are going to be binding on the owner. They also discuss what happens in change of ownership, in that the City has to be notified within 30 days. They also talk about the receiving properties, which have to be done -- they have to meet certain criteria. They also talk about when rights are then transferred because once the rights are transferred, then they have the recording of the covenant stipulation. So all of those things have to be met when you sell TDRs, so that's why it's very hard for us to understand why demolition is allowed when you're supposed to be maintaining these buildings. City ofMiami Page 215 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: But let me ask you a question. Just -- because I want to follow that line of thinking for a little bit. Let's say, for example -- okay, so you're saying that -- we agree that if you have a contributing structure -- in other words, a historical structure that's considered contributing as part of a historical district -- we agree that it can be demolished? Mr. Graboski: It would be very unlikely. Commissioner Suarez: Can it? Mr. Graboski: But theoretically, well -- Commissioner Suarez: It can be demolished. If it went into disrepair; if the person didn't actually maintain, and they wanted to -- Mr. Graboski: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: If it was a nuisance, if it was -- I mean, there are circumstances, in other words. Mr. Graboski: And that happened at the 52nd Street on Biscayne Boulevard, where the hotel was demolished -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Graboski: -- and it was not approved by the HEP Board; but, yes, it was demolished. Commissioner Suarez: So the point is that there could be circumstances under which there's a TDR, but the property can be demolished? Mr. Graboski: But I would -- as of right now, there is no property that has sold off TDRs that has then demolished the building. Commissioner Suarez: Is it not correct to say that TDRs can apply in a historic district, whether or not a property is contributing or noncontributing? Mr. Graboski: They can, but then once you sell your TDRs, you have to follow the criteria of TDRs, which talks about rehabilitation, maintaining; not demolition. Commissioner Suarez: But then why wouldn't they all just be contributing then? Mr. Graboski: In MiMo? Commissioner Suarez: No. I mean, you're saying that the selling -- the sale is what triggers that -- Mr. Graboski: The sale of the development -- unused development right triggers what's -- the recording of the covenant, which then you have to follow the requirements of the TDR Program. Ms. Escarra: Again, I have to object. This is outside the scope of his expertise. Commissioner Suarez: I don't know Pm a little confused. I'm a little confused. We haven't even gotten to the crux of this. You know that, right? We haven't even gotten into the crux. City ofMiami Page 216 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Well, I -- Mr. Graboski: Because -- Chair Hardemon: How much longer is your presentation? Mr. Graboski: Just give me a couple more minutes, because I just briefly do want to discuss the HEP Resolution 1406, when that application came in, because it was for a complete restoration, specific remodeling of the existing buildings. You know, it talks about all the existing facades and repairs that are going to be done, and I just want to say that, you know, if we're talking about contributing and noncontributing, there are things that were mentioned in the conditions of that report which talk about the window design shall be reflective of the historic window type found in the 1950s architecture. This building, you know, it shows there was one existing window that was there. Commissioner Suarez: Is that the same building? Mr. Graboski: I'm sorry? Commissioner Suarez: Is that the same building? No. Okay. Mr. Graboski: 1 don't -- you guys don't have -- Vice Chair Russell: That's 50 -- Ms. Escarra: That's not it. Vice Chair Russell: That title can't match up with that photo. Commissioner Suarez: No. 1 was going to say, that's -- Mr. Graboski: Well -- but, again, in the -- in all of these agreements and covenants, it's all deemed one address. 5101 Biscayne Boulevard is considered the property. Vice Chair Russell: That's not that building, I don't think. Commissioner Suarez: That's not the building that we're talking about. Mr. Graboski: Yes, it is. Commissioner Suarez: That's not the building. Chair Hardemon: I'm confused. On the top it says 5101; the bottom one says 5125. Vice Chair Russell: Well, that's meant to be -- the one on the right would be 5101; the one on the left would be 5125. Ms. Escarra: They're all human error. Mr. Graboski: This -- the actual photo is the photo of what was once 5125. As I said, at the very beginning of these agreements -- Commissioner Suarez: Is that the building or not? City ofMiami Page 217 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: -- the covenants, they state that both addresses will be considered 1 - - 5101 Biscayne Boulevard. So there is only one address for these properties. Commissioner Suarez: But that is the building that we're talking about? Mr. Graboski: That is the building that we're talking about. Vice Chair Russell: Do you have that postcard? Mr. Graboski: I'm sorry? Vice Chair Russell: Do we have that physical postcard? Mr. Graboski: I don't have the fiscal postcard. Commissioner Suarez: Doesn't look like it. Ms. Escarra: Where did you obtain it? Commissioner Suarez: Maybe it's from the annual -- Mr. Cruz: The -- Ms. Toranzo may be able to remember that she had a copy of that photo in the file, and that is, indeed, the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. Commissioner Suarez: 1 got it. 1 see it now. I get it. Vice Chair Russell: All right. Mr. Graboski: 1 just wanted to point out that in this photograph -- or actually, just go to the next one. In this one, on the left-hand picture, on the right-hand side of what was once the original entry, you can still see that there was an existing window configuration. And on the left-hand side, there's the original brick pattern, which was then seen here where that red arrow is. So these are items that were part of this 2004 resolution that were particular to this building, because these were the key features -- the key identifying features for this building to be historic, so that I do want to point out that, yes, Resolution 14 did consider this to be a contributing structure. And I just want to say that when you're looking at a property that might have many additions and remodelings to it, you take a period in time when that building -- when you're going to go back to say, this is the period of time that we think is historical. This is the building that you were looking at earlier today. This, they said, was not contributing, but once you can strip that back, that's the period of time that you're going to say, "Okay, this is contributing." With this property, 5101 Biscayne Boulevard, which is two properties, there's no point in time that you're going to go back and have what is -- they're saying is a contributing building, because that noncontributing is what they're saying has always been there. It was there before the contributing building was there. So, I mean, it just doesn't make sense that that would not be contributing. And I mean, I can go in -- that -- this is the 40year recertification process, and all of these key points that are in this report are also part of the covenant in the Maintenance Plans that you have to abide by. So it's not like, you know, this 40 year Maintenance Plan is corning out of nowhere; it's part of the City policy. They made it part of the TDR Program so that you would maintain these buildings. Chair Hardemon: So ultimately, what are you asking -- what -- the information that you're providing us, are you just trying to show that it is contributing, that it's not -- noncontributing? City ofMiami Page 218 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: Well, I'm trying to make the point that once you sell those TDRs and take that benefit that you're then required by covenant to maintain and restore this building; that demolition is not one of the options for that once you sell the TDRs. Chair Hardemon: Is partial demolition one of the options? Mr. Graboski: Partial demolition could be, because this had partial demolition already approved. Commissioner Suarez: Is that based on your argument that that's what the covenant requires, or is that based on some other abstract --? Mr. Graboski: On what the TDR Program requires. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. When you say, "the TDR Program," what are you referencing? Are you referencing the City Code? What are you --? Mr. Graboski: City Code. Commissioner Suarez: What specifically are you referencing? Mr. Graboski: Section 23-6.8. Commissioner Suarez: What does it say? Mr. Graboski: I'll not read this whole thing, but -- because this is where -- I'll just go to the -- "The purpose of this incentive is to ensure that historic resources are preserved for public benefit. The requirements that follow apply to all buildings" -- it's not contributing buildings, noncontributing -- "all buildings which make use of the TDR Program. The use of the TDR for historic resources requires the demonstration and evidence that establishes the sound physical condition of the sending resource, or that the rehabilitation treatments, if needed, will be undertaken within a reasonable period of time, and that the owner and subsequent owners is covenanted to maintain the property. Therefore, following the qualification of any eligible historic resource, the applicant requesting the Certificate of Transfer shall provide the Planning Department with then the Existing Conditions Report and the Maintenance Plan." Ms. Escarra: Can I ask my questions? Are you concluded? Mr. Graboski: I will be concluded, yes. Chair Hardemon: Cross-examination. Ms. Escarra: Okay. I have just a feiv questions. So we -- No? Francisco? Mr. Graboski: I'm sorry? Ms. Escarra: No. I'm sorry. Mr. Garcia: No. I would simply -- and hope this is helpful., but with all due respect to Mr. Graboski, he has a thorough misunderstanding of the way the TDR Program works. I'm happy to explain how it works again; that's certainly not it. Ms. Escarra: So we've -- you stated on the record that in 2014, you voted in favor of the application at the time that Mr. Lewis presented? City ofMiami Page 219 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: Yes. Ms. Escarra: Do you remember in that 2014 application what portions we were demolishing? Mr. Graboski: Yes. Ms. Escarra: Can you come here to this picture and very that the sections that were being demolished are the hatch marked areas? Mr. Graboski: This section here, and this section here. Ms. Mendez: Can he have a microphone? Okay. Where's the other handheld? Where's the other one? Thank you. Someone find it. Mr. Graboski: Okay. The connecting building that was built in the 1980s, that was being demolished. There was this small roof wing here that they were being demolished to add the roof deck terrace. Ms. Escarra: And this area here? Mr. Graboski: There were -- some existing work in there. There's some minor modifications there, but I do know that in the conditions that there's a -- I believe that's where the mural is that that was to retain. Ms. Escarra: Well, this -- Ms. Mendez: If 1 may -- I'm sorry. For the record, because the record is not going to be able to tell this area here, this area there. If we can -- some little identification when you point to a certain -- Ms. Escarra: This is a plan that was submitted in 2014 to the Historic Preservation Board in consideration of the approval, the portions of the two properties that were proposed to be demolished The hatch mark area here is part of the contributing structure. At such time, the board voted in favor to demolish a portion of the contributing structure. Secondly, the board voted in favor of demolishing the 1980s edition. And third, that same board voted to demolish the feature which he was highlighting in that photo as important and articulate; but yet, the board, and his vote in favor, agreed to demolish that. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Ms. Mendez: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: You agree that you can demolish parts of a structure, even though you take TDRs? Mr. Graboski: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: If deemed appropriate by the HEP Board (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Escarra: I have no more questions. Vice Chair Russell: All right. Thank you very much. What's next? City ofMiami Page 220 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Graboski: If I just may say -- I mean, because there has been a partial demolition where TDRs have been sold. So, yes, partial demolitions are not -- you know, but is not a complete demolition. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Mr. Graboski: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Do you have anything further to present? Ms. Escarra: Oh, I have my presentation, and I hope to be much more brief. But I do want to start with something that I think is very important and I want to highlight. In our packet, although Mr. Cruz was not at the HEP Board hearing, we have submitted a certified copy by a court reporter of the transcript of that February hearing. Vice Chair Russell: Where is that? Ms. Escarra: That is Tab 6 here, certified by a court reporter, the record. And I want to point out that the board did consider that there was potentially something wrong with the map, because one of the issues was regards to one map versus the other map, the highlighting of it, and so forth. And I'm going to read into the record what Chairman Hoppy [sic], who had sat on that board ever since 1 can remember -- Vice Chair Russell: Which page of the record? Ms. Escarra: 1 am looking at page 30 of the transcript that was provided. This is -- Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Ms. Escarra: -- Chairman Hobby [sic] -- Hopper. Sorry. I just have a couple of things to say about that. One is that it very appreciative that it's all not as it was jumping" -- "as this was in the beginning. Number two, "I'm actually surprised to see what the historic building was, because that we never really clear to me since I've been there the last 30 or 30-so years." So I'm reading into the record the way he said it, just because I -- I'm reading. "And so, that's very interesting, exciting. With respect to the other building, I was just reflecting that probably the reason why the north building was not categorized as being contributing, why it is called noncontributing was because of the additions that had been put on it, and I think that was a characterization or a practice that had happened in the past. I don't know why I'm telling you this, since you're going to be leaving, and your colleagues have already gone." This is -- he's talking to Ms. Logan, Trish Logan. It was her last meeting. "But to my colleagues, who are still here, maybe this is something we could look into in the future in terms of recategorizing, as we did at some other districts, like Buena Vista. Just because something has had something added onto it, it doesn't mean that it can't be taken off and made contributing. Nevertheless, this is noncontributing as it is now" So it was very clear that the board, on their February 17 position, considered noncontributing, contributing, and so forth, and made it very clear in their vote that they supported this. Furthermore, Vice Chair Lewis, Lynn Lewis, who's very articulate, said, "So I would move the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for various things. I've got to get my cheat sheets. For renovation of a contributing structure, demolition of a noncontributing structure, and construction of a new three-story commercial building at the property address, of which is 5101 and 5125 in the historic MiMo District, with nine conditions, as articulated." So what I'm -- want to make sure to emphasize, that the board did review this, did carefully make their decision, and considered the contributing versus noncontributing. So any allegation that the board didn't have any information, the City ofMiami Page 221 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 board didn't discuss it, is incorrect. Now, I need to put things into the record to make sure the record is reflected correctly. But I wanted to make you jump to this section, because I think this is extremely important, because we've all been hearing what the board said or didn't say, or didn't consider, did consider. The record is very clear that the board did consider that issue. With regards to the settlement agreement, there was many allegations with regard to what the settlement agreement said, didn't say, what was considered by this board when they voted, and I just want to make sure it's consistent. The settlement agreement, the City resolution, the City backup, and what was placed in the media, everything said that, `Avra has voluntarily agreed to limit the height of the project to 35 feet." She didn't agree to keep a noncontributing building. She agreed to build in accordance with the historic resources. Nov; "historic resource" is the very word that's been used a lot here today. Historic resource is the district. An eligible historic district [sic] is the actual building. So there is a distinction in the City Code, in Chapter 23, between historic resource and eligible historic resource. The eligible is the designated one. Therefore, here, in the "whereas" clauses, "The developer will adhere to the 35-foot height limitation for the project." So when they settled, and she gave up the ability to build an eight -story, 63-unit building, she agreed -- the City -- in essence, she had to right to go and pull a building permit. The City said, `In exchange for that" -- of which Mr. Cruz came in support of that settlement agreement. For her to give up those rights, they allowed her to sell the rights she would have otherwise been allowed to build, so long as she built and developed in accordance with the historic regulations of the City Code, and that is what she did. Secondly, 1'd like to clarify some points with regards to the 2006 report. The 2006 report can be found on Legistar, the City's recordkeeping system, in file 06 -- sorry. I just want to make sure I put it onto the record correctly. -- 06-01126ha. With that, the Designation Report not only showed the depiction of the property, hut it specifically mentioned the property three times. In the description, Bayside Motor Inn, located at 5101 in 1952 -- this is in the Designation Report -- refers to it as a two-story building, contain -- and was built at a cost of 55,000. The courtyard (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are typical. Most important, 1 want to point out is that it was built with 19 units. It is a hotel built with 19 units. This particular building had 19 units. This one had another 21. So, in total, this was 19 hotel units; this is 21 apartment units. So in the report, they specifically only refer to the 19 units being designated. Secondly, as Mr. Cruz and his folks have pointed out, 5101 is listed, listed as contributing. The little asterisk means -- is that it had a vested application before this Designation Report; listed as well. Here in the map that we have obtained from the Clerk's Office from the City, it is showing our site whited out. It shows clearly 5101. So the little hatch marks have the address of each site, and it's showing us whited out. So then, one of the things that Mr. Cruz mentioned was the Janus Report. So the Janus Report was something that the City reviewed as they were starting the MiMo. Since 2003 to 2006, the City had a lot of public meetings, they had a lot of workshops. In that report, between the original report and what the board adopted, were all these changes; 21 differences between the report and what was ultimately adopted. So in certain properties -- the 5061, which was shown as the building across the street that looks similar in nature to ours, noncontributing. The Janus Report said, "No, that's a noncontributing building." The board said, it's contributing, specifically. So the board took some sites as contributing, changed them to noncontributing, and vice versa, because that is what the HEP Board does. It reviews it, it analyzes, and is able to vote one way or the other with regards to that. So with regards to the Janus Report being some sort of information or guidance, it was a guidance that was used, but the HEP Board ultimately, did not include it as contributing. Again, this was actually in the report that staff provided to the HEP Board, which showed this one as white, and it had this white -out section. Interestingly enough, this white -out section here represents about three blocks that are within the district. So to a certain extent, if -- Mr. Cruz is saying that because this property wasn't listed on the Designation Report, therefore, we are contributing. And I would argue, because I'm not listed on the Designation City ofMiami Page 222 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Report, I'm not in the Historic District. I'm not listed. It's not -- Pm not part of it. Pm not restricted. I shouldn't be part of MiMo. There are 21 properties that are not listed on that same 2006 report; yet, the map shows them as included. An important factor here is that when Avra Jain bought the property, she relied on this report. She agreed to give up rights to develop before this report, and has developed consistently in accordance with the report and in accordance with the historic Chapter 23 regulations. She's gone to HEP Board twice on this matter. In the original one, as well as in this one, there are portions of the contributing historic Bayside Motor Inn, the 19 units that are being demolished of the contributing one. We have never deviated, and she has never deviated from her commitment to the TDRs, to the preservation, to the restoration. To all those words that were used, she's consistent. She agrees to them On the historic building, she has agreed to do all of that, but on the noncontributing building, she's not required to do that, and that's why she went to a public hearing, and she asked that Historic Preservation Board, "I would like to present the, following." The Historic Preservation Board -- in the record, it is very clear that they reviewed all these different components to it. One second. Correct. Another thing, on the same settlement agreement that this board considered at a public hearing and adopted, and which Mr. Cruz and the Morningside Civic Association executed and agreed to, it references the June 6, 2006 MiMo Report, which specifically states that the property is not contributing, and only the Bayside Motor Inn 19-unit structure is contributing. Furthermore, the covenant and the agreement which they executed specifically states, "The City has created a Transfer Development Rights Program, as set forth in Chapter 23-6 of the City Code, to encourage new construction and improvements to existing structures located within the MiMo District and" -- this is the most important part I want to emphasize -- "to redress the loss of property rights to those property owners located within the MiMo District by imposition of the 35 foot height limitation." So there's been a lot of testimony that said that the TDRs were for the historic site. The TDRs that she received is because she gave up an eight -story building. She gave up 63 units that she was able to build. So I wanted to make sure that that's addressed. Furthermore, it said Bayside would be allowed to transfer the available unused development rights of the approved Class H. So they specifically limited us to the square footage of the approved Class II vested permit in exchange for Bayside's withdrawal and abandonment of the Class II Special Permit and foifeiture of rights to the issuance of that building perrnit. So she walked away from an eight -story building. So some of the neighbors are complaining today about a three-story building. She had the right and gave up the financial viability of building an eight -story building. Furthermore, the settlement agreement tied to the covenant that was issued by the TDR Program, because it specifically had all the different provisions of the requirements that we had to do, so the both are correlated. We've already addressed the fact that the TDR Program and the City of Miami Chapter 23-6 allows for any eligible site within the MiMo District, whether historic or not historic, whether contributing or noncontributing. As long as you are in the MiMo District, you're eligible for TDRs. I would like to bring up Dean Lewis as an expert witness. Dean Lewis is an architect. He sits on the City's Urban Design Review Board. He was actually the crafter and the author of the Designation Report, as well as the 2014 approved plans. With that said, I'd like to have Dean state and clarify on the record some of the information that was provided with regards to the Maintenance Report and the plans that were provided in 2014. Vice Chair Russell: Which Designation Report did you author? Mr. Lewis: She meant to say the Existing Conditions Report and Maintenance Report. And I was also here before my colleague, expert architect, knew about the TDR Program. I was instrumental in presenting it and negotiating it with Commissioner Sarnoff There was a strong push for the TDR movement with Greenberg Traurig and its first implementation with the Vagabond, and the real City ofMiami Page 223 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 reason for the whole program was first to compensate the loss and avoid a Bert Harris claim against the City for the new 35-foot height lid, as well as restore historic structures on particular sites that were already built. So Robert John has about 10 TDR transactions; we're at 15, and going on 20 in process. We've got over 14 buildings in design, and five already built and under construction in the MiMo District, so I think we qualify to discuss. And I'm here moreover to answer any questions you may have; and in most particular, I did provide you within the Preexisting Conditions Report, this photograph, which was also a part of the restrictive covenants. Remember, the restrictive covenant starts as a general document, and then gets specific on a case -by -case basis, but it is all about where you're starting from and where you're going to go and the improvements that need to be made, and we did get specific about partial demolition. And we clearly identified in compliance with the Preservation officer's request, the series of photographs, underlining, highlighting the pre -noncontributing structure and the contributing structure to the south for everybody's obvious retention, except that of Mr. Cruz, and here we are after many years. So the fact that we didn't propose a project in 2014 that had total demolition of the north building was not because we weren't entitled to do it; it was because our scope targeted as much restoration as possible at the time, but the building, under further analysis, was crumbling in my hands, literally, as we got into more exploratory analysis and structure; it's the same that happened to the Royal Noxon Motel next to Vagabond; it's the same that happened at the Stevens Motel, where the new Starbucks is built. These buildings are frail, fragile cinderblocks, waiting to implode under a new, much stricter, structurally demanding Building Code of today. 50 years does not make it. Now, in certain cases, when you have an exemplary example of style and architecture, you do surgical demo, decide what you want to keep, and that was the case .for the Starbucks project, where we kept the two bookends on the Boulevard and demolished the whole "U" building, which, at that time, was also considered, in general, contributing. But not to confuse or -- 1 want to get right to the point of this structure and why the 2006 Historic Designation Report was, in fact, purposely articulate in excluding the north building, and it's because of the future -- the 1990s additions: The deplorable mansard roof entry. The masking of the entrance of the 5125 building that used to be with the mural and stone denigrated to such an extent that it is no longer achieving a contributing status, and it did not meet the guidelines of the Secretary of Interior's qualifications of integrity, and that's clearly articulated, to which we are intent and obliged to follow when we make these evaluation reports. If I -- you want me to go into more detail about that, I will. But there are six criteria of integrity, to which the north building no longer complied, and hence, it lost its contributing potential status. And why the 2006 report, I believe, is consistent -- though, I didn't draft it -- I believe it's a true assessment of the existing conditions today. Have any questions, I'd like to be available to answer. 1J1 haven't covered something, let me know. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Mr. Lewis: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Would you like to cross-examine? Mr. Cruz: Yes. Yes, I would. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Am I cross-examining only Dean Lewis at this time, or am I rebutting Ms. Escarra? Vice Chair Russell: Have at it. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Ms. Escarra is not a witness; she's counsel. Mr. Cruz: Okay. City ofMiami Page 224 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Correct. Thank you very much. Mr. Cruz: All right. Mr. Lewis, you did an inspection on this building in 2014, and you issued that report that said it was safe and sound, correct? Mr. Lewis: Okay, clarification. This Existing Condition's Report and Maintenance Report are applicable to both buildings. It's not one building inspection and then a second. It was a general, cursory, eye, visual inspection report. That's stated there, as well. So to cone back and say, "Oh, well, you claimed it was structurally of integrity and" -- it's contrary to the intent anyway, whether it was contributing or noncontributing. It doesn't matter if it were structurally sound. It could still be noncontributing and merit demolition. Vice Chair Russell: Right. I think it's probably better that you hadn't even brought it up, because it's really not relevant. But in your testimony -- Mr. Lewis: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- you brought up how it wasn't structural, so now he's -- Mr. Lewis: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: -- questioning whether -- Mr. Lewis: The northern portion, correct. And it wasn't until after we got into it and started considering a revision to the project that I was able to ascertain the fragility of the existing structure, and also the opportunity to park below grade. A real demand, a real hardship we have in MiMo is parking, and hence, the entitlement to move forward with the demolition of a noncontributing structure led to the final design. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Lewis: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: So then, you're saying that you were inaccurate in your evaluation when you said it was safe and sound? Mr. Lewis: I -- no. That was referring to portions of the building that is, like the southern building that was built later. Like I said it would include -- Mr. Cruz: But you don't delineate between the two? Mr. Lewis: -- both buildings in the analysis, simultaneously -- Mr. Cruz: Correct. You did not differentiate. Mr. Lewis: -- even though I -- well -- Mr. Cruz: You just said that they were safe and sound. Mr. Lewis: That statement was a general statement, correct, though, the report does spec' that only one building is contributing. 5101. Mr. Cruz: Now, you drew up -- City ofMiami Page 225 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Lewis: On the first page. Yes, sir? Mr. Cruz: Are you not the architect that drew up the plans that were submitted to the HEP Board in February of 2014? Mr. Lewis: Yes, I was. Mr. Cruz: And those plans -- Mr. Lewis: I am. Mr. Cruz: -- do not have anything on them saying whether something is contributing or noncontributing, correct? Mr. Lewis: The -- you just heard that that was discussed on the record. Mr. Cruz: No. What I'm asking you is, the plans that you submitted as the architect for the HEP Board in February of 2014, they did not say contributing or noncontributing; is that correct? Mr. Lewis: I would have to review again and see, but the points is -- Vice Chair Russell: Well, you obviously know all this. What's your point? Mr. Lewis: Yeah. 1 mean, you're -- Vice Chair Russell: So there was no mention of contributing versus noncontributing in his 2014 plans that were submitted. Understood. Mr. Lewis: I'm not so sure -- I reserve (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: Are you, as the submitting architect, allowed to declare whether or not -- are you authorized to declare whether or not a building is contributing or noncontributing? Mr. Lewis: The Existing Conditions Reports were required to be precise and to follow the 2006 Historic Designation Report, which we followed on all of our dozens of projects in the MiMo District. We've always relied on that, and that is the basis of that -- Mr. Cruz: But that's not what I'm asking you, sir. I'm asking, are you authorized to declare whether or not a building is contributing or noncontributing? Mr. Lewis: No, I was not. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Mr. Lewis: And if I were engaged to do an analysis, an inspection, another report, then that'd be a different matter, but in this case, I did not. Mr. Cruz: And you were present at that February 2014 meeting in front of the HEP Board, and you presented the application and the plans, correct? Mr. Lewis: Yes, of course. Mr. Cruz: So then you would have heard the HEP staff say that both buildings were contributing, correct? City ofMiami Page 226 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Cruz: No, you didn't hear that? Mr. Lewis: No. Mr. Cruz: You didn't read the staff report? Mr. Lewis: They're talking in general. Once again, you're confusing -- you're trying to muddy the waters here, Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: Not at all. Mr. Lewis: Oh, yeah. Mr. Cruz: I'm trying to ascertain that there's been a total history in that 2014 application -- Mr. Lewis: Okay. Mr. Cruz: -- that said the buildings -- Mr. Lewis: We've heard you. Mr. Cruz: -- that were contributing, and at no time did anybody from your party object. Ms. Escarra: 1 have to object to this line of questioning, because that's not the basis of the appeal. The basis of the appeal is the 2017 HEP Board decision. Vice Chair Russell: Exactly. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: And actually, the Code provides that you're supposed to make certain arguments on appeal, and you're supposed to follow those arguments, though it is a de novo hearing. If it's -- Mr. Cruz: I'd like -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: -- he should be following the arguments he raised in his own appeal. Mr. Cruz: Sure. I'd like to question Mr. Lewis now about the submission of October of 2014, the attachment to the restrictive covenant. Vice Chair Russell: Talking about the Maintenance Plan? Mr. Cruz: Yes, the Maintenance Plan that has a couple pages of plans, and those pages where you have labeled noncontributing and contributing for the north and south. Mr. Lewis: Yes. Mr. Cruz: Are you -- can you go ahead and turn to that? Mr. Lewis: Yes. This -- it's this page here. Again, this leaves no ambiguity as to all parties, what's considered contributing or noncontributing, and staff as well, so. City ofMiami Page 227 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Cruz: But that's what you labeled them. And again -- Mr. Lewis: This was prepared through an approval process with the Preservation officer, with the staff of the City, and there's a protocol. There were requirements for additional photos. I mean -- Mr. Cruz: If I may., continue, Mr. Lewis? Thank you. So you drew up these plans after the February 2014 plans. These are different, because these plans say contributing and noncontributing, but the February plans did not, correct? Mr. Lewis: This is the same plan showing the additional information, clarification, contributing, noncontributing. Mr. Cruz: So you added contributing and noncontributing. Those weren't there in February, were they? Mr. Lewis: Like I said, I don't think so, but I'd have to verify. Mr. Cruz: Well, I know so; I have them here, and I can show you that. Mr. Lewis: Okay. Mr. Cruz: But aside from that -- Mr. Lewis: Yeah, 1 hear you. Mr. Cruz: --1 want to point out that on those plans, aside from your having labeled them contributing or noncontributing, the plans clearly show that the building is not being demolished; it's being restored, isn't it? Mr. Lewis: Yes. At that time, as I told -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Mr. Lewis: -- as I said. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis: And again, your appeal is not on the 2014 HEP Board -approved COA. Your appeal is on the 2017 COA. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: He's answered the question. That's sufficient. You've answered the question. What else? We're good? Mr. Cruz: With Mr. Lewis, yes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Iris. Ms. Escarra: I'm still going. A few points. I want to make sure that our binder -- my binder is put into the record, as well as the HEP Board decision, and the record City ofMiami Page 228 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 of the HEP Board decision. The HEP Board decisions are based on the criteria set forth in Chapter 23, the Secretary of Interior Standards, and the guidelines adopted by the HEP Board. Mr. Cruz has not mentioned how the plan approved by the HEP Board is contrary to any of those standards. He has not mentioned that this HEP Board found that the project met all of the requirements and would be welcomed in the MiMo District. He has not challenged the HEP Board's decision to support this particular application. The arguments you heard today from Mr. Cruz are not sufficient to overturn the HEP Board's decision or remand back to the HEP Board's decision, since they clearly analyzed the contributing and noncontributing, as stated on the record, which was based on the criteria in Chapter 23, Secretary of Interior Standards, and guidelines adopted by the HEP Board. I stand by the record that the HEP Board reviewed this clearly. And I conclude my presentation for now, unless I have a. few minutes to rebut any particular inconsistencies in the rebuttal. Mr. Cruz: May I, gentlemen? Vice Chair Russell: Is there, further discussion to be heard? Mr. Cruz: I wanted to offer some rebuttal. If I could have the control room put my slides -- PowerPoint back up. Chair Hardemon: IT (Information Technology). To IT. Mr. Cruz: Control room, video, are you listening? Commissioner Gort: IT. Mr. Cruz: IT Communications. There we go. Here we go. While that's coming up, I want to mention that Ms. Escarra stated that the HEP Board voted on a long list of buildings and whether or not they were contributing or noncontributing. I've seen that February -- excuse me -- that June 6, 2016 meeting. They did not vote on any individual properties at that meeting, not at all. So that was an inaccurate statement. Ms. Escarra: If I may, what my record reflects is that that is the differences between the Janus Report and the 2006 report, which is what they ultimately adopted. That was what staff recommended to them. So I just was trying to depict that you had said that our property should have been contributing, and they voted it to be noncontributing, and the inverse was true. There were some properties that were noncontributing that the board voted to make contributing. So it wasn't an analysis that they did. Mr. Cruz: But again, the City doesn't know what they voted on that day. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: But I think we're beyond -- if I may -- beyond argument. We're now at your brief rebuttal, and then there's going to closings, correct? Mr. Cruz: I would hope so. Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Still waiting for the control room to -- Commissioner Suarez: You know, the U.S. Supreme Court only gives 30 minutes for oral arguments? 30 minutes. You got to get it all in there. City ofMiami Page 229 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: You really do. Because you know why? Because they already have the record. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: They already have the things to consider, like all this stuff we have. Mr. Cruz: Also, in rebuttal, the eight -story building was not as of right. It was being contested and appealed at that time. Vice Chair Russell: Are we going to look back at the same slides we've already seen? Ms. Escarra: Could it be any of the exhibits that I may have on boards? Chair Hardemon: Can you present your argument without it? Vice Chair Russell: He's going to have to. Mr. Cruz: I'll just take the hit. What I was going to show you -- she showed a third Biscayne Boulevard Historic District Designation Report, one that has the -- what was the name of the motel? South Pacific? Vice Chair Russell: 1 saw that. Mr. Cruz: On the front? Vice Chair Russell: Different graphic. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. And 1 have -- on my laptop, I can show you that I also checked the metadata on that, and that was created I believe in October of 2006, so that was also after. So that was not something that could have been voted on on that day. Shall we do closing? Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Yes. Yes, there should be closing. You would be first as the appellant and then followed by the appellee. Vice Chair Russell: Do we do a time limit on the closing? Mr. Cruz: Thank you, gentlemen. All right. As you've seen -- Chair Hardemon: One minute. Mr. Cruz: I can do it. As you've seen, this has been a total travesty in terms of a settlement agreement and a restrictive covenant. I read you the highlights. There's no doubt whatsoever what was intended by those. We have seen and it was talked about earlier today the long and sad history the City has of trampling on and ignoring restrictive covenants. You saw what the intent was, to preserve those buildings. TDRs were granted and sold under that premise. And yet, apparently there's an escape clause which makes the whole restrictive covenant useless. This speaks exactly to what you were referring to, Commissioner Suarez. What trust does the public have? The citizens of Morningside for 10 years litigated this. The settlement came along. We were told this is going to preserve the buildings. You saw what they presented in 2014. And yet now, "No, we're throwing that away. We're going to demolish this." By the way, we still haven't had the public hearing, and there's a next -door neighbor -- City ofMiami Page 230 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardman: Yes, we have. We had a public hearing. Mr. Cruz: Well, no. Those were the interveners that were not allowed to speak, because you said we're holding off on the interveners, because you wanted to look into that. Chair Hardemon: No. I said that one of them had an opportunity to lay the rest of the record about his -- as a public comment, but he's not an intervener. We made a determination that he's not an intervener. Mr. Cruz: Correct. But the other gentleman in the back -- if you could raise your hand, Damian? -- he is also an abutting property owner. Chair Hardman: I understand. Make your closing argument. I suggest you stay -- Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardman: -- away from public comment when you're supposed -- Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardman: -- to be closing your argument. Mr. Cruz: All right, so the intent was clear. This is a total travesty and a mockery of the whole concept of the covenant. I've shown you nine different documents that said that that building is contributing. They were not able to come up with a document that said it's noncontributing, except for a map that is -- doesn't even have a legend, doesn't have a title, has all sorts of stray marks, and is obviously, a work in progress. And even the Designation Report that Ms. Escarra showed does not list 5125 as being noncontributing. If it wanted to show 5125 as noncontributing, it would have listed it as noncontributing, but it did not. Why, not? Because, as you've seen, the building was only listed at 5101, during that era; and chances are, it was looked at and decided the whole building is contributing. Thank you. Chair Hardman: Thank you, sir. Ms. Escarra: Good evening. It's unfortunate that Mr. Cruz has alleged that the City for 11 years has been doing this wrong; the City staff has been doing this wrong; the City Commission erroneously voted on something; several City departments reviewed at least six separate documents that were all erroneously long. This is what he's alleging this evening, and he wants you to support his appeal, because he feels that for 11 years, the City has done everything wrong. If the City has, in fact, done everything wrong for the past 11 years, then our property is not in the MiMo District and we're allowed to build full rights under his theory. which is not what the intent was, and that is not what Ms. Jain's intent is. Ms. Jain's intent is to preserve and to redevelop the MiMo District. She's consistently demonstrated that in her last four projects. She is not making a significant amount of money off of these projects. She makes her money in the Design District, in Wynwood, in Little Haiti. This she does because she has a passion for it, and that is something that I, as an attorney, am very proud of because she's very passionate about this, and she does this out of her own pocket. She does this because she believes in MiMo. She lives by MiMo. She is there all the time, and she is helping other businesses. She actually connects other tenants with other businesses in the area. So to state that there is some mal intent, or there was some conspiracy theory in going to a public hearing and having the HEP Board decide on this and make a determination, I think it is cruelly disingenuous of Mr. Cruz to lead you to believe that. With that said, I conclude. City ofMiami Page 231 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. At this time, I'll allow the gentleman who started his initial statement to finish his statement that he wants to read into the record. You can also supplement the record with your statement, if you'd like; and then I'll allow you, sir, to make your two -minute statement. And also -- and remember, board members, we reserved on whether or not Mr. Cruz was a -- Mr. Suarez -Rivas: Has standing. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Right. Manny Rodriguez: I have one question -- First of all, thank you for all staying late. I appreciate it. My appearance, I've lived next to the building for 42 years, and they've worked hard, and this is very important to them, so I appreciate everyone's time and effort in this matter. Before I.finish reading my statement, I have a question, because I keep hearing about HEP hearings, and what happened at the HEP hearing. What is the HEP Board's process of informing neighbors of HEP hearings? Mr. Garcia: For Certificates of Appropriateness, it is only required that a notice be sent to all registered homeowners associations with a list that the City keeps. There is no additional requirement. Ms. Rodriguez: Because my parents live right next door; they were provided no notification. However, they did receive a notification .for todav's event, so I think that's inconsistent. 1 don't think that's fair that a decision was made on a property right next door to my parents with my parents not being there, and they weren't able to voice their opinion as they're able to do tonight through me. And going through -- you know, sitting here for hours, listening to everyone's argument, I've come to the conclusion there is a lot of inconsistencies, and a lot of decisions were made based off incorrect maps, information on a website that's not correct, a property Condition Report that says a property's stable and safe, but then come to believe that it was just an eyeball. 1 mean, was the City of Miami relying on this report when they were determining this covenant? And to realize there's a whole bunch of covenants out there that are legally binding documents that the Citv's not enforcing is a concern. Speaking as a resident, it is concerning. So I will now read from my statement: `A4y name is Manny Rodriguez. I'm speaking on behalf of my parents, Manuel and Josefa Rodriguez, who are standing beside me, and who live at 410 Northeast 52nd Street, which is in Morningside, and directly abuts the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. My parents bought their home in 1975. They've lived there for 42 years, and plan on living there the rest of their lives. Even though we are immediately next door to the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard property with an undeniable, cognizable, legal interest that is adversely affected by the HEP Board decision being challenged here today, we never received notice of the HEP Board hearing to demolish this building. We are aggrieved party, and ask to be recognized in this proceeding as quaked interveners. We are here making appearance on the record in support of this appeal, and in opposition to the HEP Board uninformed decision to allow demolition of the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. From our understanding, the HEP Board's decision was made without the knowledge of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. Neither the applicant, nor the City informed the HEP Board of existence of those legally binding documents. The HEP Board's' decision is in conflict with the legally binding settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. It's highly unlikely that the HEP Board would have voted to allow this demolition had they been made aware of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which do not allow demolition, but instead, expressly require the preservation and maintenance of the building. The HEP Board uninformed decision does not supersede a settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. We support the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which resolved a long -running legal City ofMiami Page 232 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 dispute on this property, and did so in a very generous fashion to the property owner. After receiving and transferring millions of dollars' worth of TDRs, the property owners have not done a thing to fulfill their obligation to restore the buildings. There are important questions surrounding this case. Why did the City not tell the HEP Board about the existence of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant? Was that a deliberate omission of critical and material facts? Has there been an investigation to that omission? My parents live right next door, and I visit them frequently. We are eyewitnesses to the fact that the property owners has left the building unsecured with open windows. Their own architect inspected the report to be safe and sound in 2014. If the building is now in poor condition, as they have claimed, it's further proof that they're in breach of the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, which requires them to preserve and maintain the building. They have not done a thing to preserve and maintain this building. Having worked in commercial real estate in over 10 years, and being involved with numerous real estate transaction -- it's almost all 50 states -- I'm baffled at what I've been made aware with within the past. few days. Vice Chair Russell: I didn't except you to reread the entire thing. I thought you were going to continue from where you were. Mr. Rodriguez: I don't remember where I was. Chair Hardemon: Go ahead now. Mr. Rodriguez: The major points are as follows: The declaration and restrictive covenants and settlement agreement were executed in 2014, specifically referred to both properties as being historically designated, and both are to be preserved and maintained in accordance with an Existing Condition and Improvement Report and a Maintenance Schedule Report that was provided by the property owner to the City of Miami. The conclusion of the Existing Condition and Improvement Report states that the property is safe and sound and was built in compliance. The City of Miami agreed -- point number two -- that in order to encourage the preservation of the historic property and recognizing the additional costs and requirements associated with the rehabilitation of the historic property permitted a multiplier of four times the unused floor area and unused development rights in order to calculate the amount of TDR that allowed to be transferred to an eligible receiving site. The total TDR that was agreed upon was 459,528 square feet. To date, the property owner has transferred over 340,000 square feet of TDR, and is now stating that the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building is not worth saving. Almost 75 percent of the provided TDRs that were given as an economic incentive for the owner have been cashed in; yet, no visible rehabilitation has been made to the 5125 Biscayne Boulevard building. I don't understand how this is happening, and for the past three years, no action has taken place. My, parents and I are hereby officially, requesting on the record that the City of Miami Commission, the City Attorney, the City Manager; the Planning director, the Zoning administrator, and the Historic Preservation officer take whatever steps are necessary to immediately enforce the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. We already sent this request via certified mail to the City Attorney. Please affirm this appeal, and move to immediately enforce the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant. Your next steps should be vigorous Code enforcement and a Writ of Mandamus to the courts. I close with this question to the City Attorney, through the Chair: Why has the City not moved to enforce the settlement agreement and restrictive covenant, and will you do so now? Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, let me allow the gentleman. Damian Pardo: Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Damian Pardo, and I live at 421 Northeast 5lst Street. And I guess the first thing I'd ask, if City ofMiami Page 233 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 there's any way to get the slide back that actually shows the hotel with the red arrows on one side, and then the other side, the south side? Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) going to have to show that computer. That computer will have to do it. Your computer would have to do it, right? Unidentified Speaker: My computer (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: We know it. We know it. Mr. Pardo: Okay. Just think of that slide, if you remember it, the one with the red arrows, and I live on the south side, right? That abuts to my property, so that's the part that hits my property. When you look at that building, just look at it, and I guess everybody kind of looking at it and using, I guess -- I'm no expert, by any means, but just kind of common sense. You look at the side that abuts my property, that is not a very interesting side, at all. I mean, I don't see what benefit there is to that side of the building, but that's the contributing property. The noncontributing property, the one with all the red arrows, that's a really interesting side that you can see the details, the -- all that stuff on the wall. Okay, that's kind of different. That property that's behind me has not been maintained for three years, completely dark every night, absolutely nothing has been done, so it calls to question -- I get that they probably need parking but destroying the nicer part of that building for parking is probably not a great idea. At least that's -- as someone who's on the outside looking in, that's my personal opinion. And then I'll just make a very quick statement, that I'm the party affected by the proposed project, because 1 live immediately next door. Even though 1 live immediately next door, I never received any notice about this, at all, about the HEP Board; otherwise, 1 would have made it a point to appear. And I'm hereby making an appearance on the record in support of the appeal and in opposition to the HEP Board's uninformed decision to allow demolition at 5125 Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized. Dolly Maclntyre: One and a half minutes. Pm Dolly Maclntyre. I'm the advocacy chair for Dade Heritage Trust, with offices at 150 Southeast 12th Terrace, in Miami. In the interest of transparency, I want to tell you that Avra Jain, the owner of this property, is a member of our board of trustees. She was elected to that position because she is a developer with preservation experience, a rare bird in Miami. We hope to benefit from her knowledge and experience as we move forward preserving our special places. Preservation is not just saving those places; it's also about managing change. This particular case has become very convoluted with he said/she said; a battle of semantics and egos. I leave it to you all in your wisdom to figure out the correct solution here. But one very important thing that has been made apparent by this -- I hate to say "circus," but maybe that's a good word. This is partly a reflection of the fact that the Citv's Historic Preservation Department is dangerously, dangerously understaffed for the amount of work they are expected to accomplish. You must remedy that situation, or we are going to be spending many more days, hours and hours in this room with this kind of argument. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Ms. Stander. Debbie Stander, 830 Northeast 74th Street. I think we've been able to establish that -- Ms. Escarra: Spoken already three times. Ms. Stander: -- there -- City ofMiami Page 234 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Ms. Escarra: This is her third time up speaking. I have told our folks that they can't come up again to speak, because they've already spoken. Chair Hardemon: I know you spoke during -- Vice Chair Russell: You tried. Chair Hardemon: -- public continent the first time. Ms. Stander: Yes. Chair Hardemon: I know you were helping very much so with Mr. Cruz, helped with the expert witness; now you're back again. I'll give you 30 seconds to make a point. Ms. Stander. All right. There's been a question about whether the building is contributing or noncontributing, and the HEP Board got all the information it needed. The HEP Board didn't get all the information it needed When a person applies for TDRs, there are different procedures for TDRs for noncontributing buildings and applying for TDRs for contributing buildings. When you apply for TDRs for a contributing building, you get a Certificate of Eligibility, and once that Certificate of Eligibility has been issued, which -- and one was -- this property, it becomes a -- what's it called? -- eligible historic resource. And the historic preservation ordinances, which I'm looking at right now, say that eligible historic resources cannot be demolished; absent, of course, a Certificate of Approval from the HEP Board. Well, the HEP Board didn't know that this was an eligible historic resource, because it wasn't provided with the information about the TDRs, it wasn't provided with the Certificate of Eligibility, and it wasn't provided with all of the other supporting information which would have led it to believe that it was truly contributing. And again, there is no official record anywhere of this building ever having been individually voted on or designated as noncontributing. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Stander: Just omissions. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Mr. Garcia -- Well, go ahead, Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Garcia, you mentioned that you feel, unequivocally, that the original decision of the HEP Board was that the south parcel would be contributing, and the north not contributing. How do you back that up? Was -- what --? Mr. Garcia: I'm comfortable that the evidence has been presented that has led us to that conclusion. What I can tell you, perhaps, in addition to what has already been presented to assist with getting through all this information, is that above and beyond any particular document -- And I guess I should parenthetically own up to some inaccuracies that have transpired, not only in the Planning & Zoning Department, but since I happen to be the Planning & Zoning director, there are some documents that are clearly inaccurate. Right? And so we're saddled with that. That's our historic legacy, and we hope to do better in the future; we certainly do. That said, the advantage we do have, of course, is that there is institutional knowledge that is passed on from one Preservation officer to the next, to the next, to the next, and I'm here to tell you that I can certainly vouch for the fact the Historic Preservation Office, at least during my tenure as Planning & Zoning director, has been nothing except extremely diligent and extremely thorough in all the research City ofMiami Page 235 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 they conduct, the analyses they prepare and their presentations before the Historic 1 Environmental Preservation Board. That, perhaps for me, has more weight than anything else that has been presented. In addition to that, of course, records have been presented to you and information has been shown that leads to us believe conclusively that the subject designations were one for contributing and the other one for noncontributing. I understand that the fact that different words, such as "eligible," "historic," "resource, " et cetera, have been put forth on the record tends to clog the record. Ultimately, ultimately, the essential component to our analysis is whether the structures are contributing or noncontributing. And in this case, to the best of our ability and the knowledge that we have, one is contributing; the other one is not, and that has backed up and substantiated all the findings that have been made through the years for this particular property. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I certainly recognize that you take exception to what's been -- a lot of the things that have been stated here today, and I do hope also that you can see where some of it may come from; within the inaccuracies and contradictions that are within our maps, that are within our records. That could easily lead someone to believe that something is afoot or something is wrong. You know, the -- you know, I believe that everybody is here today in good faith, all; the Department, Mr. Cruz, Avra, and that's why I really wanted to hear everything out. 171 take that back. I wanted to defer the whole thing. But once we got into it, for sure, you know -- and you see every Commissioner up here giving everybody the time that they need to be heard. For me, what this really boils down to is an original decision of the HEP Board and a decision of the HEP Board recently, and we have to decide whether they made their decision correctly, procedurally correctly; whether they had the information necessary, and whether they took the considerations that they needed to do. Elvis, 1 -- your presentation is incredibly valiant and thorough. You have found so many inaccuracies that, 1 say, embarrass the City, because as stewards of our records for historic preservation -- Ms. Maclntyre said it best -- we need to step up and staff sufficiently so that we can be the steward of those records, because mistakes happen, and 1 don't want to get into whether or not those mistakes were intentional or not. 1 don't believe they were. 1 see a lot of mistakes here. But the original intention of the HEP Board, and certainly the intention of this most recent HEP Board, is clear that they did consider this. They considered these factors, whether it was contributing or noncontributing. They weren't blind in their decision, and for that reason, I would move to deny the appeal in this situation. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to deny the appeal. Is there --? Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: And there's the second. Is there any further discussion about the issue? Seeing none, all in favor of the item -- of the motion, say "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion pass. (Applause) Ms. Escarra: Thank you very much. City ofMiami Page 236 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.16 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1900 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3550 WEST GLENCOE STREET AND 3535 HIAWATHA AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "T5-R", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE -RESTRICTED, AND "NCD-3", COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TO "T3-R", SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE —RESTRICTED, AND "NCD-3", COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.16 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.16, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.16, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." PZ.17 ORDINANCE Second Reading 2037 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T6-8-O", URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN, TO "T6-12-0", URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE -OPEN, FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.98 ACRES (42,714 SQUARE FEET) OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1900 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13685 City ofMiami Page 237 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Chair Hardemon: PZ.17. Commissioner Suarez: Is there anyone opposing any of the items that are left? I mean, maybe we can add -- we can take them wholesale. Chair Hardemon: I don't know if we have to be -- Vice Chair Russell: I know Commissioner Gort has some items he wants to hear. Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Know what? Commissioner Gort: I got one. Commissioner Suarez: No. I was going to say, take them wholesale, like in - - we move them together. Chair Hardemon: I don't know. Because some of them are -- may be ordinances. Like the rezoning are -- is like ordinances. I don't think you can - - No, you got to read it into the record. Can we read PZ.17 into the record, please? Francisco Garcia (Senior Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you. Item PZ.17 is before you on second reading as a proposal to rezone a parcel at 1900 Northeast Miami Court. The present designation is T6-8-O; the proposed designation is T6-12-0. Your Planning & Zoning Department recommends approval; so did the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and it was passed on first reading on April 27. We stand by for any questions you may have. Vice Chair Russell: Have they brought any changes in the proffered covenant? Steven Wernick: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Mr. Garcia: I believe there have been some refinements, yes, and I will yield to the applicant to make those clear. Mr. Wernick: Steve Wernick;• address, 98 Southeast 7th Street. We're here on first reading. There is a proffer for workforce housing to be included. That was a verbal proffer and commitment. We have that in writing. That has been approved by City Attorney's Office as to form. Nothing has City of Miami Page 238 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 changed in terms of the commitment. It's just now in writing and it's been seen by staff and 1 have that to put into the record. And we're certainly here to answer any other questions, if there are any. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Wernick, could you verbalize that covenant with regard to the affordability factor? Mr. Wernick: Absolutely. I will read it from the covenant. This is Section 2 of the covenant, the declaration of restrictive covenants: "Owner shall reserve a minimum of 5 percent of the total number of residential units developed on the property as workforce housing units, defined as housing, for households with an income of up to 140 percent of the area median income of Miami -Dade County, as certified by the City of Miami's Department of Community and Economic Development. In the event the property is developed in a manner that exceeds the maximum floor area available under the T6-8 transect zone designation, approximately 266,963 square feet, owner shall reserve a minimum of 13 and a half percent of the total number of residential units on the property as workforce housing units." Vice Chair Russell: I thought we said 14 and a half? Mr. Wernick: Well, we were trying to be consistent with the covenant that was included on the 14th Place. They had a hard number, which translated to 13 and a half percent, and so we just said, "If we're going to use" -- "If we're going to build a building that is related to this rezoning, we're going to match the commitment that that application had." Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia, do you recall the --? You're referring to the Mello project, I assume? Mr. Wernick: Yes. I think it was 700-plus units total, and they had maybe 90 units. Vice Chair Russell: I thought we -- Mr. Wernick.• I can find the exact number. Vice Chair Russell: -- went by a percentage method that ended up at being 14 and a halfpercent. Is that not --? Mr. Garcia: To be honest with you, I don't have that information in front of me. My apologies. Vice Chair Russell: The agreement that I believe that we came to verbally was 14 and a halfpercent. I don't mean to be difficult, but -- Chair Hardemon: That's not being difficult. That's -- Vice Chair Russell: It's a number. City of Miami Page 239 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Yeah. No. You gave it -- if you -- if that's what you said, that's what you said. Vice Chair Russell: We went by a percentage, not by a number of units. Mr. Wernick: I think the version, at least that I have from the backup said -- included 96 of the total number of residential units as workforce housing, up to 140 percent. It doesn't say -- I'm not sure if it says the total number of units here, but that was -- I don't know -- what we had proffered on first reading, was the -- it was 13 and a half percent, and I'm -- my recollection was that it came from calculating how many units they had committed versus the total number of units. And if there's a -- I mean, we can do that calculation and figure out what it is, but if you want to -- Vice Chair Russell: No, it's late. Mr. Wernick: -- give me a few minutes -- Vice Chair Russell: -- and I trust that if that's what we said on first reading and you're saying so, I mean, it's -- there's a recording. Mr. Wernick: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I believe you. Mr. Wernick: And whatever -- Vice Chair Russell: I could be mistaken. Mr. Wernick: -- that record shows, if it's any different, but I believe it was 13 and a half percent, and that's what's on paper, as well. Vice Chair Russell: Fair enough. We'll -- Pm happy to move it, with the proffered covenant. Let the record show, if there is an inconsistency with what was proffered on first reading that we can adjust it. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Okay. Mr. Wernick, I know you gave me a copy, but could you give me another one, please? Thank you. Commissioner, you think that there may be a difference in percentages, based on first reading to now? Vice Chair Russell: I just -- I felt I remembered in our discussions at first reading a proffered covenant of 14 and a half percent affordability workforce housing, and I just may be -- Mr. Wernick: Not -- Vice Chair Russell: -- remembering incorrectly. Ms. Mendez: Okay. City ofMiami Page 240 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mr. Wernick: Fin not saying this to be flip, but the number "14" shows up in this other covenant a lot of times, because it was on 14th Terrace and 140 percent. I mean, 14 Plaza Court. So the number "14" is in here a lot, but what I calculated it -- and again, just like we said, if it was calculated and 1 was wrong, but I'm pretty sure 13 and a half percent (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: Sounds like you may have rounded down. Yeah, I think that was the intention, the intended number. Whether their actual number that they ended up with as a unit is incorrect, I know the intention was 14. Mr. Wernick: If it -- perhaps, what we should do is adjust it so that it's a 14 percent commitment, and there's no point 5's and whatever it is and -- Vice Chair Russell: Fair enough. Split the difference. Mr. Wernick: 14 percent is the commitment. And if we need to make that adjustment in writing before we execute it, we'll do that. Vice Chair Russell: All right. Then I'll amend my motion to have it at -- the covenant at 14 percent. Thank you. Mr. Wernick: Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been accepted by the seconder, as well. Any further unreadiness? It's been properly read into the record already. I thought I had -- Ms. Mendez: I did not read it. Chair Hardemon: No? Ms. Mendez: No. Chair Hardemon: Can you please read it into the record? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Ms. Mendez: As amended. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the item, say "aye. The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Mr. Wernick.• Thank you, Commissioners. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. City of Miami Page 241 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.18 RESOLUTION 2226 Department of Planning and Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE CLOSURE, VACATING, ABANDONING, AND DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE BETWEEN NORTHEAST 30TH TERRACE AND NORTHEAST 31ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA LISTED IN SECTION 55-15(C) OF CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0257 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: PZ.18. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.18 is before you as a resolution for the closure of an alleyway at approximately, 3055 Northeast 4th Avenue. This item has been reviewed and recommended for approval by your Planning & Zoning Department, the Plat & Street Committee, and the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board in April 19, 2017. Stand by for any questions. Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion about the item? Hearing none, all in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City ofMiami Page 242 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.19 ORDINANCE Second Reading 2041 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3252 SOUTHWEST 22ND STREET AND 3277 SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA FROM "T4-R", URBAN GENERAL RESTRICTED, TO "T4-L", URBAN GENERAL LIMITED; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13683 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Suarez ABSENT: Carollo Chair Hardemon: PZ.19. Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Item PZ.19 is before you on second reading. Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: Can you please read it into the record? Mr. Garcia: Certainly. It is -- The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Wait, wait. Whoa,, whoa, whoa. Got to proffer something. He's got to proffer something. Javier Vasquez: Good evening, Commissioners. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. Mr. Vasquez: My name is Javi Vasquez. I'll be very, very brief I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'm with Berger Singerman, 1450 Brickell Avenue. The only comment I wanted to make is at the time that the motion was approved on first City ofMiami Page 243 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 reading, the Commissioner did ask us to work with staff for provisions having to do with the maintenance of a landscaping in the right-of-way. Commissioner Suarez: Yes, on the backside. Mr. Vasquez: We worked with it. We addressed that in the covenant. It's -- the language is there. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Vasquez: It's been reviewed, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you very much. Commissioner Suarez: Aye. Ms. Mendez: As amended, then. Commissioner Suarez: As amended. Chair Hardemon: All. for, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Commissioner Suarez: 1 don't think it was amended. He was saying was that he rectified it between first and second reading. Mr. Vasquez: That's right. Commissioner Suarez: So it's not -- it wasn't -- it's not amended legislation. Ms. Mendez: So it's already in the covenant that's in the backups? Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Mr. Vasquez: That is correct. City ofMiami Page 244 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.20 RESOLUTION 2171 Department of Planning and Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, TO A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS DATED JUNE 25, 1984, AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 12187, PAGE NO. 2833, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ALLOW FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 740 NORTHWEST 25 AVENUE AND 2501 NORTHWEST 7 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. MOTION TO: Withdraw RESULT: WITHDRAWN MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.20, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " PZ.21 ORDINANCE First Reading 2228 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T4-O", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT- OPEN, TO "T5-O", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2950 NORTHWEST 7 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "T4-R", GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE -RESTRICTED, TO "T5-R", URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE -RESTRICTED, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 720, 730, AND 744 NORTHWEST 30 STREET AND 735 NORTHWEST 29 TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: PZ.21. Commissioner Suarez: Good job, Todd. Javier Vasquez: Thank you. Have a good night. City of Miami Page 245 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Item PZ.21 is before you on first reading as a rezoning for a prop -- Commissioner Suarez: That's what you get for your (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Can you read it -- read the title into the record, rather. "An ordinance of the Miami City Commission, with attachments, amending the zoning atlas of Ordinance Number 13114, as amended, by changing the zoning classification from T4-O, general urban transect open to T5-O, urban center transect open, for the property located at 2950 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida; and the zoning classification from T4-R, general urban transect zone restricted to T5-R, urban center transect zone restricted, for the properties located at 720, 730, and 744 Northwest 30th Street, and 735 Northwest 29th Terrace, Miami, Florida, as described in Exhibit 'A,' attached and incorporated; making findings; containing a severabilitv clause; providing, for an effective date." Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, I move it. And the reason I move it, I have had the Planning Department to do a study of that area, which is all the way from 7th Avenue -- Northwest 7th Avenue to Northwest loth Avenue, and from Northwest 29th Street to 30th Street. We're not replacing -- displacing anyone in that area; on the contrary, we're building affordable housing in there. Am 1 correct? Ben Fernandez: Absolutely correct; as was the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, who voted 10-1 in favor of the application. Chair Hardemon: And just state your name for the record, please. Mr. Fernandez: Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, here on behalf on the applicant. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. It has been properly moved by Commissioner Gort; seconded by the Chair. Is there any further discussion on the item that's before us? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Commissioner Gort: Great presentation. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 246 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.22 ORDINANCE First Reading 2229 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 1.03± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY AT 2890 VIRGINIA STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" AND "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" AS DEPICTED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.22 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.22, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." PZ.23 ORDINANCE First Reading 2192 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.1.2.8, ENTITLED "AMENDMENT TO MIAMI 21 CODE" TO ADD RESTRICTIONS FOR PARTIES SEEKING REZONING APPLICATIONS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing itein PZ.23, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Note for the Record: For additional public hearing comments referencing item PZ.23, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 247 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Chair Hardemon: PZ.23. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.23 is before you on ,first reading. This is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami to clarify and set forth that the City of Miami and its boards and agencies shall not be co -applicants with private property owners for any rezoning applications. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Read it into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Chair Hardemon: I want to have some discussion about it. I do not think that this is a good idea. I think well be killing an ant with a sledge hammer, really, because you're taking away the capabilities of the City to work with a private land owner to make something that could be beneficial, for the City, so -- It's happened in other districts. It's happened in Commissioner Carollo's district most recently, but I can envision a time where you want to have like -- I'll give you an example. With my alleyway project that I'm using, most of those alleyways in -- eventually bleed into the park, and it's beautifid when you're going to see when it happens. The lighting that -- you have these light trails that travel all the way to our parks. And so 1 can imagine a time where you have a park that's centered around a neighborhood, and maybe that neighborhood now has nonstandard lighting, so the lighting may look just like the lighting that's in the park, something that's just simple as that. The aesthetic beauty of a neighborhood really start to encompass what a park could look like, instead of just thinking of it narrowly as something that we can use in -for up - zoning of properties. Not every single SAP (special area plan) is an up -zoning. The Design District is a perfect example of that. And so with that, 1 just want to put on the record that 1 just don't think that this is the proper thing to do. I think we can consider each measure that comes before us individually and -- which is what we're doing in the Upper Eastside, so -- but nonetheless, I think I made my point clear. Commissioner Suarez: What's that? Chair Hardemon: I made my point clear. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. No, and I -- look, I hear you. I think you make a good point. I think -- you know, I always use this analogy that Miami 21 is an operating system, you know, and that it has glitches, and that part of the glitches, we discover as we use the operating system. And just because we do something today based on a trend that we see or things that are happening doesn't mean we can't undo it tomorrow, if we think that the danger is over, or that there is some positivity in doing it. I just think, given the way things are right now, there's growing skepticism over SAPs, and I think you have, you know, people who can aggregate the necessary land. I don't think -- I think there's a conflict problem with us scrutinizing applications, and I think there's a secondary problem, which is people using our land to fulfill a nine -acre requirement to get an SAP, so that's my issue. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: No. I was under the understanding that it was going to be up to the individual park when it will take place. In other words, this is a citywide, but City ofMiami Page 248 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 at the same time, we can bring it back, any one of us that want to see the benefit to it within certain neighborhoods, because I know -- Commissioner Suarez: The City can -- Commissioner Gort: -- certain neighborhoods can -- Commissioner Suarez: -- be an applicant on an SAP. The City can be an applicant on an NRD (Neighborhood Revitalization District) on its own -- Commissioner Gort: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- just not with a private developer. Vice Chair Russell: Clearly, the concept is that a developer needs to get to a certain threshold to unlock that ability. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. Vice Chair Russell: And that involves amassing that amount of land. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: And so for us to help him get to that -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- is a bonus in itself that perhaps we shouldn't be a part of. You know, they need to meet that threshold, because when we suddenly become the applicant, that's when we start losing the trust of the public, and that's where we are now. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. I hear you. Vice Chair Russell: -- which is -- unfortunately -- Commissioner Suarez: You articulate it better than I do. Vice Chair Russell: -- put the SAP in a bad light in some cases, so. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. Chair Hardemon: What I'm trying to describe is, for instance, when I think about, say, in Little Haiti, we have the soccer park. Little Haiti obviously is a cultural destination for all things Haitian, and many of the buildings that are near or that are centered around Little Haiti have some sort of Caribbean flair, even the facility that we have that is the Caribbean Marketplace. So I can just envision a time where the neighborhood that surrounds these types of cultural places really start to identify themselves with what the neighborhood is described as. So you may, want to put nonstandard lighting in the neighborhood, because it flows with what's happening on the park. And so those types of things, I don't see that we have a mechanism of necessarily doing that in the neighborhoods, without the ability to create this whole SAP -type system, but that's that. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and I'll just say -- just like last comment. I don 't think there's anything that prevents us when somebody's coming in for entitlements -- City ofMiami Page 249 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- or when they have an SAP from still saying, "As part of an entitlement package, you need to fix this park, " or `you need to," you know -- and, in fact, it's part of our public benefits program, where you can get bonuses by faxing parks and by -- so it's already part of our Zoning Code. I just think this issue allows people to do something they wouldn't have otherwise been able to do, which is use public land to meet the nine -acre quota. And then it creates a problem for us, because we get involved in the development game in a sense, and then that -- like the Vice Chair said, we end up being scrutinized as to how independent can we be if we're a co -applicant on an application? So I think there are -- good points on both sides, to be honest with you. Chair Hardemon: Well, we can do what you said in the last bit. 171 vote in -- affirmative with you all. So seeing no further comment from the board -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, you can. Chair Hardemon: -- I'd like to move to a vote. So all in favor of the item, say "aye"? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Commissioner Suarez: There you go. Thank you. Commissioner Gort: Great presentation. PZ.24 ORDINANCE First Reading 2289 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4, TABLE 4, ENTITLED "DENSITY, INTENSITY, AND PARKING" AND ARTICLE 5, SECTION 5.7, ENTITLED "CIVIC SPACE ZONES AND CIVIC INSTITUTION ZONES," TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO CIVIC SPACE ZONES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Hardemon, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ.24 was deferred to the June 8, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.24, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " City ofMiami Page 250 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 PZ.25 RESOLUTION 2194 Department of Planning and Zoning A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING OR DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY DAYDREAMING LLC, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND AFFIRMING OR REJECTING THE DECISION OF THE MIAMI HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD'S DENIAL OF AN APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF INTENDED DECISION BD16-009931-001 FILED BY NATHAN KURLAND, THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER, REGARDING THE REMOVAL AND MITIGATION OF TWO (2) TREES AT APPROXIMATELY 3140 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ.25 was continued to the June 22, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.25, please see "Part B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s). " END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) City of Miami Page 251 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 M - MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS City ofMiami Page 252 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 D1 - DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT ONE WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT END OF DISTRICT 1 ITEMS City of Miami Page 253 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 D2 - DISTRICT 2 VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL END OF DISTRICT 2 ITEMS City ofMiami Page 254 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 D3 - DISTRICT 3 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT THREE FRANK CAROLLO END OF DISTRICT 3 ITEMS City ofMiami Page 255 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 D4 - DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT FOUR FRANCIS SUAREZ END OF DISTRICT 4 ITEMS City ofMiami Page 256 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 D5 - DISTRICT 5 CHAIR KEON HARDEMON END OF DISTRICT 5 ITEMS City ofMiami Page 257 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 FL - FUTURE LEGISLATION END OF FUTURE LEGISLATION City ofMiami Page 258 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 NA.1 2417 Office of the City Clerk NA. NON -AGENDA ITEM(S) DISCUSSION ITEM PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY PAUL RUSSO, DIRECTOR OF MIAMI VETERAN AFFAIRS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, REGARDING A REQUEST BY THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS TO PURCHASE CITY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE HEALTH DISTRICT FOR PARKING EXPANSION FOR VETERANS. RESULT: DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: Okay. Before we move on .further, I want to recognize a gentleman that is here. The item that he wants to speak about is not on this agenda's item -- well, this agenda -- but it's on the next agenda, but we do want to recognize him for being here and bringing some very important individuals with him. And so, we want to give him the opportunity to speak today so that the record is laid for the future meeting; and so, if everyone could welcome Mr. Paul Russo to the lectern here. He's the medical center director for the U.S. (United States) Department of Veterans Affairs in Miami, the VA (Veterans Affairs). (Applause) Paul Russo: Good morning. Good morning, folks. Thank you, Chairman Hardemon and all the City Commissioners. As the director of the Miami -Dade Healthcare System, I'm here representing the Federal Government; but more importantly, I'm representing the 58,000 veterans, 2,500 staff and 400 volunteers and students who use the Bruce W. Carter VA Medical Center, located in the Health District. We've been working with City officials for close to two years to purchase City property adjacent to our employee parking lot to expand parking for veterans. We are short over 700 parking spaces, and we desperately need to complete this purchase to provide 140 spaces and to help correct the parking deficit. Every day, veterans are arriving late to their appointments, creating a domino of delays, and arriving with dissatisfaction with our services; and worse, some are leaving without seeing their medical provider. We have an 18 percent no show rate, and some of that is attributed to this parking issue. Staff tardiness and loss of volunteers is also occurring. Student trainees are also negatively impacted as they are restricted to park. On behalf of our veterans, the veterans service organizations -- and here, we do have some present. We have the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans. I am respectfully asking for your support to accept the Federal land appraisal, and waive any deed restrictions so we may expand our parking that will directly benefit the veterans of Miami -Dade, Broward, and Monroe Counties. The City of Miami has historically been a great supporter of veterans, and a vote in favor of this request -- as I understand it, at a future date -- will validate your dedication and commitment to their healthcare needs. Thank you. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I may say, this is an item that's going to be coming to our Commission at the next Commission agenda. It's for the sale of property that the City owns next to the VA Hospital. The price that we're negotiating is about 3.6 million, but that will come to the Commission for approval. City of Miami Page 259 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 Mayor Tomas Regalado: Commissioners, as a matter of fact, now that we have a group of veterans here, next Monday is Memorial Day, and we were the only city in the United States to create the Office of Veteran Affairs in the Mayor's Office, like six years ago. Now the City of New York has done that, and other cities throughout the State have been modelling their office to the City of Miami. So I would request to have Lieutenant Colonel -- retired -- Tony Colmenares to say something about the veterans and Memorial Day. Lieutenant Tony Colmenares: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good morning, Commissioners, and Mr. Manager, and staff. As the Mayor mentioned, this is a very special weekend for those that have served. We honor and we remember those that paid the ultimate sacrifice for the defense of this country. It is a weekend truly encapsulated with many different celebrations and barbecues, and those kind of things. But for veterans like us, we use this opportunity to remember those that we served alongside and those that paved the way so that others may serve. So I wanted to just say a few things. I want to thank the veterans, for taking time from your busy schedule. Thank you, Director Russo, for coming here today. And, you know, we remember those that we serve. Yesterday, I was the guest speaker at Oakridge Elementary School in Hollywood, and they had 10 World War II veterans there; we had some Korean veterans; we also had some Vietnam veterans, and it was great to be with them. You know, it made me reflect the reason why we're here today. It made me reflect the wonderful things that we have in this country. And we're reminded every day, as it happened only a few days ago in Manchester, in the UK (United Kingdom) that this is a very dangerous world, and it requires individuals with tremendous courage to step forward in defense of this nation. So on this weekend, we honor those that have given their life for this country. We're also working closely with the City of Miami Beach when they do the national salute to American heroes; the first air, sea and land show to take place in this great county. 1 want to thank the Mayor and the Commissioners for your unprecedented steps during the last six years in creating the Office of Veterans Services under the Mayor's Once. No other city in this country has done that, and because we did it -- and we were first -- many are now modeling this office. I met with the City of New York. They started their office two years ago. San Antonio has taken the same steps to move forward. San Diego is also doing the same. But, you know, we were first, and it was the City of Miami and the leadership here in the City of Miami that allowed us to do that. So what a special weekend this is for us. I know we're going to move forward with this agenda item on the 8th of June, but I want to thank the veterans again for taking your time. I know how special it is for all of us, and you know that only the ones that really walked in these footprints really understand what that means. So again, as we celebrate Memorial Day Weekend, my brothers and sisters, thank you for your service. Thank you for being here in the great County of Miami -Dade; and more importantly, being here in the City of Miami. You know, I was reminded today by the director that we have the largest region in veterans. Over 200,000 veterans reside in this region here. We're the -- Miami VA Healthcare System services all three counties; Broward, Miami -Dade, and Monroe County. So we are the largest region in the State of Florida with veterans population, so it's only significant that we honor our veterans on this special day. So thank you, gentlemen and ladies that are here that have served. And I want to just kind of applaud those that have served. I know we have Commissioner Gort; we have our very own Manager; the director of Parks and Recreation, and so many others. I'll miss somebody, but I want to thank you, Juan Duenas, our Veterans Service Coordinator, for his service in the Air Force. And I want to just kind of applaud all of you for your service. (Applause) Mayor Regalado: Thank you, Tony. City ofMiami Page 260 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 NA.2 2418 Office of the City Clerk PERSONAL APPEARANCE PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY DAVID RICHARDSON, FLORIDA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER FROM THE 113TH DISTRICT, REGARDING AN END OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION UPDATE AND A BRIEF DISCUSSION REGARDING FLAGSTONE ISLAND GARDENS, LLC. RESULT: DISCUSSED Mayor Tomas Regalado: Well, with the Chairman's permission, I'd like to introduce our State Representative, Dave Richardson. Dave Richardson is here to report on the Legislature, and especially some bills that are of interest to the City of Miami. And as Senator Daphne Campbell said, he and her and all the representatives, Jose Felix Diaz and others work for the City of Miami, and hopefully, the City will be okay this legislative session after the veto period. So it's a pleasure to introduce our State Representative, Dave Richardson. (Applause) State Representative David Richardson: Thank you, Mayor. And I also would like to add my thanks to the veterans. You know, Florida State is one of the most veteran -friendly states in the United States, and we're so privileged to have so many retired veterans in our great State, so thank you very much for your service. Commissioner, 1 just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about a couple of issues that are very important to our community. I've had some calls, some questions; and so, 1 wanted just to come and talk to you directly about a few issues. As you know, I have the great privilege of representing a good piece of the City of Miami, the entire City of Miami Beach, and also, the entire City of North Bay. Village. And I'm so privileged to represent District 113 in the Florida House of Representatives. As was said, we are waiting to see what's going to happen with the budget. The budget has not even been sent to the Governor yet, unless it was sent this morning, so there's a lot going on in Tallahassee. We don't know whether or not the budget's going to be vetoed or line items, and there are conforming bills that are being reviewed, but as Senator Campbell mentioned, the City of Miami has fared pretty well. I know the area within District 13 in Little Havana has fared pretty well in the budget, and we worked hard to get dollars put in there. So -- but there are two issues in particular that I would like to talk to you about. Casino Gaming. As you know, in the last five years or so, there's been a lot of discussion the five years that I've been there, and even before that. And so, there has been some comments, some confusion about what exactly happened this year; and so, I just wanted to add some comments. This year, gaining moved a little bit further than it has in the past in that both the Senate and the House passed gaining bills. The Senate bill included additional license -- two additional licenses, including what could arguably be called as a destination style license. The House did not include any of those bills. The presiding officers of both chambers decided to put together a conference committee to address the issues. During a press availability with Mike La Rosa, who's the chairman of the subcommittee who ran the bill, and with the Speaker at his side, said that these additional licenses were not on the table for discussion from the House's perspective. And then, sadly, in the final week, during a conference negotiation, one license was offered up as a negotiation item from the House. And, of course, I went to the Speaker and expressed a lot of concern, because of the way it was done. It was added in a conference as part of a negotiation, but sadly, what was offered was an additional license for Miami -Dade County, without any input from the people of this great County, and without a referendum. There were also some -- a requirement City ofMiami Page 261 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 about some mileage and distance that suggested to some of us that the license may have been being targeted for one particular entity, so I expressed and have a lot of concerns about that. As you may know, the City, of Miami moved -- Miami Beach moved forward with passing an ordinance that would ban gaming in their city. My position on gaining has not changed in five years since I first ran for office in the summer of 2012. And I said, "No matter where someone would want to put an additional facility, I need to see a proposal that would address density of the project, traffic, and parity, in terms of what we've been doing, and how we have treated" -- "how we would treat a newcomer versus how we have treated all the others that have been around, paving taxes in our great State for many years." My position has not changed on that. I'm not rubber-stamping a license that -- without seeing a proposal. And so -- and even if there is a proposal that would meet my needs, if you will, that vote should still go to the public. So I'm very disappointed with the way things moved this year. As you may know, in the end, the -- it all kind of blew up, and nothing happened. So -- but I would expect that -- it to come back next year, and I would ask for all of us to be cautious, and be watchful. The second thing I want to mention and talk a little bit about is the shared housing initiatives that have been going on, and I -- and we'll just call it Airbnb, because they're the biggest player. As you know, in 2011, the Legislature preempted all of those provisions, except, for where a city has grandfathered in communities. So, for example, in Miami Beach, I live in a portion of Miami Beach that had a provision in place before the State preempted, so those provisions are in place. However, a number of counties and cities have tried to deal with the issue by putting restrictions in place that were outside of the preemptions that the State provided; and 1 think, quite frankly, rightfully so. If you look at Flagler County, for example -- and I've done a lot of research on this, because I've got some issues within the district from constituents -- Flagler County has done a very extensive and comprehensive bill. So there are things going on; but, of course, some of these providers don't like that. And so, they came to Tallahassee this year, in an effort to change the law to make the preemption a little bit stronger. So that bill did pass in the House; it failed in the Senate. But we can expect that to come back again next year, and 1 think that we have to be very watchful of that. This issue is not a partisan issue; it's bipartisan. There are Democrats and there are Republicans that feel strongly that local governments should be able to regulate their communities, and the State should not be dictating that, and I very much believe in that. So you all are better equipped to know what's best for your city than we are in Tallahassee, so I want to make sure that we all keep that on the radar. The other thing that I just would like to mention, and very briefly, and I have never spoken about this publicly, because, you know, I feel very strongly that you all were elected City Commissioners. I was elected to be a State Legislator. You know in the five years I've been here, I don't come and I don't tell you what to do, in terms of how to regulate your city. But I want to spend just a few minutes talking about Watson Island, because there is an impact for the State of Florida. Watson Island, of course, you know, is where the Children's Museum is, and there's been discussion about developing on that island for many, many years. And I've heard from parties on both sides of the fence on this issue, and I say, for the most part, it's a city issue. However, I will say that the State has a vested interest, because when that property was deeded to the City, there is a royalty payment that the State receives on any rent. So the State receives 15 percent of any payment that would come to the City. And I know there has been a lot of litigation and a lot of discussion about this issue over the years. I'm going to share a story with you that I've never talked about publicly. But in the spring of 2014, I called in DEP (Department of Environmental Protection), because there was a permit missing on the property in order to move forward, and they told me that they were not going to move forward with that permit; that they -- there was not time before a Cabinet meeting and so forth, and so on. And then -- and that was very much a certainty. And then, in the final weeks of the legislative session that year, DEP came over and pulled me off the floor and said, "Hey, we've got something we need to share with you, because we City ofMiami Page 262 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 want to maintain our credibility, and that is why we told you we weren't going to do that. The Governors Office just told" -- called up and say, Make it happen.'" So that permit was pushed through in what appears to be a very suspicious happening, in terms of having it happen overnight. My concern was not on the permit itself but on the valuation. And I've asked -- I'd asked DEP in '14 to address that issue with me. Since the State has a vested interest in this at 15 percent, the portion of the island that's going to be rented, if you will, or leased as part of this deal is $2 million. And $2 million for a good piece of an island sitting between Miami and Miami Beach, I think is a pretty good price to pay. And so, the State is only going to receive 15 percent of that, or $300,000. So what I would like to just put on the table for the Commission is that if it is determined that the developer or any other interested party has not fully complied with all the provisions of their agreements with the City of Miami, I very much am in favor of pushing the "reset" button, because I don't think the valuation is proper, and I hope that we can revisit this. And beyond that, I'm not going to ask the Commission to vote one way or the other, but let's just make sure that we can get this as right as possible so that the State, as well as the City can enjoy what is due to them. So with that, if there are any questions, I would be happy to take any questions, but I just wanted to put those items on the table, for everyone. Commissioner Gort: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you, Representative Richardson, for being here. I appreciate you coming here to address us. There is more of a local issue that is of great importance to the City of Miami. We actually passed a unanimous resolution and sent it to the Legislature, which is Flagler Street; Flagler Street through Little Havana. Numerous business have been really hurting, closing. As a matter of fact, I'm working on a list of all the businesses that were opened at the beginning of the construction and how many of those businesses have actually closed during the construction. We have gotten numerous complaints; and really, there's not -- let's say, "good responses" from the State. We requested as a Commission, via resolution, for some type of help for those businesses, some type of program to establish -- I know there's not one yet -- for businesses that are going through undue hardship due to construction from FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). So I wanted you to be able to address that since it's happening in your district. Our districts overlap, and that's actually the area that you represent. I asked the same of Senator Jose Javier Rodriguez; and again, the Legislature has passed, the session has passed. And I had a few reporters come to me, because even though it's not a City project, I still have to show face when there's issues happening in our City. And pretty much, the reporter was, "State never did anything." So if .vou could address that, please? State Representative Richardson: Sure. And thank you for bringing up the issue. L too, have witnessed the significant amount of time that it's taken for that project to be completed. And a few months ago, when I was in session, we were contacted to talk specifically about the Calle Ocho project, which you may know is on the planning boards for some years out. So we organized the -- a meeting that just took place about three weeks ago with some community leaders to talk about Calle Ocho, because I very much want to make sure that that project doesn't have problems that we've experienced with some other -- As you may know, when I got elected, the Alton Road project in Miami Beach was starting about the time I got elected, and it was quite -- I think it's fair to say, "a little bit of a nightmare," in terms of the planning. The project had to be reopened, because there were a lot of misunderstandings about what was going to happen. When I went to the meeting three weeks ago that we conducted with community leaders, the issue came up about Flagler and not wanting to repeat that same situation. And so, I have instructed the Florida Department of Transportation to prepare a briefing for me and for the community leaders for our City ofMiami Page 263 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 next meeting on what exactly has happened with Flagler. Now, what they told me is that it was a complete redo cis opposed to just a resurfacing, so we're digging up the guts of the street and so forth. But in nay view, that's no excuse. And so, I have asked them to prepare a briefing so that I can find out what happened, what went wrong. Now, in terms of incentives for businesses, I know that historically, that has not been done, because when the Alton Road project in Miami Beach was done, a number of those businesses on Alton Road didn't survive that process, as well. And I, at the time, talked to the State about that, and they told me that, historically, they don't provide incentives. We could revisit that conversation and see if there's ever been an exception made to that, but a few years ago, when I broached that with the State, they told me that they had never done that. But I will revisit that; and if you wish, I will come back here and brief you and the rest of the Commissioners on the Flagler briefing that I get, or you can come to the community briefing. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. And thank you for your response. The problem is that, in the meantime, there are businesses that are hurting and having to shut their doors; businesses that have been around for a very long time. So at the very least, was there any bills introduced, you know, requesting -- being innovative .for some type of program for when construction of this magnitude occurs that the businesses receive some type of -- either loan, or some type of program? You know, I think at least the intent -- and I get it. And, you know, you're in the minority party, also, so I get that, too. But at the very least, we got to make the intent, because, simply put, these last few months have been hell for them. And when the local media is contacting the State, you know -- I don't have to tell you it's very hard to get ahold of the State. And they come to us, and there's only so much that we can do. And the other side of it, you have the businesses that are already hurting. You have residents that are having great difficulties being able to ride the bus or cross the streets; pedestrian traffic is a big issue. So the neighborhood, as a whole, is hurting. And, listen, you know, don't take it just from me. Have your staff do a quick search on all the reports, you know, and you will see; you will see from the residents and from the businesses. And all I ask, that -- I'm not saying that the issues that you brought up are not important, because they definitely are. But what they say, "all politics is local, " this is a local issue in our district that's really hurting the businesses and the community. So, you know, again, I'm asking for support; just like I did of our Senator of that area, Senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. And again, you know, I recently did an interview about a month ago -- maybe it wasn't a month ago, but right before -- a week before the end of session. And pretty much, the reporter said, "Frank, Tallahassee isn't going to do anything." And I said, "At least, have they filed a bill as intent to like --?" And she told me, "No." And that's an issue, because, I mean, the City has their hands tied. State Representative Richardson: So, first of all, I share your concern; happy to work with you in any way that we can make the situation better. As I said, I too, have observed that the project has taken what I believe to be too long. I've asked for a briefing. I want to find out what went wrong. I don't know what went wrong; that's why I need to try to understand what went wrong. and I don't want that situation repeated. But most importantly, if you are ever not getting an answer from anyone at the State, please call me directly, because the one thing about being a State Representative is people return my phone calls at the State. They may not return your phone call, and I apologize ij' they have not, but they will return my phone call, and I will get whoever we need on the phone to answer whatever questions we need to get. Commissioner Carollo: So, Representative -- and I know the Mayor, I think, wants to speak. He's probably going to add 1st Street to that, because it's also Southwest 1st Street. Listen, we've had emails back and forth where the State does respond. "Hey, you know, the tractor or trucks have been there for a week or two weeks; no City ofMiami Page 264 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 movement; meanwhile, the business is hurting. What's happening?" Oh, you know, they'll respond something, but it's like, "Okay." You know, there's always like an excuse or a reasoning for something but you have to take into consideration that, you know, with all these excuses, delays, in the meantime, there are businesses that are hurting. And I'm telling you, I'm going to get a list of all the businesses that were opened prior to construction and as of now, to see how many of those businesses have closed. And realistically, the State's responsible. The State is responsible, you know, and that's very sad. And at the very least, we should try to, like I said, make the intent to have some program in place. I get it if it doesn't pass, but other states have done it. We've researched it. I don't have everything in front of me. I didn't know that you were going to be here today. I don't have -- it's not in our books. And again, you know, a lot of what I'm telling you, I told Senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. I didn't tell him after session; I told him before session, when he came for a briefing, and I was hoping that we would get more from the State. And when I say, "we," I mean the businesses of the area and the community. State Representative Richardson: Thank you. Mayor Regalado: And Representative, Commissioner, I just wanted to add something to it. Not only it's Flagler; it's Southwest 1st Street. And this is the project that everything that could have gone wrong went wrong. And we have heard from DOT (Department of Transportation) that plans were given in a different way; that they created problems, because the utilities were located in other parts. But 1 think the Commissioner, what he is trying to say is that .for these people, it's not enough to say, "Well, this is not going to happen again." Actually, it happened before, and it's happened now. I remember that as a Commissioner in '98/99, when DOT worked on Flagler Street, from 67th to the Palmetto, it was a nightmare, and 10 businesses went out of business there, and after that, they kind of took some precautions in terms of levying fines to the contractor. But in this case, nothing has been coordinated. There is no outreach for the residents. Parking has been blocked for months on businesses, and we know for a fact -- and I know Commissioner has a list -- but we know -- I have been there -- of businesses that have layoff. If they had six employees, they had laid off three, and businesses that they have gone from almost 20 hours of service to 12 hours of services. And we understand that you're a legislator, but, like you said, you carry weight with the State. When we had the Zika crisis in the Wvnwood area, the City Commission approved CD (Community Development) money to kind of help those businesses to stay alive, and they did. And, thank God, they're back. But there's got to be an agency of the State of Florida that can take care of that. Come here and look at the books. Look at the payroll. Look at every single district business that has been impacted, and they will find out that these people are hurting, and most likely, most of them will have to close their doors. Chair Hardemon: Mr. -- Mayor Regalado: Matter of fact, I was with them on a radio show, and two are closing their doors. So maybe you can help us with that in terms of any agency that has incentive, legitimate incentive for people, just to support the payroll or in order to -- for them to finish. As we speak, the project is not done, and nobody knows when the project will be done. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Representative, I mean, we believe that it is extremely important for us to really start to be keen on the issues that affect economic prosperity in our communities. And so, when the Zika issue came about, us providing those dollars really helped those businesses move along, because without that consideration, many of them may not have been able to keep their doors open, because the Zika box that was created, created a fear that kept people out of that City ofMiami Page 265 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 area. We know that mosquitoes don't mind a box. I mean, they're everywhere. I haven't been to a place that does not have mosquitoes. And so, you know, it -- the Legislature or the Governor helped create that fear in people, and didn't offer us any assistance in helping us really get rid of that fear. And so, that financial assistance that we provided, I think went a long way. And -- but if you think about it, that's the same situation we're facing with communities that have, say, for instance, gun violence. People are afraid to invest in these areas, the home values are depressed, you have lack of commercial establishments. All these things hurt cities. And so, if the State Government can start to understand that -- that's why it's important for us to continue to invest and give people breaks for investing in those areas, because it creates economic prosperity in the area that may not have it. And so, you know, we just look to be able to have your assistance with that. And I know Commissioner Gort wants to add something, as well. Commissioner Gort: I just want to add something. We have the same problem on Northwest 7th Avenue. I mean, a lot of the business on Northwest 7th Avenue are going out -- and we have a lot of new investors coming in that area; that they want to improve that one area. And the problem is, the -- well, in analyzing Flagler and those -- I've talked to the people there -- the State, they rise the contract per blocks and they award the contract to someone, and they, in turn, subcontract individuals that don't really care about the community, because the way they work and the things they do, you can tell they don't give a -- They don't care, the economic impact that they're causing in the industry. So I think whenever you put a RFP (Request for Proposals) together, there should be -- part of the selection should he: What is the economic impact in this community? What can we do to avoid it? Because it affects a lot of people. Chair Hardemon: The signage that they provide is just -- it's really inadequate for the harm that it's causing. I live near 7th Avenue, and 1 actually just walked it. I walked from 14th Street all the way to 48th Street, and I walked on both sides. I walked on one side going north, and one side coming back south. And, you know, driving it is insane enough, but walking it, I mean, someone who has a disability, they can't walk that street; they can't go north and south. It's a major issue for our constituents. And we know it's not your fault. We know that you -- we know you -- But the reason we're telling you this is because you're a fighter, and we want people to fight on our behalf for the citizens of the City of Miami. And we know if we put it in your ear that you'll bring it to the attention of the Legislature, and that's why we're telling you. State Representative Richardson: Well, and thank you, Chairman and Mayor, and Commissioners I'll commit to you that -- Let me take a fresh look at this. You know, perhaps there should be some sort of incentive program. The concern, quite frankly, though, is even with that, if it's a loan, Pin not sure the business would be able to address those loans, because it's really outside the box; it really is a hardship. I personally witnessed it when I dealt with the Alton Road construction for two and a half years, and a number of businesses there went out of business, and, you know, I had the landlords calling me, I had businesses calling me, so I know it's a real issue. You know, I'll just give you one example of something -- a tragedy that occurred that hurt a lot of businesses. You all know that the Pulse incident happened in Orlando about a year ago, and I was up there to make sure that the State provided all of the needs that they could for the community. But the area around Pulse was closed for two weeks. The street was closed and it's a commercial area, so every business on both sides of' the street just suffered, because no one could get into that cordoned off area. And I asked, "How are we going to take care of all these businesses?" And there was no answer. And sadly, the money that was raised for victims and their families -- and rightfully so -- was not -- that bucket of money was not used in any way to help businesses. And I asked at the time, "Well, what can we do? Can we City ofMiami Page 266 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 give any small business loans?" because the big businesses were going to survive, because, you know, they've got deeper pockets. But the small businesses, the franchisee of the Subway Store, you know, those people were really hurt. And that was the one piece of the victims, if you will, in the fallout that never got addressed. And maybe we need to take a fresh look at that in the State of Florida; not just as it relates to construction, but also, as it relates to these tragedies where roads are cordoned off and small businesses are hurt. So I'll commit to you that, first of all, Pin going to get briefing from FDOT to try to find what happened there. But let me take a fresh look at it and see what we can do. I totally understand that that is an economic hardship for the local community. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much. State Representative Richardson: Sure. Commissioner Gort: Thank- you. State Representative Richardson. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Yes. The only thing I want to end -- and thank you for your time, Representative -- is time is of the essence. This isn't something that just started. You know, you mentioned how the businesses were hurting for two weeks. This has been more than two months. This has been months. 1 don't know if we're -- we may be close to the year mark. So time is of the essence. So again, we appreciate any and all of your help. So the sooner that we can revisit this again, 1 would definitely appreciate it. State Representative Richardson: Commissioner, you have my commitment. I'll be back in touch with your office, specifically, on this issue. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. State Representative Richardson: Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: I look forward to it. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much, sir. State Representative Richardson: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I don't believe there's any other PA (Personal Appearance) agenda items, so well move along with the agenda. City of Miami Page 267 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 NA.3 2419 Office of the City Attorney ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE JUNE 8, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF AIRBNB, INC., ET AL. V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 2017-008999 CA 01, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING WILL BE CONFINED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY SESSIONS RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS X. SUAREZ; CITY MANAGER DANIEL J. ALFONSO; CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE -CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION. RESULT: DISCUSSED Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item NA.3, please see item AC.2. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Pending litigation in the case of Airbnb, Inc., et al., versus City of Miami; Case Number 20-1708999 CA 01, pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami -Dade, Florida, to which the City is presently a party. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy discussions. This private meeting will begin at approximately 3 p.m., or soon thereafter, as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by members of the City Commission: Chairman Hardemon, Vice Chairman Russell, Commissioners Gort, Carollo, and Suarez; the City Manager Alfonso; City Attorney, myself;Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys Greco and Min; Division Chief Christopher Green. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the above -cited ongoing litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney - client session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person City of 'Violin Page 268 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 NA.4 2420 Office of the City Attorney chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney - client session. ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE JUNE 8, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF EDDIE SIERRA V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO.: 17-20823 PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE- CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS X. SUAREZ; CITY MANAGER DANIEL J. ALFONSO; CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JOHN A. GRECO; AND SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY HENRY J. HUNNEFELD. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE -CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION. RESULT: DISCUSSED Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, I'm requesting that at the City Commission meeting of June 8, 2017, an attorney -client session, closed to the public, for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the case of Eddie Sierra versus City of Miami, Case Number 17-20823, pending in. the United States Circuit District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions [sic] related to litigation expenditures. The private meeting will begin at approximately, 3 p.m., or soon thereafter, as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by members of the City Commission, which will include Chairman Hardemon, Vice Chairman Russell, Commissioners Gort, Carollo, and Suarez; the City Manager Alfonso; myself the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco, Barnaby Min; Senior Assistant City Attorney Henry Hunnefeld. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney -client City of 'Viand Page 269 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney -client session. NA.5 ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION 2421 Office of the City Attorney UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THE JUNE 8, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES OF IN THE MATTER OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT, UNITS 6 & 7, DOCKET NOS. 52-040 AND 52-041, PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AND IN RE: NUCLEAR COST RECOVERY CLAUSE, DOCKET NO. 170009-El, PENDING BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TO WHICH THE CITY IS PRESENTLY A PARTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS X. SUAREZ; CITY MANAGER DANIEL J. ALFONSO; CITY ATTORNEY VICTORIA MENDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JOHN A. GRECO; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER A. GREEN; AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTYAND XAVIER E. ALBAN. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE -CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION. RESULT: DISCUSSED Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8),, Florida Statutes, I'm requesting at the City Commission meeting of June 8, 2017, an attorney -client session, closed to the public, for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the following cases: In the matter of Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, Docket Numbers 52-040 and 52-041, before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and in re Nuclear Cost Recovery Clause, Docket Number 17-009 EI, before the Public Service Commission. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions [sic] related to litigation expenditures. The private meeting will begin at approximately 3 p.m., or soon thereafter the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately, one hour later. The session will be attended by members of the City Commission, and City ofMiami Page 270 Printed on 07/12/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes May 25, 2017 ADJOURNMENT will include Chairman Hardenion, Vice Chairman Russell, Commissioners Gort, Carollo, and Suarez; the City Manager, Daniel Alfonso; myself the City Attorney, Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys Greco and Min; Division Chief for General Litigation Christopher Green; and Assistant City Attorneys McNulty and Alban. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure the session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public at the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney -client session, the regular Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney -client session. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: This meeting is adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10: 44 p.m. City of Miami Page 271 Printed on 07/12/2017