Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2017-09-28 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes September 28, 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 September 28, 2017 9:00 AM INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chair Hardemon, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Gort, Commissioner Carollo and Commissioner Suarez On the 28th day of September 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 9:18 a.m., recessed at 12:00 p.m., reconvened at 2:17 p.m., recessed at 8:33 p.m., reconvened at 8:40 p.m., and adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Note for the Record: Vice Chair Russell entered the Commission chambers at 9:23 a.m., and Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chambers at 9:37 a.m. Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the September 28, 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 Chair; 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, led by Commission Gort, and Commissioner Suarez will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. All rise, please. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Just a minute. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. PART A - NON -PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PR.1 PROTOCOL ITEM 2957 Honoree Presenter Protocol Item Citizenship Day Commissioner Russell Proclamation 2017 EMS Peer Recognition Manager & Fire Chief Certificate of Appreciation 13 Back to School Sponsors Mayor Regalado Salute Marcel Vera Mayor Regalado Certificate of Merit Horacio Aguirre Mayor and Commissioners Memorial Tribute RESULT: PRESENTED 1) Mayor Regalado and Commissioners paused in their deliberation of governance to celebrate the notable occasion of Citizenship Day. On the 230th anniversary of Citizenship Day, Elected Officials presented a proclamation commemorating September 17 as Citizenship Day on behalf of all those who have attained the status of U.S. citizenship, whether by birth, coming of age, or naturalization. City of Miami Page 1 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 2) Mayor Regalado, Fire Chief Joseph Zahralban and Assistant Fire Chief Terrance Davis presented Certificates of Appreciation to the recipients of the 2017 EMS Peer Awards. Plaques were presented to the City of Miami Emergency Management Services personnel in recognition of extraordinary EMS service to the public. 3) Mayor Regalado and Commissioners paused in their deliberation of governance to commend and thank the 13 participants who dedicated their efforts to the Mayor's Back to School Event which was held on July, 28, 2017. The work of multiple organizations and volunteers enrich the City of Miami and elevate the spirit of civic engagement and generosity in working to improve the quality of life in the community. 4) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Suarez presented a Certificate of Merit to Mr. Marcel Vera for his upstanding character, noble ambitions and patriotic spirit. Mr. Vera graduated Magna Cum Laude from Florida International University with a degree in criminal justice, volunteered at a law firm for nine months and intends to serve his community as a Police Officer. City of Miami Elected Officials praised Mr. Marcel Vera for being a worthy role model for the youth of our city and publicly recognized him for his eagerness to enter a career of public service. 5) Mayor Regalado and Commissioners paid homage to the memory of the late Dr. Horacio Aguirre, who transitioned from this life on September 7, 2017. Dr. Horacio Aguirre, founder and director of the newspaper Diario Las Americas. Dr. Aguirre was a prominent and respected advocate of free enterprise and the constitutional democracy, ideals that tirelessly promoted throughout his illustrious career. Member for life of the Committee Consultant of the Inter American Press Association, Mr. Aguirre received numerous national and international awards. Chair Hardemon: We will now make our presentations and proclamations. Presentations and proclamations made. AM - APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: AM.1 City Commission - Planning and Zoning - Jun 22, 2017 9:00 AM MOTION TO: Approve RESULT: APPROVED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: Personal appearance by Senator Daphne Campbell was already heard. Commissioner Suarez: I'll move the Planning & Zoning meetings [sic] of June 22. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved -- Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded to approve the -- AM]. Any discussion? Commissioner Suarez: No. Chair Hardemon: Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye." City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: That's been approved. MV - MAYORAL VETOES NO MAYORAL VETOES (Pursuant to Section 4(g)(5) of the Charter of Miami, Florida, Item(s) vetoed by the Mayor shall be placed by the City Clerk as the first substantive item(s) for City Commission consideration.) Chair Hardemon: Okay. So what we'll do -- First, Mr. Clerk, are there any mayoral vetoes? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. END OF MAYORAL VETOES City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 ORDER OF THE DAY Chair Hardemon: We will now begin the regular meeting. The City Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this meeting. 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 related City 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 in the City Clerk's Office or online at wwwmunicode.com [sic]. Any person making a presentation, formal request, or petition to the City Commission concerning real property must make the disclosures required by the 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 today is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office and online 24 hours a day at wwwmiamigov.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 first state his or her name, his or her address, and what the item will be spoken about. A copy of the agenda items is 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 Commission chambers; please silence those items now. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outburst 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 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 which items, if any, are being either withdrawn, deferred, or substituted. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Mr. Manager. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you. We are requesting to defer to October 26 items PH.2 and PH.4; and item RE.1, we're requesting to defer to October 12. Commissioner Suarez: So moved. City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Are there any other items that any Commissioner wants to defer, continue, withdraw? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair -- Vice Chair Russell: Go ahead. Commissioner Carollo: No. I just want to get clarity. PH.2, and what were the others? RE.1. I missed the second PH (Public Hearing). Chair Hardemon: PH.4. Commissioner Carollo: PH.4. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: FR.2 pertains to the alcohol ordinance; I'd like to defer that one month, please. Commissioner Suarez: I'll amend my motion to include that deferral. Vice Chair Russell: And direct City management to take a look at the resolution proffered by the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) with regard to that, and discuss that with my office and the DDA between now and then so whatever can possibly be incorporated into that first reading will be done, so. Commissioner Suarez: I agree. Chair Hardemon: All right. So that's the 10-26 meeting? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Any other additions to the motion? Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: I would like to defer RE.3, and direct the Administration to put the actual appraisals as part of the backup. As some of the monies that they're considering is based on appraisals, I would like it to be as part of the backup, so RE.3. Mayor Tomas Regalado: I respectfully request that we don't defer that; that we vote on that. We have more than a hundred people here from the Miami Outboard Club, and I think the Administration has done all the due diligence on that, just to hear the item. Chair Hardemon: So right now on the floor for -- in the motion, we have a deferral of PH.2, a deferral of PH.4, a deferral of FR.2, a deferral of RE.1; that's what's City of Miami Page 5 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 included in the motion. And there's a request by Commissioner Carollo to add that - - the question about the appraisal. Are they not -- do we not have them? Mayor Regalado: Why don't you allow the Administration and the person? And then, if you think it's not worth voting, you defer that. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: No. What I would like to do is, since we going to begin to do this, I think we should really analyze this and provide the same to all the other non - for -profit that have rent from the City of Miami in the waterfront. We have about three right here in Coconut Grove. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman, this was in my district -- Commissioner Carollo: By the way, I agree with Commissioner Gort; we should thoroughly review all these affordable non -for -profits and City waterfront leases, and, you know -- and I think we -- the debate is also whether it should go to a referendum or not. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend -- Mayor Regalado: May I say something? You know, I understand that, you know, the Commissioners have the power to defer something. This has been in the agenda. There are about a hundred people here that didn't go to work, because they care about this issue. I think it's not fair. It is not fair to just tell the people to come and then go home. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: I want to -- go ahead. Mayor Regalado: Well, at least listen to them, and -- Commissioner Carollo: Right. Mayor Regalado: -- I'm going to ask all of them speak -- I'm sorry, Chairman -- because this can be explained or not; this can be explained by the City Attorney, but what is not fair is that this was in the official agenda, and everybody knew it was on the agenda, and these people came. You know, it's the same old thing of calling the people to Miami City Hall and then tell them, "Go back, because we don't feel that we should vote today." To me, it's disrespectful. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: I want to allow Commissioner Carollo, and then I'll come back to you, Vice Chairman. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a compromise, if there are that many people, residents, businesses here to speak, I wouldn't mind hearing them speak, but I would still request the deferral; however, all their comments will be noted, so when we take this back up, their comments will be on the record and will be duly noted, so they don't waste their trip over here. I do want to hear from everybody; however, you know, a lot of this is also based on finances, based on appraisals and so forth, and none of that information is in the backup. City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this item's in my district, and I did get briefed on this. I would recommend that we hear the item; obviously, hear the public comment. And at that point, if we have insufficient, you know, information, we can defer it at that point, but that at least gets -- it gives a chance in the Administration to present it. Commissioner Suarez: Makes sense. Vice Chair Russell: That would be my recommendation. Commissioner Suarez: That's fine. Fine. Chair Hardemon: So, all right. I'll continue on with the original motion that was on the floor that did not include the motion to continue this item. Is there any other addition or subtraction away from this motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion for deferrals, say "aye." Mr. Hannon: Chair, who was the seconder? The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. All against? Motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR REGULAR ITEM(S) Chair Hardemon: What I want to do is I'll open the floor for public comment. I know we do have some people here -- that are here for public comment, so let's start now the public comment for the agenda. You're recognized, sir. Brett Bibeau: Thank you. Good morning. Brett Bibeau, managing director of the Miami River Commission, with offices located at 1407 Northwest 7th Street; here to read a letter from our chairman, Horacio Stuart Aguirre, into the record on PZ.6, which is an appeal of a warrant. "During a public meeting held on January 23, the Miami River Commission considered this warrant application, which was subsequently approved by the City of Miami. The Miami River Commission's subject adopted public meeting minutes state in part: Ms. Sandy O'Neil made a motion for the Miami River Commission to adopt the Urban Infill Subcommittee Chairman Jim Murley and the Greenways Subcommittee Chairman Ernie Martin's suggestions for the River Commission to recommend approval of the updated subject warrant proposal with the following conditions: Number 1, site demonstrates continued marine use; Number 2, site demonstrates public Riverwalk preapproved plans and letter of intent; and finally, Number 3, to conduct a seawall inspection and improvements if needed. The motion failed by a vote of 6-5. Miami River Commission Chairman Aguirre asked if anyone wanted to make another motion for consideration, and no other motions were made.' Therefore, the River Commission did not recommend this project as proposed." Secondly, on agenda item number RE 4, which is a boat maintenance bid award, the chairman "supports the City's selection of RMK Merrill -Stevens, located on the Miami River, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to the City's advertised invitation for bids to provide boat maintenance, repairs, parts, and related marine services. We appreciate the City's continued strong support of the job generating marine industrial businesses operating in Port Miami River. Your time and continued strong support for the Miami River District are appreciated." Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. City of Miami Page 7 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here in support of RE.3, but I'm not going to talk about the details of the resolution; that would be the Administration. What I'm here is to talk about what the Miami Outboard Club does for the community. And in fact, you know, Commissioner Carollo mentioned several clubs, and I have been in this building for now almost 23 years, so I kind of know all the facilities of the City of Miami, and that's a good conversation to have for the next Commission or the next Mayor. And I do think, first of all, that the Miami Outboard Club, it's part of the history of Miami. They -- I think two years ago, they celebrated the 75th anniversary of being on the same place, and to me, it will be unthinkable that present or future leaders will decide to do a very big commercial development on that area, so I think that that's a given. I think that the club will continue to exist, as the Saline, the Biscayne, and other clubs; the Yacht Club that -- next to the Outboard Club. But I just wanted to tell you my experience as -- first as a City Commissioner, and then these eight years as Mayor of the City of Miami. First of all, the Miami Outboard Club is the only club in Miami -Dade County that does a boat parade. They have been doing this for several decades. It's always getting bigger, but however, seven years ago, when we became Mayor, we went to them, and they came to us, and what we can do. And out of that parade, every single year, we have been able to get nine to 1,000 toys for the children of the City of Miami; different areas of the City of Miami; Wynwood, Allapattah, Little Havana. They, them self, [sic] go every single December to distribute. What they do is that if you are a member, if you want to participate, your fee to participate are toys, and you have to bring toys. So every December 1,000 kids have toys because of the boat parade and the Miami Outboard Club. However, there's also going on in December and in November, every single Sunday in November and every single Sunday in December, on the Miami Outboard Club, the Bridge, which is the director, and the members, pay for a Thanksgiving luncheon and a Christmas luncheon for elderly in the City of Miami. They contract buses, and they bring seniors every single Sunday; different seniors from all the public buildings in the City of Miami; from Liberty City, Overtown, West Little Havana, Little Havana, Allapattah; from all over the City of Miami. There's about 200 -- that's the capacity -- every single Sunday. Not only they get a Thanksgiving dinner or a Christmas dinner, but they get -- also, there is a raffle with more than 50 to 60 gift, even TV (television) sets, plus music, but that's not all. During the year the Outboard Club do fishing tournament, and those fishing tournament are dedicated to the different non -for -profits in the City of Miami. They get between 6,000 or $7, 000 out of the fees that the members pay to participate in the fishing tournament. Miami Music Project, which teaches children music in Little Haiti, Liberty City, and Little Havana; early learning center of St. John Bosco in Little Havana, and so on and so on. So these are community partners. These people give back to the community. I'd like to ask the members of the Outboard Club -- which, by the way, is a public club; anybody can walk in. Other clubs in the City of Miami have signs that say "members only," but in this club, everybody can walk in. So can the members stand up, please? All right. That's what I was saying, many people. So thank you, Commissioner, Chairman. I think -- you know, I think that we should appreciate the people that give back to the community. I will no longer be the Mayor in the next parade. I will no longer be the Mayor in the next toys giveaway, but, you know, I will remember the faces of the children. I will remember the faces of the seniors when they have these spectacular days next to the water in the City of Miami. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. (Applause) Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. City of Miami Page 8 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Gary Milano: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Gary Milano, 5974 Southwest 59th Street. I have the great pleasure to be the vice chair of the Virginia Key Advisory Board. And thanks to Commissioner Suarez, he put together legislation that empowers this board to review all City projects on Virginia Key. Unfortunately, I'm here to speak about D1.3 [sic]. It basically is a project that slipped through the cracks and was not reviewed prior to approval. On April 23 of this year, the FIND -- this board basically approved the FIND (Florida Inland Navigation District) application with contingencies that it would go before the Virginia Key Advisory Board for review, workshop, and approval. A workshop was conducted this summer by the Virginia Key Advisory Board. We had a great group of people from NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration); Miami -Dade County resiliency came out, DP; we had DERM (Department of Environmental Resource Management) there, environmental groups, and community citizens. The review revealed that the project is not suitable for this natural cove. Just to give you some backup, this project is a $2.8 million project with a $1 million seawall that goes approximately 300 feet. I mean, $2.8 million? I mean, we've got lots of needs in the County, the City, why put this much money into this little natural cove? With a living shoreline design, we can do a much better job at a much lower cost. The review revealed that this project can be redesigned for a lot lower cost; and as a result, on July 25, 2017, the board executed the following resolution. I'm just going to read the title. "A resolution of the Virginia Key Advisory Board, with attachments, requesting that the attached resolution directing the City Administration to amend the FIND grant application to eliminate the seawall from the plans and replace it with a living shoreline." That is natural vegetation; it's not going to block. You can do these designs without making a block of vegetation. "Further directing the City Administration to amend the FIND grant application to eliminate any fixed or floating docks from its plans," because there's a real problem as far as attracting boats into this natural cove area where there's manatees, as well as kayakers and paddleboarders. "Withdraw the FIND application. If the FIND grant application cannot be amended, be placed on the next available Miami City Commission agenda pursuant to section of the City of Miami -Dade Code of Ordinances, as amended; directing the board liaison to forward a copy of this resolution to the officials stated." Now, for some reason, this slipped through the cracks as far as the procedures, as far as you getting this information to you, because of the hurricane, so that's why I wanted to get this on the record, and I'm also done. On August 15, we met with, you know, Commissioner Russell, the district Commissioner, and he stated that he was on board with the results of the review by the community. So, again, I just want to stress that this is a very expensive project. It's a marina development within its natural cove. We can do a lot better, and I'm looking forward to working with the City in assisting. Be happy to take any questions, if that is appropriate. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Thank you for the comments. You're recognized, ma'am. Brenda Betancourt: Good morning. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I'm in favor of FR.3, RE.5, and I want to thank Commissioner Carollo for listening to those needs in our community. We still a long way to go; we still missing a lot of things, but I appreciate that you are taking our comment to help those seniors. They are actually in really desperate need, and that helps a lot, so I really appreciate it. The only concern I have is from PH.5 to PH.13, that we are -- giving some of the poverty money for a lot of nonprofits. I just want to know if those nonprofits are going to do a little bit more better and -- for example, the Perez Museum, they have some special hours that the kids can go in for free and -- but are we going to keep putting money in those buildings that we have -- already have enough money from our taxpayers in there? That's my only question. Thank you. City of Miami Page 9 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, can I just address it just real quick, since, by the time it comes up, they may be not here and so forth? Just real quick, I will address that at the time that it comes up, but it's not going to be for the building; it's going to be for programs, and I'm going to be specific that I want it to be programs within District 3 and/or the City of Miami for underprivileged residents. Okay? Ms. Betancourt: Okay. So it will be seniors and kids, which is the most neediest ones? Commissioner Carollo: Like I said, underprivileged City residents, primarily from District 3; however, we will open up to all City of Miami, and it will be for programs, not for building. Okay? Ms. Betancourt: Right. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: It'll be operation and programs. Ms. Betancourt: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Sir, you're recognized. Javier Ortiz: Good morning. I'm Javier Ortiz, president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police, 710 Southwest 12th Avenue. I just want to start off by saying congratulations on your re-election. The item I'll speak on is DI.2. We need a new police station, but I need two minutes for something else. As you're aware, the other day, the Supreme Court has honored the Fraternal Order of Police to have our court case regarding fiscal urgency to be brought in front of their people. I don't know how to say this enough. My members asked me to come here. There's hundreds of FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) members and firefighters that are watching this right now. You guys are running out of time. I understand the Mayor wants to kick down the -- you know, kick the can down the -- you know, the road, making it sure -- making sure that it's not under his watch. You guys think that since it's in PERC (Public Employees Relations Commission), you'll appeal it to the First DCA (District Court of Appeals). Things are going to change dramatically now, so I just want to make it clear, just in case your legal counsel hasn't. I believe it's either October 14 or 16th, we will be turning in our brief to the Supreme Court. It has to do with the constitutionality, as well our injunctive relief that we won in circuit court but lost it in the Third DCA. The Supreme Court has made it very clear, in my humble opinion, that they know the law is unconstitutional. They've even gone as far as fast -tracking this case. We expect a decision by probably right after Christmas break. There's not going to be any oral arguments. And if it is deemed unconstitutional, you're going to owe us everything. My membership has instructed me to offer you guys a serious offer. We did two months ago; we haven't heard anything. I just want to say again that once we get that decision from the Supreme Court, which I'm more than confident it's going to be in our favor, there will be no negotiations. You will bankrupt the City. That is not what our intention is. We've given you a serious but also reasonable offer, and right now is the time to act. And, you know, one thing that has really upset many City employees -- and I'm speaking on behalf of the First Responders -- is the other day -- well, a couple weeks ago, when you were talking all about this bond issue that you wanted to put -- and I wish Commissioner Russell was here so I could say it directly to him -- and he just added a hundred million, like me picking up a dollar off the floor. If you have $400 million to play around with like that, you need to first restore all these police officers, all these firefighters, all these City employees that have been wronged by the City of Miami, because how are we supposed to go and meet with you guys and settle and -- when you guys always cry "broke," when you're ready to spend $400 million, and we have -- I was there, as well as just on video -- Commissioner Russell saying, "We got plenty of credit"? City of Miami Page 10 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Well, if you got plenty of credit, make a deal and make it right, because once it's deemed unconstitutional, which, again, I am more than confident it's going to happen, you guys are going to be put in a very, very bad situation, and then everybody will be crying, "Oh, the City's broke. It's the police officers' fault. It's the firefighters' fault. It's the City employee." It isn't our fault. You were sold a bag of goods when the Mayor's Office hired Mr. Mattimore. He's made his money. You don't see him around anymore. Out of sight, out of mind. Why? Because the wheels of justice are slow, but we're going through due process. And again, we're trying to strike a deal. We want to work things out, because I don't want to bankrupt the City. But how am I, with a straight face, supposed to tell my membership, "Oh, no. The City has no money," when they're just adding a $400 million bond like --? And then we have a Commissioner telling us, "We got plenty of credit." Well, if we have plenty of credit, then take our offer seriously, because I'm telling you, once it comes back that it's unconstitutional, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's going to, there's no PERC, there's no First DCA; your City Attorney isn't going to be able to, you know, finagle some type of deal to appeal it. It's over, it's over. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: It's certainly not the police officers' fault, also. Mr. Ortiz: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Eddie Gloria: Thank you. Commission, good morning. My name is Eddie Gloria. I am the chief operating officer of Camillus House. We are located at 1603 Northwest 7th Avenue, and I came to just say, thank you. You have two items on your budget agenda later this afternoon. Both are supporting Camillus House efforts to provide services to persons who are homeless. This is -- these are critical services that allow us to provide food, clothing, showers, and referral services for resources to help folks get back into housing as soon as possible. So on behalf of Camillus House and Hilda Fernandez, our CEO (Chief Executive Officer), who could not be here to thank you herself I came to say, thank you very much for doubling down on Camillus House and continuously supporting us. Thank you. Be well. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am. Erin Clancy: Hi. Erin Clancy, 5530 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on item -- Discussion Item 1-3 [sic]. I'm here in my capacity as director of conservation for the Tropical Audubon Society to voice our opposition to the proposed construction of a seawall and dock at Virginia Key in the area that was previously occupied by Jimbo's. We would instead propose that the natural shoreline be restored and bolstered. This will cost the City less money, protect valuable habitat, and provide better erosion control and resiliency in the face of storm surge. There are at least three reasons why we are opposed to this proposal: Destruction of valuable habitat, not only in the construction but in the ongoing operation of the dock and seawall. This will encourage the use of the area by motorboats and jet skis and increase turbidity, and damage the habitat that's currently being used by manatees, spotted eagle rays, and paddlers. Secondly, it will cost more money than the proposed construction. It's estimated that a restoration of the natural shoreline will cost under $1 million, which is less than the matching funds that the City would have to provide for the FIND proposal. And thirdly, for reasons of resiliency. After the current storms, Irma and Harvey and Maria, every city and county is looking for money for resiliency in their budget. Here, we have resiliency already built in; it just needs a little bit of love and care. So I urge you to reject, in whatever the procedural format necessary, this proposal, and go with the restoration of a natural shoreline. Thank you. City of Miami Page 11 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir. Christopher Hodgkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Chris Hodgkins. I'm CEO of the Miami Tunnel, at 860 McArthur Causeway. I come here today as a neighbor and a member of the Miami Outboard Club. And the first thing I want to do is thank the Commission, and Commissioner Russell for your leadership on -- as the watchdog of Watson Island. We greatly appreciate your leadership and what you did on Flagstone. And there's a lot going on on that place, whether it's Jungle Island, Flagstone, the helicopter pad, but everything that's going on on the Island right now is talking about taking away access. It's talking about blocking people's ability to get onto what is the greatest waterway, I think, in the nation, which is Biscayne Bay, but nevertheless, we have just the opposite happening at the Miami Outboard Club. What we have is the equalizer of Watson Island. What we have is the -- a place where everyone is welcome and where a requirement of membership is service. So I seriously take the concerns of Commissioner about the appraisals. We do require two appraisals in here, but most of all, we want to move forward, and we want to move forward in the idea about access. The situation is, is that everything that's going on on that Island is talking about denying access. This is the equalizer. This is what is giving people the opportunity. And part of that service is, you know, making sure that we have kids from the inner city learn how to fish; come to the fishing tournaments; same things with boating; same with all that they're doing. This is the Miami Outboard Club, but it's essentially a service organization. So as someone that works on that Island -- my office was only maybe 50 feet from the bay itself -- I think it's a treasure, and I think a key link to that treasure is what these folks provide in providing access to everybody in the City of Miami, no matter what your economic structure is. So it provides great access and great opportunity, and I hope that you 're supportive of this measure. Thank you so much. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, real quick. Just -- as far as access and kids from the inner city coming to fish, and teaching them how to fish, I've never heard of this program for kids in Little Havana. Do you have like some type of documents, or do you have like how it's done and stuff like that? Which -- by the way, I want to clarify that I'm not speaking against the Miami Outboard Club, and what I requested was more time to see all this and to really hash out all this. But those are things that I would want to know, to really see if the inner-city kids are being able to have access. What's your track record with stuff like that? Again, not necessarily saying anything bad about the Miami Outboard Club, because I don't have anything against the Miami Outboard Club, to be honest with you, but that's where this extra time will come about to be able to see all this and verb not to mention other issues. Mr. Hodgkins: All right. I did stop by your office. I did -- yeah, we have pictures here, but it -- Sure. I did stop by your office, and I did stop by with a brochure. We have pictures and documentation of the fishing tournaments, of the fishing lessons, of the sailing. I can say this as someone who's been part of that club: I've heard of orphanages and schools and programs that I've never heard of. So when you say, "in Little Havana," you can bet it's happening in Little Havana. That's what the boat parade and the monies raised go to the toys for. The fishing program, we reach right into the community, make sure folks can be part of that. So if you're not aware of it, we're not doing a good job getting it out, but that's what these guys are all about. It's about service, and it's about giving people the same opportunity that we have access to. So you do have a copy of that brochure in your office. We'd be glad to have you come to the Miami Outboard Club and see the good that we're doing. But again, understand that as Miamian [sic] gets more and more tighter and people get less and less opportunity, we got to have something that's an equalizer, and this is an equalizer. This is what gives people the opportunity. Some of these kids don't know how to fish and have never fished, and this is where we help them out. I mean, City of Miami Page 12 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 when we do -- You know, the Mayor talked about the toy program, the senior meals. I mean, this is not -- there's no other entity on Watson Island doing anything like this. There's nobody doing this that has access to that beautiful bay, other than the Miami Outboard Club. So I know that you're aware of this. We would love to invite you to come by. I did leave a brochure in your office. And again, remember that we all have to have opportunity to enjoy the treasures that we're surrounded by, and this is one of those entities that does that. Commissioner Carollo: No, I understand. And I represent a community that actually shares a zip code with my colleague here to the left of me, and I could tell you, I represent a lot of the kids that you're speaking about. I have not had one kid or one family let me know, "Hey, we took advantage of this. We took advantage of this opportunity." So again, listen, this is nothing, nothing against the Miami Outboard Club. You may very well be doing very good things. I am not sure of that. And I'm sorry, but I'm not a Commissioner that by one little pamphlet or brochure, I'm sold. No. I like to really see, you know, the work that is done and be able to hold certain things accountable, and I say this with all due respect. No, I have nothing against the Miami Outboard Club. That's what -- My request was simply, hey, additional time to review all this and be able to, you know, have further conversations, but educated conversations where we have the proper documentations. Mr. Hodgkins: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Sir, you're recognized. Clemente Gonzalez: Good morning, Commissioners, Administration. My name is Clemente Gonzalez. I reside at 11 Shore Drive East, Miami, Florida 33133. I am a past Commodore president. We call it "Commodore," the Miami Outboard Club. First of all, I want to thank you all for the service that you do, especially after Irma; clearing up the roadways. I was able to get out at 7 a.m. and drive, so that quick response, I thank you all. A lot have been said already about the Miami Outboard Club. Why are we here today? We're here because the Miami Outboard Club believes in the community. I know that maybe, like Commissioner Carollo said, you might not have heard of it, but for -- since 1996, that I can remember going back, we have three inner-city kids fishing tournaments on the City of Miami parks. They go there every year, three times a year. We have Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner for the elderly. We have -- we are the suppliers of transportation for the bay cleanup. Besides that, we do up to -- I believe the last count is 12 charter boat events to our fishing tournaments, through galas of the disabilities of the City of Miami, young adults that go there. And, unfortunately, maybe it's our fault that we don't go up in the camera and says, "We're doing this for the City of Miami." We do it because we want to do it, and basically, we're not saying, "We need the credit that we need to be getting," as I see as some conversation has gone here. Maybe we should be getting on TV, on Channel 7, Channel 6, or something, say, "Hey, we're going to do this." We do it from the bottom of our hearts. That's what we're doing. Why are we here also today? We're ready to spend substantial amount of money in your property, in our property to enroll our youth foundation. What is the Youth Foundation? Well, it's inner-city kids fishing. We want to start teaching them about how to conserve the waterways, how to go out and enjoy Miami. So we are ready to spend that amount of money in your -- in the property. Commissioner Carollo: Real quick. "Significant," you mean $2 million? Mr. Gonzalez: Excuse me? Commissioner Carollo: "Significant," you mean $2 million? City of Miami Page 13 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gonzalez: No. I mean $6 million, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Because I -- from what I saw, it was 2 million for -- Mr. Gonzalez: $6 million. Commissioner Carollo: In how many years? 25 years? Mr. Gonzalez: Excuse me? Commissioner Carollo: And for how many years? 25 years? Mr. Gonzalez: We're asking in excess -- it's 25, and then 10 and 10. Commissioner Carollo: So you're asking for -- Mr. Gonzalez: 45 years extra, sir. Commissioner Carollo: -- a 45 year lease? Mr. Gonzalez: Yes. We need -- Commissioner Carollo: For $6 million? Mr. Gonzalez: -- the reason that we're using for that amount of time is to just the $6 million that we want to spend on the property, which is to make more classrooms for the Youth Foundation. Everybody has talked about everything that we do. I'm sure that you're probably bored already about everything that we do. Commissioner Carollo: No. Mr. Gonzalez: I mean, but I can go through -- Commissioner Carollo: I welcome -- Mr. Gonzalez: -- a list here that we have. We have three fishing tournaments a year that we have created. Every child organizations that we do, we make sure that the money goes back to the City of Miami. There have -- some people have come and say, "Can we do something?" We have done stuff outside the City, but through the membership only that have gone up in our Monday meeting has put their monies out of their own pocket. Everything that we do, the Doral (phonetic) Challenge, the Dolphin Derby, the Swordfish Marathon; every charitable work. We have worked with the Mayor's Office, present and past, even back where Mr. Diaz was Mayor, and we talk to them. "Where does the City needs this?" Again, I tell you, we're not going in back -- in front of the TV and saying, "We're doing this." Maybe that's our mistake. Maybe we should go from now on and say, "We're doing this." We thought that we didn't need to get that political. We do it from the bottom of our hearts. The senior citizens, you know about. The three kids tournament, you can -- I think it's Diaz, last name, which is in charge of the City of Miami Parks, and that -- that he's the one that brings all the kids that come to the fishing tournament. Every kids leaves there with a prize; every kids does not leave empty-handed. We have the disability gala from the City of Miami Parks; they come in there. When they come in, the waiters, the ones that serve, the one that do it are the members; we don't hire people from outside. Everybody is there doing pro bono work, and they're -- we are the ones that serve the food; we do that. We're the one that get to dance with them when they want to dance. When the elderly people come and they fall in love with City of Miami Page 14 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 one of us and want to dance with us all day long, we're the ones that do that. Christmas Boat Parade, we started that 20 years ago. We decided that we want to do a boat parade. We don't have the logistics of Ft. Lauderdale, with the great -- but we have worked it out where we do a free viewing for the City of Miami at Bicentennial Park -- not Bicentennial -- Bayfront Park with the kid ice slide, bounce houses, places to see, fireworks. We do that every year, every year. For the last 20 years we have done that. The toy drive, like they mentioned, we have serviced toys to Centro Mater, Catholic Charity Child Development Services, Ronald McDonald's House, (UNINTELLIGIBLE), Miami Riverside Elementary. We added a scholarship last year with the Wolfson Center for Hospitality, which Wolfson sits in the City of Miami. So, yes, we have gone beyond what we really need to do, and we're up to 12 or 13 events now a year, and we're still adding. We're still thinking about adding more. We're here. We're ready to spend the substantial -- it's not $2 million; it's $6 million. I understand -- I'm in the construction business, and deals with real estate; I understand about the appraisers. The appraisals has been done. It could have been a lack of -- you know, we're all humans. It wasn't put in there. We don't have a problem with what the appraisal says, and we don't have a problem for what the lease says, what the appraiser says for us to pay rent. I think it's two appraisals that you -- that it's from your companies that you pick; they're there. I think, if you look at them, it really doesn't take a lot of time to say, "The appraisal says the rent is X"'; you divide it by 12. I mean, I know you need more time, but I understand that we've been at this for a while. I wouldn't be here if I would have really actually crossed all my "T's" and dotted my "Is." We're ready to move. We know everything that's happening in the Island. We know that we don't want to be an eyesore. When everybody comes to Miami Beach, that the last thing they see is Watson Island, the City of Miami. We understand that. So we talked to the members, because we have to do something. We don't want to be, "There's that club." So we -- yeah, we're ready to spend $6 million; we're ready to do it now. Of course, we need to just that with a lease, and that's what we're standing here in front of you guys today, and I hope that you take that in consideration. It will be an honor for us to continue the partnership that we have. We all -- and again, I can say this again: Maybe it was our fault. We didn't want the spotlight for the things that we have done. And from now on, I'm going to make sure that I make letters to all of you every week or every month, until you get tired of me. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. Mr. Chairman, real quick. I've heard this on various times. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they've been at this for a while. Usually, our agenda will show if there's been previous deferrals or what has occurred; I don't see any. So, Mr. Manager, usually our agenda -- I know you weren't paying attention. Chair Hardemon: I don't think it's been placed on the agenda, but they -- maybe the work that they're doing in preparation for it, so I'm assuming this. Commissioner Carollo: Right, but -- because -- Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) going to be discussing (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Carollo: -- this is the -- Commissioner Carollo: Let's try to finish the public comment. Let's finish the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City of Miami Page 15 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: I get it, but this the first time that we're seeing it, and it happens to be on a day that we also have a second commission meeting that is for the whole budget. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: So you may have been working on it for a while. It wasn't -- it may have been with the Administration, it may have been with the Mayor; I'm not sure. This is when it was placed on the agenda. Maybe the draft agenda was the first time we saw this, so -- and it hasn't come to this Commission before. We haven't -- at least, it's not reflected here -- Mr. Gonzalez: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: -- and it hasn't been deferred in the past. Mr. Gonzalez: Okay. I -- and -- you know, the last thing, I just want to let you know that we've been on the Island since 1946. Commissioner Carollo: Understand. Mr. Gonzalez: And I think that -- Another thing is, yes, the way that we take care of the property. After the hurricane, when the Management's [sic] Office went out and surveyed the properties, we had done our first cleaning, and we're still -- we're setting up for the members to come and clean the second one. And the management said, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you guys clean." And we said, "No, we're still dirty." And he says, "No. You haven't seen the rest of our properties." So we take pride in what we have and what you have given us, and we would like to continue this partnership with you for -- you know, for as long as we can. Renita Holmes: I'm Renita Holmes -- Mr. Gonzalez: Thank you very much. Ms. Holmes: -- director Wave of Women in Public Housing, Education, and Finance and Development, Our Homeless Business and Property Services. You have to excuse me; I have a little respiratory problems today, but I'd like to use the first breath to say, thank you. Chairman stepped away. I actually saw him out there -- for having the insight. I live in a community where there are primarily a lot of elderly concentrated persons with disability, and so there -- I know there are many of you that have concentrated population housing, so it's like living in an assisted living facility. And I was fortunate enough to be very close to the City of Miami Police Department, Central, and I'd like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to those officers who were really giving up their own lunches, and who allowed us to come in, though, to power up our phones, because we're heart patients, and because we have respiratory illnesses. We did not have power for 10 days and did not have -- and I know people provide ice. We didn't have nebulizers. So I commend you, and give great support on FR.3 and RE.4 to Commissioner Carollo and Commissioner Suarez. With that in (UNINTELLIGIBLE), as you know, I've always been a start and consistent victim's advocate since Weed and Seed began, and currently, as a volunteer and a creator of certain programs -- now I work in the system -- the victim's money is great. I just would like to ask you, if you'd keep in mind that guiding principle, the importance of impact and performance versus presentation and profit, because when we talk about challenge initiatives; when we talk about volunteers, such as myself, who are working very closely, working in trauma, rape treatment, creating (UNINTELLIGIBLE) program, attending meetings, keeping the data, the victims attending court watch, and now myself even so being a survivor City of Miami Page 16 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 since Jedidiah, Commissioner, there have been many gaps and reports done, so it's still ongoing. We know that Jedidiah was a victim; didn't have a voice. I concur with you 100 percent on that, but I'm asking you, take a bigger look at how that's done. We've had some extensive conversations with the County, but we have not really had that presence that I know -- My Commissioner has heard me state there with someone that has that expertise that's been around a long time. Anyone can do -- book -learn the victims. Listen, but you have to be culturally competent, particularly when you're dealing with victims with disabilities and victim witnesses. Lastly, I commend the Department of Public Works ' recommendation for Habitat for Humanity. We have so many broken women and mothers that want to be home buyers that are stuck in the projects, where we see so much economic development going on and groups that have poverty initiatives to teach us about being homeowners. And we actually believe people with disability really want to be homeowners. So I'm asking that you take a closer look at the performance versus the presentation and the impact that some of these groups have had, and their interaction in the interlocal efforts that you have to concentrate in populations. And I'm great with Habitat for Humanity, because we get to work on it. But moving over a little bit more, we can -- we've had intricate conversations. After you've been a part of something and you've watched it grow, when you've been to the State level to lobby, and you've experienced the actual process, or lack thereof you kind of talk with expertise, so I'd like to talk with you -- more detail about making it even more impactful for us that are trying to move upward mobility from renting in concentrated areas to now. Lastly, CA.7, about the opiates -- not lastly, but the young boy that lost his life. Those are the type of victims that we want, the homeless families, dealing with the issues of homelessness and how that happen. There's cross-references, but nine times out of 10, when we see us challenged, marginalized communities or challenge the banks that redline us or dope dealers, or manufacturers that redline and target the marketed product to our -- that deadly product to our community, the responsibility, the outcome, the benefits of being -- taking them to court never gets there to the actual victim. So I've got this thing about people challenging cigarette companies, people challenge opiate company, people challenging guns. For all my life of advocacy, but not today, do I still know what it is, the benefit to us; it's just an ongoing struggle. And I believe that if you heard a little bit more from us and you work with us in our advocacy, particularly at the women's march this Saturday -- that's a big issue; you'll have a lot of moms out there. A lot of children saw the opiates. We attended Booker T., but the children that were there were children with mental health deficiencies and challenges; they weren't quite comprehending. As a matter of fact, I'd like to show you a picture of some of them sleeping at that presentation, and there's been -- So, getting the coordinated services having an impact on the victims and the people that are hurt the most, I'd like to ask you to ask those who are not doing economic services or not doing non -for -profits to do some monitoring about that, the benefits of that. In closing, Commissioner Carollo, you spoke about $300,000. I commend you all for accepting the grant from Workforce. It seems that when communities like mine are going through a lot of development, you hear me talk about women and dis -- persons with disability. I'd like to know how much of that funding and how much of that programming initiative is going to provide an opportunity for professional women, such as myself with disabilities, who do urban planning, who do designing, and not just construction. You'll be amazed at the gender gap, you'll be amazed at the pay gap, and you'll be terribly amazed at the lack of economic opportunity for persons with disability with higher education. Again, I'd like to thank you for showing up in the community, taking the time, although (UNINTELLIGIBLE) families were there, having a resource that was impactfully [sic] needed, and for really taking the time to listen -- I'm talking to you particularly, because you're my Chairman -- taking the time to listen to them and encourage a lot of folks to attend some subsequent meetings the other day, which I see that your office was very present and availant [sic]. I'll just say, it's not easy trying to talk about things in two City of Miami Page 17 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 minutes, when you're short of breath. It's not easy trying to help people at the same time we need help, but something says, "If Madam Holmes is not getting it, then maybe it's not being given in a correct manner, and maybe it's not as accessible and accommodating." And during a storm and a crisis, that's non-negotiable. Having to seek power to catch your breath or having to have a safe environmental where you can get across to go. I thank God for the Police Department right there; otherwise, right next to that expressway, right next to that river with all those debriefing [sic] and right -- we would have had nothing. I probably wouldn't be here today, because I've got four stints in my chest now, you know, and we've got some people missing. What happens when I don't have power or a neighborhood center, or maybe even just a little plug-in that we could mobily bring in so that my kid could get a asthma treatment, and I can get an asthma treatment, or we can go ahead and take care of our diabetes stuff? I really want you to think about it. There was nothing. Thank you so much. Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes. You're recognized, sir. Manuel Prieguez: Chairman, I'm going to let the lady go in front of me, because she's in a hurry. Nancy Lee: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're welcome. Ms. Lee: My name is Nancy Lee. I live on Grove Isle, in Ken Russell's district. I'm here to speak on the Virginia Key FIND grant. On behalf of Jimbo's relatives, which I am one, I -- my great niece is his great granddaughter. And I just want to say, first of all, I would love it if you would name it `Jimbo's Park." But you all have a letter from Jimbo's family. That dock was there when Jimbo was there; the seawall was there when Jimbo was there. With -- as far as I know, the FIND grant is not changing anything. I am an environmentalist. I have an environmental award from 52 State environmental groups; the John (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Award, so I do appreciate living seawalls, but I also appreciate the historical nature of that park. And I honor my relative, Jimbo, and he died. And I just would hope that you keep it, as much as possible, the way Jimbo had it; not crazy like he had it, but normal like he had it. So thank you all, and thank you. Bye. Chair Hardemon: That's a family member's comment. You're recognized, sir. Mr. Prieguez: Mr. Chairman, good morning. Just a point of clarification before I begin. I'm here to speak on FR.1. When you get to FR.1, you're not going to have any public comment; it's only now that we're going to have public comments. Is that correct? Chair Hardemon: Public comment is now. Mr. Prieguez: Is now. You got it. Okay, so I'm here on FR.1, which is the booting ordinance. I represent Vehicle Immobilization Professionals. This company just recently received its license from the City of Miami to conduct booting in the City of Miami. Prior to having the license, they never conducted any kind of booting, whatsoever; they were not in business; they were not partners with anybody. They didn't have anything to do with any of the booting activity that occurred all the months and years prior, which obviously have made for very negative headlines and what have you. So what I'm here to communicate to the Commission is that, number one, I want to congratulate Mayor Regalado for taking leadership on the issue and for proffering this ordinance. This ordinance is a good first start; it's a good beginning. And I'm here to communicate to you that a lot more can be done. A lot City of Miami Page 18 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 more could be considered by this Commission in order to make it tighter and more stringent. Just three things out of the list of many, many, many recommendations that we're going to have for the City. Number one, you should consider having every applicant maintain and post a $150,000 noninterest-bearing cash bond, and the purpose of that would be for the City have security in order to be able to collect the administrative fees. In Section 42-118 of the ordinance, as it is proposed by the Administration now, that language needs to be clarified, because it creates an inducement for the property owners to be able to receive kickbacks from the booters while the activity is going on, and you don't want that. It's not good for the public when the property owners are partaking in the business. Quite in fact, quite in fact, in the towing ordinances, it's not allowed; it's against the law. No tower that is towing from a private property can give any kind of kickback to the property owner, so that should be obviously made a lot, lot stronger. Other things like having the property owners BTRs (Business Tax Receipts) revoked if any of these -- any parts of this ordinance are, you know, violated. The bottom line is this: We are a new company, and we want to be able to compete on an even playing field. And given the history and given what this City's been through, this ordinance needs to be made as tough and as strong as possible to ensure that everybody's playing and to -- disincentivize people from doing the wrong thing. So that's my recommendations, and I look forward to continuing engaging with the Mayor and with the Administration, and it's a great first step for the Mayor. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, sir. Rafael Andrade: Good afternoon. Ralph Andrade. I am a principal of VIP, the company that Mr. Prieguez represents. I'm also a resident of the City of Miami. I live here in Coconut Grove, in Mr. Russell's district. I'm in a bit of a unique position here. In 1999 -- I'm the one who actually brought booting from New York to Miami back in 1999. The only one on the Commission at that time was Commissioner Gort. If you might remember, Hugh Cochran was involved back then; and your brother, Mr. Carollo, was here at that time, so -- And I've been in the industry -- in and around it for about 30 years. It was my first job out of high school in 1988. Again, I would like to start by congratulating Mayor Regalado on his leadership on this issue, but clearly, this -- the activity of the booting industry has brought a lot of negative press and unfavorable press to the City. They've been acting in a predatory manner, preying on your citizens and residents, and tourists who visit particularly the downtown and the Wynwood District, where a large part of this activity is going on. I can tell you, I agree with Mr. Prieguez' comments that this ordinance is a good first start, okay, but having been in the industry, I can tell you that there are about 20 or 30 loopholes that the industry will run right through, find ways around, and it does not do nearly enough to bring accountability to the industry, and that's what this industry needs; it needs accountability. The idea that you're going to legalize kickbacks to property owners is really, really bad public policy, because you're actually creating an incentive for property owners. In essence, what you have now is you have traps. You basically got tourist traps going on where these lots are set up in a manner so as to induce folks to park there, not pay the parking fee, and end up getting booted, and I think that's a terrible thing for the City of Miami. We're a world -class city; you don't deserve this type of behavior going on in your City. Again, as someone who's been in the industry, I'm happy to lend my knowledge and work with your staff in creating an ordinance that will bring accountability to this industry. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, real quick, and I apologize; just since he's someone from the industry, questions. Do you think the -- what's stipulated there in the ordinance regarding signs, do you think it's strict enough or not? Because that City of Miami Page 19 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 was one of the issues that was reported, where -- I don't want to say it was a trap, per se; but, yes, there was residents or individuals that were parking in lots that were privately owned, and they didn't -- they weren't aware they were privately owned. It was my understanding, they actually even paid the MPA (Miami Parking Authority) parking and so forth, put the sticker there or the -- whatever you call it -- the receipt -- and they still got booted. So as the ordinance state regarding now putting signage within "X" number of feet from the entrance and so forth, you don't think that's strong enough? Mr. Andrade: No. Your signage is -- you know, it -- Look, I'm not criticizing staff. I think, you know, they did well with what -- the information they have and the knowledge they have about the industry, but it does need to be tightened up. And let me -- some of this is by design. These pay stations are the same as the City uses. So, you know, a person who's paying a pay station on public property, that pay station is indistinguishable from a pay station on private property, and that's all by design, folks; it's not a mistake. And I can tell you that this was going on in the City of Miami Beach, and the City of Miami Beach passed a law requiring that on the kiosk itself, on the pay station that you distinguish that this is a private property pay station, have certain language on it, and I'm happy to lend my knowledge and my expertise in the area to the Administration and to the Mayor and staff and -- so that we can get this right, because the City deserves better than what's going on. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Mayor Regalado: Chairman, if I may. Most of the recommendations were made by Miami Parking Authority, because they are being blamed. I'd like to say that this industry has been tainted by the things that they have been doing and getting away with, and we have it everywhere. We have it -- There was an incident in Sears, in Coral Way and 36th Avenue, where the general manager and the regional manager had to come to and gather all the people that were booted and gave -- Sears paid back their money, and they fired the company. The City Attorney opined -- and we met yesterday -- that we can pass the ordinance on first reading, and then incorporate for the second reading all the new recommendations that Noriega had sent through this gentleman. I just want to say something. The reason that this became such a controversy is because of the numbers of complaints from the Grove, from Wynwood, from Little Havana, from everywhere. The media took the time to do a month of surveillance, and they have it in tapes; so much so that the State Attorney is now investigating, and two people were arrested. So I do think that we need to send a message to the industry, and I will tell you, the media will come back to check on those new companies, but -- Yeah, Commissioner Carollo is right; the signage was most of the problem and also violation of the Disabilities Act. People that park in disabled spaces with the right ID (identification) were booted and were forced to pay in cash or give bribes to the employees of those companies. So this is a pretty big issue, and I just think that the Commission should pass on first reading and incorporate everything that you think is important. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to be able to kind of get through this public comment, because I know people are here; they're taking time off work, so I want to ensure you all get a chance to speak so you can return back to what you need to do, and possibly, we can get some business done before you leave. So I want to recognize you, ma'am. Esther Alonso: Thank you. Esther Alonso-Luft, Virginia Key Outdoor Center. I'm here on DI.3. I had the fortune of being able to sit with Commissioner Russell's office and go through the revisions to the new plan, and they do modem -- you'll be presenting them later, correct? -- the seawall and actually create a sloping shoreline City of Miami Page 20 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 so that it's a much more natural element, something that's even more natural than what exists today. It does lose about 60 feet of the upland area, and the upland project itself is still there. So I'd like to provide my support for the plan on the seawall side and request that the upland project be reviewed further, and hopefully get some public input so that we can get our users and park visitors to decide what's really there. The gazebos are still there, and in my opinion, they would be best served on the beach area, where there is absolutely no shade. Even after the storm, we do still have some large trees that will come back, and it'll create a beautiful natural area where we can really preserve habitat and just do things that are going to enhance the area and enhance the visitor experience. So thank you, Commissioner Russell, for taking lead on that and making some substantial changes, and for everyone who worked on it. And I look forward to seeing how this plan progresses and how we make it a better space for everyone. So thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized. Robert Brandt: Excuse me. My name is Robert Brandt. I'm here on behalf of -- or with the Miami Outboard Club, as a proud member for many, many years, as you can tell by my gray hair. I did not have gray hair when I became a member. I know you heard a lot about it, and I'd just like to add a few things. One, the service to the community dates back into the early '40s, during World War IL The Miami Outboard Club formed a flotilla to assist the Navy and Coast Guard in search and rescue operations. As you know, I've heard it from when I was a kid how German U- boats torpedoed ships outside -- or within sight of Miami Beach, and our predecessors from this club participated in that. Also, as to the kids' fishing tournaments, I know, Commissioner Carollo, you had a question. But these kids are brought there by the Parks Department, the City of Miami Parks Department. And if you would talk to the Parks Department, you'll know which kids do come and how they enjoy it. I think that would be beneficial to your understanding of those things. Just going into -- I know you mentioned about the cost and money we'll be investing in this. It's going to be a substantial increase in what we're paying now, and our members have to bear the brunt of that, and we like to pride ourselves that we're a working man's club. And all these gentlemen here, they pay dues and storage, if they have a boat on the premises, and part of the new lease includes now that we're going to be paying a percentage of all dues -- all storage, which we're not now -- to the City, as additional rent. So as we have to increase it, we have to increase it even more to pay, you know, the percentage to the City. And also know that the investment in capital improvements, we don't get that money and it doesn't fall out of the air; they have to be a special assessment to members, and just the initial thing in the few first years is going to be over $5, 000 for each member. So, you know, for us, it is a substantial investment, and we'd just like you to understand that, as well. And also, if this matter is deferred, which I understand a lot of you -- or -- many of you are considering; if it is, we respectfully request that it be put on the next Commission meeting and agenda. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Mr. Brandt: And I thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Robert Aguero: My name is Robert Aguero. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. I'm speaking on behalf of the Miami Outboard Club. My father was a member of the Outboard Club, so I grew up in that club in the '70s; now I'm -- have the honor of being the commodore present day at the club. So one -- two other things that I'd like to bring to your attention while you're contemplating deferring this item is that, one, we work with the City of Miami's Code Enforcement and also City of Miami Page 21 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 law enforcement agencies. We act as a watchdog. I know most of you are aware of the Jet Ski nuisance that's going on in the Watson Island. Well, you know, we're one of the ones that work with your Code Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies; not only in taking pictures, but also in providing feedback to them whenever they're operating illegally out of the City of Miami boat ramp, which now has been closed since Hurricane Irma. The other thing, too, that I would like for you to reconsider while you're reviewing is that Allied Marine is being offered a 62-year lease, with an investment of a million dollars every 10 years, so that's 6 million. Here, we're giving the City of Miami and its citizens more bang for the dollars, because we're ready to invest $6 million for -- in exchange for a 45-year lease amendment. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. You're recognized, sir. New haircut. Andrew Mirmelli: My name is Andrew Mirmelli. I'm here on behalf of four properties that I own: 49 Northwest 1st Street, 127 Northwest llth Street, 1302 Northeast 2nd Avenue, and 601 Northeast 1st Avenue. They're the two City blocks that are north of World Center project, the City block that is south of the World Center block -- project, and the half -acre site directly across from the courthouse. I also operate about 20 other lots in the City of Miami; in particular, in Wynwood, I operate the Mana properties. And in the Business District, I operate all the World Center properties and some land near the All Aboard development, and several surface lots in Brickell and the Central Business District. I'm here about the booting ordinance, and mainly, I'm very, very protective of my customers, and I agree that there's absolutely a need to tighten the language and put up better signage requirements on the lots. On every one of my pay stations, for example, I have a sign that says, "Privately operated pay station," with my own cell phone number. I literally field 20 calls a day. And a manager that's on call on my -- I have a -- different areas with -- a second manager will get the other calls, so that other managers, the top number, and my own number is the second number. So I'm very, very familiar with many of the calls. And I spend about half my time making sure that customers of mine, whether they made a procedural mistake or not, if they paid and they were booted anyway that they do not have to pay for that boot, and the boot just comes off of the car. My concern with the language in this particular ordinance, the way it is written, is while I know everything that was in here was written in a -- with the intent of protecting the customer, in certain instances, it inadvertently hurts the customer, and I'll give a few examples of that. In my lots, when a person pays to park -- and it's a pay and display machine -- whether the person displayed the receipt or not, if they have that receipt and they bring it back and they contact me -- and I make perfectly sure they can -- I make sure to get that car released. In this ordinance, it basically states that it has to be pay by plate. Well, I could tell you guys with absolutely certainty, people will mess that up and not put the proper license plate in there. And if they don't have to display, what will end up happening is a lot of people will end up paying for boots on their car that actually were paying customers. So I think to correct that, you should allow pay and display, but say, "Anyone who does not have a pay by plate option" -- which I'm going to have anyway. I have pay and -- pay by plate, but I ask them to put it on their car. It's just a second measure that gives them an opportunity, even if they entered the wrong license plate, not to get booted. And make it a law that if someone paid and didn't display that they -- the hooter must release that car for free. That way, if a person paid, put in the license plate, and even got it wrong but displayed the right ticket, they don't have to pay for the boot. Another example is, I have about 3,000 monthly customers, and the procedure is, I hand out monthly customers their passes. It usually goes to The Related Group or to the World Center project or to the All Aboard project; like a hundred will go to the project manager, and they will get to hand it out to the different guys on the jobs. What I have now is, if a person does not display a monthly pass and they get a boot on their car and they return with a City of Miami Page 22 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 monthly pass -- which often happens; they don't understand that they -- they're told where to park, but they're not told that they pick up their pass at the job, and when they first park, they do not have the pass, if they have the pass on their car when -- or they could show it to the booter, the boot comes off for free. My intent, my hope is that we -- I believe it says here, if you do not have a paid -by -plate option, which a monthly pass isn't even considered in that, then you cannot boot, which gives you -- the only opportunity is to let a person park for free or to tow their vehicle, and the last thing we want to do is force people to be between bulletproof glass when they're actual paying customers; particularly, construction workers for the World Center project, for The Related Group projects, and these are my best customers. So my intention is to hope to meet with the Commissioners and with staff, and put something in place. There was something very funny. The Mayor brought up the Sears lot. When the Sears lot first put up their signs, they took a picture of one of my signs and they put it in their lot, and their machines were not working. And I started getting calls like crazy from people from the Sears lot saying, "I got booted, and I couldn't pay, because the machines weren't working." The people who did the signage at the Sears lot actually copied the machine with my cell phone number on the sign, so I was getting calls from people. And the point is that a good operator focuses on the little minutia and a bad operator doesn't, and there's a good way of doing things and a bad way of doing things. And while I really like the fact that there's an ordinance and we're going to get something done that forces -- I think every customer, the intention should be to warn them and make sure any paying customer is properly warned, and I have like sometimes as many as 20 signs in a lot explaining it to them, making it perfectly clear. Sometimes I'll make a specialty sign, like "Chance of rain, 50 percent. Chance of getting booted if you don't pay, 100 percent." The point is, make sure your customers are not trapped in any way, shape, or form; that they know perfectly clear it's not worth it to run into FedEx. I have a lot between FedEx and the Miami Tower. 20 people will park thinking they can go for five minutes and get out; most of them do, but a good number of them get booted. I don't want them to think that they even have a 1 percent chance, so I put that specialty sign right on Miami Avenue, across from FedEx. Good signage could go a long way and I think that this is a great idea, and I think we just need to make it perfect. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Adam Radillo: My name is Adam Radillo. I own AR Booting, and I have been an owner for 12 years in the City of Miami. I've been operating in Brickell for 12 years, with an impeccable record. I know there's a bad apple out there, and I like the idea of the new ordinance, that it's going to get tighter, and that's fine; that's been needed. Just hope the -- we have the opportunity to work together and use my 12 years of experience as help in -- with the language. There's some parts of the new ordinance that the language is very, very unclear. Ken, I just look forward to working with the Commissioners in this. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir. Melissa Fuentes: Good morning. Chair Hardemon: Good morning. Ms. Fuentes: I am here regarding FR.1 as well. This is the immobilization. I represent Elite Booting, okay. I'm here -- I've attempted several times to speak to the Commissioners' office, to the Mayor's office, regarding the circumstance with the immobilization companies. I reviewed your -- Chair Hardemon: What's your name? City of Miami Page 23 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Fuentes: Melissa. Chair Hardemon: Melissa. Ms. Fuentes: My name is Melissa Fuentes. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Ms. Fuentes: The reason why I'm here today is because after reviewing the proposed ordinance or amendment, or adoption, as you guys call it, I noticed that there's a few clerical typos, and the signage is not -- There's a lot of incomplete guidelines on how you're instructing individual booting companies to operate in the city. And although I do agree with the amendments and the changes and buckling things down, I do think that as it's proposed today, it is not ready for any sort of direction to any immobilization company. And as far as that goes, I would hope that you would oppose -- or defer until further research has been taken a look at, basically. Okay. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much. Ma'am, you're recognized. Sue McConnell: Sue McConnell. I'm the president of the Village of Center Grove, and I'm with the BID (Business Improvement District), which is the Business Improvement Company [sic]. I'd just like to state that every time a car is booted, if it's a visitor's car, they don't come back to Coconut Grove. We fought like crazy to get the post office parking lot in the Grove open by MPA so that people could park there at night. There's 22 spaces there. Since the booting company has come there, MPA has left, so we've lost that parking space, and all the new businesses at the back end of Commodore are affected by it, because we have inadequate parking in the Grove. I mean, personally, I don't want people putting something on my car. A ticket is bad enough, but when you boot my car, that's pretty upsetting. And visitors and residents alike will not come back. They will not come back to those businesses, and they will not come back to Coconut Grove. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Seeing that there are no other persons, I'll close the public comment section. PA - PERSONAL APPEARANCES PA.1 PERSONAL APPEARANCE 2838 PERSONAL APPEARANCE BY SENATOR DAPHNE CAMPBELL TO PRESENT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND CHECK. RESULT: PRESENTED Mayor Tomas Regalado: So throughout the year, we work with different levels of government, and, of course, our State Government is paramount. We saw now, after the storm, how the State Government needs to mobilize, and how we local governments petition the State Government for different projects and funding. And we have people that take care of the City of Miami; they represent the City and other parts, but they understand the needs of the City of Miami. So today, we have two very distinguished guests, partners, friends, here in our City Hall. We're honored to City of Miami Page 24 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 introduce first, State Representative Roy Hardemon, and our Senator Daphne Campbell. So if you can come up. (Applause) Senator Daphne Campbell: Thank you, Mayor. Well, the Mayor says he has two distinguished friends in the State, right? So we here -- this is State Representative Roy Hardemon, and myself, State Senator of District 38. You know, it's hard work in Tallahassee to bring money for your City, and the City of Miami has done so much for the District 38. And I know, Mayor, and with Commissioner Suarez and Chairman Hardemon -- I don't see him here. Chairman, you need to come forward; I'm here for you. Let me say something: Why the Chairman has been re-elected without no opponents. He has done so much. When you work hard for your city, you work hard for your community, you don't have to worry about election. Mr. Chairman, congratulations for your re-election. And I'm hoping, the next time you are the President of the United States of America. So that's what my goal for you. Don 't you agree? (Applause) Senator Campbell: He's doing a great job; a young man, you know, fantastic. I could tell you a lot, a lot, but congratulation. And Commissioner Suarez, that's another one, you know, who really -- you know, we already know you are the next Mayor, the City Mayor for the community. We love you, and you have done so much, as well. And both of them sent me, with the support of Ms. Diana over there -- and she will present them in Tallahassee, and bring us a project for advanced crime reporting and analytics app, $700,000. And let me tell you something. I work so hard in Tallahassee to make sure they got all the money, not even a penny out of it, because, usually, sometime you request money, and they give you half of it, or they give you 100,000; they give, you know, like 50,000. But Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Suarez, all the Commissioners, and Mayor Regalado, we do have your big check: $700,000. (Applause) State Representative Roy Hardemon: Thank you. I want to say "thank you" to Hernandez (phonetic) as well. She serve the City real well. You got your money's worth. Thank you. Senator Campbell: Diana. State Representative Hardemon: Diana. Okay? (Applause) State Representative Hardemon: And, you know, during this hurricane, it was the first time that, as a elected official, I was involved from the ground to the top. And the Mayor took a -- craziest act of heroism by ordering ice for the community way in advance of the hurricane. Thank you, Mayor. (Applause) State Representative Hardemon: And with that, you know, we take the small things for granted, but when you don't have lights, no air circulating, ice is very important. To our Chairman, I mean, he slung food around the neighborhood like nobody business; we needed that. Thank you, Chairman. Commissioner Suarez -- next Mayor -- we thank you, because we was down at our last, no more food. City of Miami Page 25 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner -- Chairman [sic] Suarez showed up with over 1,600 lunches, dinners that fed my community. Thank you. Our Senator -- (Applause) State Representative Hardemon: -- I mean, when she brought this act, crime act -- app to me, as a State Rep, "Man, I ain' studin' `bout no crime." She made me believe. I supported it from the State side; that mind wrestle with the big cheeses in the Government, which is our Governor, that made it happen. Thank you. With that, thank you again. (Applause) Senator Campbell: We do have another proclamation for the Mayor, for his outstanding work in office. I saw -- I sat right there, and I saw, he's tried to give everybody something. I said to myself "But what about him?" But Mayor, I do have a proclamation from the Florida Senate for you, for a job well done, for your outstanding work, for helping the community, for supporting my district well. So I thank you from the bottom of my heart, the community thanks you, and District 38 thanks you for a job well done. (Applause) Senator Campbell: I have another one for Commissioner Suarez. You know, Chairman, I'm sorry; I missed yours, but you do have one. No, you -- he does have one as well. This is Commissioner Suarez, you know, for helping community, for helping, you know, Little Haiti, for being there for us. For everything we're doing, we call you; you never said "no." You always there. Thank you. May God bless you. May God bless your family. And I know you're going to do a great job for the City of Miami. And I have to tell you, congratulation already for November election. Thank you. (Applause) Commissioner Suarez: Thank you so much, Senator. I would like to give mine to the Chairman. Senator Campbell: But he does have his. (Applause) Senator Campbell: He has his. Commissioner Suarez: We all inspire each other. Senator Campbell: Well, the Chairman is my brother. So listen, when he goes to Tallahassee, I am the one who acknowledge him on the floor. Yes, Chairman? So I love my Chairman, and that's why he re-elected, and I know you're going to continue the work you started, and you're going to go higher and higher and higher and higher. Thank you. (Applause) END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCES City of Miami Page 26 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 CA - CONSENT AGENDA The following item(s) was Adopted on the Consent Agenda RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez CA.1 RESOLUTION 2752 Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED "2017-2018 VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT ('VOCA') GRANT", CONSISTING OF AN ANTICIPATED GRANT AWARD FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DIVISION OF VICTIM SERVICES, IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $85,368.20, INCLUDING OPERATIONAL EXPENSES AND TRAINING COSTS, WITH MATCHING FUNDS IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $21,342.05, TO FUND TWO (2) FULL—TIME POSITIONS; APPROPRIATING AND ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE POLICE GENERAL FUND, ACCOUNT NO. 12000.191602.513000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT UPON RECEIPT OF THE AWARD, ALLOWING FOR ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE IN GRANT FUNDING; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0448 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item CA.1, please see "End of Consent Agenda." CA.2 RESOLUTION 2857 Department of Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT ELEVEN (11) RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS AND ONE (1) QUIT CLAIM RIGHT-OF-WAY DEED OF DEDICATION (COLLECTIVELY, "DEEDS") FOR THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN, FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF THE DEEDS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO KEEP COPIES OF THE DEEDS. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0449 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. City of Miami Page 27 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item CA.2, please see "End of Consent Agenda." CA.3 RESOLUTION 2874 Office of Grants Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD D/B/A CAREER SOURCE SOUTH FLORIDA ("SFWIB") IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $771,176.00 ("GRANT") FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") CAREER CENTER ("CENTER") LOCATED AT THE LINDSEY HOPKINS EDUCATIONAL CENTER LOCATED AT 750 NORTHWEST 20TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED "SFWIB GRANT FOR WORKFORCE INITIATIVES 2017-2018" TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE THE GRANT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $771,176.00; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A COST REIMBURSEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BASED UPON PERFORMANCE MEASURES BEING ACHIEVED BY THE CITY WITH SFWIB FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 2017 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2018 WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL LIKE PERIODS AT THE SAME NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNTS UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CENTER SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT TIME OF NEED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 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. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0450 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 28 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 CA.4 RESOLUTION 2877 Office of Grants Administration A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD D/B/A CAREER SOURCE SOUTH FLORIDA ("SFWIB") IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $225,000.00 ("GRANT") TO UNDERTAKE THE CAREER SOURCE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOY MIAMI-DADE INITIATIVE "CSSF EMPLOY MIAMI-DADE INITIATIVE" AT THE CITY OF MIAMI CAREER CENTER ("CENTER"); ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT ENTITLED "2017-2018 CSSF EMPLOY MIAMI-DADE" TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE THE GRANT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $225,000.00; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A COST REIMBURSEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SFWIB FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING OCTOBER 1, 2017 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2018 WITH THE OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL LIKE PERIODS AT THE SAME NOT -TO - EXCEED AMOUNTS UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CENTER, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT TIME OF NEED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO 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. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0451 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item CA.4, please see "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 29 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 CA.5 RESOLUTION 2893 Office of Capital Improvements A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED MAY 17, 2017, PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID ("ITB") NO. 16-17-026, FROM R&G ENGINEERING, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, TO PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE "SOUTHWEST 71ST AVENUE FROM SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET TO SOUTHWEST 4TH STREET ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS — D4 — PROJECT," OFFICE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ("OCI") PROJECT NO. B-50405, IN THE AMOUNT OF $586,158.19 FOR THE SCOPE OF WORK PLUS A TEN PERCENT (10%) CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $58,615.82 FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED AWARD VALUE OF $644,774.01; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE OCI PROJECT NO. B-50405; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, CONSISTING OF THE ITB DOCUMENTS AND ATTACHMENTS, AND TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0452 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item CA.5, please see "End of Consent Agenda." CA.6 RESOLUTION 2851 Office of the City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY INFINITY ASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O SIOMIR BORGES WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY THE TOTAL SUM OF $35,000.00 IN FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS FOR PROPERTY DAMAGES AGAINST THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES IN THE CASE OF INFINITY ASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, A/S/O SIOMIR BORGES VS. CITY OF MIAMI, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, CASE NO. 16-15849 CA 10, UPON EXECUTING A GENERAL RELEASE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ITS PRESENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO. 50001.301001.545010.0000.00000. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0453 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 30 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 CA.7 RESOLUTION 2895 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, ON A CONTINGENT FEE BASIS, ON TERMS TO BE NEGOTIATED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") IN VIABLE LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE MANUFACTURERS AND/OR DISTRIBUTORS OF PRESCRIPTION OPIATES IN AN EFFORT TO RECOVER DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY RESOURCES IN COMBATING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC WITHIN THE CITY. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0454 This matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item CA.7, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda." END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Hardemon: There is some business that I want to make sure that we get through really quickly, Commissioners, so if you'll indulge me. The non- controversial items that appear to be on this -- on the agenda, on the -- so that will be the entire CA (Consent Agenda) Agenda and the -- what is left of the PH (Public Hearing) Agenda. So that is the entire PH Agenda, except PH.2 and PH.4. The Chair would like to entertain a motion to approve those items. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Carollo: I make a motion. Discussion. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded by Commissioner Gort. Discussion. Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my discussion is based on PH 5, PH 6, PH 7, PH 8, PH 9, PH 10, PH 11, PH.12, and PH 13. So what I'm going to say addresses all -- it's directed for all those PH. And I want to direct the City Attorney to draft an amendment to these APA -- API (Anti -Poverty Initiative) resolutions to include language that the monies be used for programs serving District 3 and/or underprivileged City of Miami residents, so it should be for programs or operations. Furthermore, before any agreements are executed, there should be consultation with the District 3 Commissioner. And that's a friendly amendment to the PH numbers that I just mentioned. Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there any other discussion about the items? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. City of Miami Page 31 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Gort: As amended. Commissioner Carollo: As amended. Chair Hardemon: That is correct. City of Miami Page 32 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS PH.1 RESOLUTION 2863 Department of Community and Economic Development A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,569.00 FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0455 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.1, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Items" and "End of Consent Agenda." PH.2 RESOLUTION 2864 Department of Community and Economic Development A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SELL THE CITY OF MIAMI OWNED PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1812 NORTHWEST 2 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, TO YOLO MIAMI, LLC ("YOLO") FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 29-B(A) OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PH.2 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.2, please see "Order of the Day" and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 33 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.3 2906 Department of Building RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 REQUEST TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL SCAN PRO 3000 SCANNERS FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FROM BROWARD MICROFILM, INC., THE SOLE SOURCE AUTHORIZED DEALER FOR E-IMAGEDATA CORP., FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $70,000.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0456 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.3, please see "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 34 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.4 RESOLUTION 2896 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 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDING, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AS EXHIBIT "A", THAT COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-86(A)(3)(C) 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 EXHIBIT "A," THAT MEYGA LEARNING CENTER, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ("MEYGA"), IS THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT; ARTS AND CRAFTS ACTIVITIES; PHYSICAL FITNESS; SOCIAL SKILLS, INCLUDING ANGER MANAGEMENT, CONFLICT RESOLUTION, AND SELF-ESTEEM ENHANCEMENT; MENTORING, AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES AT AFRICAN SQUARE PARK; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PROGRAMMING PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT ("PPA"), IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNSEL, FOR THE CONTRACT PERIOD COMMENCING AS OF AUGUST 21, 2017 THROUGH AUGUST 20, 2020 WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR UP TO TWO (2) CONSECUTIVE THREE (3) YEAR PERIODS FOR A TOTAL OF NINE (9) YEARS UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SERVICE AUTHORIZATION LETTERS AND TO NEGOTIATE AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, RENEWALS, AND MODIFICATIONS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND BOND COUNSEL, TO IMPLEMENT ACCEPTANCE OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH SAID PPA. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item PH.4 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.4, please see "Order of the Day" and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 35 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.5 RESOLUTION 2944 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000.00, TO CUBAN MUSEUM, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0457 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.5, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda" PH.6 RESOLUTION 2945 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000.00, TO STREAMLINE MIAMI FOUNDATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0458 City of Miami Page 36 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH. 6, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda." PH.7 RESOLUTION 2946 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000.00, TO MIAMI STAGE COMPANY/MIAMI CHILDREN'S THEATER INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0459 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH. 7, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 37 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.8 RESOLUTION 2947 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000.00, TO STRUGGLE FOR MIAMI'S AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE HOUSING INCORPORATED, A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, FOR GENERAL PROGRAM FUNDING; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0460 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.8, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item (s) " and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 38 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.9 RESOLUTION 2948 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000.00 TO MIAMI BRIDGE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0461 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.9, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item (s) " and "End of Consent Agenda." PH.10 RESOLUTION 2949 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 TO SHAKE -A -LEG MIAMI, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0462 City of Miami Page 39 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.10, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s) " and "End of Consent Agenda." PH.11 RESOLUTION 2950 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00, TO THE JORGE M. PEREZ ART MUSEUM OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0463 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Carollo, Gort ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.11, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 40 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.12 RESOLUTION 2951 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00, TO THE MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, ALSO KNOWN AS THE PHILLIP AND PATRICIA FROST MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0464 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.12, please see "Public Comment Period for RegularItem(s)" and "End of Consent Agenda." City of Miami Page 41 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PH.13 RESOLUTION 2952 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, BY A FOUR - FIFTHS (4/STHS) 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 FOR 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 3 COMMISSIONER'S SHARE OF THE CITY'S ANTI -POVERTY INITIATIVE, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00, TO THE KIWANIS CLUB OF LITTLE HAVANA, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, 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, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0465 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.13, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s) " and "End of Consent Agenda." END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS City of Miami Page 42 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES FR.1 ORDINANCE First Reading 2889 Commissioners and Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 42/ARTICLE IV/DIVISION 3 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "POLICE/TOWING AND IMMOBILIZATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES", MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS 42-117 THROUGH 42-118 AND CREATING NEW SECTIONS 42-119 THROUGH 42-121 TO CLARIFY EXISTING REQUIREMENTS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE IMMOBILIZATION/BOOTING OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading with Modification(s) RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item FR.1, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: Before we move on to our first reading, let's try to dive into the -- 1'll call out of order, because I know lots of people are here to discuss it, RE.3. So that's the Miami Outboard Club, Inc. So let's just have some discussion on it, because I know there may be a motion to continue this to another day, because it's only four of us, and you want to continue. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Mr. Chairman, can we wait for a full Commission for RE.3? Chair Hardemon: Okay. I mean, I was just trying to bring it up, but we can do it later. That's fine. Mayor Regalado. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So what 1'll do now is move on to FR.1 then. Madam City Attorney, can you read it into the record? Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Yes. Daniel 1 Alfonso (City Manager): FR.1. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Manager. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. City of Miami Page 43 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: I will move the item, with discussion. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. You're recognized for discussion. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm glad that the Mayor brought this forward, and I do think that we should pass on first reading, and all the different items and so forth should be between first and second; we could coordinate. I have to admit, the first I've heard of this was actually through the media. It was reported by Univision 23, by Erika Carrillo and then Brenda Medina, and they did a very extensive investigative reporting with regards to this, and that's how I learned about the issues that we were having. When I saw some of the issues that were occurring, it's actually ironic, because some of the solutions is very similar to issues that we've seen in the past. As a matter of fact, if you all remember back in 2015, the Auditor General did an audit regarding towing companies, and at that time, he made certain recommendations that should be done, the Administration agreed that it should be done, and they gave a date that they would do it by. I think it was February 2016. In December of 2016, I brought an issue -- or I brought a discussion item to discuss that with the towing companies and also with the off -duly police audit. And the reason being is because one of the things that we need -- and it was recommended by the Auditor General, agreed by the Administration, except we still do not get closure; they still do not do it -- is some type of centralized tracking system or integrated billing system, and that's where I want to go to. One of the things that's not included in this ordinance that I do want to include is a system that must be installed with a centralized tracking system, utilized by the immobilization booting companies when immobilizing or booting of vehicles capable of monitor -- being monitored by the City of Miami. In other words, whenever they're going to boot a vehicle, they need to put into this centralized computer or software where the City of Miami automatically on real time sees that this is happening; that, for once, would let us know that we are owed money, this vehicle with this tag number is being booted, and so forth. So it's going to be a friendly amendment, if possible; and at the same time is something that, once again, if it would have been fixed or completed beforehand, it's something that we could very easily apply to this same issue. So if I may, Mr. Chairman, I can make a friendly amendment? An amendment to include a system that must be installed with a centralized tracking system, utilized by the immobilization booting companies when immobilizing booting vehicles capable of being monitored by the City of Miami. Chair Hardemon: All right. That will be included in his motion; include the amendment. Is there a second? Commissioner Gort: Seconder accept. Chair Hardemon: Seconder accepts it. Is there any further discussion about it? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: As the Chairman of the Coconut Grove Business Improvement District, I agree with what Sue McConnell said. It has such a negative impact on our residents, our businesses, and our tourists when they feel unfairly booted or towed. You know, the punishment should fit the infraction. And if you are five minutes late at a City of Miami MPA (Miami Parking Authority) spot, you're going City of Miami Page 44 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 to get an $18 ticket. But if you're at the movies, and you've parked in a lot, and maybe you did or did not realize that you're going to get booted, or that it's a private lot, you know, it ruins your entire evening to have to wait there or figure it out, or because you're receipt dropped off the dashboard or -- You know, what you -- what we want is for people to know what they're getting into. We understand this is a necessary business in the community, but the business model weighs on two revenues sources; one is actual people paying for their parking, and two is collecting fees from actually removing the boots or collecting your car after it's been towed. And I really think the balance should shift more toward encouraging people to pay their meter rather than -- and not everyone's guilty of this, but let's say it -- tricking them into messing up and missing their time or not displaying properly or not entering properly and then getting the much larger fee. It's a very expensive ticket, and it leaves a very bad taste in people's mouths when they go through this experience, and it shouldn't be that bad. So for me, there's a lot I would have wanted to amend to this that I'll be waiting for second reading. I probably would have preferred to defer it with as much change as I believe it's needed, because a lot of it has to do with whether the public knows what they're getting into when they pull into that lot, whether it truly is -- When it says "public parking," is that parking for the public or parking provided by a public service? Commissioner Suarez: Right, right. Vice Chair Russell: That is very vague and confusing. To me, it should be like a cigarette package warning that before you open it, you know what you're getting into. And so, then it's "buyer beware" after that point. So I'll -- you know, I'll be in favor of moving it with the amendments at this point, but there needs a lot of changes between second reading. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. You know, I personally -- Commissioner Gort: A lot of additions, for sure. Chair Hardemon: -- witnessed booting in the Grove, and the person that I was with was a family member, and she just said that -- I mean, the signing was inadequate. It did come off as more of a trap than it did anything else, because we were just near, and we paid public parking -- MPA parking, rather, and it was very -- you couldn't tell the difference. I mean, especially if you're in the parking lot, you go -- you turn left versus turning right, you could end up in a private lot versus a public lot. So we look forward to the discussion, and all the changes that are going to be coming in the next hearing. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, but I want to ver fy with the City Attorney. Obviously, we haven't placed all the different items, other than the one that I did that we want to see included in this ordinance. Would it be okay to pass it on first reading and include all these between first and second reading? Ms. Mendez: Yes. They're even non -substantial enough that we can add those, working with the Administration and the interested stakeholders to add the other items, but you've definitely listed the one important for you -- Commissioner Carollo: Right. Ms. Mendez: -- and we'll follow up. City of Miami Page 45 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Well, there's other ones, because what Commissioner -- or the Vice Chairman mentioned and others have mentioned, they were calling it "a trap," and it's like the deceitfulness where the resident -- or the person who's actually parking, it's, to a certain degree, not know, or it is placed in a way -- the signage, or so forth, is placed in a way where it's deceitfulness. They believe that they are actually paying certain times for public parking. They go to the MPA public parking, they actually pay for the receipt, and when they come back later on, they're booted, because it was actually a private parking lot. So there's different things that I want to, between first and second reading, implement or at least amend, but I think it's very important to move forward, because at least, it's sending a message that we are doing this, and we are moving forward with it, and I think that's extremely important. By the way, I also -- I see Erika Carrillo in the back; I want to thank her, because like I mentioned before, because of her and Brenda Medina is the reason that I was made aware of this, and what I think we need to moving forward. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, given that we do need to speak to a number of folks that spoke, and they had interesting ideas, and all the comments from the elected officials, we would like to bring it back in the second meeting in October to give us a little more time, because it's not enough time to really move these things on the agenda by Monday or Tuesday. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. Mr. Alfonso: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: All right. Seeing no further discussion from the dais, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes on first reading. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Chair Hardemon: That is correct. City of Miami Page 46 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 FR.2 ORDINANCE First Reading 1374 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING Department of CHAPTER 4/ARTICLES I AND II OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF Planning and MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC Plan Pl anng BEVERAGES/IN GENERAL/NIGHTCLUBS"; MORE PARTICULARLY BY REPEALING SAID SECTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND REPLACING THEM WITH NEW SECTIONS 4-1 THROUGH 4-11; ADDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR HOURS OF SALES; PROVIDING FOR AN APPROVAL PROCESS; PROHIBITING MINGLING; PROHIBITING THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DURING EMERGENCIES; PROVIDING REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO DISTANCE SEPARATION; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item FR.2 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item FR.2, please see "Order of the Day." City of Miami Page 47 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 FR.3 ORDINANCE First Reading 2961 Commissioners and Mayor AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62, ARTICLE XV OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "GROUP HOMES," TO ESTABLISH A CITYWIDE REQUIREMENT THAT CITY FUNDED AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING, NURSING HOMES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES ("ALFS") CATERING TO THE ELDERLY AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CITY OF MIAMI SUBSIDIZED ELDERLY LIVING UNITS, AS DEFINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ("HUD") GUIDELINES, BE EQUIPPED WITH PROPERLY FUNCTIONING GENERATORS WITH ADEQUATE FUEL CAPABLE OF CONTINUOUS USE TO POWER ESSENTIALS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ELEVATORS, LIGHTS, EMERGENCY ALARMS AND AIR CONDITIONING (A.C.) IN THE CORRIDORS OF THE FACILITY; AND PROVIDING THAT RESIDENT ATTENDANTS/STAFF TO THE ELDERLY SHOULD BE ON SITE WITHIN 24-HOURS OF A HURRICANE OR STORM'S PASSAGE, OR AS SOON AS SAFELY POSSIBLE TO ENSURE THE ADEQUATE CARE OF OUR SENIOR RESIDENTS IN THE AFTERMATH OF HURRICANES AND MAJOR STORMS RESULTING IN WIDESPREAD POWER OUTAGES. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item FR.3, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: FR.3. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): FR.3. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney. Commissioner Carollo: Move it. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any discussion about the item? Mr. Manager. Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Just one clarification. Commissioner, when we talk about City funded, if a Commissioner makes an allocation of API (Anti -Poverty Initiative), for example, which may be an occasional 3, 4, $5, 000, does that then require that group to have those things? Or "City funded" means, when they were building the facility, they got some funding? City of Miami Page 48 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: For the most part, it will be when they are constructing or where they're doing affordable housing, you know, because if it's an API -- And mind you, the intent is to have all these facilities obviously have life -safety equipment after a storm. We -- I don't have to go on and on about all the stories and the lives that were lost due to this issue, but I don't have a problem putting some type of amendment or so forth, for, let's say, API, but the intent is that if we are providing fundings [sic] for affordable housing, they should have this in place. I don't think that if we provide $5,000 for elderly meals that that then will then have -- they have to provide a generator, and so forth. Mr. Alfonso: Correct. That's why I just wanted to clan fy that. Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: No problem. Chair Hardemon: So how would the clarification be made on the -- in the law? Because the way that I read it, it does state that if there is any City funded -- and this is under "group homes" -- that it must have a generator. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair, if I may, can we pass it on first reading? Between first and second reading, we'll address that and we'll bring the language back. Ms. Mendez: We'll clam the type of funding. We'll look at all the different funding sources that the City normally gives for these types of things, and then maybe we'll just list them out, or identify them with more specificity between first and second, with the sponsor. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Part of the discussion, one of the items I want to bring, I think we all having the same problem. We had to go -- I had to go to a lot of the senior housing that were managed and owned by private sector, different companies, and we had to supplies [sic] all the ice, all the waters [sic], and all of that. So I'm going to come up with an ordinance requesting that every one of those facilities will have an emergency action plan that will take place, and we're going to have to analyze that, and that's with everyone, even if they don't receive funds from us, because, I mean, we all had to go through that problem; went to those senior centers, and those buildings where they didn't have the facility and they had a lot of needs. Chair Hardemon: They didn't even have staff. Commissioner Gort: So I'm going to be coming with one also. Chair Hardemon: All right. Seeing -- okay, we're finished with our comments. Any further discussion? Say no more. All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. I'm going to recess the meeting till 2 o'clock. So if everyone come back at 2 o 'clock, and we'll address the rest of the meeting minute [sic]. Thank you. END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES City of Miami Page 49 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 RE - RESOLUTIONS RE.1 RESOLUTION 2474 Department of Police RE.2 2875 Department of Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RENAMING THE CITY OF MIAMI'S POLICE TRAINING FACILITY, CURRENTLY REFERRED TO AS THE MIAMI POLICE COLLEGE, LOCATED AT 400 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, THE "JOHN F. TIMONEY POLICE COLLEGE"; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE RENAMING OF SAID FACILITY. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (WiIiy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: Item RE.1 was deferred to the October 12, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.1, please see "Order of the Day." RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED ON JUNE 21, 2017 PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID ("IFB") NO. 700384 FROM ORCHIDMAN LANDSCAPE ARTISANS, CORP. (PRIMARY) AND THOMAS MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. (SECONDARY), THE TWO (2) LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS, TO PROVIDE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") LOTS AND RIGHTS -OF -WAY LANDSCAPING ON AN AS NEEDED CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADD ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS AND SERVICES TO THE CONTRACT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0466 City of Miami Page 50 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Chair Hardemon: The Chair is calling the September 28, 2017 meeting back into order. At this time -- we will have quorum in a brief second, when Commissioner Carollo graces us with his presence. All right, the Chair would like to entertain a motion to approve RE.2, 4, and 5. Commissioner Carollo: So moved. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approved RE.2, 4, and 5. Any further discussion about the item? Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Since I was just asked also by a reporter, I want to make sure that they understand that also RE (Resolution) -- I think it's 5 -- RE.5 also is a resolution directing the Administration to work with FPL (Florida Power Light) so that senior housing facilities would be prioritized in restoration efforts following a hurricane and major storms, so if you could please work with that, because I think that these facilities need to be in their priority list with regards to the restoration. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All opposed? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 51 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 RE.3 RESOLUTION 2876 Department of Real Estate and Asset Management A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), PURSUANT TO SECTION 29-D OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, BY A FOUR -FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, TO WAIVE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND TO EXECUTE A FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT ("FIFTH AMENDMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THE MIAMI OUTBOARD CLUB, INC., A NON-PROFIT FLORIDA CORPORATION ("LESSEE"), FOR USE OF A PORTION OF CITY -OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY ON WATSON ISLAND LOCATED AT 1099 MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 ("LEASE PROPERTY"), WITH SAID FIFTH AMENDMENT TO (1) EXTEND THE CURRENT LEASE TERM BY AN ADDITIONAL TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS WITH TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TEN (10) YEAR OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR A POSSIBLE TOTAL EXTENSION TERM OF FORTY-FIVE (45) YEARS ("EXTENSION TERM"); (2) INCREASE THE TOTAL EXTENSION TERM BASE MONTHLY RENT TO FAIR MARKET VALUE, AS DETERMINED BY TWO (2) INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS, TO THE AMOUNT OF THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($13,000.00) INCREASED ANNUALLY BY THREE PERCENT (3%) WITH THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE CREDITS; (3) MODIFY THE PERCENTAGE RENT PAYMENT TO INCLUDE REVENUES COLLECTED FOR MEMBERSHIP DUES AND BOAT STORAGE; AND (4) PROVIDE FOR SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LEASE PROPERTY, AT THE LESSEE'S SOLE EXPENSE, OF A MINIMUM OF SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX (6) YEARS OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S EFFECTIVE DATE; RESERVING ALL AIR RIGHTS FOR FUTURE CITY BUILDINGS, ALL RIGHTS TO SUBMERGED LANDS FOR FUTURE CITY BOAT SLIPS AND MARINAS, AND ALL RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO THE LEASE PROPERTY; WITH SUCH ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS CONTAINED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Carollo, Suarez NAYS: Gort Note for the Record: Item RE.3 was deferred to the October 12, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item RE.3, please see "Order of the Day" and "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: If we can -- staff -- five, yes; and then there was five. So what we can do now is call up RE.3. That's the Miami Outboard Club, Inc. City of Miami Page 52 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Daniel Rotenberg (Director): Commissioners, good afternoon. Daniel Rotenberg, the Department of Real Estate & Asset Management. RE.3 is the fifth modification to the lease, approving the amendment for the lease extension on the City Charter, Section 29-D, for the Outboard Club, located at 1099 MacArthur Causeway. We're making an amendment on the floor right now. The amount that's the -- contributing to the capital expenses that are going to be laid out by the Outboard Club is 6 million, not 2 million; and the rent, we are handing out right now the appraisals. We did not get them in time to beat the deadline for the agenda printing, so they're being handed out right now. Chair Hardemon: What is the deadline for the agenda printing? It's maybe like a couple weeks ago? I mean, a week ago or so, or what was it? Mr. Rotenberg: I think it was about three weeks ago, and we just got these in within that time period, between the gap when we went to print and today. Commissioner Carollo: No. To print was Tuesday of last week. It wasn't three weeks ago. Mr. Rotenberg: We were unable to include it in; otherwise, we would have. Commissioner Carollo: And by the way, Commissioners, I was corrected, because I didn't have these amendments, because I was pretty comfortable with a $2 million figure. Maybe it could go up, and I could show you where it is in the contract, but nowhere does it say anywhere near $6 million. So if I had known the amendments prior to having public discussion, I could have had more of a educated discussion. With that said, listen, we're talking a 25-year lease; this is a two -week deferral. We're talking a Commission meeting where we're really having two Commission meetings in one day. I think it's only reasonable to ask for two weeks. We're talking a 25-year lease -- I'm sorry -- 45, potentially 45 year lease. So I don't see -- Are we in any time crunch that it needs to be in this Commission meeting, because if not, the sky falls? Mr. Rotenberg: Well, the only time crunch we're under right now is for the financing for the Outboard Club for their -- to get their loan set up for the 6 million. They're putting in 2 million of equity and $4 million of a bank loan. Commissioner Carollo: Right. So -- Mr. Rotenberg: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) only urgency. Commissioner Carollo: -- there is no urgency. So what's two weeks for a 45 year lease? I don't know. I think it's pretty -- you know, a no -brainier for me, but then again. Mayor Tomas Regalado: And Commissioner, what's the difference in two weeks? Commissioner Carollo: Well, there's a lot of difference. At first, I would have the correct information, that the capital is $6 million, not $2 million, as you have in your backup. So to start off, I got to correct it on the record, because I was given the wrong information, so that's a start. Mayor Regalado: Okay. But now you know. Commissioner Carollo: Well, now I know that, but that's not the only thing. City of Miami Page 53 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mayor Regalado: I'm just saying that the problem is that -- I mean, this is a City facility; you can do whatever you want. You can even defer, and they will continue to have their boats there, but the facility will never be fixed. And again, you know, in October 12, you know, we may have something bigger and another deferral. I'm just saying that the business of the City takes too long, and I understand. Information with typos and -- You know, by the way, everyone, everyone, including all the Commissioners and the Mayor, was not paying attention to any agenda; everybody was trying to take care of the residents. That's -- Commissioner Carollo: Even more of a reason to defer this 45-year lease. I agree with you; even more of a reason. Mayor Regalado: I don't understand, if you have the information now, but, you know, that's -- that is your opinion. We need to know -- Commissioner Carollo: True. Mayor Regalado: -- the rest of the Commissioners' opinion. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Well, we certainly do need a four -fifths on this issue, so if there's hesitation on one Commissioner procedurally, I'd like to have his voice at the table for sure, you know, but I'm glad to have this discussion now, sort of to air any concerns, because it seemed there may have been some as we dis -- as we heard some of the public comment this morning, and this is one of the 29-D allowances in our Charter. So, you know, for me, listening to the Outboard Club and knowing all the good that they do and their history in the City, that is not what keeps or -- keeps them or it makes them go, you know. How, you know -- For me, it's about the legality of the lease and the provision within the Charter. If they -- you know, and that's my biggest question: Do they meet the provision within the Charter? Are we following our Charter correctly? And if so, then we can get to the substantive decision of whether a four -fifths is worthy to waive procurement in order to allow them to complete the lease. And, you know, certainly, they've been a good steward of the property. I'm -- you know, I very much respect what they do. My father was a big boater. His punishment for me as a child was to read the Chapman Book of Seamanship, so I'm -- I know boating. Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you're aware of. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. But, you know, for me it's really about the Charter. Are we complying with our Charter? Are we exposing ourselves in any way to any legal liability? And I want to make sure we're clear there. For Commissioner Carollo's concerns about the financials, as usual, you know, he's very close on the numbers, and he watches that very carefully, so I want to give respect to that too. Commissioner Carollo: We just saw a $4 million swing. Before our eyes, we just saw a $4 million swing. Vice Chair Russell: And it may be worth that. It may be a clerical error. It may be just, you know, having timely records in the minutes, but I don't want it to be a -- in any way a mistake on the -- on what we're -- What we're deciding on has to be very clear. It has to be very clear to the public, and I get that. Commissioner Carollo: Well, we just made a $4 million swing. City of Miami Page 54 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Well, in the positive, though, so the one -- I -- Commissioner Carollo: In the positive, yes. Chair Hardemon: -- want to say that I've had an opportunity to actually witness the good that this organization does, and I had no idea. I wouldn't have known -- I would not have known that this organization was where it was, if not introduced to it and all the positive things that it does, but they do it. Certainly, all of us as district Commissioners -- I mean, there are so many benefits that we set up within our districts to assist residents that we do a poor job of explaining many times the benefits that are there. There are all kinds of things that the people can have within our district just because they live there, and we seldom, you know, operate it at 100 percent of explaining to them what they are, or even sometimes the things that we do, you know. So I can say that I -- what's more -- what was more telling to me than the work that they do, besides the time that they've been there, is how they operate the space. So when I visited there, I wasn't dressed up, and people have a tendency -- they see me when I'm dressed down, I look -- I don't know -- 15 years younger, and -- Commissioner Gort: That's what -- you do it all the time. Chair Hardemon: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) look young. Right. And -- Commissioner Gort: I got to try that. Chair Hardemon: -- then, you know, I'm just a -- I'm a black guy, so it's like they'll walk right by me. And I can tell you that my experience going there having lunch was a positive one. You know, I was treated just like any other person that was in there, and it was very camaradial [sic]. Is that right? Did I say it correctly? If not, make it what you heard. But -- And that was a positive experience for me, because just down the street, I didn't have that same experience. I could barely get in the door -- not even the front door -- the gate. It's a gate that you have to get through first with the little guard and the gate, and it was not a positive experience. And I had no idea -- I had to learn that, most recently, that was a City of Miami property, and it was a space that we can go to and we can spend money. I mean, I was actually told that you can't spend money here. You have to be in the club to -- member only can spend money, and it was -- it's not true. So that blew me away, and that was a experience that I had. And then I heard another experience that I think the Mayor probably had at one time, but he wasn't the person that was speaking. But one of his sergeant -at -arms [sic] had to say, "Listen, this is the Mayor; he's coming in." So, you know, we have those experiences here. And to see the distinction in how they run those two properties, to me it showed me some something -- it really did show me something about who they are. And finally, I'll say this: I don't know what each of the gentlemen do, but they remind me of fraternity brothers, because whatever the task is that needs to be done at the place, they do it. They really will get their hands dirty and work on something; nothing's too big or too small for any of them. And so, when I look at this lease agreement, and I consider -- you know, I don't think we're considering the highest best use of the property. We're consider [sic] really a modified use of the property, where, you know, they do sell food. They -- to the members only, I think they sell liquor. It's more of a -- it's not meant to generate cash. The cash that they generate is -- are from themselves. And so, I think it's unique to the waterfront, especially now when you're introducing young people to actual water sports. I had never heard of the book that he just described, so I know that was a inside joke. But I will say that I've -- I have never felt as comfortable at a destination for boaters than I have when I was there, and I think that's telling of anything. Because I can walk out there to this -- what is this thing called here? A dock -- to the dock out here, and you can have a not -so - City of Miami Page 55 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 pleasant experience with someone who has a boat docked there. So Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: As the oldest Commissioner here, that's been here for a while, this club was created 75 years ago. In all my experience through all the years, even before I was an elected official, it's been very positive; not only the things they do there that -- what they do with the community, how they give to our community quite a bit. That's a -- especially those underprivileged that don't have the facility, they provide, just like the -- what do you call them? The -- next door -- what do you call next door? The -- Vice Chair Russell: Shake a Leg? Commissioner Gort: Shake a Leg. I mean, those that do a servant -- a service to the community, and I think it's very important. I don't have any problem with them. I think the extensions can always come back and be approved by the Commission, but at the same time, they need to have -- In order to make the investment, they need to have the lease. And I don't have any problem voting today. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: And just to clam my earlier statement, and I did want to ask the City Attorney about the 29-D provisions. Commissioner Gort: Legally. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. I -- you know, from a merit perspective, I am very prepared today to vote on the four -fifths with regard to whether or not they're a worthy partner to be there, and this -- the concept of highest and best use isn't always about the financial return to the City, in my opinion and so, that's where I am on that one, really. Madam City Attorney, if you could just help us with what 29-D says, why we have 29-D and whether this partner qualifies under our Charter. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Basically, Section 29-D states that City -own waterfront property with leases and not -for -profit organizations, and how the City Commission is authorized to waive competitive bidding and referendum requirements to enter into a lease. In this case, it's entering or extending a lease with a nonprofit, noncommercial, water -dependent organization, which provides or seeks to provide marine recreational services and/or activities to the community at this City -owned property. And then it has to allow public access to the water, reasonable public use of the property; it has to comply with waterfront setbacks; it has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan for -- you know, have public purpose; has to have fair market value with two independent appraisals, which I believe you've received. So with that said, those are the provisions in 29-D that allows this Commission, by a four -fifths vote, to waive any referendum. Vice Chair Russell: So in your opinion, it does qualify -- they do qualms for the 29- D? In fact, it sounds like it was written for them. That's how much it sounds like they qualms. It's exactly what they do. They're a not -for -profit, waterfront and water -dependent organization. And as to the market value, Mr. Manager, we are receiving fair market value for -- sorry -- Mr. Rotenberg? Mr. Rotenberg: Yes, we are. City of Miami Page 56 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: If there are -- You know, I respect where you are, Commissioner, and the timing of this and the information that you need. I came into this very comfortable as a "yes" today, but it is a four -fifths, so I tread lightly in making sure that there is ample support on this Commission to move forward today; otherwise, I would prefer to defer so that we have the full Commission to vote. Commissioner Carollo: Look, I just don't see how it would hurt for a two -week deferral. And although financially it's important, no, it's not the only thing; I agree with you. But, yet, just within -- what? -- a couple of hours, you know, where I stood corrected in this -- in here, because I wasn't given the information, we just had a positive $4 million swing. So, you know, I think you should take that into consideration, and that was just within a couple of hours. Vice Chair Russell: Is there a move to defer already or --? Commissioner Carollo: I'll move it to defer, you know. Again, I'm not willing to vote in favor of it today. So, you know, again, I'm only one vote, I'm only one Commissioner, but you all know my sentiments. And I still haven't seen a compelling argument not to defer it for two weeks, you know. We just got handed the appraisals. I mean, if you all could read this in the next few minutes, I mean, so be it, but -- Chair Hardemon: It's one of those things where, when I think about the appraisals - - If this were a highest and best use, and we were seeking to maximize our profits, if we were seeking to create disincentives for inappropriate calculations of base rents or bonus rents, or things of that nature; if this was something where we believe that, you know, we had to just get the most out of it -- If this was one of those projects that are right here on the water with one of these restaurants, that would be one thing. And this is somewhat -- the rent is negotiated. The -- it is mark -- It is, as you say, a fair value, but it's -- the question is, Are we trying to get more out of it? I mean, if it's the highest out of the two, then pick the highest. Are we trying to get some other benefit from this agreement? And even the $6 million, I mean, it is our facility; we can do it. We can pay $6 million to make improvements on it, if we choose. We can evict, if we choose. We can, you know, put this out and make it some waterfront destination for the rich, if we choose, but it just doesn't appear that that's been the history of this site; and it doesn't appear from the conversation, at least of this Commissioner, that that's where we want to go. So that's the only, you know -- I should stop saying 'you know," but that's the only issue that I have with the continuance. I'm wondering what new information I'm going to get that I should consider that's going to make a difference in my opinion today. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: It's -- at this point, I don't believe it's a substantive argument as much as a political math argument, and to make -- The worst thing for them would be to lose this potential vote to extend their lease, based on one Commissioner just not feeling yet comfortable. He hasn't expressed that he's against voting "yes" at the right time for this. He wants more time to make sure the process has been followed correctly. And for that reason alone, I think I want to make sure that there are four solid votes up here at least and, preferably, a unanimous vote for them to extend their lease when it's right. So I will second the deferral. Chair Hardemon: It's been moved. It's been seconded. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor? City of Miami Page 57 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Deferral for the next meeting -- for the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: I was going to stay quiet on this one, but look, I think -- First of all, what I'm going to say is very repetitive to what you've already said, most of you. First of all, the organization is an incredible organization, you know. What they have done and what they do in the community and their mission is an incredible mission. Obviously, no organization can capitalize themselves or recapitalize themselves or restructure, or rebuild if they don't have the term to do it; it's just not possible. I mean, no bank will lend you the money; we all know that. We've repeated those themes over and over again. Obviously, in terms of appraisals and highest and best and the argument -- I mean, we have a -- we're a city. You know, we have a peculiar mission, if you will. You know, sometimes it is to get the highest and best for properties that we have, and sometimes it's not. I mean, obviously, we have parks. We have beautiful parks. We have world -renown parks. But we don't charge an entrance fee to our parks. That's just not what we do. We don't do that. That's -- we don't try to make money off our parks' purse necessarily; not all of them, at least. And certainly, in the context of boating, it's important because boating -- let's face it, boating has become something that pretty much only wealthy people can afford to do, essentially, but because of deals that are structured like this, every -day and ordinary people can boat, because they can park their boats in places that are less expensive, a little more reasonable than they would be if you had to go in sort of the private sector. In terms of the deferral, look -- I mean, if we're going to do a 45- year lease, and a Commissioner's not comfortable because he got information -- I mean, we deferred stuff that we were going to put on the ballot, because we hadn't gotten appraisals timely. And, you know, when you're making a 45-year decision, usually, two weeks does not negatively impact the 45-year decision, especially when you have -- when you require a supermajority of four -fifths vote to make the decision. And as the Vice Chair said, there is a fragility to that; that if a couple of people decide not to go forward for reasons of not being comfortable with the information timely versus the substance of the deal, it could be the worst -case scenario where we end up not doing the deal for reasons that have nothing to do with the deal and the reasons that have nothing to do with what we're trying to accomplish. And so, I don't see the harm in the two weeks. I know that it will be disappointing to some who came and who are excited about the prospect of seeing a renovated facility, but I also think that there is a lot of -- a lot to be said about what the Vice Chairman said, which is to have a unanimous vote. You know, when you do something like this, it'd be nice to do something unanimously, and I don't think -- it doesn't seem to me like anything has been said here is going to take away from the ability to walk away two weeks from now with a unanimous vote to do that, as long as everybody's comfortable with the information that we've been provided, you know, as of a few minutes ago. Chair Hardemon: All right. Any further discussion with the motion on the floor? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye." Commissioner Carollo: Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Aye. Commissioner Gort: No. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. City of Miami Page 58 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 RE.4 2880 Department of Procurement Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): For the record, motion passes, 4-1; Commissioner Gort voting "no." RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BIDS RECEIVED JUNE 1, 2017 PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID ("IFB") NO. 693382 FROM ERIC'S OUTBOARD MARINE SERVICES, INC. FOR GROUPS 1-3 AND RMK MERRILL STEVENS LLC FOR GROUPS 4-5, THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS, TO PROVIDE BOAT MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, PARTS, AND RELATED MARINE SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED CONTRACTUAL BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR ONE (1) ADDITIONAL THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL VENDORS AND FACILITIES TO BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING ANY AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0467 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.4, please see item RE.2. City of Miami Page 59 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 RE.5 RESOLUTION 2960 Commissioners and Mayor A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT ("FPL") TO ESTABLISH A POLICY PRIORITIZING AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING, NURSING HOMES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES ("ALFS") CATERING TO THE ELDERLY, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CITY OF MIAMI SUBSIDIZED ELDERLY LIVING UNITS, AS DEFINED BY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ("HUD") GUIDELINES, BY DESIGNATING THEM AS CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE POWER RESTORATION EFFORTS FOLLOWING HURRICANES AND MAJOR STORMS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0468 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.5, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)" and item RE.2. END OF RESOLUTIONS City of Miami Page 60 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 AC.1 2938 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 SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION IN THE CASE OF VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-02997 CA 09, 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, WHICH INCLUDE 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 LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS; AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY AND FORREST L. ANDREWS. 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: Withdraw RESULT: WITHDRAWN MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Keon Hardemon, Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort ABSENT: Carollo, Suarez Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): (UNINTELLIGIBLE) housekeeping. Commissioner Gort: You're not wrong. Mr. Hannon: If we could just make a motion to withdraw AC.1. City of Miami Page 61 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: It's withdrawn without objection. There's no objection. Mr. Hannon: The system, unfortunately, requires like a mover, and we'll have you as the seconder, but Commissioner Gort, would you mind moving the withdrawal of AC.1 ? That's the attorney -client session. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): That's a shade meeting that we're not proceeding with today. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Vice Chair Russell: Second. Commissioner Gort: Move to withdraw. Chair Hardemon: Second. Mr. Hannon: Good to go. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You guys want a 10-minute recess before we move into the -- Vice Chair Russell: The budget? Chair Hardemon: -- budget? Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: That's what we'll do. END OF ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION City of Miami Page 62 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 BU.1 1513 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: BU.1. Christopher Rose (Director): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management & Budget. We don't normally do a monthly budget report in the month of September; after all, the fiscal year's only two days away from ending and -- but because of the hurricane, we thought it'd be good to put it on here and have a brief discussion. But I'm here to tell you, especially in light of the discussion that was just had, I don't have a projection for the end of this year. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: How much have we spent on hurricane relief thus far? Mr. Rose: I don't have an answer for you, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Oh, boy. Mr. Rose: We have set up a disaster fund so that we're tracking all the funds. It does take some time to get everything in; and, frankly, a lot of the costs have not hit yet. Commissioner Carollo: And right now our reserve was 5 million for a disaster, correct? Mr. Rose: Our budgeted reserve, yes. Fund balance is higher than that, yes. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. And you don't know in those five millions where we are? Mr. Rose: I don't. No, sir. Commissioner Gort: Don 't go. Mr. Rose: And as you all know, things are changing even in the last hour and a half so -- City of Miami Page 63 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: When would you or Finance get a grasp on it and know exactly where we are, or at least estimate where we're at? Mr. Rose: Can I say next week? We'll have an estimate next week, sir. That's -- Commissioner Carollo: Could it be as soon as possible so we could, you know, see - Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: -- really see where we're at? Mr. Rose: And what I really wanted to get up and tell you is a couple of things. It's a disaster fund; it 's not in the budget. It's extra budget. It's independent of the budget. Really, the last thing you want is -- Commissioner Gort: Yeah, but where those funds came from? Mr. Rose: They are -- Commissioner Carollo: The $5 million that were placed there as a emergency -type - - I forgot the exact title that you put on it, but they're the $5 million that are there in the reserves. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. And, frankly, the last thing you want is the Budget Director getting in the way of a recovery, so. Commissioner Carollo: No, I'm not saying that. But that doesn't leave the fact that we shouldn't be accountable. We should know how much we're spending. I mean -- you understand what I'm saying? Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: And we haven't told you to stop spending. What we've told you is, "Where are we? How much have we spent, you know? What have we spent on?" And I'm not even going that far, but we should have some accountability of how much money we've spent. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. The departments are aware of all the rules. Erica Paschal (Director): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Erica Paschal, with the Finance Department. Currently, the unreconciled labor reported for disaster time is reported at approximately $5 million. The amount of expenses coded to the disaster storm currently paid out are 312,000. And when I say "unreconciled," some of those funds may not be reimbursable by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) or not, depending upon what the expenditure was, but they are a direct relation to storm events. Commissioner Carollo: So what you're telling me is that thus far, it's 330- something thousand? Ms. Paschal: It was 5 million for labor costs -- Commissioner Gort: 5 million. City of Miami Page 64 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Paschal: -- for payroll for any persons that the departments coded to disaster time up until the pay period ending September 22, I believe. Commissioner Carollo: What -- that alone was $5 million? Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Yes. Ms. Paschal: Yes. Commissioner Gort: That's why I told you it was gone. Thank you. Mr. Rose: Now, Commissioners, all departments have been informed that recordkeeping is critical. We've been in touch with our partners at FEMA and at the State level. Generally speaking, according to the Federal Stafford Act and past practice, the City would be reimbursed three-quarters by FEMA and 1/8th by the State. FEMA has committed to their three-quarters; that's according to Stafford Act. And the 1/8th, we just learned yesterday that the State has committed to that. That leaves 1/8th for the City to cover. So even though 5 million has been spent so far, 7/8ths of it will likely -- and I have to stress on the word, "likely" -- be reimbursed going forward. This -- there are some items that may not be allowed, but we're following the Stafford Act as much as we have. You've already had all that discussion, so I'll jump past that. As you know, the City and the County really have been declared for all public assistance categories -- that's "A" through "G" -- debris removal, emergency protective measures, roads and bridges, water control facilities, buildings and equipment, utilities, parks and recreational areas, and other facilities. That was an amendment. The original declaration was only for "A" and "B, " protective and debris. I'm going to say again, departments have been informed that recordkeeping is critical at this point. Commissioner Gort: Very important. Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. So if all of that -- I'm going to just pick a round number. Let's suppose that the total storm cost -- prep, response, recovery, repair -- all totals $40 million, then we would be reimbursed 35 million of that, and the City would pay 5. Now, that 40 is not a number that I know; that's just for purposes of easy and simple math. It'll take a while to work through this with our FEMA partners and our State partners, and that's why it's not included in our projections at this point. In addition, I want to bring a couple of unbudgeted items that will likely be addressed in the end of year; some of them you have heard before; some are ones that we're watching come forward. The first, of course, is the repair at Museum Park that we have already talked about being a retroactive approval of the City Manager; that's $469, 000. Second is the purchase of land at the triangle near the old Miami Arena, Northwest 13th Avenue and 6th Street that will eventually become the Fire Station. When we sell Fire Station 1, we will use some of those proceeds to pay for it, but that will also be addressed in the end of year. We've talked -- the City Commission approved that already. Four departments we're still looking at going over budget as of -- according to the last report: the Clerk -- Clerk's Office, because of advertising; Grants, because of South Florida Workforce; the Building Department, with the extra work that's been coming at them and their revenues to cover that; and Fire - Rescue, overtime and some unexpected costs in the collective bargaining agreement. We've also talked in the past about the internal service fund likely going over budget due to higher -than -expected health care costs, and then we've got a new one. The Office of Capital Improvements may go over their general fund budget, because we're not reimbursing as much to the projects as we had budgeted, but we're watching that, and it's very close right now. I just want to bring it before you so that you know. We were -- we will be bringing back EB-5 in the Mayor's Office. We've briefed most of you on that -- I think all of you on that -- during briefings for City of Miami Page 65 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 revenues that have not been realized during the year. And then lastly, we have an anomaly in the Police Department. We've been paying at the previous year's rate on the FOP (Fraternal order of Police) Health Trust. We have not received audited numbers from the FOP Health Trust, and therefore, we're not paying at what we suspect will be a higher rate when that audit comes in, so that may cause an amendment in next year's budget; not the end of year for this year. I'll be happy to take any questions. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Mr. Rose? Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: In your expert estimation, do you foresee us to be at the end of the year within budget, on a deficit, or on a surplus? Mr. Rose: The hurricane expenses are the largest piece of the puzzle -- Commissioner Carollo: That's -- Mr. Rose: -- and they will -- Commissioner Carollo: -- why I originally asked if -- Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: -- you were accounting for that, and where were we -- Mr. Rose: And we're -- Commissioner Carollo: -- because that's -- Mr. Rose: -- not. They're extra budget. Commissioner Carollo: And you -- obviously, you understand that if we end up in a deficit, it has repercussions on other items within the budget as if we -- and within budget or on a small surplus. Mr. Rose: Let me answer the question you're not asking. Commissioner Carollo: Because of carry forward and so forth. Mr. Rose: Yes. And I appreciate the compliment of calling me an expert. Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: Well, in your expert -- you are our budget -- Mr. Rose: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: -- director, right? You should be an expert on it. Mr. Rose: Independent of the storm, we will be in surplus, okay? So let me ask -- answer that first. City of Miami Page 66 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Mr. Rose: The storm is an unknown, but we'll be reimbursed around the 7/8ths that we've talked about. If all that goes forward, we will be close to a surplus, probably on the plus side, but it would be a fool's errand to try to answer that definitively at this point. Commissioner Carollo: But you estimate that we will not be in a deficit? Mr. Rose: Yes, sir, with many qualifications to that. Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Understood, understood. That's fair. That's fair. Vice Chair Russell: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose: Thank you. END OF BUDGET City of Miami Page 67 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 DI.1 2239 City Manager's Office DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS DISCUSSION ITEM DISCUSSION REGARDING A PRESENTATION BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FOLLOWING BOARDS/COMMITTEES CONCERNING THEIR ANNUAL REPORTS: - URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD RESULT: NO ACTION TAKEN Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to move to DI.1, Boards and Committees. Do we have one? Commissioner Carollo: DI.1. Vice Chair Russell: Do I have a report from a board or committee today on DI.1? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Mr. Manager, do you know if the chair for that particular board will be here? DI.2 DISCUSSION ITEM 2910 DISCUSSION REGARDING POLICE STATION UPDATE. Commissioners and Mayor RESULT: DISCUSSED Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item DL2, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Vice Chair Russell: I'll move to DI.2, discussion of police station update. Elvis Diaz: Good afternoon. Elvis Diaz, executive officer to the Chief of Police, City of Miami Police Department. So I'm pleased to be able to present the status update to you today on the Miami Police Headquarters Planning Project. As a little reminder of how we got to this point, on January 26 of this year, the Commission did vote unanimously to approve a resolution, making the construction of a new police headquarters facility one of the City's highest priorities. This resolution called for the new facility to be a state-of-the-art facility, which is centrally located and large enough to accommodate the Miami Police Department's growth over the next several decades. There was a concern noted when the issue was brought to the Commission regarding the impact of the new facility on the City's budget, so the suggestion was made to utilize the sale of our current facility to offset construction costs. So our efforts to date: We have not been resting on our laurels since that January meeting. We have been very active in trying to address this concern, so we initially identified a core planning team, comprised of people whom we expect to not retire in the immediate future, so we expect them to all be around to see this project to its completion. We reviewed the Police Facility Planning Guidelines, published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and we have, in fact, sent one of our City of Miami Page 68 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 team members off to the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) Headquarters Facility Planning Course. We've held internal meetings with our stakeholders to identify capability gaps, critical needs, and desirable features to inform the scope of this project. We've also partnered with DREAM (Department of Real Estate & Asset Management) to establish space and programmatic needs, and I'd like to thank our partners in DREAM for being incredibly helpful throughout this process. And perhaps most informatively, we've conducted site visits at several recent police facilities to collect user feedback and lessons learned, and the customers at these facilities have learned a number of lessons. So an overview of our current headquarter situation: So our headquarters building was constructed in 1975, so it's 42 years old. That means that this facility was constructed prior to the Mariel Boatlift, prior to the riots of the '80s, and a number of the transformative events which have changed the direction of our City's demographics over the ensuing 40 years. The total lot size that the headquarters sits on is 6.89 acres. A point of clarification here. The actual headquarters facility and the parking garage make up 3.6 acres of that. At some point we'll be subdividing the lots so as to be able to sell that distinct piece. The square footage of our headquarters facility today is 132,610 square feet. We have 570 parking spaces, including the lot and the surface parking on site, and we have a current building occupancy of 1,107 employees; that's out of the 1,800 -- just under 1,800 employees that the Miami Police Department has at the moment, so the vast majority of our employees are housed at this facility. So issues that we have with our current site: Insufficient property and evidence storage space; this is a big issue. We've been forced to store evidence under 1-95 for extended periods of time. This is a well -documented concern, and one that we would like to be able to address as quickly as possible. Inadequate parking: So these 570 total spaces are eclipsed by our peak occupancy today of 750 vehicles. I think all of you were at our facility during the mobilization, so you saw how tight the space was. Insufficient office space: In our research, we found that the lowest recommended office space per worker, for a temp employee, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 square feet. Our property employees have seven and a half square feet of individual work space that they're using. It's well below what one would expect of normal space. We have insufficient interview rooms to be able to address our investigative needs. We actually have fewer interview rooms today than when the building was originally designed, because we've had to co-op some of those rooms as working and storage space. Insufficient separation in secure areas: So unfortunately, when we do bring in victims for statements, they're frequently forced to provide those statements in close proximity to the people who have committed offenses against them, and it is an inefficient facility. So in the last year alone, we've spent more than two and a half million dollars in repairs and maintenance on our current facility. We're hoping to eventually develop a more efficient facility. So our capability gaps, things that we are not able to do in our current facility: We have a crime lab; it is in a retrofitted gas station. We have a number of limitations there. We have no DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) processing capability as of today, no ballistics testing capability in house, no trace evidence testing in house, we have a very limited digital forensic examination capacity. This is an increasing concern as we move forward, and more of our critical evidence is in the digital realm. We have no clean room. We can't do chip -off processing, and we have no Faraday cage. So the Faraday cage is important. It winds up protecting our electronic evidence against signal interference. So when we have a cellular phone, for example, that has important evidence, the only way that we can prevent it from being remotely wiped is to pull the battery out of it entirely. This means that we lose all of the RAM (random access memory) evidence that's stored in memory. We have no Joint Operations Center. So for a premier city that hosts as many special events and major activities as we do, it's very difficult to coordinate these events effectively without having a Joint Operations Center. It means that we can't effectively leverage some of the technologies that we have at our disposal; things like our closed-circuit TV (television) program, ShotSpotter, and our license plate City of Miami Page 69 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 readers. Ideally, we would be following a format like New York City, where if they have a shot fired in New York, they're able to rapidly triangulate the incident and leverage the full brunt of their resources for addressing it immediately in real time. Speaking of real time, we have no Real Time Crime Center, nor the floor space to be able to operate one. This means that our investigators are -- and I appear to be out of power. This means that our investigators are at a time disadvantage when we are working our cases. So we have worked on a site selection process. In June, we started evaluating 81 City -owned properties that are over two acres in size. The evaluation criteria that we used in selecting a site, we looked at the size of the property, its proximity to major thoroughfares, proximity to critical infrastructure, redevelopment costs, existing lease agreements, and current level of use by residents. So ideally, what we wanted was a lot that was big enough to meet our size needs and would not have a substantial redevelopment cost associated with it. The results of deploying this methodology: Of the 81 properties that we scored, 150 Northeast 19th Street was the highest -scoring property. This particular site features 7.3 acres of mostly undeveloped City -owned land. The City -owned part of that is important, because what we'd like to do is we'd like to leverage all of the funds that we have on this project to actually constructing the new facility. We'd like to minimize the amount that we spend on purchasing land. Rapid access to major thoroughfares is not a problem. We have under five minutes to the expressway and additional access to major arteries. It's a very central location. I love it, because it's in one of the fastest -growing parts of the City. It also is walking distance to the Rainbow Village, which I think is great. It's -- it doesn't have any existing lease agreements. It does have a licensing agreement, which I don't think will be anything in the way of an issue. Commissioner Gort: What is the address again; 159 Northeast 9th Street? Mr. Diaz: 159 Northeast 19th Street. And I'll be able to show you an overhead as soon as the presentation comes back up. Some additional advantages: That particular site is immediately north of the cemetery. That's actually a terrific advantage and a unique one, because it means that we would have evergreen space immediately to our south, and we would have well-defined standoff distance into perpetuity. I don't think that we'll be finding that at any other facility. We would wind up having to leverage security upgrades on the southern side otherwise. So -- and I'll just take a moment to bring this back up so that I can show you the site. Thank you. And so, this is an overhead of 150 Northeast 19th Street. You'll see that it is bordered on the west by a fire station, which is terrific again for us. One of the biggest costs that police facilities incur is blast hardening. So typically, these facilities are constructed right next to a road, which means that they have to put in a lot of concrete reinforcement to mitigate blast damage in the event of a vehicle -borne explosive attack. On a site of this size -- and this size is interesting -- we'll be able to get the actual square footage cost down, because we can leverage the 80 feet or so of standoff distance that we need to mitigate that expense. That means that we can spend more of our budget in actually providing useable work space. The design goals that we have in this project: The first one is, we want to encourage community engagement in this facility without compromising security. So effectively, we would like to build a police facility that mirrors the current philosophy of our department, which is active community policing. We want to build a site that is attractive to our residents and allows them to come into our station and feel like they have a partner in the Miami Police Department for solving their problems. Contemporary station design encourages the use of these public spaces, so we want to incorporate useable public green space. One of the sites that I visited was the Los Angeles Police Department, and to my great surprise, they actually have a dog park that's incorporated on the southern side of that site, and it is constantly being used. So as I walked past, I noticed that a lot of people in downtown LA (Los Angeles) were using that green space just as part of their daily routine, and I think that that's a terrific City of Miami Page 70 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 tool for bringing people into the site. And an externally accessible community room: This is, again, I think a critical component of a new approach to community policing. Here, being able to bring residents in to discuss issues that are affecting their community, and work cooperatively with the Police Department to come to a resolution, that's an invaluable tool. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Certification: So we have an incredibly inefficient structure. It was built in the '70s, when these sorts of concerns weren't paramount. It's one of the reasons why we wind up having such a high utility cost associated with our facility. We would like to reduce our carbon footprint while saving the City some money. Minimizing maintenance costs: So one of the first things to go when times get tough is the maintenance budget. We want to make sure that that will have the smallest possible impact on the new facility. And finally, we want to allow for 50 years of growth. So we want to be able to get a couple of generations of police work out of this thing. Some lessons that we've learned from other agencies in doing our research: Don't build for today; build for tomorrow. Sadly, two of the facilities that we visited are under 10 years old, and they were already out of space. So making sure that we build capacity into the new facility is one of our primary objectives. Design with maintenance in mind: This means that we want to utilize flooring materials that are durable and cheap to maintain; things like concrete and epoxy, which can be made to be quite attractive and will minimize future budget impacts. And we want to avoid stylistic elements that create maintenance problems; things like inaccessible light fixtures. This is a surprisingly prevalent issue in station designs. A couple of the facilities that we visited had light fixtures that would cost thousands of dollars for the City to replace light bulbs, so, frequently, the lights go out. And a design element that looked beautiful at the beginning winds up creating a rather dingy effect over time. We want to include all of our stakeholders in the planning and design process so that we can capture concerns early on. I think where we wind up seeing budgets explode beyond manageable is where we don't do appropriate planning upfront. A couple of conceptual massing diagrams that can show how that site would be utilized: Very quickly, the floor space, even over the 7.3 acre lot, winds up being absorbed. Here, we would be able to turn that 80 feet of standoff distance into a very useful public green space, and another view here showing some elevation. I'll preface this by saying that we don't want to preempt the actual facility designers. This is not meant to show what the station will actually look like. It will, I imagine, not be a series of blocks. It will, I hope, be an attractive structure that invites people in. As far as the standoff distance, I think that we can invite local artists to import some of the community flair into the station design. One option is to create a broken wall motif on the outside, which serves not only as a barrier, but an opportunity for a local mural artist to come in and beautify the site. So next steps: We'd like to obtain approval to develop the new facility at 150 Northeast 19th Street. Chair Hardemon: Go back one. Mr. Diaz: Oh, sure. Right here? Chair Hardemon: The community space? Mr. Diaz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Is that the jail? Mr. Diaz: No. No, sir. We're hoping to change our paradigm. Commissioner Suarez: That's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) garage. Mr. Diaz: Right. City of Miami Page 71 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Got it. Mr. Diaz: Right. Yeah. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. He did (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Diaz: But community space is something that we're hoping to utilize frequently, so this isn't just for community meetings with law enforcement agencies. Space in the City is expensive, so even community meetings that are not directly related to law enforcement. We'd be happy to make that space available to community actors who want to do something positive for our City. So again, next steps: Obtaining approval to develop at this site. We believe that it's uniquely suited to our needs. We -- it's going to be the most cost-effective option for us. Issuing an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) to enter the design phase of the project, so here's where we can really start to tighten our ideas about where the -- what our actual budgeting needs are. Subdividing and rezoning the current headquarters lots to maximize its sale value and identing a funding source for the construction phase. I was trying to be respectful of your time, so any questions? Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I do. Is it -- is this perspective location better suited than your current location to the major arteries of the City and to fast access throughout? Mr. Diaz: That is an excellent question, and I would say that it is not more well - suited than our current site. Vice Chair Russell: I mean, obviously, that -- this site has sat vacant for a very long time, and suddenly, a lot of people are very excited about it. Mr. Diaz: True. Vice Chair Russell: And this is an issue we're going to have to deal with as a Commission. These same board members as the Omni CRA have already voted to bring the site over to the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and start working on affordable housing options, expansion of education throughout the area, which is what a lot of the residents are looking for. And we have heard some opposition from residents with regard to bringing the police station right into the Upper East -- I mean, into the Edgewater area there. So obviously, we have a lot to talk about. Mr. Diaz: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: What about the options for mixed use on the site? Do you need the full seven acres there, or is there the potential here to maybe satisfy some multiple needs? Mr. Diaz: So one of the concerns with mixed use on the site is that would effectively negate the advantages of having a standoff distance. So a mixed use facility on site would suggest that we would still have to have vehicular access. We'd have a number of security concerns that would be introduced; I expect that that would increase our costs. And again, I'm not here to speak against -- Vice Chair Russell: I understand. Mr. Diaz: -- your concerns. I'm only here to speak to the concerns of the Police Department. City of Miami Page 72 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Would you be relocating the high school as well? Mr. Diaz: No. It would be sort of difficult for us to justlft moving a facility that was constructed just 10 years ago, but we're again open to discussion. Vice Chair Russell: So that potentially would stay where it is and not be sold as one of the parts of the parcel? Mr. Diaz: Correct. So the subdivision would break the six -- the almost seven -acre lot that we're currently on into a 3.6 acre parcel, featuring the police headquarters and the parking garage, and then the other part would be the remainder. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Yeah, we're -- I don't know where we go from here, honestly, because I do understand our need for a new police facility; I don't know if this is the best spot in the City for it or not. I do know we are working on other plans for that, and it has yet to come to the Commission where we wear these hats; and so, this is all -- I'm glad you're here now so that we can consider this as one of the options. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Mr. Diaz: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Look, I think -- First of all, thank you for that presentation and for taking what we, as a Commission, determined as a priority position on getting a police station built, seriously. Obviously, I think you covered all the bases in terms of why our current facility is inadequate very comprehensively; probably even more comprehensively than when we talked in person. I think your presentation's extremely tight. Obviously, I think there are multiple sites that could essentially fill the requirement; and certainly, I think it behooves us to use a City piece of property; in other words, a property that doesn't cost us any money, because from some of the estimates that I've heard, it's going to be expensive, the construction itself. So, you know, look, I'm open in terms of the site. Everything else is perfectly spot on. If the Commission decided that that site is the -- you know, the premier site and wants to go forward, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with other sites that might be similarly adequate, you know, but I do think that this is as close to an emergency or a crisis as we can have in terms of facilities, because, as you've described it -- I mean, I think you were generous, you know, in terms of talking about the building, the current building and some of the challenges that you guys have had to deal with going back -- the mold, the remediation, you know, the top floor, all that stuff. So I really commend you for the work that you did in preparation for this item. Vice Chair Russell: Any further questions? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, thank you for the presentation. And I want to ask you with regards to the financial aspect of it, because in the last Commission meeting, when we were discussing the budget, I had mentioned how we have, over the years, put aside "X" millions of dollars for a building for the City of Miami, and I mentioned the priority with the police station. It was mentioned that this is going to cost the City about 300 million, and I took it as City of Miami Page 73 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 it is going to be a cost of about 300 million, where do you see it's like feasible, like if it's really going to happen. So can you address the financial aspect of it? Mr. Diaz: So thank you for the question. I think it's a very sensible question to be asking. So based on our current projections, we have high and low values for what we think our square footage requirements are going to be. On a low side, we're thinking that we probably need at least 250,000 square feet. When we move into a design phase, I think we'll be able to get that number down tighter. The upper range is 320,000 square feet. And we're working with a low estimate on the cost per square foot of $400 a square foot for the construction costs and a high value of $500 a square foot. If we don't wind up having the benefit of not having to work with the blast reinforced concrete, then that number is likely to go up higher, but that means that we've got a total, including our parking garage costs, which is -- it's about $30,000 a space to build a garage here, so we're looking at -- When we project out of current need, plus 30 percent to accommodate for 50 years of growth, that brings us to about 900 spaces; plus, we need to have space for specialty vehicles, so we projected for a thousand -space parking lot; that brings us to about $30 million on a parking garage. The hard cost for the facility, that would range from a hundred million to a hundred sixty million, if we're using high square footage and high construction costs. That gives us a total range, including furniture fixture and equipment, and a contingency of 165 million to $241 million. That gives us an average total of $201 million and -- roughly, $201 million. Now, amortized over a 25 year period at 4.75 percent, we're looking at a range of annual debt service cost of $11,461,207.92 to $16,681,917.50. And for context, I want to compare those numbers to what our overall Police budget is projected to be for 2018; it's a $250,692,000 budget. So the low -end estimate here would represent a 4.6 percent increase over current to a 6.7 percent increase; that's an average increase of about 5.65 percent. Commissioner Carollo: Are you taking into consideration possibly selling of the site that you're currently in? I understand -- not the college itself -- Mr. Diaz: Sure. Commissioner Carollo: -- but the site, because that's something that was mentioned in the past. Mr. Diaz: Sure. So we've only had a very preliminary estimate on the value of the site, so I was cautious about including that. Obviously, the sale of the facility would wind up offsetting the cost, but -- Commissioner Carollo: Exactly. Mr. Diaz: -- we can look at -- anywhere between 16 and about $19 million, without the up -zoning on the current site, I believe. And I'll defer to our friends in DREAM for a correction on that if I'm misspeaking. Commissioner Carollo: So two prong: Number one, yes, I want to hear from DREAM Number two, so the calculations that you gave did not take into consideration the possible sale of the current site? Mr. Diaz: They did not. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Mr. Diaz: This is the raw cost of the project. City of Miami Page 74 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Carollo: Perfect. Can I hear from DREAM as far as either appraisal or possibly, at this point in time, fair market value, or at least what they're thinking? Andrew Schimmel: Andrew Schimmel, on behalf of DREAM. We've only received the broker's opinion of value at this point. Commissioner Carollo: Got you. Mr. Schimmel: The rezoning process hasn't been completed, so an appraisal at this point would be -- Commissioner Carollo: Understood. Mr. Schimmel: -- fruitless. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Are there any further questions or comments? In that case -- Mr. Diaz: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: -- thank you very much. DI.3 DISCUSSION ITEM 2956 Commissioners and Mayor DISCUSSION REGARDING JIMBO'S LAGOON AND THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT (FIND) GRANT. LRESULT: DISCUSSED Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item DL3, please see "Public Comment Period for Regular Item(s)." Vice Chair Russell: We're going to move on to our final discussion item, DL3, Virginia Key Advisory Board and FIND (Florida Inland Navigation District) grant application. This is an item that I've brought with quite a history now of the Jimbo's site, and we heard some public comment this morning. I know some of the stakeholders and advocates are here even now today. Our FIND Commissioner is also here, of course, as well as our staff who have been in the design process. The Virginia Key Advisory Board was very resolute and unanimous in their idea not to have a concrete seawall. There will be not be a concrete seawall. I'll be giving direction today to change the design and scope. My goal has always been to find a win for all sides. And I've asked from the very beginning if there's a way we can change this design, make it what the community wants, what the advisory board recommends, and still keep the FIND grant, and the answer was very difficult to get to "yes," but I have to really commend our staff and our FIND Commissioner for actually accomplishing it. And I'd like to show you today what they've come up with. I only got a hold of it last night myself -- or was it the night before? It's all a blur now -- and we've shared it with a few of the folks that have asked to see it, but everyone gets to take a look at it tonight. Now, first I'd like to show you -- if you could go back one slide, or if you have a Google shot of the current state of what the site looks like. Is that one of the slides? All right. So you can see the open green space there. That's Jimbo's spot right there; has the dock going out, and it does have a concrete seawall. I can say that I don't know about drinking beer with one - City of Miami Page 75 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 eyed cats and eating smoked fish at that spot, but there's a lot of good memories that people have there that would love to see revisited in some sense or another. The master plan for that area does anticipate bringing back food and beverage; does anticipate the rental facilities, like what are there now and -- with the Virginia Key Outdoor Center, and it does anticipate some sort of outcropping or boardwalk where people can view the Lamar Lake or the Shrimper's Lagoon from out there. Now, I do understand the concerns of the Virginia Key Advisory Board with regard to motorized vehicles. We are not doing any effort to encourage motorized vehicles. So I'd like to go to the slide now with what's been kind of in this section, and what you can see here is a sloping sandy beach access that would -- that is very different. Is there a handheld mike, really quick? All right. What you can see here is where the original seawall is right now will disappear; that'll be removed. And what you'll have below the waterline -- you've got two lines here. This is the low tide waterline and the high tide waterline. You'll have a sloping accessing beach. One of FIND's main objectives is to increase access to the water. And with an outdoor center there that supplies paddleboard and kayak rentals, this is the absolute best way to do that, with a sloping sandy beach that comes down from the upland area, slopes down to the water's edge, goes down below the high and low water tide lines to where about 10 feet in before you get to maybe where you're at knee level before it gets to a drop off, like what might be acceptable. And then there would be ribraft underwater, holding everything in place, with a filter fabric below. The end result is basically an accessible, natural beach. And there will be ADA (Americans with Disabilities) access, so there will be some sort of wooden boardwalk that goes down to access the water from the upland area. The rest of the design -- If you want to go to the overhead view, please. Now, you can see here where the current seawall is. The grass does currently come out to here; this would now change. The waterline would come in further from where the seawall is now and would allow the water to go up to a natural level of the sloping beach back here. So you lose some ground of the grass here. This is -- goes from what is grass now to a sandy beach up to the grassy area, and then all the way back to Arthur Lamb Road. This -- all of this design is still completely up for discussion; the gazebo issue. Really, what we wanted to solve here, with direction to the management, had to do with the seawall, the sloping beach, preserving the grant, not losing a year, not losing the funding, but still giving a natural element to the area. The one thing I was not willing to do was to allow mangrove plantings throughout this frontage that could then grow as the remainder of the area was. It could be done with permits for cutting. I don't want to get in the business of cutting mangroves and trimming. I would just rather plant them where I want them to grow naturally. That entire lagoon has a natural living shoreline throughout. This one section is really meant for access. And so, this is the current plan. This is what we're looking at doing, without losing time, with respecting what the Virginia Key Advisory Board has charged us with doing. It may not be exactly what was envisioned, but it does accomplish the goals of what we're looking for. And then I'm going to take it a step further, that we start looking at how we now activate this area. You know, there is a food and beverage element that is envisioned, so I -- you know, perhaps the -- you know, it becomes a bit of a throwback to the past in a bit of a cleaner version, and it becomes a really great place for us to enjoy. So that's what we're looking at right now. I'll be allocated [sic] in the budget tonight an additional $75,000 that goes toward the design of this new plan and scope, and I'm giving direction to the City Manager to enact this new plan. So I'm sure it'll be a topic of conversation at the next Virginia Key Advisory Board. This is just something I wanted to bring everyone up to speed on. And one comment I'd like to make and address to the management. Right now, Jimbo's is completely unaccessible [sic] because of our storm debris removal. The waste hauling trucks that are going down Arthur Lamb Road are dangerous for cyclists, so I fully understand that cyclists cannot enter the park, but we have also closed off an entire beach, an entire mountain bike park, as well as the Virginia Key Outdoor Center, which is based there. So I'm hoping there is a safe way we can allow for car City of Miami Page 76 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 access. If there is, I would love to see the City consider it so that those three areas of public use don't have to be completely shut off during the waste hauling process. I don't know that the waste haul traffic is even as much as we see down that road during the tennis show. So with that being said, I'd like to give the floor to our FIND Commissioner and thank him once again for -- I know this was not an easy task. Commissioner Spencer Crowley: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, Spencer Crowley, 98 Southeast 7th Street, Miami, Florida, the Miami -Dade County FIND Commissioner. Before I talk about Jimbo's, just a quick update on the FIND work. Last night we approved our budget for next year. This year the City had a very good year. We're funding 10 projects of the City; a total of $4.6 million coming back to this City in waterfront improvement projects. Of course, this is a very important one. And getting back to the history here, I think it was early on clear that with the changes that were being proposed by the Advisory Board, FIND would not be comfortable staying involved, because we felt like changes that would create a ribraft shoreline and inhibit the public from getting access to the water would not be consistent with our message. And so, I want to commend you, Commissioner, for actually having the idea to come up with this concept, and it's very similar to the kayak launch that you see at Oleta River State Park and some of the other State parks that have direct kayak access into the water. I think this is a great solution, and we're happy to support this. I know it will need to come back to my board for a project cost adjustment, because this is -- it's likely to cost less. But a project like this, I'm certainly willing to support and make sure that the City has -- keeps access to the funding. This originally was a $1.2 million grant, and we were happy to support it and happy to bring that money back to the City. I like the original project. You know I like the original project. I think it's a very reasonable project. If you look at this shoreline, it's only 8.5 percent of the entire shoreline of the lagoon. It's a very small portion. I don't believe that the project, as proposed, was -- created any sort of negative environmental impacts, but I'm okay. I'm okay letting this go, and I think this is a good compromise. So I appreciate your constructive input in this, and we look forward to continuing to work with the City, so. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And one clarification. If there is a wooden dock that goes out, whether it's a flooding dock or a stationary dock, it's for ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access and non -motorized access for kayaks, paddleboards, that sort of thing. That's the intention. Commissioner Crowley: The intention as I understand it, correct. Vice Chair Russell: Yep. Commissioner Crowley: I mean -- Vice Chair Russell: And I believe it can be built to encourage that as well. Commissioner Crowley: Yes, and I think there's ways to do that. There's -- FWC (Florida Wildlife Commission) has vessel exclusion zones that you can create and make sure that vessels don't come in those areas. I would say that the way -- This area needs a dock for ADA access to canoes and kayaks. We do this all over our district, okay? I've funded probably $150 million worth of waterfront projects. I've funded probably 10 or 15 canoe or kayak launches; many of them have floating docks for ADA accessibility. I think that's very important. I think the City should think that's very important. If there's a desire on a city's part to exclude motorized vessel access to this lagoon, then there's a process to go through and to have that categorized as such. I think you all need to go through the process. You need to go to FWC. You need to consult with the various stakeholders, people who use the bay, City of Miami Page 77 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 who use Virginia Key, and make sure that that's something that's what the public wants. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Commissioner Crowley: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Manager. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, really quick. I know that the Commissioner mentioned that he was giving us direction. We need the -- Vice Chair Russell: Need a vote of the Commission. Mr. Alfonso: -- Commission to vote that there's a change in direction, because there's a different scope of work to be done and possibly expense as well. END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS City of Miami Page 78 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Chair Hardemon: What I'm going to do now is open up the public comment item -- the public comment period for the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that are left on the agenda. So if you are here and you're here on an item that is still on the agenda for the PZ items and you're a member of the public, please approach one of the two lecterns. State your name, and you may state your address, which item it is that you're here to address, and make your comments. Once again, this is the public comment period for the items on the PZ agenda. If you're here and you want to express yourself regarding one of these issues, state your name, your address, and which item it is that you're here to speak about. Clarice Cooper: Good afternoon. My name is Clarice Cooper. I live at 3735 Oak Avenue in Coconut Grove, Miami. I am here to address the items PZ. 1 and PZ.2 that have to do with 3750 South Dixie Highway, currently and commonly known as the Frankie Shannon Rolle Human Services Center. That project that's been proposed is across from a Metrorail station, Douglas Road Metrorail Station, and I understand - - or I'm imagining that it has a lot to do with the flow of developing much delayed and long delayed projects around the Metrorail station; specifically, University, Dadeland North and South, which are pretty much ongoing; and also, Coconut Grove and Douglas Road, and others. The project that I'm concerned about is Douglas Road, of course. I live in a neighborhood that is just two blocks south of the proposed project at 3750 South Dixie Highway, and it's comprised of many single- family, one-story homes that I occupy, and others, and the community has been in existence for a very long time. And most of the homes are owner -occupied and are also occupied by descendants of the original -- direct descendants of the original settlers. Now, regarding this project at 3750 South Dixie Highway, I may have some issues personally with the scale, design, number of units, parking, and what have you. I do realize that changes are going to take place, because time marches on. Some of these changes are welcome and some are not so welcome, but what I'm really concerned about is my neighborhood, my neighbors, and myself are given some assurances from the developer or the City, or whomever that our integrity and character of our neighborhood will be preserved and protected. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Cooper: Thank you. Tucker Gibbs: Is this still public comments? Chair Hardemon: Yes, it is. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Chair Hardemon: Is anyone else from the public? Mr. Gibbs: I just -- I'm here on PZ. 13, and I just wanted to ask a question. It's an appeal. It's a quasi-judicial proceeding. I want to be able to have my clients and the public who want to speak on it speak at that point, because they need to be able to respond to the presentation made. I just want to -- Chair Hardemon: So -- Mr. Gibbs: -- know if that's okay. City of Miami Page 79 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- well, this is public comment time. If you have someone who's going to be providing testimony, they can provide testimony at the time that we call it up, because you'll be calling them as witnesses or cross-examining those witnesses. Mr. Gibbs: I won't be cross-examining. They just want to speak to the issue, because I don't cross-examine, but I want them to be able to have the opportunity to respond to the appellant as the appellant makes her -- I mean, when she makes her case, and then the public -- Chair Hardemon: This is -- part of what I'm saying to you, someone who's responding to the appellant is, I'm assuming, the appellee. Mr. Gibbs: It's a public hearing, though. It's been advertised as a public hearing -- Chair Hardemon: We allow for public comment, and that's what we're providing right now. We're giving people an opportunity to provide public comment, but they're not parties to the matter. So if they're not a party to the matter, they're not providing testimony, they're not -- I'm not going to allow people to re -- to go back and forth with someone who is -- Mr. Gibbs: Can I ask a question of the attorney? Because I'm -- Chair Hardemon: You can step away from the lectern, and then speak to the attorney -- Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- but I want to move on with the public comment and do that. Mr. Gibbs: But can I --? I can come back and --? Chair Hardemon: Of course. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Thank you. Bob de la Fuente: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commission. My name is Bob de la Fuente, with the law firm, Layton and Schultz. Our offices are at 1111 Brickell Avenue. I'm here on behalf of the ownership of 4231 West Flagler Street. This is regarding PZ.7. The ownership consists of Bonnie Sokol Cusner, Lynn Sokol Dachisen, Debra Rosenberg, Castle Mount Investments, Marty [sic] W. Schlosberg, trustee of Ellen Schlosberg Revocable Trust, Sokel Real Estate Holdings, Golden Coast Holdings, Martin W. Schlosberg Revocable Living Trust, and Martin Schlosberg. We are here to object to this application. We are requesting that this application be deferred indefinitely. There is a pending complaint that has been filed in Circuit Court against the developer, as well as the City; our vested rights to parking, pursuant to the legal effect of a unified site plan that is a part of this property and our other legal rights stemming from that unified site plan, including our position that our consent is required through a modification of the unified site plan, including this alley closure application. The court has not yet made a determination on that issue. Accordingly, we believe that this should not move forward until the court has made a determination or it has otherwise been resolved between the parties. In this case, the City itself has relied on this unified site plan by issuing certificates of use, pursuant to that unified site plan, for the past 30 years. Therefore, it's very hard for the City to just ignore the validity of that unified site plan now. I can go into the merits of our objections if the Commission is inclined to consider this, in spite of the litigation, but rather than go into it now, I thought I would leave that out there. City of Miami Page 80 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: The -- I'm -- You're the attorney for PZ. 7? Paul Savage: Yes, Chairman; I am. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So what I'll do is I'll continue on with public comment and then we'll come back to address PZ.7 and -- We'll come back to address PZ.7. I won't make -- we won't make a decision right now about whether I'm going to defer it or not. We're going to have public comment. Mr. Savage: Thank you. Mr. de la Fuente: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Savage: Thank you, Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Jihad Rashid: Good evening. My name is Jihad S. Rashid. I'm president of Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, 3628 Grand Avenue. I'm here to speak on PZ.1 and 2. I understand this is the second reading, but until there is a final conclusion on this matter, I want to urge the Commission to set that back and allow one last attempt for the community to work with the developer to revise the unit mix of the development towards more affordable units. During -- And Coconut Grove has experienced its greatest housing crisis ever, and we're missing a golden opportunity to rectify some unmet needs for our community. I think it's a gross oversight or unconscionable that a County -owned property in a County -targeted urban area in a City Neighborhood Development Zone would not be sensitive to promoting equity among all the residents so that -- in fact, that unit mix favors more market rate inherently, it is inequitable and does not provide the balance of equity to all the citizenry. So if we're talking about up -zoning, then we need to represent the interests of the broadest number of people as possible, and we should not foreclose this opportunity at this time to include more affordable units in the full affordable housing spectrum from ELI (extremely low income) to -- up to workforce. So I would like that we would defer this so we can work out with the great developer, who I know as a honorable person and has done some great things, and if we all work together, I think we can come up something that will effect a win -win -win. But to move this forward without considering the needs of the residents in the area under these circumstance is just not right. Thank you. Williams Armbrister: Praise the Lord Jesus, and good afternoon to every wonderful man, woman, and child at the sound of my voice. My name is Williams Alfred Armbrister, Sr. I reside at 3260 Thomas Avenue, Miami, Florida, and I'm here in opposition to this PZ.1 and 2, because it is part of the reintroduction of segregation by the means of gentrification, and I will not stay silent, understanding the impact it's having on all the communities. And for it to go above three stories in this location, what you're going to do is encourage up -zoning for the south side of Day Avenue from Brooker to Douglas Road, and we do not have a desire for the continuation of zoning changes in our community, as they have been done to us, unawares, where many -- We have hundreds of lots that have been changed from T3- R to T3-O, which encourages the destruction of a single-family home on a single lot, and encourages multiple units on a single lot. That's what your zoning is doing. You've -- It's been done; not that you all are unaware, because when it's began, none of you were here, except for maybe Commissioner Gort and Commissioner Suarez. This has been happening for the past -- more than 10 years. And so, by changing the zoning, you are encouraging gentrification, which is the reintroduction of segregation. I'm so thankful to God that I'm here to introduce something to you now City of Miami Page 81 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 that I have not before, because it is understood by not just myself. And most of the people here are not old enough to have experienced it as I have, for a brief period of time, but we do not want the continuation of the reintroduction of something that has -- supposed to have been dismantled, which is still operating at this time. And I want to thank you for your time, and I encourage you not to agree to Miami -Dade County gentrifying our community with any development that exceeds three stories, abutting our residential communities anywhere in the City of Miami. I thank you. Ernesto Morales: Good afternoon. My name is Ernesto Morales. I live at 245 Northeast 14th Street. I want to talk on behalf of the project. I'm in favor of the project, PZ.8. Mainly, what I want to say is that I'm a young professional from the area. I graduated from the University of Miami. I used to live in Kendall. My dream was always to live by the downtown area; Wynwood, downtown. And when I graduated, it was pretty much impossible for me to buy a condo. Even now, it's impossible for me, after five years graduated, to buy a condo in downtown Miami; they're extremely expensive. So I was able to rent a property by the Mello Group, located on 22nd; it's called 22nd Skyview. And after they completed the Melody Tower Building at 245 Northeast 14th Street, I was able to -- with my wife -- to move and rent an apartment at the area. My life completely changed, because my -- the office that we work, it's literally seven blocks away, so I -- sometimes I go to work in my car and sometimes I take the bike. And these kind of projects, like Miami Plaza, which is literally a couple blocks away from my home, it's the kind of projects that young professionals can afford; that we live in Miami. Those are the kind of projects that once we graduate, we can move into, if we want to live in downtown Miami. So, I mean, if there is a -- if there -- I mean, if there is a way for you guys to really look into these kind of projects and incentive -- give an incentive for these kind of developers to keep on building rental projects in the area, it'll be great, because not only that prices will go down; there's competition, prices will start going down, but also because it's impossible to buy condos in the area. Thank you very much. Emil Cruz Ortega: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Emil Cruz. I live in 245 Northeast 14th Street. I'm here to talk in favor of the project located on Northeast 15th Street and North Miami Place. It's a 435-rent apartment units that is about to be a reality a block away from my house, and I don't have any reason why -- is it this project is going to be a bad idea. This project is going to generate work; it's going to bring people who work in downtown that is going to live us well in downtown and it's going to cut the traffic in the City. It's going to generate a connection with Biscayne Boulevard and this far -away area that is right now empty. And I think, as well, it's a great looking building that is going to put a beautiful piece of architecture in the City. So I think it is a very good idea to go on with this project. Thank you very much. Ira Moran: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ira Moran, 2901 Northeast 2nd Avenue. I'm going to take advantage of this situation before -- so I can thank you for what you did before and after the Hurricane Irma. Thank you for spending this time with the community instead of spending it with your family. I really appreciate the great leadership. Today you will have the opportunity to change a dangerous and poor neighborhood. This is where I live. Sometimes, because of the noises of shooting, I cannot sleep. I have to wake up the next day, already tired, to go to work. 20 years ago, nobody would imagine that you can -- will be able to work in Biscayne Boulevard at 1 o'clock in the morning and feel secure. That happened because all the changes that happen before. So you can have a better idea what I'm talking about, I'm going to ask Janet, my wife (UNINTELLIGIBLE) so you can take a look at some picture of the neighborhood where we live. And I also brought some of my neighbor that are around there that we really believe if all this project is approved, we all will benefit. I hope like I always take the right decision so we can improve our neighborhood. Thank you. City of Miami Page 82 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: You got it. Manuel Alonso: My name is Manuel Alonso. My English not so good, but I live in this great country for 55 years, and I live always in South Florida here, and before you born, I was here, as Willy Gort, that know me for a long time ago. I mean, that City of Miami, you know what it was in that time; the Everglade Hotel, the Freedom Tower. The courthouse was the only high-rise in Miami. For that -- When they building (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I don't remember. One hotel in 40-story in Biscayne and 1st Street Southeast, that was a great thing to be a 40-story building. Oh, 40- story building in Miami. Now, we change complete. You change, and we all together change this City of Miami and best -- the best place to live in the United State. And remember one thing that I going to tell you. I don't going to see it, you going to see it. Miami going to be bigger than New York, but we need the help of us. You can keep -- you can't stop the progress; you have to keep going with the progress. You can change the City of Miami. City of Miami is a -- it be a prime stay; a place where you can live all year around, with the water and everything. You got all the country here. Don't stop the progress. Keep going and help the people going to help this community. Don't stop the people that going to try to build this community for the benefits of all of us, and we get benefit. We get job, we get income. That piece of land, little space, maybe it's more amount of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Now they going to build a building. You going to more -- have more revenue. No make sense to me why you don't approve that. Thank you for your time. Ramon Franca: Good evening. My name is Ramon Franca. I'm here representing Budget Hardware at 1644 Northeast 2nd Avenue. I've been here a few times before, asking for the same thing: Your approval for PZ.8. And for previous ones, the same approval was achieved. The neighborhood is changing; it's changing drastically, thanks to the construction of these buildings. You can actually walk down Northeast 1st Avenue now since they tore down some of the buildings on Northeast 1st and 14th Street. You can walk down Miami Avenue. It's actually making a difference, so please approve PZ.8. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other person that wants to speak on public comment? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public comment for the PZ agenda. PART B: PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) Chair Hardemon: Okay. We're going to move on to our Part "B," the Planning & Zoning items. You need time to --? No? Okay, great. So what I'll do now is I'll recognize the impeccably dressed, always on time, extremely smart and kind to most people, Francisco Garcia, to the dais. And Mr. Garcia, I'm sure you have a number of continuances that you want to be placed into the record, so if you do, please do so at this time. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, do you allow me to read the procedures? Chair Hardemon: Oh, I'm sorry. You're still first. Ms. Mendez: Thank you. 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. City of Miami Page 83 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 The members of the City Commission shall disclose any ex parte communications, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 286.011(5) 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 state his or her 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. 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 the staff recommendation, the City Commission may proceed to deliberation and decision. The applicant may waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. The order of presentation shall be set forth in -- as set forth in Miami 21 and in the City Code, providing the appellant 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 recommendation they may have. All persons testing 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 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. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you will be speaking on any of today's Planning & Zoning items -- 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. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Francisco. Francisco Garcia: Thank you, sir. For the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning Department director. I'd like to begin, with your permission, with a number of items that are going to be either continued or deferred, for your consideration. The items are as follows: Proposed to be continued are items PZ.3 and PZ.4. Said date of continuance would be to 10/26; that's October 26. Also to be continued, item PZ.5, also for October 26. We are asking that item PZ.6 be deferred to October 12, and also asking that item 14, PZ.14 be continued to October 26. This, as you know, is a companion to FR.2. That's all I have, sir. Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it and brief discussion. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: Properly moved and seconded. Is there any other item that any Commissioners wish to continue, defer? Is there any applicant that has an item they want to continue or defer that haven't made an announcement? You're recognized, Vice Chairman. City of Miami Page 84 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PZs.3 and 4, which are on the floor to be deferred, are the Day Avenue Up -Zoning and Covenant. I just want to let the public know that I know is here on this item; it's been a long time coming. Basically, we have currently 14 units there that, any up -zoning, if it were to be successful, could equal up to over 30 units, of which we are attempting to preserve 14 units at their similar levels of affordability in the new development; idea being that if an up - zoning were to happen that it would not displace residents, and that affordability would be maintained. Later, we're learning that in the northern half of what they're looking for, going from T3 to T4, that the northern half of Day Avenue, they're looking for a future potential for a T5, facing U.S.1, and having the T4 as the southern portion buffering the T3 below that. I have asked them at this point to look into utilizing our attainable housing part of our Miami 21 Ordinance 3.15, and the attorney for the applicant has admitted that he had not considered this potential option, and rather than up -zoning to 4 and then up -zoning to 5, and then haggling over potential affordability, this would make this an affordable project throughout on the northern half. And instead of getting 14 units, we could get 28 -- maybe 30 -- units of affordability, and true affordability, all the way from ELI, extremely low income up to workforce. And then on the southern units, maybe there's a blend that has some market rate to help them balance the financial picture with it. So that's going to take some math, some Planning & Zoning work. I've asked for a deferral and asked for them to work with the department and the community to take it to the next step, so thank you. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; just a Jennings disclosure. In the last day or so, I met with Iris Escarra and Shahab Carmeli (phonetic). I actually -- on PZ.6 -- and I actually went to the property and looked at it. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Suarez: That one's going to be deferred? Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: The motion passes. City of Miami Page 85 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1673 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS Planning and AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI Plan Pl anng 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. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13700 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Suarez ABSENT: Carollo Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.1, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: Our first item is PZ.1 and PZ.2. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. I will introduce them briefly, and quickly yield to the applicant. Item PZ.1 and PZ.2 are companion items, as you stated. They are respectively a land use amendment and a zoning change for the property at 3750 South Dixie Highway. More specifically, the change proposed is to the southern portion of the subject site, an area of approximately 34,000 square feet of the much larger site. The change sought in terms of zoning is from T4-O to T5-O; and in terms of land use, from low -density restricted commercial to medium - density restricted commercial. This request has been recommended for approval by the Planning & Zoning Department, as well as by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. And we have on the record also a covenant proffered by the applicant. I'm glad to yield to them for a presentation. Vice Chair Russell: Madam City Attorney, I'd just like to mention my Jennings disclosure on both of these items, PZ.1 and 2. My office has been in contact with the applicant, and their attorneys; of course, not swaying my decision, and the rest of the statement, as it legally should be read. Thank you. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Does anyone have a problem with that? We can proceed? Based on the Jennings disclosure, is there a --? We could proceed, correct? Okay. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. My name is Melissa Tapanes-Llahues, with the law firm of Bercow, Radell, City of Miami Page 86 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Fernandez and Larkin, at 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. I have the pleasure to represent Platform 3750, LLC (Limited Liability Company), the perspective lessee of 3750 South Dixie Highway, a County -owned facility known as the Frankie Shannon Rolle Center. Here with me today is Lenny Wolfe and Roberto Rocha. They are experienced affordable housing developers with over 16,000 affordable housing units in -- throughout the country; as well as Diana Duran, with Kobi Karp Architecture; Joaquin Vargas, our traffic engineer, and Michael Llorente. We're delighted to present this transit -oriented mixed use and mixed income project that will transform an outdated Miami -Dade County property into an attractive pedestrian focused gateway into Historical Coconut Grove. As the -- Mr. Garcia mentioned, we've earned favorable recommendations from the City's Urban Design Review Board, the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board, as well as your professional staff. We have had extensive community outreach, and we've made this presentation in the past, so for purposes of time, unless it's the will of the Commission, what I'd like to do is spend some time going over the proffered covenant that we have addressed -- or attempted to address the concerns of the area residents. As was heard as part of the public comment, this is a golden opportunity, and time is of the essence. We would like to proceed immediately with moving forward to apply for Florida Housing Finance Corporation credits, as well as the State Apartment Incentive Loans credit to allow for the subsidies necessary to move forward with this affordable housing project. As far as the covenant that -- We can distribute copies. They should be in your record, but they have been recently updated. The covenant provides that the specific Kobi Karp plans will be developed. This is important, because it is part of what has been our community outreach efforts, and has again earned the favorable recommendations from the UDRB (Urban Design Review Board), the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board), and your professional staff. The property will be developed in accordance with the County Code provisions, requiring works of art in public places, and we look forward to working with the Village West artists to accommodate that requirement. We will implement and maintain the Florida Friendly Landscaping's Best Management Practices. We are agreeing to apply for Florida Housing Finance Corporation for low-income housing tax credits, and State Apartment Incentive loans to obtain the applicable subsidies that are necessary in order to make this project a reality. We are proposing in our covenant to develop 40 percent of the resi -- of the actual dwelling units, which are approximately 120 -- 92 rental units between 40 percent and 60 percent AMI (area median income), which is low-income housing, and that is, again, a requirement that we are agreeing to apply for. The fallback position is 40 percent of affordable and workforce housing units. Of the total, that AMI is between 40 percent and 140 percent. That is not our intent. Our intent is to apply immediately for the low- income housing subsidies that -- again, the application process begins now in the month of November. What we have done as part of our covenant which is new and, we hope, is -- was intended to address the residents' concerns is that if the tenant or the owner fail to obtain a building permit to build this project before you, the zoning will become null and void after a term of five years. So basically, what that does is give us the opportunity to work collaboratively, not only with our State representatives and our County; and you all, as City Commissioners, as well as the residents to obtain the subsidies needed to make this an affordable housing project of -- again, 40 percent of the units being affordable housing, but if that -- we are not able to accomplish that in five years, then this covenant and the rezoning that is the subject of this covenant is no longer. And the intent of that is to again assure the residences [sic] that we intend to preserve the nature of Historical Coconut Grove, provide the affordability that is necessary in the City of Miami, and specifically, in Coconut Grove. And with that, we've also agreed to the County requirements dealing with our workforce and Career Source South Florida, and it -- actually, the labor force that will be used to develop this project. We've also committed as -- what was required by the Miami -Dade County RFP (Request for Proposals) Number 207 that we would use best efforts to relocate the Frankie Rolle Center to a location that City of Miami Page 87 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 is accessible to the community that it serves within the Village West. We will work diligently to promote the use of the Metrorail station, which is what makes this a truly unique transit -oriented development project. Our goal is to redesign the pedestrian bridge to the Metrorail station to make it more attractive for our residents to utilize. And our goal is simply to move forward today so that we can have the opportunity to apply for the affordable housing credits so that we would be able to take advantage of this truly golden opportunity, where time is of the essence. We're available with a full presentation; we did make that at first reading. The site plan is ready to be approved, following this rezoning, through the waiver process, and we're available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And so, just to quantify the affordability a little bit better, and the teeth behind the covenant, as well, if you have 192 total units planned, you're setting aside 40 percent of those, no matter what. The question is at what level of affordability they get set aside to. So if you get the low-income housing tax credits that you would apply for, they would be between those units, those -- I guess that would be 77 units, if it's 40 percent of 192 -- would be between 40 to 60 percent ofAMI; is that correct? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: What does that translate to at, more or less, a dollar rent value for a one -bedroom? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Between 450 and 700 for a one -bedroom. Vice Chair Russell: And will there be a range, like, so that -- those 77 units, will there be a range of affordability throughout, or is it all at that target level of --? Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: It's for -- Well, basically, it's a process that the City and the County will take actual candidates that would actually be eligible for this kind of affordable housing, and depending on their income is what they would pay, so that's why it's a range. Vice Chair Russell: And if utilizing the low-income housing tax credits, this would preclude you from doing any local preference at all; is that correct, or would it not? Lenny Wolfe: Hi. I'm Lenny Wolfe, a partner at Platform 3750, LLC; 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida. There is no -- If I could understand the question, are we allowed to selectively pick people who can live there? The answer is, generally, no. I mean, we take a waiting list, we go down the waiting list. If you're qualified to live there, you know, one, two, three, four. If you're -- if all 60 or what -- however many people are qualified, then we're done with the list. But typically, what we do is put a sign up on the site a couple months in advance and take names and telephone numbers, and call the people back when we're ready to lease. Vice Chair Russell: That makes sure that they apply and that they get on the list, but in the case of the most -- previous affordable elderly structure that was built in that area, out of the 60-some units, we were lucky to get one or two people from the community in. And, really, that's partly -- part of what we're really trying to push here to stave off the displacement in the community. And I know HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) doesn't see it that way, unfortunately, so we're looking to make sure that whatever efforts can be made as we create affordability City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 that we -- you know, we don't lose it from this community, as well. I know it has to be made available to the County as a whole, but, you know, we need to do the best that we can. Mr. Wolfe: I think we can, and what we'll covenant to promise to do is to work with your Housing Department so that they have a heads up and a head start to be able to refer people over to us. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that's the issue that I and we have tackled. And if you remember, recently, we passed either a reso or an ordinance for preference for City residents, so maybe Mr. Mensah could come forward and define how we're using that preference, because that's exactly what I was facing. We would put "X" amount of monies towards affordable housing, and we realized that it wasn't necessarily helping City residents; it was other people from the County moving into the City, but our City residents that need it so badly were not being able to move in, so. George Mensah: Yes. George Mensah, director, Community and Economic Development. Yes, there is nothing that precludes them from providing a set -aside to City residents in general. What we can't do is to have a neighborhood preference, so we can't say that all the people in Coconut Grove or all the people in Overtown, or all the people in certain areas; that, we cannot do, but we can do a citywide preference, where we can say that a certain percentage should be of City residents. And also, there was an ordinance that was passed recently by City Commission that says that if we provide funding, then you have to make sure that the City units, there 100 percent City occupied. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. So that's important. Vice Chair Russell: That's one way to do it. Commissioner Carollo: That's important, and that's why I wanted him to come and speak, because we just passed that. So how can we work it into this project? Mr. Mensah: Well, I don't know their funding structure. If their funding structure definitely includes any of our funding, then we will ensure that the units that we have will be 100 percent City occupied. Vice Chair Russell: And that could include CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds or not? Mr. Mensah: If they're a -- If there's a nonprofit, yes; it could include CDBG funds. CDBG funds -- Vice Chair Russell: Anti poverty funds from my office? Mr. Mensah: Yeah, definitely. Vice Chair Russell: Won't go very far. Mr. Mensah: And then it also could include HOME (Home Investment Partnership Program) funds. City of Miami Page 89 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: HOME funds? HOME funds? Vice Chair Russell: HOME funds. Commissioner Carollo: HOME funds. Mr. Mensah: HOME funds. Vice Chair Russell: Any City -related funds. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, but I would look more towards HOME funds. Vice Chair Russell: HOME funds, yes, yes. Okay, let's work on that, because we're creating the affordability. Now we need to make sure we're not promoting displacement, as well. And so, that's very important to me, those 77 units. And if you don't get the low-income housing tax credits, they remain affordable; just potentially at a slightly different level -- or not even slightly. It goes from 60 percent up to 140. So what would it look like then in terms of a dollar for a single -bedroom, for example? Mr. Wolfe: Approximately 700 to 1,100, $1,200 a month. Vice Chair Russell: Right. At the low end, still very affordable; at the high end, not so much. Okay. Yeah, I want to work on that part of things. I thank you for coming as far as you have with the affordability, because I think this is a different picture than what we were looking at when this project first started. It's come a long way and I know it's been some time coming, but this is what we owe to this community, is the maximum amount of affordability that we can. That was the extent of my questions. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, I know you signaled, but I need to see what that gap is, and I need to really see the financing to see if that gap is real or not. Vice Chair Russell: You know, we are under a finding of necessity study right now with regard to the expansion of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) into this area, which would include this structure. And if all goes well, if we pass the finding of necessity, if it passes the City Commission, if it passes the County, there's a timeline that could see that CRA in existence as early as next spring or summer, and therein, we have the potential to incentivize affordability without using Federal funds, as well -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Russell: -- so just something on the horizon. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I just want to say that if we're able to get a project that's 40 or 60 percent AMI, which, obviously, would be the preference, it would not only not gentry; it would do the exact opposite, because you have no housing stock right now on that parcel, and you'd be adding, you know, extremely affordable housing stock to the Grove. City of Miami Page 90 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So it would be an -- That's why, when others have come, I've said, "Look, you know, Federal efforts have done exactly the opposite of what people think. You know, it would actually add affordable housing stock to the area." So the -- you know, I think that's significant, as well, to note for the record. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: As we've discussed, there's no displacement at this site. This is -- It was a commercial site; now, it's an office site. We're adding residential units, 40 percent of that to be affordable, preferably, and we've provided that five-year window to provide the community assurances that this is our intent; if not, the rezoning is no longer there. Vice Chair Russell: Of course. And if I misspoke, I want to be clear. This project would not displace anyone, no matter what. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: Displacement is happening just with the market as a whole. This project, if done right, can actually stave off some of that displacement by allow - - creating stock and allowing affordability in the area. Commissioner Suarez: And if I can just say one thing to the last thing that you just said before you spoke, Vice Chair, I've never seen anybody do that. That's about as bold a bet as I've seen anybody make on a zoning issue, to say, "Look, we either deliver within a certain period of time or it goes away." I've never seen anybody do that. I think it should be done more, but I've never seen anybody do that. I want to commend you for doing that. Vice Chair Russell: No, I'm -- Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: We thought that that was the only way to really address -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- the community's concerns and -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- this is a prospective lessee. This is a County -owned property. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: If he's the one who's going through -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- this rezoning process -- Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: -- if we can't deliver, then we can't deliver. City of Miami Page 91 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense. I just wanted to highlight the uniqueness of it. Commissioner Gort: Do you need a motion? Vice Chair Russell: Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Vice Chair Russell: -- and seconded. Any further discussion from the dais? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Vice Chair Russell: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Unidentified Speaker: Nay. Vice Chair Russell: Is that one? Commissioner Suarez: 1 and 2, or both? Commissioner Gort: No, that was from the public. Mr. Min: That was a member of the public. Vice Chair Russell: Oh, that was a member of the public. So we have -- Commissioner Suarez: Is that 1 and 2? Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): I have that 4-0; Chair Hardemon voting 'yes," with Commissioner Carollo absent. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Is that 1 and 2? Is that 1 and 2? Mr. Hannon: No, no, no; that's just PZ.1. Commissioner Gort: Moved one. Vice Chair Russell: Motion passes. Commissioner Suarez: Then there's PZ.2. Vice Chair Russell: Motion passes. City of Miami Page 92 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1674 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE Planning and NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING Png 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. ENACTMENT NUMBER: 13701 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.2, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)" and item PZ.1. Chair Hardemon: It's -- The motion's been made to approve PZ.2; seconded by the Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Is -- Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Is that as amended, with the -- accepting the voluntary covenant? Lenny Wolfe: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Melissa Tapanes-Llahues: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: And can you read it into the record, please? Mr. Min: Yes, sir. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Commissioner Suarez: Let's go ahead and call the roll. Chair Hardemon: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City of Miami Page 93 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.3 1035 Department of Planning and Zoning Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Thankyou. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Record that as 5-0, as amended. Ms. Tapanes-Llahues: Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: Correct. Thank you very much. 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 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, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Gort Note for the Record: Item PZ.3 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.3, please see "PART B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 94 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.4 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1036 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING Planning and CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-O "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - Zoning OPEN" WITH A NCD-2 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY TO T4-R "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED" WITH A NCD-2 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3860, 3850, 3840, AND 3830 DAY AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND FROM T3-O "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" WITH A NCD-2 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY TO T4-O "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" WITH A NCD-2 COCONUT GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 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, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Gort Note for the Record: Item PZ.4 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.4, please see "PART B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 95 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.5 ORDINANCE Second Reading 1220 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI Planning and DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ("DDRI"), ENCOMPASSING Plan Pl anng 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 FOR A TERMINATION DATE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Continue RESULT: CONTINUED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Gort Note for the Record: Item PZ.5 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.5, please see "PART B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." City of Miami Page 96 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.6 2508 Department of Planning and Zoning PZ.7 2826 Department of Planning and Zoning RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING/DENYING THE APPEAL OF WARRANT NO. 2017-0004 ISSUED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4, TABLE 3 OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("MIAMI 21 CODE"), TO ALLOW A FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED WITHIN A D3 ("WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL") TRANSECT ZONE AND PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6, SECTION 6.3.2 OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE TO ALLOW AN OUTDOOR DINING AREA AND THE DISPLAY AND SALE OF ITEMS FROM VENDING CARTS; A WAIVER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.2.8(B) OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE TO ALLOW THE ADAPTIVE USE TO A RESTAURANT USE IN A D3 ("WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL") TRANSECT ZONE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125, 127, AND 131 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Defer RESULT: DEFERRED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Gort Note for the Record: Item PZ.6 was deferred to the October 12, 2017, Regular Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.6, please see "PART B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE CLOSING AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC ALLEY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF NORTHWEST 42 AVENUE (LE JEUNE ROAD) FROM WEST FLAGLER STREET TO NORTHWEST 1 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A." ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0476 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez City of Miami Page 97 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.7, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: Now here we are with this issue of PZ.7. There was earlier some remarks that were made on the record. I just want to understand, Mr. Garcia, where we are. Just give us the lay of the land so we know what's actually happening right now. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Certainly, sir. Item PZ.7 is a proposal to close and vacate a portion of an alleyway, and it is for a property at approximately 10 Northwest 42nd Avenue. It is a partial closure, and as part of the re platting process, there had been a set of both conditions and restrictions placed on the closure that has to do with retaining access considerations for abutting property owners that may rely on the alleyway, itself. I understand that, as has been presented, there are some pending legal issues, and I will defer to either them or the City Attorney's Office to address those. Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): So it's my position on behalf of the City that the legal issues have nothing to do with the matter that is before you today. There is pending litigation concerning a demolition permit, but the demolition permit is not before you today. The pending litigation has nothing to do with the street closure, which is what is before you today. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a question of the City Attorney? If we were to approve the street closure, does that prejudice either party -- or does that prejudice the litigating party in any way? Mr. Min: From the City of Miami's perspective, no; it does not. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Chair Hardemon: All right. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, you want to hear testimony? You want me to make a motion? What do you want me to do? Chair Hardemon: No. This is a resolution. Mr. Garcia: Simply to complete my part of the presentation, I will add for the record that this has been reviewed and recommended for approval by all the lower boards, including both your Public Works Department and your Planning & Zoning Department, and the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. Chair Hardemon: The Chair is always willing to hear a motion. Commissioner Suarez: So let me just say a couple things. I mean, I'm more than happy to hear from both sides, but I've always been a proponent of alley closures. Let me ask you this question: Does -- Is there any -- Do you have any consternation about who has applied for this closure? Is there any --? Go ahead. Mr. Min: Again, from the City of Miami perspective, no; there's no concern. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Because it seems like that's one of the things that they're arguing. And you're saying that no one's prejudiced -- According to you -- And according to you, no one is prejudiced by us making this decision today? City of Miami Page 98 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Min: Correct, because the -- Again, the litigation concerns a demolition permit, and whether or not this alley vacation is granted or denied, the demolition permit is not affected. Commissioner Suarez: And what you're saying, also, then, is that -- Because it seems -- it's -- Usually, alley closures are not controversial and they're usually not contested, and I'm a big proponent of them. This one is, obviously, unique, in that there is litigation, apparently. What you're saying, Mr. Planning Director, is that -- And it's true what you said -- that it's hard for me to go against the Planning & Zoning Board's recommendation, the Plat & Streets' recommendation, and the Planning director's recommendation, which are all essentially in line with each other. You, however, recommended -- or the Planning -- I think it's the Planning & Zoning Board recommended it with conditions, which were to maintain access; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Correct. And those conditions are contained on the record, all the way down to the lower boards. They are technical considerations, and they have been included on the record, as well. Commissioner Suarez: Anybody have an issue with that? Bob de la Fuente: I do. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. You have an issue with having -- maintaining access to that? Mr. de la Fuente: Well, it's the kind of access and it's the impact on our building as a whole, because when -- Commissioner Suarez: What kind of access? Chair Hardemon: And can you state --? And state your name on the record. Mr. de la Fuente: Oh. Bob de la Fuente; law offices at 1111 Brickell Avenue. For a little bit of background, I mentioned earlier that this development that's being proposed -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. de la Fuente: -- is the -- is applying for this alley closure -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. de la Fuente: -- is part of a unified site plan, along with my client's property. Commissioner Suarez: Understood. Mr. de la Fuente: Our client's property is connected to the building that Mr. Min alluded to. Commissioner Suarez: I saw the -- I saw your presentation. Mr. de la Fuente: Okay. So our issue with any access at all is while there may be access in the alley, this development that's being proposed, of which the alley closure is a part of would completely eliminate all the parking that is used for our building. No more parking would be provided for our building. City of Miami Page 99 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: But -- Mr. de la Fuente: Every single parking spot is accounted for under the unified site plan. So without -- Commissioner Suarez: But I'm having a hard -- There's no cars that are parked right now in the alley, correct? Mr. de la Fuente: No, it's -- No, no, no. Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. de la Fuente: However, the alley closure is part of -- Commissioner Suarez: A unified site plan. I got it. Mr. de la Fuente: Right. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. de la Fuente: So it's part of the unified development they want to do now, which excludes our parcel. Commissioner Suarez: Understood. Mr. de la Fuente: Right. Commissioner Suarez: But if we vacated the alley, how does that affect your site plan? Mr. de la Fuente: It affects it, because it's part of a redevelopment of the site, which includes us, and we don't even know -- honestly, we don't know how it affects us, because no parking's been granted to us. There's been no plan. No involvement was granted to our client in the redevelopment of their property, so we've been completely excluded. Commissioner Suarez: Right. But I'm saying, right now, it's a public alley, so you definitely can't park cars there. Mr. de la Fuente: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Okay? Mr. de la Fuente: And we aren't planning on parking there. Right. Commissioner Suarez: But you just said that it's part of your unified site plan to park cars there. Mr. de la Fuente: No, no. As -- to access the parking lot, to access -- It's just part of the circulation of the site. Commissioner Suarez: I'm -- now you lost me. Mr. de la Fuente: Well, let me start over. The unified site plan -- it's a site plan, right? City of Miami Page 100 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. de la Fuente: In order to modify the unified site plan, every party who benefits from that site plan should participate in the modification. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. de la Fuente: And we have not been able to participate. Commissioner Suarez: But what does that have to do with vacating an alley? Mr. de la Fuente: Because it's our position that by vacating that alley, they further erode our rights under the unified site plan to access the parking spots that we have a vested right to. Commissioner Suarez: But that's the part where I get a little confused, because if this is a public alley right now and it is reverting to a private entity -- presumably, the owners of that unified site plan -- then how is it in any way prejudicing you? Mr. de la Fuente: Because that's part of a development that's going to eliminate all the other parking spots, and they're not granting us any rights to use those parking spots. Chair Hardemon: Are you saying the private --? Commissioner Suarez: But that's a private dispute between the two parties. Chair Hardemon: Right. Are you saying the parking spots, or is eliminating the alleyway going to create a land -lock situation for you? Commissioner Suarez: Here is my issue: I think -- and, you know, I respect you. I think you're a wonderful advocate, and I hear that there's some sort of a disagreement between the two private parties. I don't see how vacating an alley hurts you in any way; I think it actually helps you. I mean, you may still have some sort of a dispute between you as to how the unified site plan is going to go forward, but I don't see how vacating what is otherwise a public alley, which you cannot park on right now; you cannot do anything on, other than ingress and egress -- And by the way, that's not even being infringed, because part of your recommendation is -- a condition is that that ingress and egress still be maintained; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: That is correct, sir. And if I can distill that into a quick sentence, as a result of the action proposed to you today, the access component of the alleyway will be disturbed in no way, whatsoever. It will be rendered essentially the same. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I move the item. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved -- Vice Chair Russell: I second it. Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded by the Vice Chairman. Mr. Garcia, are there any other -- This application, there's only one party; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: This application stands on its own. It is a part of a larger process, which is a re platting of the subject property. City of Miami Page 101 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Well, what I'm saying to you, there's no other person that's required to give testimony for this application? Mr. Garcia: That is correct, sir, because the applicants are the property owners on both sides of the alleyway; and therefore, property would revert to them. Commissioner Suarez: And again, I just want to clarify for the record, Mr. Chair, that -- You said it's part of a larger process. I just want to make sure that this does not prejudice in any way that larger process. Mr. Garcia: The larger process, to clarify, being the re platting of the subject property. Commissioner Suarez: And if they have disputes among themselves, those are preserved for purposes of their ability to go forward and figure that out on their own? Mr. Garcia: Correct. And it is also our position that this -- what is before you today Commissioner Suarez: I'm comfortable. Mr. Garcia: -- affects it in no way, whatsoever. Commissioner Suarez: I'm comfortable. Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Min: May I clarify some issues, Mr. Chairman? The legislation that is before you has no conditions, other than the -- It has to be recorded within four years of the legislation -- I'm sorry -- the tentative plat. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Min: Are there any conditions that the body wishes to impose? Commissioner Suarez: So my motion is approving it with the conditions as stated by the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Min: Thank you. And just so the record is clear, since I see a court reporter, the legislative body is relying upon the record that is before you, which includes the record before Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, as well as the Plat and Street Committee. Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. I think it's a very ample record. Mr. Min: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended. Commissioner Gort: Great presentation. City of Miami Page 102 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. de la Fuente: Thank you very much. PZ.8 ORDINANCE Second Reading 2845 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING Planning and Zoning CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1502 NORTHEAST MIAMI PLACE, 1512 NORTHEAST MIAMI PLACE, 1523 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT, AND 47 NORTHEAST 15 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," FROM "T6-24A-O," URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE -A -OPEN, TO "T6-24B-O," URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE-B-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: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.8, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s). " Chair Hardemon: Can we have PZ.8 read into the record, please? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Item PZ.8 is before you on first reading. It is an ordinance applying for the rezoning of a property at 1512 Northeast Miami Place, 1523 Northeast Miami Court, and 47 Northeast 15th Street. The request is to change the zoning designation from what it is presently, which is T6-24 A-O to T6-24-B-O. The recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Department is for denial; however, the recommendation of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board is for approval. I'll explain that the reason for the recommendation for denial is because it is on a stand-alone basis. And although it qualifies for a said application by virtue of complying with all the requirements of Miami 21 in terms of size and area, et cetera, it is not contiguous, generally speaking, to other areas that are T6-24-B-O. To put it context, however, it is part of an area that is intended to, in the end, be rezoned to T6-24-B-O; that just hasn't happened yet. So although our recommendation for denial -- or the Planning & Zoning Department's recommendation for denial is, more than anything else, for technical merit, in the end, the substance of the application is completely in agreement with the intent for the area. And I will emphasize that the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board took that into consideration, as well as the covenant proffered by the applicants. Iris Escarra: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Iris Escarra, with Zaba Castro, from Greenberg, Traurig, 333 Southeast 2nd Avenue. I'm joined this evening by Carlos and Martin Mello. This is actually the third project of a four phase project. They have actually developed the Melody Project, which is over here, which is up and running. Square Station, which was the first project that you all saw, has already topped off, and should be completed early next year. Art Plaza, you recently saw. And this is Miami Plaza. This is a new building. It would be 437 units. It'll City of Miami Page 103 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 actually complete the three phases here, and there will be a total of 250 workforce housing units, brand new to the City, to the Omni area, once the three towers are completed. Specifically, this tower will be providing 61 units, because it's 437 units. The other two provided 99 and 91, relative to the total number of units in the building. One other thing -- in each of the buildings. Each building has its own percentage. One of the things that I wanted to highlight, which I know you are familiar with, but the record reflects we're located in the Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). We're all located in an increased density area. We have a Metromover literally across the street from this particular site that people will be able to cross the street and access. It's a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And this is the area where really a lot of development is coming in, and we would appreciate a support recommendation for the rezoning. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. The covenant allows for 14 percent workforce housing in the project. I'll move the item. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded by -- Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- well, seconded by Commissioner Gort. Any further discussion regarding the motion on the floor? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. Ms. Escarra: Thank you very much, everyone. Chair Hardemon: You're welcome. City of Miami Page 104 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 2846 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Department of ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS Planning and AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI Png COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 0.38 ± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 460, 480, AND 490 NORTHEAST 61 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION"; MAKING FINDINGS; 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: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Russell, Suarez Chair Hardemon: Read PZ.9 into the record, please. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.9 and PZ.10 are companion items. They are respectively a land use change and a zoning change for properties at 460, 480, and 490 Northeast 61 st Street. The change proposed in terms of land use designation is from medium density multifamily residential, which it is today, to public parks and recreation. And consequently, in the zoning side, it is from T4-R to CS, or civic space zone. This is to complete the Eaton Park, the existing Eaton Park, to complete the whole park. And the recommendations have been from -- for approval, both by your Planning & Zoning Department, as well as the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board. Chair Hardemon: So the City of Miami owns all parcels within it? Mr. Garcia: That is correct, sir. It is a City application. Chair Hardemon: The Chair would like to entertain a motion to -- Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: -- approve it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve PZ9. Seeing no further discussion, City Attorney, please read it into -- The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the motion, say "aye." City of Miami Page 105 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against the motion? Motion passes. PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading 2847 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 0.38 ± ACRES OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 460, 480, AND 490 NORTHEAST 61 STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," FROM T4-R, "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED," TO CS, "CIVIC SPACE ZONE"; MAKING FINDINGS; 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: Frank Carollo, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Russell, Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.10, please see item PZ.9. Chair Hardemon: The Chair would entertain a motion to approve PZ.10. Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve PZ.10. If there's no further discussion about the item, City Attorney, please read it into the record. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 106 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.11 ORDINANCE First Reading 2848 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING Department of ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE Planning and MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, Png PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 104 NW 1 AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION" WITH AN URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ("UCBD") OVERLAY TO "CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT" WITH AN "UCBD" OVERLAY, THUS REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 13473, ADOPTED ON JUNE 24, 2014; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Chair Hardemon: PZ.11. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Items PZ.11 and PZ.12 are companion land use and zoning changes for a property at 104 Northwest 1st Avenue, owned by the City of Miami, before you on first reading. This is a proposed change from the existing zoning designation, which is CS, civic space to T6-8-O, which is the urban core transect zone, open. And on the land use side, the proposal is to go from parks and public -- I'm sorry -- public and parks -- I'm sorry - - public parks and recreation within the Urban Central Business District to Central Business District -- also within the Urban Central Business District. Our recommendation is for approval, and the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board failed to make a recommendation, as they had a tie vote of 4-4. The net loss of park space is more than compensated by the previous proposal, so that would leave us concurrent as pertains to our Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. I'll answer any questions. Chair Hardemon: Is there any discussion about this item? Vice Chair Russell: No. I'll move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by the Vice Chairman. Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: Seconded by Commissioner Gort. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Chair Hardemon: All in favor of the motion, say "aye." City of Miami Page 107 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Against? Motion passes. PZ.12 ORDINANCE First Reading 2849 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 CS, "CIVIC SPACE ZONE," TO T6-80-0, "URBAN CORE ZONE," FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 104 NORTHWEST 1 AVENUE, MIAMI FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO: Pass on First Reading RESULT: PASSED ON FIRST READING MOVER: Frank Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo ABSENT: Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.12, please see item PZ.11. Chair Hardemon: PZ.12. Can you read the ordinance into the record, PZ.12? The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min. Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to approve it? Commissioner Carollo: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by -- Vice Chair Russell: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Carollo and seconded by the Vice Chairman. All in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 108 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 PZ.13 2879 Department of Planning and Zoning RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF WARRANT NO. 2017-0002 PURSUANT TO APPENDIX A, SECTION 3.6.G.1 OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA ("MIAMI 21 CODE"), TO ALLOW FOR THE DIMINISHMENT OF A BUILDING SITE LOCATED WITHIN A T3-R, "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE," WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT-3, "NCD-3," FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3501, 3511, AND 3521 AVOCADO AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0477 MOTION TO: Adopt with Modification(s) RESULT: ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATION(S) MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort ABSENT: Carollo, Suarez Note for the Record: For additional minutes referencing item PZ.13, please see "Public Comment Period for Planning and Zoning Item(s)." Chair Hardemon: PZ.13. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Item PZ.13 is before you as a resolution. It is an appeal of the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board denial of an appeal to the Planning & Zoning Department's issuance of a warrant -- rather denial to issue a warrant -- applying for the subdivision of an existing single-family residential unified building site from the one site that it is presently to three separate lots. I'd like to take an additional moment to describe to you some of the particulars of this application, and then yield to the appellant -- or perhaps, I should have the appellant -- Chair Hardemon: Appellant. Mr. Garcia: -- make a presentation first, do you think? I'll also describe a couple of the items that I believe are the subject of this appeal. Again, the application -- the original application was for a warrant, which is required for the subdivision of parcels within the Neighborhood Conservation District 2 and the Neighborhood Conservation District 3 in Coconut Grove. The existing building site is 21,000 square feet, and it is composed of three platted lots of 7,000 square feet each in area. There was a unity of title for the three lots, which was dissolved in December 2015. Two of the lots -- Lots 11 and 12 -- contained a single-family residence. All three sites, pursuant to Miami 21 and the Neighborhood Conservation District 3, which they are under, comprise a single building site, which is a -- certainly, a relevant fact. The applicant had requested to have the site revert back to its original three 7,000-square foot platted lots. However, in conducting our research and analysis for the warrant request, we identified that the context of the area is such that the average lot size is of 8,586 square feet. Thus, a 7, 000-square foot request was under the average. And we had expressed to the applicant that we could support -- we, the City of Miami Page 109 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Planning & Zoning Department could support the subdivision to two lots of 10,000 square each, approximately -- 2,000 square feet each, approximately. However, the applicant failed to move forward on that application, and to the best of our knowledge, insisted on the three lots. I will tell you again, having mentioned that the average lot size is roughly 8,500 square feet -- a little more than that -- the site finds that there are a number of sites to the west, which are smaller in size; and some to the east, which are much larger in size. In our best effort to keep the character and context of the area in general, we strongly believe that the subdivision to two lots is the much preferred; and, certainly, the appropriate action to take, vis-a-vis the regulations that apply. With that, I will yield to the appellant, and certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia -- if I may, Mr. Chairman -- you mentioned that the average lot size is 8,500, but I'm already seeing signage up here that says the average lot size, according to Miami 21, is 6,500. What do we -- What system do we use to calculate that average lot size? What radius do we go out to, and how do we make that number? Mr. Garcia: Correct. And thank you for asking the question, because I expect that might be the grounds for a challenge. And so, what I will tell you is that this is not necessarily an exact science, and it is certainly not intended to compare the subject site vis-a-vis any site in the City of Miami, nor even the subject site to all the sites within the Neighborhood Conservation District. Rather, what it does is it compels us to take a look at the context and the character of the site. And so, what we do is we take a sampling of properties adjacent to the subject site, the site that's being requested for subdivision, and within a radius, we try to discern what the original platting intent of the area was as part of the subdivision of the area in general; and also, the edification, settling pattern of the site. And that is what yielded a conclusion that it should be as close as possible to 10,000 square feet. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: All right. So I want to bring my attention to the appellant. Maria Gralia: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, my name is Maria Gralia, with offices at 150 West Flagler Street. I represent the applicant, which is Avocado Property Management, LLC (Limited Liability Company). With me here today is the project architect, William Arthur, as well as the principal of Avocado, Amanda de Seta. We also brought an arborist that can, you know, answer any questions that you may have concerning the tree canopy of this project. As you heard, this is an appeal, pursuant to 71.2.4E [sic] of a decision of the Planning Appeals and Zoning Board regarding the properties located at 3501, 3511, 3521 Avocado Avenue. Of course, that was an appeal from a final decision on a warrant that was denied by the Planning Department. This is a de novo review. Therefore -- I don't have to tell you what that is, but you get to see this fresh and make your own determination, based on the evidence we present here tonight. Before I call William to present the project to you to show that we are in complete compliance of Miami 21 and the NCD (Neighborhood Conservation District)-3 District, and the regulations contained -- all the criteria contained in Article 4, Table 12 of Miami 21. Now, I'd like to just set how I think this is going to proceed. After William's presentation, I would like to cross-examine staff, so I will be cross-examining the Zoning administrator, Mr. Devin Cejas, as well as the Planning & Zoning director, Mr. Garcia. Then after that, I understand that there could be some witnesses of -- you know, Mr. Tucker Gibbs is here. There are certain neighbors that are opposed to this project. I believe they're going to be testifying as witnesses. If they do testify as witnesses, I'd like the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, as well, if they're going to be providing expert testimony. If they do not provide expert City of Miami Page 110 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 testimony and they're only making public commentary, I will object to any public commentary, as that was supposed to take place at the beginning of the public hearing, as you mentioned, so I just want to -- Tucker Gibbs: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair -- Chair Hardemon: Don't interrupt her. Mr. Gibbs: -- I just want to ask one question. Chair Hardemon: Let's not interrupt right now, because I want to let her finish. I'm going to take a brief -- Mr. Gibbs: Her characterization to my clients as experts is inaccurate, and I just wanted to correct the record, because this is going to -- if it goes to court, it's a record -based proceeding. The fact is my clients are not experts. They are people -- they are lay -- it's going to be lay testimony, based on facts. Chair Hardemon: I mean, there was nothing that she -- I didn't hear it the way that you heard it. Maybe I was -- Mr. Gibbs: She referred to as experts. That's all -- Ms. Gralia: I said, any witnesses or expert witnesses -- Chair Hardemon: Or expert, okay. Ms. Gralia: -- that will be testifying, I'd like to be -- have the opportunity to cross- examine those witnesses. Chair Hardemon: That's the way I heard it. Ms. Gralia: If they're giving just commentary, then I object to any commentary given, if they're not testing as witnesses, and that's what I'm addressing. So what I'd like to do now is call the architect. Chair Hardemon: Before you move to your case in chief -- Ms. Gralia: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- I appreciate the way that you've painted the picture of where you're going to go. I'll allow the appellee to describe what you intend on proving or disproving here today, and then I'll come back to you -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- as the appellant, so you can bring your case in chief and bring your witnesses. Is that --? Ms. Gralia: Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: My name is Tucker Gibbs. I'm an attorney representing the neighbors to this project; the neighbors immediately to the west, and -- Chair Hardemon: And they are the appellants -- Mr. Gibbs: They are the -- City of Miami Page 111 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- the appellees. I'm sorry. Mr. Gibbs: -- appellees. Chair Hardemon: Okay, fine. Mr. Gibbs: And I hate to put -- Ms. Gralia: They're technically not. Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Ms. Gralia: They're not appellees. The City is the appellee. I'm the appellant. It's the City. This is a denial of a warrant, so -- Mr. Gibbs: Having said that, my clients, as the immediate abutting property owner, and I think you will hear testimony that will show why they should have party status. I don't want to get into it now, but they relied on certain documents that are going to be discussed by the appellant. Chair Hardemon: So -- Mr. Gibbs: However you want to handle it is fine with us. Chair Hardemon: -- before you move forward, Mr. Garcia, the City is the appellee? Mr. Garcia: Correct. The City; more specifically, the Planning & Zoning Department; more specifically, the Planning & Zoning director is the issuer of the warrant that is being appealed. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So at this time, counsel is not representing a party to this matter. He's saying that he wants to intervene; is that what --? He's asking for intervenor status, or what is he exactly asking for here? Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): I believe that's what I heard, but without those words; yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Gibbs: That's fine, and that's correct. Chair Hardemon: And so, I think we have to address that first before we allow you to get into any substantive argument. So as I understand it, you're requesting an intervenor status for the neighbors. So is there -- Do you want to provide any testimony to show that any of the -- that you are -- Well, I'll allow the City Attorney to kind of go through what it takes to gain intervenor status, but I'm hoping that you have someone that is directly abutting, maybe, the subject property and is going to have some sort of great -- Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- hardship. Ms. Gralia: Can -- City of Miami Page 112 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: Well, not a hardship. My clients live next door and they -- When they purchased their property, they were assured that this property would remain one lot with one building, and they -- in reliance on that, they purchased their property. And my client, Carla D'Andre, is here, and she's willing to testify to that fact. Chair Hardemon: So what we'll do first -- Mr. Gibbs: Oh -- Chair Hardemon: -- may we please take down these demonstratives so I can see what's --? Ms. Gralia: Can -- That's fine, but can I ask a question first of the City Attorney? I - - you know, I don't know where in the Code you get intervenor status. We're not in a court of law. I understand that you would -- if they were an interested party there, they would get intervenor status. They are interested parties, only because they are adjacent to this party [sic], but I think there's a legal terminology of "intervenor status," and I don't want to say that I agree with that, because I don't think I agree with that. Chair Hardemon: The -- There is. We have case law -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- that we'll get into addressing. You'll have an opportunity to object to intervenor status -- Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- and you can cross-examine the witnesses and determine whether or not they have intervenor status, but first I'd like to remove the demonstratives so -- Ms. Gralia: Absolutely. Chair Hardemon: -- I can see what's behind, and then, what we'll do is allow -- We'll probably have to allow counselor to put on the testimony to try to request the intervenor status; then we'll determine whether or not, from this board's decision - making and from cross-examination, whether or not that status is warranted. So -- Mr. Gibbs: That's fine. Chair Hardemon: -- I'll allow some guidance by the City Attorney. Mr. Min: If you want to try and speed things up, because I know we have a long agenda still, I don't know if the Commission would consider a proffer by Mr. Gibbs, rather than taking testimony, if that would potentially satisfy the needs. Obviously, I understand Ms. Gralia's position, so she may object to that, but I'm simply proposing that as an option. Mr. Gibbs: My -- I'm sorry, I didn't hear you Barn -- Mr. Min. Mr. Min: Rather than taking testimony from witnesses, which can be time consuming, if you want to just give a proffer, as far as what the -- Mr. Gibbs: I'll let her speak and I'll let her proffer. And excuse me while I just talk to my client and let her know. Ms. D'Andre is going to speak, and she's going to City of Miami Page 113 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 address two things. She's going to address her location, adjacent to the property. She's also going to talk to you all about her interest. Her interest, she's going to explain, and I'm going to tell you her interest is different than the community at large. She has an interest that is not shared by the community at large, because she lives next door, and when she purchased the property, she relied on certain representations as to the lot, and whether the lot would remain for one house, or would it be able to be split. Chair Hardemon: Now, when you say, "relied on representations that the lot would not be split," who did you rely on that from? Mr. Gibbs: She relied on it -- She relied on the property owner, Mr. -- What was the gentleman's name? Carla D'Andre: Michael La Roca. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Michael La Roca, who is the gentleman who owned the property next door at the time. He's also the person who was the -- I don't want to say what he was. He was a party in the unity of title, which is at issue here, and they purchased their home from Mr. La Roca, and Mr. La Roca told them that they would have no worry about this property having anything more than one house on it, and they actually were given a copy of a unity of title, which was later dissolved by the court. But they were told by Mr. La Roca, who owned both Lot 10 and their property that, "You don't have to worry about it." So they went and they purchased that property, and they relied on the representations made by the person who was a party to that unity of title and that's what she would test fy to, and that makes her interest in this matter different than the community at large; that's bottom line. Chair Hardemon: So there is a unity of title between three -- Mr. Gibbs: There was a unity of title. Chair Hardemon: -- adjacent -- this is among three adjacent parcels of land. Mr. Gibbs: I'm getting into her case in chief when I made that -- Chair Hardemon: Well -- Mr. Gibbs: -- because that's the only reason why I did it; for the standing issue. Chair Hardemon: Right, right. Now -- Ms. Gralia: IfI may clarify, the unity of title is not -- wasn't with -- between her and Mr. La Roca. It was between Mr. La Roca and a predecessor, in interest to my -- to the property that we're here about today. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Gralia: So there's no -- Mr. Gibbs: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gralia: -- privity of contract. And this is very important, because it's very nice to say that she was told. I could be told a lot of things, but if you don't have something -- There was no privity of contract between the witness that we're talking about, Ms. D'Andre -- City of Miami Page 114 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: Ms. D'Andre. Ms. Gralia: There was no privity of contract between Ms. D'Andre and Mr. La Roca or the predecessors in interest as to that unity of title, so she has absolutely no say. If she wanted to be secured and made sure that that lot was never to be developed, she would've had an opportunity, because at that time, he could have sold it to her. Chair Hardemon: So how many square feet is the lot that's in question that you all represent? Ms. Gralia: The lot in question that they're talking is Lot 10. She lives on a property that is adjacent to Lot 10; that would be Lot 8 and 9. Lot 10 -- The owner of the property where Ms. Andre [sic] lives, sold that property to Ms. Andre [sic], Lot -- Here, I can show you. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Yes, okay. Ms. Gralia: All right. So this is Ms. Andre's [sic] property, okay. So it composes Lot 9 and 8, and I believe it's some of Lot 7. If you notice, Lot 7 is split. She purchased -- She has a portion of Lot 7; Lot 8; Lot 9. We -- our -- My client owns Lot 10, 11, and 12. Mr. La Roca sold -- and this is really important -- In 2000, there is a deed that goes to someone -- I suppose it's Ms. Andre [sic] -- in 2000; doesn't get recorded until 2010. He sells these lots to Ms. Andre [sic] sometime in 2000; deed doesn't get recorded. He then sells these two lots, 11 and 12, to our predecessor in interest, which is J&J. Our predecessor in interest decides that they also want to buy Lot 10. There is a house that encompasses Lots 11 and 12, and he says, "I want to buy Lot 10." Interestingly enough, Mr. La Roca says, "Okay, I'll sell you Lot 10, but first, I want you to execute a unity of title," which our predecessor in interest does. He executes a unity of title, combining Lot 10, 11, and 12. Then in -- little bit after that, they demolish this house, okay? Chair Hardemon: What year? Ms. Gralia: My client comes in -- Chair Hardemon: The question was, what year? Ms. Gralia: 2010. When was --? Unidentified Speaker: 2015. Ms. Gralia: 2015, the house is demolished. Mr. Gibbs: Wait, wait. What year was it demolished? Ms. Gralia: 2015. Mr. Gibbs: Oh. I thought someone said, 2010. Okay. Ms. Gralia: 2015. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Ms. Gralia: Okay? My client goes to court, because she's got three legally platted lots. She speaks to Mr. -- the predecessors in interest, and they say, "We don't care. We don't care about that unity of title. Go get it released from Mr. La Roca." They go to Mr. La Roca, and he says, "Yeah. That was just between me and your City of Miami Page 115 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 predecessor in interest. I don't care about that unity of title." We go to court and we do a quiet title action. We win in court; and not only do we win in court, the court says, "It is invalid forever. It should have never been entered. It was a unity of title between two of these properties; and therefore, it's been released forever, like it never existed." So for them to come in here and say that they had some interest in Lot 10, because there was a unity of title between these two property owners is disingenuous. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that. What I said was, "My clients relied on a document that, at the time, had not been withdrawn, had not been dissolved when they purchased their property. That gives them an interest in this action." This action has nothing to do with the status in terms of whether that" -- Vice Chair Russell: What's the document? Mr. Gibbs: It's not a property issue. This is a zoning issue. Chair Hardemon: Right. A zoning -- Mr. Gibbs: And so, for that reason -- Chair Hardemon: -- I want to be clear. The unity of title argument, it appears to me that -- I mean, all of that is a foregone issue. So what we need to determine right now is whether or not you have standing, based upon what potential development is going to be here, and the effect that it has on the adjoining -- the -- Mr. Gibbs: That's right. Chair Hardemon: -- adjacent property. So do you have all the information that the board should consider when making the decision about intervenor status? Do you have --? You remember, it was a -- Mr. Min: You want the case law? Chair Hardemon: Correct. Do you have law --? Mr. Min: I don't have it with me, but I can get it for you. But as a summary -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Min: -- I believe there were some statements that were made, which are accurate. The proposed intervenor needs to demonstrate why he or she has a position that is greater in interest than any other member of the public would have. You know, is there something special? Is there something different? Is there something unique about this individual's status that is different from any other member of the public? Mr. Gibbs: And our position is that their reliance in 2005 -- Unidentified Speaker: 2010. Mr. Gibbs: -- in 2010 -- there was a type on that deed -- 2010, their reliance on this, that's why they bought the property. I'm not saying if it's valid or not. They relied on it at the time, and their interest, though, is, "We live" -- "We bought this property with the understanding that it was always going to be one lot." Therefore, their interest in this zoning matter is different than any other person in Miami -Dade County, period, because they're the only ones who bought that property and they're City of Miami Page 116 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 the only ones who bought the property with the understanding that it would remain a property with one house on it, and that's the reason why I think they deserve intervenor status, because their interest is different. Ms. Gralia: And Mr. Chairman, I believe that they're not. Without anything, any privity of contract that shows that, they are situated the same as everybody else that lives in the NCD-3 District. There is nothing different about their position just because they're adjacent property. Chair Hardemon: And is this --? Mr. Gibbs: This isn't a contract, though. This isn't a contract. Chair Hardemon: Is there an injury that you're -- that is going to be had? Is there - Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- suffering? Mr. Gibbs: We're -- Right now, if this -- if you support the decision made by your staff and you make the determination that this is only one building site, then, yes; they would prefer -- it would make their position -- I guess they would be injured if there were three houses that were jammed in there, setback to setback, and right next to them. Right now, they have a situation where there was a house on Hibiscus, and the property behind them did not have a house on it; it was the backyard. So our position is that they're different -- their situation is certainly different than anybody, and the fact that they relied when they bought their property -- they're injured now. If you all vote to grant the appeal, they will be injured, because they will have a more dense use of the property next to them, which is out of the neighborhood context. They will have a more dense use of their project -- of their property when they're used to having one house next door to them, and they're now going to have three houses. NCD-3 specifically addresses that, and they are specifically affected by what NCD-3 tells them that they can have. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Please. Vice Chair Russell: I -- Maybe I missed a bit. I was curious. What is the document on which your client relied (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Mr. Gibbs: It was a unity of title. Vice Chair Russell: But that stated that it would never be --? Mr. Gibbs: That's correct. And I can provide you a copy of that -- Vice Chair Russell: So within the unity -- Mr. Garcia: -- and I think it's in the record. I think it's in the record. Vice Chair Russell: -- of title, it was stated that it would never be subdivided? City of Miami Page 117 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: It said it would be used for single-family only and it would be -- there'd be one house on the site. Vice Chair Russell: But that unity of title was struck down by a court; is that correct? Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Ms. Gralia: That is correct, and I will read you -- Mr. Gibbs: A year -- Ms. Gralia: -- so that I can -- So let's clan fy the record. I -- You know, if she wants to test fy about this -- but I'm not going to -- I'm going to object that she doesn't have any standing in this very proceeding. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Gralia: If they want to appeal whatever you all do -- If you decide to grant my appeal and allow us this warrant, they can appeal that decision; just like I had to appeal the decision from the Planning & Zoning Board; just like I had to appeal the decision of the Planning director. They have a right, under your Code, to appeal a decision here tonight. Chair Hardemon: Because, in fact, the Planning Department denied your application for -- Ms. Gralia: That is correct. Chair Hardemon: So you're not coming here as a successful party. Ms. Gralia: Of -- no. Chair Hardemon: Right. Okay. Ms. Gralia: And so, to answer your question, Chairman Russell, there was a unity of title. Like I said, it was issued by Mr. La Roca to our predecessors in interest, J&J. And in that unity of title, it was conditioned upon the sale of that property. And he said, "Look, for as long as you have this property, I want you to keep it as a single building site." And I want you to keep that in mind, because I'm going to -- This is going to go into my argument, and I don't want to get into my argument until later. But just to answer your question, that unity of title is no longer in existence, and you can't rely on that unity of title for anything, because a court of law, the Eleventh Circuit Court said -- and I'm going to quote from the court. It says, "The unity of title agreement, invalid, null and void, and having no force or effect as an unreasonable, restrained un" -- "alienation, cancelling and invalidating same forever, and forever quieting title to the property."; End of story; that is it. This document no longer exists. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman, she's correct; that document no longer exists. When my clients purchased their property, it was in existence. Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Gibbs: And at that time, they relied on it. And now, they are -- you -- Your staff has done an excellent job in making a determination that they go through a warrant process -- City of Miami Page 118 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Gibbs: -- and that they have to go and -- And if they want to separate it, they've got to go through this process. Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Gibbs: My clients are affected by that. That process, they believe -- and I believe -- they have a right to be involved in that process as an intervenor, because they're impacted. And quite frankly, if you have one buildable lot that's next to you and then you have three lots next to you, you will be impacted. Chair Hardemon: But it appears from the court that they never had one buildable lot. It appears the land was -- Mr. Gibbs: The existence -- but -- Chair Hardemon: -- expresses that -- Mr. Gibbs: -- the court reaches back and says, "They don't have that right." But this decision of the court doesn't say that. It says, "It's dead." This is a -- this unity of title is dead. But the fact is -- and you can't get around the fact -- when my clients bought their property in 2010 -- Chair Hardemon: Someone (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Gibbs: -- it was alive and they relied on it, and they had no way of knowing that this unity of title several -- many years later was going to be taken out. And by the way, when that court action happened, they had no way of knowing, because if they had, they would have put on testimony. They would have asked the court to look at the people who told them that this would always be a single-family house -- Chair Hardemon: So -- Mr. Gibbs: -- on one site. Chair Hardemon: -- our first step, Commissioner Russell, is to determine whether or not they have some intervenor status. You know, if you want to -- Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to rely on Mr. Min's advice, if he was going to pull up the requirements for intervenor status. Mr. Min: Sure. Sure relying on -- I found the case of Save the -- I'm sorry if I mispronounce this -- Homosassa River Alliance, Inc. versus Citrus County Florida. It states that: "Intervenor status is appropriate when those interests exceed in degree the general interests and community goods shared by all persons, and whether the interest will be adversely affected by the challenged decision." So those are the factors that should be taken into consideration in determining whether or not Mr. Tucker -- Mr. Gibbs' client qualifies as an intervenor. Vice Chair Russell: So this is a legal question, I believe, because she -- her intervenor status, in their mind, is based on having relied on a document that no longer exists. Chair Hardemon: I will say -- I would -- City of Miami Page 119 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: Two things. Chair Hardemon: -- say -- Maybe I would differ with that. I mean, the intervenor status has to be based upon the proposed development and what's going there -- or the zoning change -- and the negative effect of the zoning change -- Chair Hardemon: -- right -- as far as her property rights; not necessarily the document that she relied on that is no longer in existence. Mr. Gibbs: And that's why I made the comment that three houses being proposed to be built next to her, where in the past, there's only been one house -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Gibbs: -- that change in situation, that impact on her of three houses instead of the previous one house that already had existed before the demolition -- Chair Hardemon: And each lot is going to be 7,000 square feet? Mr. Gibbs: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) feet. Ms. Gralia: Okay, so I just want -- yes. Chair Hardemon: And then tell me what's on the other side of her, as well. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So it's not a zoning change, all right? These parcels are correctly zoned T3. They are 7,000 square feet, which is permitted under Miami 21 and NCD-3, so there is no zoning change. The only reason we're here is because at one time, there was a single building site for 11 and 12. That is undisputed. I have the evidence. You have it on your -- in your information package. There was a single building site. Under the NCD-3 District regulations, it says whenever there is a single building site and you want to desegregate that building site, you want to split it again -- because there were -- they were legally platted lots. This is part of a subdivision that legally platted these lots at 7,000 square feet each. So when you want to seg -- desegregate these lots and divide them again, you go through a warrant process. And when you go through a warrant process, what it does is that the staff can review for design criteria. And there is a very specific section in the Code, which is Article 4, Table 12, that has all the design criteria. That is all we're here for. We're here to show you tonight that we are complying with Article 4, Table 12 in the NCD-3 District regulations. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. Are you saying -- Are you suggesting that the Planning & Zoning Department cannot deny a warrant, based on the diminishing lot size? Ms. Gralia: That is part of my argument; not my complete argument. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Min? Ms. Gralia: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia? Ms. Gralia: And -- Vice Chair Russell: I -- This is something that we've been through before, and I believe that we've been fundamentally relying on within the Neighborhood City of Miami Page 120 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Conservation District that any diminishment of lot where there was a single building site, which this is, cannot be diminished without a warrant. Ms. Gralia: That's correct. Vice Chair Russell: That warrant may or may not be granted by the Administration; after which point, the neighborhood would have the ability to appeal. But they're asserting that your department does not even have the right to deny the warrant. Ms. Gralia: No, I didn't say that. I'm sorry. Vice Chair Russell: They -- But I thought it was only based on design principle that it could be denied. Ms. Gralia: No. Vice Chair Russell: Is that --? Ms. Gralia: I'm saying the department needs to -- And if you'd like, I can go through my presentation. I think I'll make it very clear, if you allow us to present our project. And I can -- And I have, like I said, some cross-examination questions for the department that I can also ask to make this all clear. I'm not saying that you cannot deny a warrant, but I'm saying that there's a process that the City has to apply -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Ms. Gralia: -- because you don't want your decisions from your Planning staff to be arbitrary and capricious, right? Vice Chair Russell: Correct. Ms. Gralia: It has to be based on competent evidence, right? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Ms. Gralia: We all agree on that. So when they go through this criteria, it's very specific in your Code, and they have to say why we didn't comply with that criteria. And what I'm telling you tonight is that we did comply with that criteria and I'm going to show you how we did comply with the criteria, and I have -- Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Ms. Gralia: -- I take opposition to what the Planning Department has said, and that's what I'm presenting tonight. Vice Chair Russell: In that case, I misunderstood what you were saying -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: -- with regard to the ability of -- Ms. Gralia: No. Vice Chair Russell: -- staff -- Ms. Gralia: I get it. City of Miami Page 121 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: -- to deny, based on diminishment, alone. Ms. Gralia: That's right. Vice Chair Russell: The Chairman has left, so I'm currently the Chair. You know, I'm inclined to grant intervenor status, based on the definition that Barnaby gave. It seems to make very clear sense to me that you do potentially have a stronger impact than others within the NCD and surrounding. Certainly, being directly next door to what would be granted here has a direct impact on you; and so, I would be willing to grant that stat -- that intervenor status. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Gralia: And the ability to cross-examine the witness, as well? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: So -- Vice Chair Russell: Now we can move forward with the presentation. Mr. Min: To be clear, that's -- Ms. Gralia: Thank you very much. Mr. Min: -- the body is agreeing that Mr. Gibbs' client has intervenor status as to location. Vice Chair Russell: Do you need an action of the body to agree that -- You need a motion to grant intervenor status? Mr. Min: I don't need a motion. I just need the body to say that they agree (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: Is there any opposition to the next -- the abutting neighbor of being granted intervenor status? No. Then the body is fine with it. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: Okay. I've got -- Vice Chair Russell: Now we've gotten that straight. Ms. Gralia: No -- Thank you very much. Okay, we're in. William Arthur: So my name is William Arthur. My office is located at 2920 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables. I was the architect for the project. There's a few things about this process that you should know. And one, the Planning director relies upon a staff analysis, but I'm here to tell you that the Planning Department was influenced by the neighbors. I know this -- Mr. Garcia: Not so. Mr. Arthur: -- because for eight months, it was the City's firm position that this was three building sites since we started the process. So instead of submitting a warrant City of Miami Page 122 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 at first, we submitted building applications. We submitted building applications for three homes, on the original density of 7,000 square foot in the neighborhood where the average single-family lot size is actually 6,500 square foot. But the Planning director has determined that many lots have been aggregated, and that 21,000 square foot represents an example of the neighborhood's evolution, and he has an analysis to support that. I have a planning background. My office performed its own analysis, and we found that actually, only 26 percent of lots in the context area have been modified. Only 15 percent of those lots are more than 10,000 square foot. What the Planning director doesn't tell you is that there's actually only two lots in this neighborhood that are 21,000 square foot; that's less than 3 percent. I can't consider that an evolution. The Planning director doesn't really tell you that there's basically two different types of lots in the NCD-3 Overlay; that is, a single-family lot and a single-family large lot, anything over 10,000 square foot. In the 250-foot radius, 85 percent of homes are on single-family lots. The average size of those lots is 7,500 square feet. Even the 500-foot radius, 83 percent of the lots are still single- family lots. And what is the average lot size of those? 6,500 square foot. The Planning director says that it's unusual to find three two-story homes in a row. Well, if you rely on County data or you go to citydata.com, that's correct. But Article 4, Table 12 requires that you do an on -site visit. And when you do that, you'll find out only 41 percent of homes along Avocado Avenue are one-story. Article 4, Table 12 also requires that you perform an analysis of the other streets. "All abutting frontages must be considered"; that's what the table says. Well, Loquat, 61 percent of the homes are two-story, and six of them are consecutive. Hibiscus, there's only one abutting property that is single -story. So, in fact, there's 10 abutting properties that are all two-story, and they're consecutive. The Planning staff says that a more extensive landscape plan is required; but the Environmental Resources staff, who we only had access to because we submitted a building permit, by the way, said that we should be committed for a sign which is considered exemplary. We're planting 193 new trees on a property that already has 57 trees. The Planning staff says that we're planting exotic species, but the Environmental Resources staff says that bamboo is perfectly acceptable. What I found unusual about this decision is that only 30 percent of trees are required to be native, and we're providing 74 percent. Only 20 percent of trees are required to be drought tolerant. We're providing 100 percent drought tolerant. So why is it that we were disapproved? This home, 3501, incorporates an oak tree into the structure of the building; this was in a magazine for that. 3511 has 13 existing variations of species. We're introducing four more. What does the Code require? Only two. "So why is it that we were disapproved?" the owner asked me. Why? I don't know. I have no idea. The only thing that has been wrong with this project is the neighbors; that's the problem. The other problem is it's an improper analysis. It's an improper analysis, because you're not supposed to include the subject property. It's improper analysis, because the proper boundary line is measured from the exterior boundary of the site. This analysis includes Franklin Avenue, which the University of Virginia has determined to be one of the most racially subdivided neighborhoods in North America. Why is that? It's because 21,000 square feet has nothing to do with Franklin Avenue. 21,000 square feet is this avenue, and until staff performs correct analyses, we're continually going to have this problem where people are denied their rights, and we have one of the most subjugated neighborhoods in the City. Do you have any questions? Vice Chair Russell: Did you say the only problem with this application is the neighbors? Mr. Arthur: In my opinion, yes, because I feel that we comply. Vice Chair Russell: You feel -- I'm sorry; you feel that -- what? Mr. Arthur: We comply with the design guidelines. City of Miami Page 123 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Well, what does that have to do with the neighbors? Mr. Arthur: Well, the neighbors have applied a lot of pressure to the City, and I know this, because they've applied the same pressure to me. And I've been asked not to repeat what the neighbors said, but I could tell you they're quite nasty, and what they fear is equality. They don't want a 7, 000-square foot house next door. What they want is a 21,000 square foot. Vice Chair Russell: Was your implication that Marlin -- Franklin should not have been included in the analysis? Mr. Arthur: I say that they should. And this overlay that I have, this is basically what the City looked at. They measured it from the center of the subject. You're not supposed to do that. It has to be measured from the exterior boundary. So when you do that, you exclude Franklin. I include Franklin. It's my opinion that Franklin's one of the most important streets in the City. Vice Chair Russell: It's not even in the same Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Arthur: No, it isn't, but Miami 21 doesn't require that. It requires a 500-foot radius, regardless of what district it's in. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Garcia, rather than waiting until the end of the full presentation, I'd be glad if you could address any of the things that are mentioned so that we can get an understanding of staffs position with regard to what's being said. Ms. Gralia: If you would permit me, I have -- I'd like to cross-examine Mr. Garcia before he addresses any of these comments. I think we can clam some of them if you allow me to cross-examine. I think I can cross-examine Devin first -- Mr. Cejas -- and then Mr. Garcia, and then -- Vice Chair Russell: Prior to them speaking about what's been said already? Ms. Gralia: It will address this. My questions go directly to what has been stated, so I will be asking very specific questions that will probably answer any questions that you may have. Vice Chair Russell: But to what end? Ms. Gralia: To -- I'm going to ask about exactly everything that they did in terms of how they reviewed this project, and they could dispute whatever was said here in their answers. Vice Chair Russell: Fine, I'll allow it. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Thank you. So I'd first like to ask Mr. Cejas a few questions. Good evening, Mr. Cejas. For the record, can you please state your name and your title? Devin Cejas: Devin Cejas, Zoning administrator, City of Miami. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. As the Zoning administrator, did you make a determination that Lot 10, 11, and 12 of the subject property here comprises a single building site? Mr. Cejas: Yes. City of Miami Page 124 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Okay. Can you refer me to what section of the Code did you look at in order to make your determination that Lot 10 comprises single building sites with Lots 11 and 12? Mr. Cejas: Appendix "A," Section 3.6(g)(1). Ms. Gralia: Correct. And would you -- Can you read that section of the Code? If you'd like, I can quote that section of the Code, or if you have it handy, would you read it for us, please? Mr. Cejas: "Lots and Building Sites: Whenever an existing single-family residence for lawful accessory buildings or structures is located on one or more platted lots or portions thereof such lots shall therefore constitute only one building site, and no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one single-family residence, except by warrant." Ms. Gralia: Can you continue to the last sentence of that paragraph, please? Mr. Cejas: Sure, absolutely. "No building sites in existence prior to September 24, 2005, shall be diminished in size, except by warrant, subject to the criteria specified in Article 4, Table 12, Design Review Criteria." Ms. Gralia: Okay. And I was specifically looking for another sentence in that paragraph that you omitted, which is -- Mr. Cejas: The one in the middle. Ms. Gralia: -- "Such structures shall include, but not limited, to swimming pools, tennis courts, walls and fences, or other at -grade or above -ground improvements. Mr. Cejas: Correct. Ms. Gralia: Right? Okay. So in -- did -- In your research, did you ident fy any lawful existing structure on Lot 10, such as a swimming pool, tennis court, or any above -grade or at -grade structure? And I'm only asking about Lot 10. Mr. Cejas: If I recall, and it has been some time, there was a rock wall that was embedded in the vegetation that crossed over Lot 10 and the adjacent lot. Ms. Gralia: Do you have any evidence of that and -- whatever you're calling it -- some rock formation that you can show us here today? Mr. Cejas: That evidence was taken from Google Earth photographs. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I have a Google Earth photograph. So, Mr. Cejas, can you tell me (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Sorry. Mr. Cejas, could you tell me where you see any encroachment or any structure on Lot 10 in this aerial? Mr. Cejas: That is an aerial. You're not going to be able to see that. It was from a street view, dating back to about four, five years past. Vice Chair Russell: This one? That is Lot 10, and that is a rock wall, or is that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --? Ms. Gralia: Okay. Could you -- City of Miami Page 125 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Ms. Gralia: -- say today that that was within the boundaries of Lot 10 and that --? Where is it? Right, right. So while you're looking at that, I'd like to direct you to the boundary survey that we provided the City, and it shows that rock wall that you identified. And can you tell us, is this within the boundaries of Lot 10 or is this outside the boundaries of Lot 10? Mr. Cejas: That is very difficult for me to make a decision on. It's very -- Ms. Gralia: You can look at -- Mr. Cejas: -- confusing. Ms. Gralia: -- the survey here. Mr. Cejas: No, understood, but the one issue -- Well, one thing is having a survey on one hand and a photographic image on another. They're not over -- superimposed on one other. But with that said, the formations are consistent, and it does look like that from there forward, there's a chain link fence that then continued -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Mr. Cejas: -- throughout the property. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. So I want you to go back to your definition, though. You said, "Lawfully" -- "Lawful accessory buildings." Do you in your research find any permit for that wall? Mr. Cejas: We did not -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Mr. Cejas: -- find any permit for that wall. Ms. Gralia: Well, so I did some research of your records, and no permits were ever issued for that fence or wall; whatever you want to call it. So it's not a lawful accessory structure; is that correct? So I'll make it easy. If there is no permit issued Mr. Cejas: If there is no permit issued, it's not lawful. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So -- but -- So then you couldn't -- Mr. Cejas: Can't say if there -- The records do not indicate that there is a permit. Ms. Gralia: If the records do not indicate that a permit was issued, we can say here today that there was no structure on Lot 10 that would be considered a building site, along with Lots 11 and 12. Wouldn't that be a correct statement? Mr. Cejas: Could you repeat that again? Ms. Gralia: That if there is no evidence of a permit issued for any of the rock formation that you saw to determine that Lot 10 may -- was part of a single building site with Lots 11 and 12, Lot 10 sits on its own. It was never part of a single building site, unless there was that permit in your records. And I'm sorry, that was a little bit convoluted. City of Miami Page 126 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Cejas: Not necessarily correct. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So -- Vice Chair Russell: Can you read the definition -- You read the definition, which read swimming pools and stuff. Can you read that one more time, please? Because she's -- Mr. Cejas: Absolutely. Vice Chair Russell: -- pointing to the point of very specific wording. Mr. Cejas: Absolutely. "Wherever an existing" -- I'll move forward to the middle sentence. "Such structure shall include, but not be limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, walls and fences, or other at -grade or above -ground improvements." Vice Chair Russell: Where does it say "lawful"? Ms. Gralia: The first sentence. It says -- Mr. Cejas: There's not -- Ms. Gralia: -- "lawful." Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So let's read it in its entirety, because that sentence did not say -- It says, 'fences, walls." Mr. Cejas: Such structures shall include, but not be limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, walls and fences, or other at -grade or above -ground improvements. Vice Chair Russell: So there is a wall; there is a fence, but I'm still missing the part that you're -- the point that you're making. Could you help me with that, please? Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I will help you. The first sentence of that says, "Whenever an existing single-family residence or lawful accessory building or structure." Okay? Then the next one that he read from -- Vice Chair Russell: Keep -- no. Just read directly from that sentence, please. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: "Or lawful accessory building or structure." Ms. Gralia: "Or lawfully accessory building or structure is located on one or more platted lots, the" -- "located on one or more platted lots or portions thereof such lot shall thereafter constitute only one single building site, and no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one single-family residence, except by warrant. Such structure" -- so it goes back to structures. It says, "lawful structure" -- "Such structures shall include, but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, walls, fences, or other above -grade or at -grade improvements." So there is no evidence on the record that your staff ever found that was part of their decision that says that they did find a permit that showed that there was a structure on Lot 10. As a matter of fact -- and I'll continue with my line of questioning. So what did you look at in order to make a determination, Mr. Cejas, that Lot 10 was part of a building -- a single building site with Lots 11 and 12? City of Miami Page 127 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Cejas: (UNITNELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gralia: Do you want me to repeat that? Mr. Cejas: Please. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So what did you look at, other than this wall formation that we now know has no permit to support your decision that Lot 10 was part of a single building site, together with Lots 11 and 12? Mr. Cejas: All available information from tax cards, folio numbers, addresses; anything that comprised that building site. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Did you see anything else, like the unity of title? Mr. Cejas: I didn't see any plans for a home, either, but we did find a tax card. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I have the -- I have a compilation of the tax cards here, and it says that Lot 10, Block "L," zero structures built forever. And then, on Lots 11 and 12, in 1940, there was a structure there. So this is from the tax records. And then, your staff stated -- and I'm asking you if you gave them this information in your decision -- that the reason you decided that Lot 10 was part of 11 and 12 was because there was a unity of title that combined Lots 10 with 11 and 12. Is that not a true statement? Mr. Cejas: That is not. That was discovered by the Planning staff at the time of the original application when we were looking at the building site. Ms. Gralia: So you never looked at a unity of title to make that determination? Mr. Cejas: It was brought to my attention after the fact. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So -- but it was -- The unity of title -- I'm trying to understand -- Was the unity of title part of your decision that Lot 10 was a single building site with Lot 11 and 12? Mr. Cejas: No, it was not. Ms. Gralia: It was not. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions for Mr. Cejas. Vice Chair Russell: Just a brief question on the same -- I'm looking at a photo of the original -- of the 1940-something home that's there. There's a white picket fence that seems to run across the entire property. Is that a permitted fence and does that go into Lot 10? Ms. Gralia: I think the testimony from Mr. Ceja [sic] was that it wasn't a permitted fence, and the tax cards -- Vice Chair Russell: No, not the rock wall. The -- Ms. Gralia: No? Mr. Cejas: Was that directed to me? Ms. Gralia: So we can -- Go ahead. City of Miami Page 128 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Cejas: I don't have those records in front of me. I cannot say 'yes" or "no." I would hope it's a permitted fence. It looks fairly new. Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: Please. Chair Hardemon: You have to speak into -- Vice Chair Russell: Microphone, please. Mr. Arthur: Mr. Vice Chair, this is the fence that you're looking at. This is the picket fence. Whether it was lawfully permitted, I don't know, but it only spans Lot 12. Vice Chair Russell: It doesn't touch Lot 11, even? Mr. Arthur: No. Mr. Cejas: It does not. Mr. Arthur: This is the delineations. This is that coral rock wall that we were talking about before; it's outside the property line. This is the picket fence that we're talking about now. It only spans 12. Mr. Cejas: That is correct. That fence faces Hibiscus. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. And the warrant for demolition was granted when; do we know? Ms. Gralia: 2015. Vice Chair Russell: It was granted in 2015 -- Ms. Gralia: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- demolished in 2015. Did the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board review this property at the point of demolition? Mr. Garcia: I'm not certain, to be honest with you. Vice Chair Russell: Not necessarily germane to the specific issue; it's more for my own point of reference to -- Mr. Cejas: Did it -- all waivered demolitions must be referred to the Department of Environmental Resources, and it's reviewed for preservation of canopy. Vice Chair Russell: For preservation of canopy. What about for historic structures? Mr. Cejas: No. Mr. Garcia: Not unless the structure itself is designated in some fashion. Vice Chair Russell: Is designated. Mr. Garcia: Right. City of Miami Page 129 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: They're not checking for whether something should be designated prior to demolition? Mr. Garcia: The Historic & Environmental Preservation Board does not; we, as staff to them, typically do. So if we identify that there is something worthy or eligible for designation, then it is our task to tag it as such. Vice Chair Russell: Right; note for future, not related to this. Please continue. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Mr. Cejas, thank you so much. I'd like to next ask questions, cross-examine the Planning director, or his designee, who reviewed this application. Mr. Garcia: I'm happy to be. May I please ask to have the opportunity to ask Mr. Cejas a couple of questions to clarify further? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Mr. Cejas, would you state succinctly the reason for your referral of this application for a warrant? Mr. Cejas: The reason for referral is based on the premise of -- that it is a building site, and that a warrant is required to be able to diminish a building site. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. And not to put words into your statement, but please agree if you feel my statement is correct. Is the sole subject of the warrant itself the subdivision of the subject site; meaning not the structure, not the trees, not any other consideration but the proposed subdivision of the subject site? Mr. Cejas: Correct. Mr. Garcia: Fair enough. Then, is it appropriate to restrict the realm of conversation to that issue, as opposed to the vegetation, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) proposals, or any other superfluous matter? Ms. Gralia: I believe -- yes. Vice Chair Russell: I'd prefer that. Ms. Gralia: But I just want to just clam one thing. This is not a subdivision of lots, so I want to clarify that. These are three legally platted lots that have already been subdivided. So when you said, "subdivision," that's incorrect, so I'd like to just correct the record. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. I'm happy to restate. It is our belief -- and I'm certain you will challenge it -- that this subject site, the three addresses that have been placed on record constitute a single building site; and therefore, the reduction of its area constitutes, in essence, a subdivision. Perhaps you have a better name for it. Ms. Gralia: Well, it's -- Mr. Cejas: Pursuant to the Code, it's diminishment of a building site. Vice Chair Russell: Diminishment of lot size, yes. Ms. Gralia: Diminishment of lots; that is correct. City of Miami Page 130 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Garcia: I stand corrected. Mr. Cejas: A building site; diminishment of a building site. Vice Chair Russell: Diminishment of building site. Ms. Gralia: Right, right. Vice Chair Russell: I'm having a deja vu. Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: All right. So, Mr. Garcia, for the record, just state your name and your title. Mr. Garcia: Of course. Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. Ms. Gralia: Okay. I'd like to start off with a reading of the definition of "a lot," under Miami 21. Mr. Garcia, would you like to read that definition? I can read it for you, if you'd like, but I give you the opportunity to go ahead and read it. Vice Chair Russell: Ma'am, if you have it right there, please. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So it is -- "A lot is any individual lot, tract, or parcel of land intended as a single building site or unit having assigned number or numbers, letters or letters [sic], or other name through which it may be identified for development purposes. A lot may also be any combination of lots, tracts, parcels, or other areas of land established by acceptable joinder, delineated by a closed boundary, and assigned a number, letter, or other name through which it may be identified, intended as a single unit for development purposes." Now, based on that definition alone, Mr. Garcia, how many lots does this property have? Mr. Garcia: The property is composed of three lots. Ms. Gralia: Correct. There are three lots on this property. So it is clear that since there is no joinder that you have to look at this as three individual lots. Mr. Garcia: They continue to be -- Ms. Gralia: Now -- Mr. Garcia: -- I'm sorry. Was that a question? Ms. Gralia: Just a statement. Mr. Garcia: Because it is clear to me. I'd like to challenge that, please. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So then let me repeat it. So didn't you just testes that you believe these are three lots, based on the definition of "lots," under Miami 21? Mr. Garcia: Certainly. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Okay. So now I'd like to focus your attention to the NCD-3 regulations. And as you all know, this is a overlay district that modifies the transect regulations included within the NCD boundaries; is that correct? City of Miami Page 131 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Garcia: Yes. In particular, NCD-3, which stands for Neighborhood Conservation District 3. Ms. Gralia: Well, there's more than NCD-3, but that is exactly what we're here about. So Section 3.6 of NCD-3 deals with single-family lots, or T3 transect zones, correct? Mr. Garcia: That is correct. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And it also states -- and I'm going to quote -- "All T3 single- family residential zoning regulations shall apply within the Coconut Grove NCD-3 single-family district, except as modified by the NCD-3 regulations"; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Yes, it is. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And then it goes on to contain various requirements, such as architectural styles, setbacks, building envelope, height, green space, permitted accessory structures"; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Yes, that's correct. Ms. Gralia: And then finally, in Article 3.6(g)(1), there are some additional limitations and requirements; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Yes, it is. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So it says that in the -- In your warrant final decision, you state that you reviewed landscape, site, building disposition, and neighborhood context; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: That is correct. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So can you just tell us where neighborhood context is found in NCD-3 so that we all know where we can find that section? Mr. Garcia: Certainly, I can. What NCD-3 does is it requires that the diminution -- was that the correct term? Vice Chair Russell: Diminishment. Mr. Garcia: Diminishment. Thank you. The diminishment of any building site requires a warrant. And the warrant, as I believe you previously stated, makes reference to certain review criteria. Said review criteria are contained in the Zoning Ordinance proper; more specifically, in Article 4, Table 12. And if you were to go to Article 4, Table 12, there is a specific mandate that the evaluation of the warrant respond to neighborhood context and transect zone. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So you got really ahead of me, but I think I was basically asking about the Neighborhood Conservation District; not specifically when you need a warrant, because you don't need a warrant every time you develop in the NCD-3 District; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Not unless there is a proposed diminishment of site. Vice Chair Russell: Diminishment; only for diminishment. Ms. Gralia: So -- City of Miami Page 132 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Well, among other things. Ms. Gralia: -- you only need a warrant when you're -- when there's a diminution of building site; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Not only, but that is certainly one cause for a warrant, yes. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So the first thing that is referred to in your final decision is that - - Well, I'm going to go to landscaping. So landscaping in the NCD-3 District says -- It's Section 3.6(g)(4), and it states that, "All landscaping shall comply with the City's Landscape and Tree Protection Ordinances"; isn't that what it says in 3.6(g)(4)? Mr. Garcia: Certainly not a subject for contention, but I grant you that, yes. Ms. Gralia: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Is there -- is -- I'm sorry, just a moment. Is the discussion of landscaping going to germane to the diminishment of lot size or the denial of the warrant? Ms. Gralia: No; just goes to criteria, what was reviewed; that's it. So did you review the landscaping plan in your -- in this warrant application, and give specific comments as to the landscaping plan? Mr. Garcia: My colleagues did, yes. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So who in your department is responsible for making that determination that the landscaping plans complied or did not comply with the City's Landscaping and Tree Protection Ordinance? Mr. Garcia: The authority in the department, the ultimate authority is Quatisha Oguntoyinbo-Rashad, who is the chief of Environmental Resources. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Did Quatisha review the landscaping plans in relationship with the warrant application that was filed? Mr. Garcia: I believe that it was referred to her, yes. Ms. Gralia: You believe so? Is that 'yes"? Mr. Garcia: I will confirm momentarily. Please give me a moment. Ms. Gralia: Sure. Vice Chair Russell: But could you explain how this is going to tie together with the denial of the warrant? Mr. Garcia: Yes. The plans were refer -- I'm sorry, I apologize. Vice Chair Russell: I'm just curious as to how it ties together -- Ms. Gralia: Well -- Vice Chair Russell: -- before he goes down the whole road of -- Ms. Gralia: Because this is -- City of Miami Page 133 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: whether or not it was considered. Ms. Gralia: -- part or the criteria, so we have to show that -- Vice Chair Russell: That is should have been -- the landscaping should have been considered in the warrant? Ms. Gralia: It should be considered -- or if they're going to review and it's part of the denial, and they said that they reviewed it, then I want to know who reviewed it and what were the comments made. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. But your -- There's no claim that the denial was based on the landscaping part; you're just wondering if it -- whether it was fully --? Ms. Gralia: The denial was based on the landscaping plans, as well. There were -- Vice Chair Russell: Is that correct? Ms. Gralia: -- four things. Mr. Garcia: The statement for the denial simply identifies what was reviewed, but I can posit, if it is of any help to anyone, that the basis for the denial is simply the fact that we found the proposal to turn a single building site into three inappropriate, vis- a-vis the context. Ms. Gralia: Okay. That's interesting. So you're saying that that's all you reviewed; that you didn't review Article 4, Section -- Table 12? Mr. Garcia: I did not say that. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So -- Mr. Garcia: I said that -- Ms. Gralia: -- did you review the landscaping plans or not, Mr. Garcia? I'm confused. Mr. Garcia: There's no need to be confused, because I've stated that, yes, it was reviewed, and referred to Quatisha Oguntoyinbo-Rashad. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And what about -- is Quatisha here to test fy today? Mr. Garcia: She's not here at present, no. Ms. Gralia: Is there anything in the record that shows that Quatisha did review the landscaping plans as part of the warrant application; and not part of the building permit application, but part of the warrant application; any evidence in your file? Mr. Garcia: Nothing pertaining to evidence in the file; simply an internal referral within the department. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Could you lower the displays, please? I know some of the audience is having trouble seeing. City of Miami Page 134 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: So can you give me the mem -- email that Quatisha --? Unidentified Speaker: No. Ms. Gralia: Do you have an email? Okay. All right. Okay. So next, I'm going to go to the site and building disposition. You state in your decision that it is unusual to find three-story residence in a row on Avocado; is that correct? That's what I heard. That's what's contained in your final decision; is that correct? And I'll repeat it. You -- "It is unusual to find three-story residences in a row on Avocado." Is that what it says in your final decision? Mr. Garcia: Yes, it is. Ms. Gralia: Okay. What about if I tell you that -- So maybe you can tell us how you came up with that determination. How did you calculate that? Mr. Garcia: I am advised that my colleagues conducted a windshield survey of the area, and their review captioned the statement that you just read. In other words, they found no evidence that the condition of three-story residences was prevalent in the area, subject to the review. Ms. Gralia: Can you explain what a windshield survey is? Mr. Garcia: Certainly. It is a survey conducted from a vehicle. Ms. Gralia: From a vehicle? Mr. Garcia: Correct; hence, the name, "windshield." And what my colleagues typically do, and I, on occasion, as well, is we drive around the area, carefully looking at the arrangement and configuration of the edification of the properties, and that is the method we use to assess the conditions. Our findings as pertains to this particular area is that the condition described is not prevalent in the area. Ms. Gralia: And can you tell me, when you're doing this windshield survey, how do you ident0; that a property is two stories or not? Mr. Garcia: I'm slightly puzzled by the question, but as trained architects and designers, we are able to distinguish the difference between two stories and three stories. I'm not sure how to be more helpful than that, beyond that. Ms. Gralia: Could there be three stories and you were only looking for two stories? Mr. Garcia: If it -- Ms. Gralia: Or are you saying that -- Mr. Garcia: -- if the statement -- Ms. Gralia: -- you didn't see any two stories? Mr. Garcia: -- is that we did not find three stories to be prevalent, and that's exactly what it's intended to describe. Now, if there were, hypothetically, a building that is three stories, and hypothetically, the third story is masked by vegetation and we did not observe it, then that could entirely be the case; I wouldn't rule that out. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Well, I'm really confused about your definition, because I don't understand how just a windshield survey, out of a car, driving around the City of Miami Page 135 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 neighborhood is going to really tell you whether they're two stories or not. But let me tell you what we found. So can you put up the survey that shows all the two-story houses? Mr. Garcia: I will take that as a question. I'd be happy to answer it. May I? Ms. Gralia: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, please. Ms. Gralia: So there was no -- Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: -- question at the moment, because I'm -- I haven't asked it yet. Mr. Garcia: There was. I think you stated that you did not understand how we could arrive at that conclusion. I'd like to explain how. May I? Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to hear it. Mr. Garcia: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Russell: Actually, just a moment, Francisco, please. The survey of the number of stories that are prevalent or not prevalent, is that part of the basis for the denial? Ms. Gralia: That is correct; it is. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Ms. Gralia: Everything I'm going to question today is based on the denial. It's all -- I said there were four things; that's one of the things. They used four things to denied -- to deny this warrant application, so I'm going through each and every one of those bases; so, yes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: You're welcome. Vice Chair Russell: Continue. Mr. Garcia: And so I'll just like -- I would just like to explain very briefly that we don't have the ability, although we are City of Miami employees, to access private property. We must observe any private properties and the conditions they are in from the right-of-way. The fact that we take a car to ride through the neighborhood does not mean that we don't occasionally get down from the car and actually observe, from as close as we can; never, of course, intruding into private property. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So what we tried to do is, Mr. Garcia, is that we were very curious to figure out how you came up with the -- with those numbers, so we did a little bit more than just a windshield drive, okay? So what we did is we went to the County records, the public records in Miami -Dade County, and we were able to replicate your numbers off of those public records. But when we went and actually compared what was in the public records to what was actually there, it happens to be that the public records in Miami -Dade County were incorrect. And when you go and you stand in front of that house, it is a two-story house and not a one-story City of Miami Page 136 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 house. So I think that's where your data got it incorrect, because we were able to replicate your data and then double confirm it by walking to every single one of those houses, which, I believe -- And I'm going to ask you this: Did you do that? Mr. Garcia: No, I did not. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So if I tell you that there is a chart in front of you that's going to be part of the record tonight that shows that there are many houses -- and I'm going to read you exact numbers. Chair Hardemon: Before -- Ms. Gralia: 59 percent of the homes -- Chair Hardemon: -- before you -- Ms. Gralia: -- along Avocado are two stories. Chair Hardemon: -- move forward -- Ms. Gralia: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- a lot of what you said -- I mean, you're an attorney. You're making an argument in the middle of cross-examination. I kind of -- But who is going to put on the evidence that the homes that are there are two or three stories? Ms. Gralia: I'm putting on that evidence now, and that'll be part of your record. Chair Hardemon: But this is just a demonstrative that shows, you know -- Ms. Gralia: Based on County records and an actual -- We can go by every single property. Chair Hardemon: And Mr. Garcia -- Ms. Gralia: I will proffer that. Chair Hardemon: -- are County records -- Well, first of all, did you use County records or City records in determining whether or not they were one-story or two- story, or whatever -story homes? Mr. Garcia: What is in the record is we used a windshield survey, which is as I just described. May I say, parenthetically, with your permission, that should our analysis contain any flaws -- which occasionally, it does, admittedly -- there is recourse for that, and the applicant has the ability to submit the application to the Planning & Zoning Department. We will gladly take it into consideration, and if appropriate, mod fy our findings to reflect the record of change. Chair Hardemon: So, counsel, are you saying that the error was in the miscalculation of the square feet, or the error was in the one-story versus two-story versus three-story homes? Ms. Gralia: What I'm saying is -- and then -- and I have an expert witness that can testify that that is the case. The error -- which is the architect; he is my expert witness. And the testimony tonight is that when we did a survey of the area -- In their final decision, they say, "It's unusual to find two-story homes along Avocado; consecutive two-story homes." And, in fact, the contrary is the case. City of Miami Page 137 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: So what --? Ms. Gralia: There are many two-story homes along Avocado that are consecutive to each other, and we're proffering this information, and it's part of the record, and I'm presenting it as evidence tonight. Chair Hardemon: So my question to you is, the difference between the term, "unusual" and "usual," how would you characterize that? Because when I hear the term, "unusual" -- Ms. Gralia: Well -- Chair Hardemon: -- it doesn't -- You're not saying to me that it does not exist. You're saying that it does not exist regularly, so it is there, apparently. That's what I'm hearing. Ms. Gralia: No, that's part of -- So I'm going to help you out. You have to understand the context of how this warrant is being applied. The City has a Code that says, "NCD-3, if you have at one point a single building site, you must come in for a warrant in order to desegregate the single building site." Right? If not for that part of NCD-3, we can build everything we're asking to be built as of right. Chair Hardemon: Is that a true statement, or is the warrant just a process in which the -- it is properly vetted by the public, or is the warrant an actual process where you have something -- Vice Chair Russell: Staff can deny. Chair Hardemon: -- you know, staff can -- you know. Help me understand. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir; I'm glad to. And I'm going to take just an extra moment to be rather specific, because I believe I've addressed this issue a couple of times, and it seems to be lost on the appellant. So the sole reason why this particular application was referred to the Planning part of the Planning Department for review under a warrant is because it was found that a single building site was proposed to be diminished and formed into three individual building sites, so we view that as the trigger. From that point on, once the warrant permit is deemed required -- right? -- pursuant to the advice of the Zoning administrator, who has already testified -- then a series of criteria apply that we must take into consideration. So I will grant you that the statement is correct that, but for the warrant being needed, they might have been able to proceed to develop the three individual lots, as of right. But because it is our position that the three individual lots, each with their folio number and address, constitute a single building site, the diminution of that building site -- diminishment of that building site -- I hope I get that right -- is what requires a warrant, which then allows us to exercise our best judgment, based on the data that we've proffered, as to what the proper redistribution or reconfiguration of that single building site might be. In other words, if we are able to show you today that there really is one building site and that our recommendation that it be subdivided into -- or rather diminished into two building sites is the most that we could favorably recommend, I think we've done our job. Ms. Gralia: So the line of questioning -- and I don't know if you've finished, Mr. Chair -- was because in their final warrant decision, they talked about that the proposal -- our proposal consists of construction of two-story dwelling units on Avocado Avenue, which is predominantly devout with one-story residences. As presented, this development is out of character with the neighborhood context. So City of Miami Page 138 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 this is one of the reasons -- one of the prongs that they are utilizing in order to deny the warrant. And I'm here to tell you that that is incorrect, because our -- What we are submitting here today shows that -- and I'm going to read the numbers for you, because I've got to get this on the record for my purposes -- is that 59 percent of the homes along Avocado are two stories. Chair Hardemon: But that's between -- You have there Plaza and Hibiscus Streets. Ms. Gralia: And I've got them. 61 percent of the homes on Loquat are two stories; 86 percent of the homes along Hibiscus are two stories. Of the abutting properties, those defined as "adjacent, diagonal, or across the street," there are 10 consecutive two-story homes. Only one abutting property is one story. And this information was prepared by my expert architect, based on County records, City records, and actual visitation to each of these homes. Chair Hardemon: Can you show me on this -- on the demonstrative -- and I'm asking of the expert witness, the architect. Mr. Arthur: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Along Avocado Avenue, where you have -- between Plaza and Hibiscus Streets, can you outline that? Can you just show me? Mr. Arthur: Plaza; Hibiscus. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Arthur: This is Avocado Avenue. There's two problems to the staff analysis. One is that only 41 percent of homes along Avocado Avenue is one story. Chair Hardemon: So -- Mr. Arthur: The second part -- Chair Hardemon: -- but before you move forward -- Mr. Arthur: Sure. Chair Hardemon: -- thank you. See, this is a real laser point. Where is our City Attorney? She doesn't know what a laser point is. So here on Avocado Avenue, you're talking about between Plaza and over here, which is -- Mr. Arthur: Hibiscus. Chair Hardemon: -- Hibiscus. Now when you -- Mr. Arthur: Yes. That's the context area. Chair Hardemon: -- now if I -- and I'm looking here -- that the pink is -- are the seven -- are the one-story homes. This is your seven homes you're describing; one, two, three, four, five -- Mr. Arthur: No. Actually, this is four or five. Chair Hardemon: Okay. But on your -- on this documentation, you have seven. Mr. Arthur: Yes; five and two. City of Miami Page 139 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Okay, those five and two. Now, if I go to the left of this box, I see -- that would be eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, right? I count 17. Mr. Arthur: So we have no disagreement with that, because neither the City or I includes lots beyond Plaza; there's no disagreement of that. The second part of my disagreement with staff is Article 4 of Table 12 is very explicit that all frontages must be considered. And not only is the staffs presentation incorrect about this, it is that I found out how they got those numbers, because I reproduced them in my office; and also, that they're supposed to include all the frontages. And Loquat is even worse; it's 39 percent single-family homes. And Hibiscus is -- 86 percent of it is two-story. Chair Hardemon: So then part of -- So this is one part of the reason that you're trying to attack the validity of the denial? Ms. Gralia: That is correct. Mr. Arthur: That is one of four reasons we were denied. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Can you get to the other reasons? Ms. Gralia: Yes; and I'm getting there. Okay. So I think at last, Mr. Garcia, I can arrive at neighborhood context, and I want to just ask you -- The NCD-3 has four residential designations; isn't that correct? And if you don't know it on the top of your head, I'm going to read it from the Code. Mr. Garcia: Yes, I would encourage you to do so. Thank you. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So, one: There are single-family lots consisting of less than 10,000 square feet; is that correct? That's one designation. Mr. Garcia: That's a possibility, yes. Ms. Gralia: Second designation: Single-family large lots consisting of more than 10,000 square feet, that's the second. Mr. Garcia: Correct. Ms. Gralia: Third: Single-family oversized lots consisting of more than 20,000 square feet; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Right. Ms. Gralia: And lastly, single-family estate consisting of more than one acre, or 43,550 square feet; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: Yes. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So in your analysis -- and I'm going back to one of the reasons our application was denied -- you found that 18 lots abut Avocado between Hibiscus Avenue and Plaza Street. Out of these 18 lots, you state that five lots have been modified from their original plat and found that along Avocado, between Hibiscus Avenue and Plaza Street, the average lot size was 8,744 square feet. That is -- I'm reading that from your denial. Mr. Garcia: That is what our best research indicates, yes. City of Miami Page 140 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Okay. So based on the different residential designations that I just read in the NCD-3 District, how would you designate this neighborhood? One, single- family lots, consisting of less than 10,000 square feet; two, single-family large lots, consisting of more than 10,000 square feet -- excuse me -- or single-family oversized, consisting of more than 20,000 square; or single-family estate, consisting of more than 43,560 square feet? Mr. Garcia: I wouldn't -- With all due respect, I wouldn't actually have to abide by that taxonomy, because they address two entirely different issues; and I'll be brief but just to explain my disagreement with that framing of the issue. On the one hand, the Code is a regulatory document, right? And so, it provides guidelines for our review that we must comply with in the submittal of plans. And so, for application of setbacks, height limitations, and other configurational items, we must take into consideration which of those categories the subject property falls into; that's one set of concerns. The other set of concerns, the one that applies here is to render the final result of the reconfiguration of the property; in this case, the diminution of the lot size -- rather, the building site size. We simply need to make it contextual. And there, it doesn't frankly make a difference whether it's 8,000, 10,000, or 1001. We simply have to find one size that makes it right, vis-a-vis the context, and that's what we were trying to do here. So it is not the case that we have to classify it as one of those. That is the exercise after the fact. We simply have to make it contextual. Ms. Gralia: Correct. That's part of the context. So I'm asking you that if you're looking at this and you're looking at the context of this neighborhood, under what designation do you think these -- this property would fall under? And that's all I'm asking. Mr. Garcia: I understand the question, but my answer continues to be we don't have to make it fit into any of those, because by the very definition -- and this, in fact, is contained in the intents statement of NCD-3 -- there is an eclectic character to the development of Coconut Grove, and it is often the case that two, three, four lots have been unified into a single building site; and so, you have a 20,000-square-foot building site next to a 6, 000-square foot building site, et cetera, so that taxonomy doesn't quite fit the analysis. Ms. Gralia: I'm glad you said that. That's really good, because then let's go by your definition of how you did this, right? So you're stating -- and I'm going to read -- you said that this doesn't fit within the neighborhood composition, because you found that there were five lots within Avocado Avenue between Hibiscus Avenue and Plaza Street that are average lot size of 8,744 square feet. Now, you then analyze a 250- foot radius of the subject site, and it says that you found that the average lot size was 8,940 square feet. Can you please explain to us today how you came up with that number? So I want to -- I -- What I'm asking is how'd you come up with the number of 8,940 square feet under a 250 -- Mr. Garcia: Right. And what -- Ms. Gralia: -- radius? Mr. Garcia: -- I am advised took place was the properties that were of the same sort as the subject property -- meaning residential properties in the immediate area -- were canvassed, and their area was reflected -- or tabulated. We purposely excluded those which were institutional in nature. As you know, Plymouth Congregational and St. Hugh are both nearby, so those are, admittedly, of larger size, but they were excluded. And so, the tallying of the areas of the lots that were similarly developed as the subject site is what gave us the number you arrived at. In other words, "X" number of lots, the area divided by the number, the average size was roughly 8,500. City of Miami Page 141 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I understand the math, but how did you come up with the 8,940 square feet? Because you're looking at a 250-foot radius. We did the same thing, and our numbers are very different than your numbers. So I'm trying to figure out -- What is it that you can show us today? Do you have any evidence of this? Do you have a chart? Do you have a diagram that we can look at to look at your numbers to see why they're different than our numbers? And I'll go through my numbers next. Mr. Garcia: Right. So I don't have anything handy to show you that the -- We did go through the exercise, and that's what's reflected in the folder, in the case file, in the warrant file. May I say, parenthetically again, with your permission that I find us to be speaking at cross purposes with regards to the fact that you are offering evidence today after the fact that we were not a beneficiary of during the warrant review process? And so, in the same manner as you're properly analyzing and cross-examining me on the data we've proffered, which was based on our best available research, I haven't had an opportunity to review your data, and I don't know whether the numbers even came from the County or other sources can be verified or not. So I find myself a bit at -- Ms. Gralia: With all due respect, Mr. Garcia, you are the expert, and your data should be spot on. I should not, as the applicant, when I come in with a warrant, have to prove to you all these things that you have looked at. You're supposed to tell me what's wrong, and you should have given me an opportunity to present this. As a matter of fact, I have a file full of emails. If you want, we can go through this; all these emails that I sent you and sent Mr. Dejas [sic], and tried to meet with Jacqueline, where I tried to sit down with you and tried to explain what we were trying to do, and not once did I get a return email or a return phone call. So I really respect what you're trying to say, but that's not the case here, and I think we should set the record straight. You should be able to testify how many times did I send -- Mr. Min: Chairman, may I --? Ms. Gralia: How many emails did I send to you? Mr. Min: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that there needs to be a question? Ms. Gralia: Okay. So my question is, Mr. Garcia, did I not send you various emails asking to meet with you about this application before you issued your decision? Mr. Garcia: I am satisfied that you've met with my colleagues a number of times, and they are, frankly, the ones that handle these matters. Ms. Gralia: Did I not ask you personally to meet with you, after I met with your colleagues, on various occasions, by emails, and I never met with you; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: It is correct to say -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garcia: -- that we never met vis-a-vis -- Ms. Gralia: All right. Mr. Garcia: May I complete my answer? I'd like to. It is correct to say that you and I personally never met about this. What that does not respond to is my request City of Miami Page 142 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 in the hypothetical that we might have obtained this data to be able to review it and either verify it or not, or refute it. Ms. Gralia: Well, and I will get to -- at the end of my represent -- of my presentation - - we'll go over what maybe you should have done. So I'd like my expert witness again to come over through the num -- and review the numbers with -- at this board - - at this meeting tonight, because it is a de novo review, and we have an opportunity tonight, because it is de novo, to present our evidence. William, can you go over to the board and show --? Mr. Garcia: Through the Chair, may I interject very briefly again, in the hopes of being constructive? I am learning that there is additional evidence that we were not aware of that we might have considered, perhaps; evidence that came from the County -- and if I may just finish the statement, I'll be brief I'll promise -- and that if that is the case, I would put it to this board, and subject to the consideration of the appellant that we would certainly be pleased to consider said evidence. And there is a provision, in fact, in the Zoning Ordinance, which provides us to modify if we find that there is substantive evidence, the record under warrant can possibly also issue a - - substantially, a compliance warrant that takes into consideration that information. That process exists. You can either avail yourselves of it or not, but it's set forth in the Code. Ms. Gralia: I mean, I find that very interesting that you're going to say that now. I want to just refer to this chart. We came into the Planning Department in 2015 -- 2015. At that moment, we came in with three applications for a building permit, as of right. We spent many, many meetings with staff and I don't think going back and meeting with you now -- I think we should get this all on the record, because I don't think it's going to make a difference. We've spent -- we're going on three years with this application; three years. I think it's not fair for my client to have to now be told, "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that evidence." They're the experts. They're supposed to - - when they -- When you give a decision, Mr. Garcia, and you give that warrant, that final warrant decision, you have to be right on. It can't be like, "Oh, I guess I didn't see the evidence." You're supposed to make sure that you are relying on competent evidence; that is the legal standard, competent evidence. And you cannot say that the applicant should have given you the competent evidence. So we're here - Mr. Garcia: I am not saying that. Ms. Gralia: -- tonight so that I can show you that you did not rely on competent evidence. That is the purpose of this hearing tonight, so that you all, as the board, can make a decision whether the evidence that we presented through my experts and through our testimony, and whatever evidence or lack thereof of evidence presented by your staff what is competent evidence, and what you get to decide, based on that evidence. So I'm going -- just because you said that. And I like you very much and I like everyone in your department, and you know I have a good relationship with everyone here. But I want to let you -- I want you to see how long we've been at this; since 2015. Look at the dates in 2016. This is everything we went through in 2016 to get to the point of a denial of a warrant application, only because we want to put three homes on three lots that have been legally platted. And your Zoning Code does not say that we are prohibited from ever, from ever dividing these lots into three legally platted lots. It only says -- no, the three lots -- it only says that if we're going to do that, we got to go through a warrant process. And when we go through a warrant process, we have to make sure -- you make sure that we comply with the criteria that's very specific, contained in Article 4, Table 12. That is exactly what we did, and that's why we're here. And I'm not going to continue. I will finish my presentation, because I think it's -- we've shown what we've had to show. So, briefly, City of Miami Page 143 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 when we conducted our study, within a 250-foot radius, 85 percent of the homes were single-family lots; not large lots, as was stated in the final warrant decision. Within a 500-foot radius, the average lot size of a single-family lot was 6,542 square feet. Furthermore, we found that only 2.5 percent of the lots within a 500-foot radius were reconfigured to 21,000 square feet; two, two lots; not the majority; not everything; not just my neighbor's lot, that's one, she has 17,500 square feet; two, only two; in the entire area, two. And furthermore, of those modified lots, only 12 -- or 15 percent were greater than 10,000 square feet. Based on these findings, and has been testified by my expert, it would not be reasonable to find that a 7,000- square-foot lot, a single-family lot under NCD-3 is more in line with the neighborhood context than a 21,000-square-foot lot, which is a single-family estate. That is what your determination says. You're saying that those 7,000-square foot lots are less similar than what's around the neighborhood, when, in fact, it's actually what's around the neighborhood. So unless you can provide here tonight any evidence to support your determination that a 21,000-square-foot lot is more consistent than a 7,000-square-foot lot, I would say that the board has to agree with the appellant in this case. Now, I want to go over a couple of things before I finish my presentation. So the legal standard -- Mr. Garcia: If I may very briefly? I simply want to put a note on the record that that is not an assertion we have made, nor are we making today. We have not at any point in time said that it is the only appropriate solution for the lot to remain undivided; just for the record, because I believe that that is what you inferred, from my denial, and that is not at all what the denial was intended to do. We simply found -- and let me be very clear about this -- we found your specific proposal, which was the subject of the warrant, not satisfactory, and therefore, we denied it; that's all we said. Ms. Gralia: So are you saying that your warrant decision is incorrect? Because I'm going to read from the warrant decision that says, "Neighborhood context: When examining the neighborhood context of the subject site, the lot size and configuration has changed over the years. The subject building site is approximately 21,000 square feet, and represents" -- "represents an example of the neighborhood's evolution from the uniform lot of the Coconut Grove Park Subdivision into an assortment of larger lot sizes and configurations. Until recently, the neighborhood context trended toward larger lots that, in turn, reduced the density, traffic, and infrastructure demands. Therefore, the request to revert the subject building site into three lots is considered contrary to the conservation and preservation component of NCD-3. " That is exactly what you said. Mr. Garcia: It is not, and I'll explain to you -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Well, I'm sorry, it's here, and you can all read it. Mr. Garcia: -- ma'am -- Ms. Gralia: I'm not making it up. Mr. Garcia: -- no, you're not. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Mr. Garcia: You read verbatim what the warrant document says. What the warrant document does not say is -- and I will say it one more time and only that, and I'll say it simpler this time. What that warrant does not say is that the only satisfactory outcome that will meet with the approval of the Planning & Zoning Department is to leave the site in its present condition, as a unified development lot. It does not say City of Miami Page 144 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 that. You know, in fact -- full well, I believe -- that at numerous times, the possibility of actually dividing it into two lots was proposed, and you rejected that. So what I would reframe your position as stating is that we don't find the lot, in its present condition, to be the only option, but we prefer two to three, and we find three entirely too small. That's what we said. Ms. Gralia: Okay. Well, I'm -- I guess I didn't get your message, but I never spoke to you about going to two lots. But leaving that as it is, all we have here today is this warrant final decision. That is all we have here today from the Planning director and your Code. And your Code clearly says that in this NCD District, when you're going to desegregate a lot from three legally platted lots, because at some point, it was a single building site, you have to go to a warrant -- through a warrant process; Article 4, Table 12, that's what it says, and that's what this warrant decision reviewed. So the only evidence that the City Commission or board can consider in a quasi judicial process is that which is both competent and substantial. The term, "competent," means that the person is qualified to give evidence on that subject. "Substantial" means that there is sufficient relevant and credible evidence to which to base your decision. The City Commission must make its decision based on testimony before it. They cannot consider anything that they encounter outside of a public hearing, and politics, no matter how difficult the decision is. The only thing before you is the evidence presented, and such evidence must be competent and substantial. That's what we've presented today, and your staff has not. Now, in conclusion, there are a few takeaways that I want to leave you with. We've talked a lot, and I don't want anybody to lose sight of what we are asking. So, one: There is no competent evidence to show that Lot 10 was ever part of a single building site with Lots 11 and 12; and therefore, you cannot -- Today you must rule that Lot 10 is a legally conforming lot, and my client can pull a building lot -- building permit to build a single-family residence on Lot 10. The only evidence presented shows that no legal structure was ever erected on Lot 10 for the benefit of Lots 12 -- 11 and 12. The unity of title that was the basis at some point -- they told us this -- for the Zoning administrator's decision was held to be invalid and null and void, and having no force or effect, as an unreasonable restrain on alienation, cancelling and invalidating same forever, by the Eleventh Circuit Court. There is no dispute that there are three legally conforming lots currently in existence, each comprising of 7,000 square feet. There is no evidence to suggest that the three lots are aggregated by acceptable legal joinder, as provided for in Miami 21, under the definition of "lots." The evidence is clear that the average lot size within the 200-foot radius is approximately 7,541 square feet or/and 6,547 square feet, within a 500-foot radius. That is the evidence that was presented. The evidence is clear that two-story homes predominate along Avocado, Loquat, and Hibiscus. The landscape plan provided by Avocan [sic] is in compliance with the landscape requirement of Miami 21, as shown by -- as shown here tonight. Further, as presented by the project's architect, applicant adhered in complying with the design criteria of Article 4, Table 12, the only condition for the diminishment of a single building site found in the NCD-3. For these reasons and the evidence presented here today, we respectfully request that you grant the appeal, and direct staff to issue the warrant to allow for the construction of three single-family homes on three legally conforming lots. Furthermore, we request that you find as follows: That Lot 10 was not part of a single building site, and therefore, can proceed to building permit, as of right; that the applicant met the criteria contained in Article 4, Table 12, for the diminishment of the single building sites for Lots 11 and 12. I want to, just for the record, incorporate any evidence or other hearing testimony, whether it was at the Planning Department, in their review of this application and at the Planning -- Zoning, Planning & Appeals Board, below. I'd like now, after the presentation of the witnesses with Mr. Gibbs, an opportunity to cross-examine them after their testimony. Thank you for your attention. City of Miami Page 145 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Mr. Garcia, is there any other -- is there any evidence that you would like to put on that the -- that this board should consider before we hear testimony that's going to be proffered by counsel? Mr. Garcia: Perhaps simply this, and I believe that I'll have an opportunity to summarize our case in the positive, as opposed to as a response to the many questions that I've been asked. But it is important for me, at this time, at the very least, to posit to you that in every decision that was made, pursuant to this warrant, not only myself, but my colleagues in the Planning & Zoning Department relied, certainly, on competent evidence and substantial evidence, to the extent that we had it in the City's files. We admittedly did not go beyond the City's files and the City's records to conduct research, and I am not in a position at present to validate or, frankly, to contradict any evidence that has been presented to you by the appellant. But I suggest to you that the evidence that has been proffered and shown to you should, at the very least, go through some sort of a vetting process, because I find it hard to believe that there is a significant discrepancy between what they found in other records and what we, through our diligent search, have found in ours. And with that, I'll yield to Mr. Gibbs, but I'd also like to reserve some time to, again, make my case in the positive. Chair Hardemon: That will be fine. So, counselor, I'm assuming you're going to put forth testimony through some witnesses that are here with you that could possibly go towards the facts that were especially presented by, in a sense, her case in chief -- Mr. Gibbs: We'll go -- Chair Hardemon: -- to help clam some of these issues that we have, because we have some differences of facts. Mr. Gibbs: We're going to try. We're going to be talking about neighborhood context and those requirements in the Code. What I'd like to do is make an argument first, and then have the neighbors testify, if I could, and this is in response to opposing counsel. My name is Tucker Gibbs. I have law offices at 3835 Utopia Court, in Coconut Grove, and I'm representing David Trytel and Carla D'Andre, who own the property -- adjacent property at 3561 Avocado Avenue, in Coconut Grove. I want to start off by talking about this issue of competent substantial evidence, because that's -- a lot's been made of that. Let me first, before I get to that and get to the reason why competent substantial evidence is so important is if this goes to court, the court has three things they look at -- it looks at; just three things. Standard of Review: Did you, as the Commission, provide due process to the parties? I'm speaking on behalf of my client. They spoke on be -- Ms. Gralia spoke on behalf of hers. They got -- we've gotten our due process. The other issue is: Did you follow the essential requirements of law when you made the decision? What are the essential requirements of law? The essential requirements of law is the Code, is NCD-3; is Article 4, Section 12. That's the essential requirements of law. And the courts look at this and say, "Did you look at those, did you evaluate those, and did you make a decision, based on those?" That's number two. Number 3 is: Was your decision, your decision, supported by -- and I'm going to say this -- any competent substantial evidence? That means, when you have a choice between the competent substantial evidence presented by them, if you make that determination, or the competent substantial evidence presented by the Planning Department, then you make the decision. You are the decider; you're the fact -finder. The facts that you determine tonight are the facts that the court will look at. They're not going to reweigh the evidence. You are here tonight to make a determination of what the facts are. And I want to tell you a little bit about -- As a matter of law, your fact - based staff report is competent substantial evidence. Case called City of Hialeah Gardens versus Miami Charter Foundation outlines that issue that a staff report, City of Miami Page 146 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 based on fact, is, as a matter of law, competent substantial evidence. And again, you all make that decision, what is the competent substantial evidence. Your staff provides you with professional recommendations, based on facts. You've heard them, you've read them, you've seen them. They have no axe to grind. Of anybody in this room, aside from you guys, your staff has no axe to grind. They are your professionals. They are retained by you to give you unbiased decisions and -- unbiased recommendations -- I shouldn't say "decisions" -- unbiased recommendations, and that's what they've done. They've been accused of a lot of things tonight, and I can tell you -- You all see me here all the time, and most of the time, I'm complaining about your staff but I have never, ever said that your staff is being used; that your staff is being politicized. I can argue with your staff and tell you that your staff is wrong, based on the law and the facts, but I'm not going to sit there and call names, and I find that offensive. I'm offense -- I'm offended by it, not - - because I've been appearing in front of this board, because I used to sit on the Planning Board and the Zoning Board in the City of Miami, and I'm -- I've never heard anybody make a statement like that about this -- about the staff. You make the determination, you're the fact -finder, so when you're thinking about all this, remember that. So I'll go to my argument in chief. My clients support the Planning director's denial of the warrant and -- don't forget -- the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, denial of their appeal, and support of the Planning director; that's why they're the appellant here. The director correctly applied the review standards, as set forth in 7.1.2.4(d). By the way, Article 4, Table 12 is not the only review standard. All warrants have a general review standard. And then it says, Article 4, Section 12, as required. And for this warrant, NCD-3, it says you have to apply that. That doesn't mean you don't apply the rest of the warrant standards. We've only heard about one side, okay? When the "P" -- The applicant says it -- and my argument -- these are arguments, and for the record, I'm going to make them as quickly as possible. The applicant says it doesn't need a warrant to allow the split of the building into three lots. That's their first big argument that you heard tonight. They don't need a warrant. They have a property as of right, that they can do it. It's vacant, it's got three platted lots, and they say, "Doggone it, we have that right." So the question is -- And they say, "Because Lot 10 is not part of the building site." And the applicant erroneously claims that it's the director's responsibility to provide evidence that Lot 10 was part of a single building site. But the Planning director's job is to respond to the application. Mr. Garcia said it very well. He can only respond to what's in front of him, the application that is in front of him; that's all he can respond to. And that application, he found wanting. The application is clear. In the application form, it says the nature of the application on the form. It says -- And they wrote -- the applicant wrote, "Construction of three single-family residence at Avoca" -- "at 3501, 3511, 3521 Avocado Avenue, an NCD-3 overlay." But the applicant made the determination that this is one building site when it filed the application. And, oh, yes, Ms. Gralia will tell you that she did it, because the Planning Department said, "That's the only way we're going to hear this. We believe this is the situation: You have to get a warrant." I'm a lawyer; Ms. Gralia is a lawyer. She had the right at that point to go into the Building Department and put her application in, as a matter of right, and then go and challenge the City and sue the City, and go into court. She made a choice, and her choice was to come in here and go through the warrant process. For whatever reason, she and her clients made that choice. The architect who came here and talked to you about all the problems with this application, because he's the expert with how the Count -- with how the City dealt with this. He came in, and when he filed a letter to the City on September 28, 2000 and -- let me just finish my -- Chair Hardemon: No, no, I'm going to let you finish, but all that you're giving me is argument. You haven't put on any evidence just yet. Mr. Gibbs: I have -- City of Miami Page 147 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: I'm going to allow you to finish. I'm just letting you understand that; what we perceive to be argument -- Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- which is fine. It's just -- Mr. Gibbs: And that's what I'm doing. Chair Hardemon: -- that it's kind of out of the order -- Mr. Gibbs: I understand -- Chair Hardemon: -- in which I want it heard. Mr. Gibbs: As an attorney, I make my argument and then I bring my witnesses up to present their facts; that's how I do it, and that's what I was saying to you when I started. Chair Hardemon: No, I remember you saying that. Mr. Gibbs: And that's what I do. Chair Hardemon: I didn't anticipate the argument would take, one, as long as it has. Well, and two -- hear me -- because your evidence is generally created by the -- your argument is usually created by the evidence that is put before us. Mr. Gibbs: There's -- Chair Hardemon: So you have some evidence that was put on already by the testimony before Mr. Francisco Garcia; and also, by the architect. But I look forward to seeing the witness that you put on, but I just -- I'm just saying that. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. I have to make my argument, and you will hear -- Chair Hardemon: Got it. Mr. Gibbs: -- these -- I just began, and I was talking about substantial competent evidence and the standard of review to give you a context, and then I went into the argument. So the architect, when he presented in a letter to the City on the 28th of September of 2016 -- and this was a letter -- the pre -application for the Zoning waiver. And he referred -- and here's what he said: "Previously, all three lots occupied" -- "were occupied by one large residence." That's interesting, because they didn't say that when they were making their argument to you. And then, he says, "The lots were previously joined by a unity of title." So I understand why they applied for the warrant, because they had to. They say, "We didn't have to." In this letter to the City, they're saying, "Yeah, we have to. All three lots were one building site, one large residence, and the lots were previously joined by a unity of title." This is what the applicant said. The Planning director properly considered the application for a warrant, as presented by the property owner, to allow three single- family houses on three lots, previously occupied by one large residence. The applicant claims the Planning director did not correctly apply the criteria set forth in Article 4, Table 12, addressing design review. Yet, the warrant addresses the following criteria in table -- whether the residence -- whether the request for the four -- for the three houses respond to the neighborhood context. They discuss it, they explain it, and they examine it; that's what the Planning director did. I'm not going City of Miami Page 148 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 to go into the details, because of time constraints. "B," whether the request, quote, "respond to the physical context, taking into consideration natural features, existing urban form, and the intent of the transect zone." They evaluated that. Now, they may not -- the other side may not like the evaluation, but your professional staff made that evaluation, and that evaluation deserves, if nothing else, your consideration. But the fact is, it deserves you giving it a lot of weight, because, as I said, the only unbiased people on this side of the dais -- Mr. Garcia and his staff, those are the only unbiased people providing advice. And "C," whether the request provide -- preserve existing vegetation. The applicant states the director ignored material that it provided as part of its application. I don't know that the director ignored it. I don't think that there's any evidence in the record that says the director ignored what they provided him. The director probably evaluated it, along with everything else, including their visits to the neighborhood; including examination of the Code. But to say that they ignored it -- and we want to talk about competent substantial evidence. I don't know where they have the evidence that he absolutely ignored it, unless they were sitting on his shoulder, looking at him while he was evaluating this. It is clear the director prepared his analysis in response to the review criteria. As he explains in his analysis, the issues about the request to place three houses where one once stood, it's about changing the development context of the area relating to increased density, decreased canopy, and native vegetation. And the director did respond to the material presented in his analysis of the lot issue. As for the issue of the unity of title, I'm going to say one thing: When the Circuit Court dissolved the unity of title, it did not make any determination that the property was, in fact, three building sites. Miami 21 was not an issue at this trial. It was an issue about a unity of title and quieting title; a property issue, but not a zoning issue. So the desig -- dissolution of the unity of title does not and cannot restrict or interfere with your authority as the City Commission, under Miami 21 and NCD-3, to consider this matter and render a decision, based on competent substantial evidence presented by your staff to deny the owner's appeal. NCD-3 -- In conclusion, NCD-3 was established to preserve the character of Coconut Grove residential uses as low density, heavily landscaped, native plants, tree canopy, and architectural variety. The key factor was to prevent the intrusion of additional density. The warrant requirement is a mechanism by which density is regulated. It is the only way to convert a multiple lot building site -- one building sight that's multiple lots -- into multiple lots; it's the only way to do it. Why? Because this is a density issue. This is an important issue in Coconut Grove, as developers are changing the character and the neighborhood context of the small lot, 5 to 7,000 lot residential areas by claiming all they want to do is build, pursuant to the plat. But what they want to build is not the small historic bungalows that characterize these neighborhoods, but 3,000 and up -- how -- 3,000 square feet and up houses that are out of scale with these small lots. Everybody wants to talk about, well, it's the original plat, but when they originally platted this property, the houses they built were 1,700 square feet, 2,100 square feet. That -- If you want to talk about the historic and neighborhood context, that's what it is; that's why NCD-3 was put into place; that's what's going on. So when Article 4, Section 12 talks about neighborhood context, it can include the historic context. It can include -- Okay. You want to put three houses in? Then you know what? Put in three houses that are 2,000 square feet, because there are 5,000 or 7,000, or 6, 000-square foot lots. Make it contextual; make it really contextual; just not the context of the lot size, where they pull in a gigantic building that's 3,000 square feet. NCD-3 is designed to protect the Grove single-family neighborhoods. The City, through its Planning director, has taken the rare, if not unheard of step to deny this warrant, to protect this neighborhood. We urge you to hold up -- uphold in his decision, and thank you very much. And I will now ask -- excuse me. I will ask the individuals who are neighbors to this project, people who utilize this neighborhood, and have them come up. And I'd first like Carla D'Andre, who is my client, to come up and talk about this property, what it means to her, in City of Miami Page 149 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 terms of the neighborhood, in terms of what she is -- why she bought her property, and all the rest. Chair Hardemon: And what would be the relevance of that? Mr. Gibbs: I think the relevance of that is when -- She is somebody who -- as the intervenor -- who lives in the neighborhood, and has lived in the neighborhood since 2010; why she moved into that neighborhood, what's important to her about that neighborhood, what makes that neighborhood unique, and that all goes to the neighborhood context, what that neighborhood is. This isn't just about bricks and mortar. This is about people who live in a neighborhood and use that neighborhood, and how something like this is going to make a difference. And she's going to present facts and Ms. Gralia can object, and we can go that route. My -- Chair Hardemon: I mean, when we were trying to determine whether or not the intervenor status applied, those things might have been relevant. I'm just trying to -- I'm struggling to find the relevance in this situation, where we are now. Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Chair Hardemon: I'm trying to determine whether or not -- Mr. Gibbs: Because there are several issues here, and the issues include density and intensity, and they include the canopy; those issues in Article 4, Section -- Table 12, which go to those issues of neighborhood context; the people who can testify to that. And again, you all, as the fact finder, have the ability to make that determination. It's your determination in the end to determine -- to decide whether or not that evidence is relevant or useful to you in your decision -making. I'm providing you the evidence. It's up to you to decide if you're going to accept it or not. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Gibbs, a brief question before you go into your witnesses. As the abutting neighbor, your client would have been notified of the demolition that was applied for, and my question -- We don't have any record of anyone appealing -- Mr. Gibbs: That's right. Vice Chair Russell: -- the demolition waiver. Mr. Gibbs: That's correct. Vice Chair Russell: So I would like to hear about why that was not -- and I see they're chomping at the bit, so -- Mr. Gibbs: She can -- she will test, yeah. Vice Chair Russell: -- let me know, so -- Mr. Gibbs: She'll testify. Vice Chair Russell: -- that's something I'm curious about. Mr. Gibbs: My client will testify to that and will answer any questions you may have regarding that, and I will let her speak. Chair Hardemon: Are you going to guide her through this? Are you going to --? Sir -- City of Miami Page 150 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Gibbs. Chair Hardemon: -- are you going to --? Your witness, are you going to question your witness? Mr. Gibbs: I'm not going to question my witness. I'm going to ask her to make a statement, and that's what she's going -- I'm going to ask each of my witnesses to make a statement, and I will tell you why. I am somebody who has sat on daises, just like yours, and I don't like cross-examination. I don't like -- I find it to be jarring and I find it to be intimidating, so I asked my clients to make a presentation. Ms. Gralia: Then I -- again, I'm going to object -- Mr. Gibbs: You can cross-examine. Ms. Gralia: -- because I don't think that -- It's either they're testing as a witness, or they're giving public commentary -- Mr. Gibbs: Cite to a rule, please. Cite to a rule. Chair Hardemon: You have a right to cross-examine the witnesses -- Ms. Gralia: I will. Chair Hardemon: -- and they will give their testimony. Ms. Gralia: Thank you, and I will cross-examine. Thank you. Ms. D'Andre: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Garcia, and staff. Thank you for hearing me. My name is Carla D'Andre. I'm a licensed insurance agent in the State of Florida, and I run a micro insurance agency out of my home on the adjacent property. I live there with my husband, David Trytel, who could not be here tonight, because he's at a board meeting in Ireland for a company. So he did write a statement which we'd like to submit. Mr. Gibbs has it for each of you, for the record. And I wanted to first address Vice Chairman's question about the demolition; and then, to talk a little bit about the unity of title; and then to thank all of my kind neighbors, who are here tonight, of which 225 have written a signature of "Please say 'no,'" which I will turn in now. These -- this is in triplicate. It's gone in twice before, and they have the petition. So that's, "Please say 'yes,'" to support -- to denial; "Please say 'no,'" to the request to change that, just to be clear. All right. Demolition: We were never advised that there was a demolition permit -- or day of demolition on the home adjacent to us. I don't know why that was, but one day, I was in my office, and the -- and everything just started rocking and I looked out, and there was a boom taking down a two-story, eight -room colonial house. So that's how I learned of it, so that's my answer on that. Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment, please. Mr. Garcia, do we have a record of certified letters being sent out for notification of the demolition? Ms. Gralia: It -- if I may. It's in your package. Mr. Garcia: Not at present. Vice Chair Russell: What's in my packet? Ms. Gralia: The demoli -- the waiver for demolition. City of Miami Page 151 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. D'Andre: That's different than notice. Vice Chair Russell: The waiver, I'm aware, was issued. But when a waiver is issued, notification is given, in order for abutting neighbors to appeal; and so, I want to make sure that notification was sent out; just leading up to my question of You purchased the house with your understanding that it -- your neighbor would never be diminished or multiple houses be built; is that -- that's what I understand. Correct? Ms. D'Andre: Or in -- and there is a misstatement in the year or purchase, for the record. It was not purchased in the year 2000. It was purchased in the year 2010. Vice Chair Russell: Your purchase? Ms. D'Andre: Our purchase. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Ms. D'Andre: And so, we never could have -- also, contrary to a statement sent -- said with such afrmity [sic] that we could have bought that property. That -- Lot 10 was sold before our purchase. Vice Chair Russell: Right. So why I'm leading with this is, knowing that that's so important to you, I would've expected that you would've appealed the demolition, being probably the most able to appeal that demolition, if notification was properly given. Ms. D'Andre: Yes, sir. We -- Vice Chair Russell: And so, I just wanted to make sure that we have record of that for future reference. Obviously, it's -- whether that notification was given properly or not is water under the bridge with regard to the structure; it's long gone. But it's just leading to my question of why you didn't appeal. You're saying you didn't receive a notification? Ms. D'Andre: We received no notice. We would've both appealed, and most probably, tried to buy the property to save the home and put it for sale. But we didn't feel we had to, because the attorney who wrote that unity of title that's been the subject of so much discussion here -- his name hasn't come up, but he's an attorney, Mr. Reifus (phonetic), licensed attorney in the State of Florida. He was the attorney who wrote it for the sale of Mr. La Roca to the former owner of the property, and he was our attorney when we bought the house, so he represented the buyer and the seller. And it was not just that the seller, Mr. La Roca, offered -- or didn't offer, but represented that that unity of title ran with the land, not party to party, as he later recalls it must have been, but the attorney who wrote it said it went with the land, because we asked about buying that piece of land, and we -- which was sold, and we were told, "You have nothing to worry about. You're holding a unity of title, along with the entire community." We now know where that went. Like the demolition, we were never told it was before a judicial body to be dissolved. We were never given notice. We were not invited to do anything. We just heard later that it's no longer valid. So that is -- I'm sorry the Chairman has walked out, because that was his whole focus on -- Oh, thank you, sir. So my point on both of those is we never had notice of demolition. We never had notice that the unity of title was less than what it was represented to be, when we made a significant investment; and further, invested in that property, as it stands today. The other concerns that are brought forward by my husband and myself is on the position Mr. Gibbs was stating that didn't get a lot of attention earlier on, but that's on the density of the community. That corner is opposite a church and a preschool. You watch young mothers or City of Miami Page 152 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 housekeepers walk small children and dogs, go on bicycles and tricycles, all day long. Three townhouses, some of which I think might be closer to 4,000 square feet, but three of them, side by side, with five or 10 feet between each of them, without garages is going to change that corner dramatically, so we have a safety issue. We have -- We heard when we came in that debris on the side of the road has increased to hazard. Well, there's going to be a lot more debris, and it's going to permanent, with cars parked and density of these three homes, so there is a safety issue that we brought forward, as well. These are captured in my husband's notes. I think I was to talk specific to demolition and the unity of title, and I wanted to clear the record on the date of purchase in that piece of property. In that unity of title, it said that it was one envelope, one perimeter. This slicing off and so forth, that's rather new. So -- and, of course, the letter went in representing that, as well, as we heard Mr. Gibbs read. Mr. Gibbs: How many square feet is your property; 21? Ms. D'Andre: I don't know our land square feet. I'm told it's on three -- like this. And by the way, on Hibiscus, there's many larger homes on three properties. Vice Chair Russell: 17,500, according to the County. Ms. D'Andre: That may be; I don't know. I don't know. We would've -- Everything was sold on either side, but that's what -- We bought that -- We didn't change the footprint on the house, the property line, at all, from purchase. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. D'Andre: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: You have cross-examination. Ms. Gralia: Oh, I'm sorry; yes, yes. Good evening. So I just want to -- I'm -- Did you meet with anyone at the City regarding this application? Ms. D'Andre: This application? Ms. Gralia: Yes. Ms. D'Andre: No. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So when -- Your testimony is just that you just don't want the -- this 21,000-square foot lot divided into three; you know, diminished in size; is that what you're saying? Ms. D'Andre: My testimony is that it's our understanding, and it's protected by NCD Code -- and I'm not a lawyer; I'm a layperson, who lives next door -- that it is one envelope for one estate to be -- one estate purchased as a complete property, a complete perimeter for one home to go on; that's my understanding; that's what I'm representing here today. Ms. Gralia: And why is that your understanding? Other than the unity of title, is there any other legal document or anything that you can refer to that would evidence that this property should always stay as a single building site? Ms. D'Andre: From what I understand, the Planning & Zoning Codes which prevail state that. City of Miami Page 153 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Can you specifically refer to that section of the Code that states that? Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: -- I don't think that's necessary. Ms. Gralia: All right. Okay. So I just want to understand. Your testimony here today is that you believe there's a section in the Code that says that this should always stay as a single building site, 21,000 square feet; that is your testimony? Vice Chair Russell: That's -- It's irrelevant, because she's not here as an expert on the Code. Mr. Gibbs: This is a legal question. I object, because she's asking questions about interpreting the law. She already explained -- The question was asked by the Commission -- by the Vice Chair. She answered the question. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So then maybe I'll rephrase the question. Do you think that this site should be diminished in size from 21,000 square feet to anything under 21,000 square feet? Ms. D'Andre: I think that this site should be addressed in accordance with the laws that prevail. Ms. Gralia: And that would be the NCD-3 District regulations and Miami 21; is that correct? Ms. D'Andre: I -- whatever laws prevail -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Ms. D'Andre: -- all right? Ms. Gralia: That's it. Thank you very much. One more question. So can -- Your site, you said, is 17,500 square feet? Ms. D'Andre: Abut that. Ms. Gralia: You were told that your site is 17,500 square feet. How big is it? Like, what is -- That's the lot size. What is the area of your home, square footage? Ms. D'Andre: I don't know the square footage. Vice Chair Russell: 5,802. Ms. D'Andre: Thank you, sir. Ms. Gralia: 5,802 square feet. Okay. Thank you. Ms. D'Andre: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: The lots that are there, these are single-family lots, so only one living -- one -- I'll ask this of the staff -- Mr. Garcia: Correct. City of Miami Page 154 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- one dwelling unit can be on each lot; not like Granny fats or a duplex, or a triplex? Mr. Garcia: Correct. The underlying zoning is T3-R, which is single-family residential, so it's one single-family residence per lot of record. Chair Hardemon: What happens if, say, like -- These are not the facts of this case, but say, for instance, you have a home. 6,000 square feet is not the average size home in the City of Miami; it's well over. So what if a single-family home was being used as a duplex in an area like that? What -- How would the City respond to that? Mr. Garcia: The only manner in which that could happen legally is if it were grandfathered, because it was built subject to old ordinances that allowed it to be so. And the only way we would be able to allow for that to happen is if permits and licenses were furnished that proved that it was originally developed in that fashion; that at the time, it responded to the applicable Code. Chair Hardemon: One of the major discussions that we have here on this dais are about affordability of housing. I think we even had that discussion earlier today -- Ms. Gralia: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- with regards to an area in the Grove. And so, my question to you is, if -- How does the affordability of the house affect --? Well, how does the -- this diminishment of the lots affect the affordability of the housing that you would offer there? Because I'm assuming you have -- you would offer three different housing products on the three different lots versus one on --? Ms. Gralia: One big 14,000-square-foot house; that is correct. So the three lots would provide you smaller -- or smaller envelopes. You can get three smaller homes in these three lots, rather than one massive 14,000-square-foot lot, which would be allowed in a 21,000 square -- you know, 14 -- I'm sorry --14,000-square-foot area of a house -- the FAR (floor/area ratio) would be 14,000 square feet -- in a 21,000- square-foot lot. So by dividing it, you can get smaller homes, about 3,600 on each lot, rather than one big, massive house. Chair Hardemon: So I'm assuming that each house will be much more affordable -- Ms. Gralia: It would be much more affordable, and I -- Chair Hardemon: -- than one massive 14,000 square foot -- I've never been in a 14,000 -- Ms. Gralia: Well, and I will ask the applicant, Amanda, because I think it would be important for you to hear from the developer, whose vision it is to put these houses there, and she can answer that question. Amanda. Amanda de Seta: Good evening, Commissioner. Chair Hardemon: You've been in a 14,000-square-foot home. I think my home is about 1,300 square feet. Ms. de Seta: You know, once 1 was in a 17, 000-square foot home -- Chair Hardemon: So -- and I'm imagining 14 of them lined up. City of Miami Page 155 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. de Seta: -- and I was like, "This is like the Four Seasons." It seemed like someplace you rent for a wedding. It was very bizarre to me. That is not the type of house that I build. I am probably no good at that, at all. I don't know what goes in a house that big. I'd be lost. Vice Chair Russell: Your name, please? Ms. de Seta: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Can you tell us your name? Ms. de Seta: Amanda de Seta. I live at 3900 Loquat Avenue, in Coconut Grove. I am a real estate developer. I also own The Grove Bookstore. I am a member of the community, and I work here. So what are your questions about lot size, lot coverage, house size? Chair Hardemon: Well, just the first -- The question I asked was about -- and I'm -- assume that this is -- I think this is common sense, but I just want to pull this testimony out. If you have one house on that lot, as was being presented by the testimony from before, how does that affect the affordability of that house on that lot Ms. de Seta: It pushes it way far up. Chair Hardemon: -- versus three homes in three lots? Ms. de Seta: It pushes it way far up. What we are seeing is that homes on lots this size are becoming increasingly more valuable. Two weeks ago, on Keora, a house that was about 9,000 square feet on a 37,000-square foot lot closed for over 7 million. There is a house in Key Biscayne that closed on a similar sized lot for -- in the mid-$5 million range. Chair Hardemon: Have you had anything near this site that closed with that sort of lot size recently? Ms. de Seta: Keora is one of them. Chair Hardemon: That's the first one. Ms. de Seta: That would go in the direct comp -- and for the record, and to be honest, I don't think that a house that massive or that expensive goes there. I live in the neighborhood. I walk by that lot every day, as I take my daughter to Carrolton, and I don't think an enormous 14,000-square foot -- whatever that comes with -- goes there. I'm going to be really frank, and as a real estate developer, you're probably surprised I'd say that, but I'm not interested in building that. Mr. Gibbs: May I respond? Because I thought this was my presentation for my -- but I understand. Chair Hardemon: Well, you kind of gave your presentation to the witness, but -- Mr. Gibbs: Yeah, I understand. Chair Hardemon: -- I wanted to -- I had a question. City of Miami Page 156 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: And I have a response, as well, so I just wanted to let you know. I got this today for 3901 Loquat Avenue; sale price, 1.23 -- 7,500,000, for a 21,450- square-foot lot. Big lots sell, small lots sell -- Chair Hardemon: What's going to --? Mr. Gibbs: -- but if you split those lots up, in terms of that sale price -- Chair Hardemon: Is there a house on that lot? Ms. Gralia: No. Mr. Gibbs: No, there is not a house on it, but what I'm saying is, you split that up and you build three houses on it, are those affordable houses? I guess it's all a matter of how you define "affordability." Chair Hardemon: Well, the -- Ms. de Seta: Actually, Mr. Gibbs, if I could interrupt for a second, you bring up a very good point. That lot did sell for 1.29 million. Now, as a builder, I'm going to tell you that if you're going to build a 4 to 5,000-square foot house on that one lot, you're going to build that for a mill -- 1.5 million to 1.8 million. That means you're in that property for between 3-8 and 4. With carrying costs, if you're going to move that property on spec, you got to push it up over 5 to even make a little bit of money, and that's not what the Grove needs. I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. And what I'm saying is the Grove -- and what my clients are saying is the Grove doesn't need three houses that maximize the lots that they're on, on the corner, right across from a school and a church. The court -- Chair Hardemon: These argue -- I'm going to tell you, these arguments always seem to me the most spectacular, and the reason they are is because I always watched the difference in the neighborhoods; whereas, in one neighborhood, where you have very large lot sizes, very few people that live on the street, very large canopies, and people who come from very well means always say, "No more development, no more neighbors, no more intensity." But then, just look to the west of it, and they'll say, in the same -- on a similar type of lot, or even a smaller lot, "Let's have more intensity, let's have more dwellings, let's have more units, because we have a problem with affordable housing or affordability." And so, you know, I hear both sides of these things. I just always look at the way that it's always presented to me. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman -- Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- if I could chime in, though, in -- Lot -splitting, in general, is not about creating affordability; it's about creating profitability. Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: So the -- they will become less expensive on the whole, but the price per square foot is what you should really look at. And what it was purchased for as one lot is much different than what it can be sold for as three lots. So the goal here isn't necessarily to create affordability as much as it is to maximize the marketability of the houses. Sell them easier as smaller lots, and be more profitable per square foot. City of Miami Page 157 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: And that's why they're putting -- Chair Hardemon: So my -- but the question is that I have then, in regards to that, and that's why I was asking questions about what does it cost to have more than one house, or if I were a purchaser of a property, buying one house there, can I afford to buy one house on that size lot, or can I more afford to buy one house on a diminished lot? And what is the average -- Mr. Gibbs: I asked the question -- the same question, because I lived in the North Grove, where my lot size -- I was two 25 -- I believe at 25-foot-wide lots. I was on two 25-foot-wide lots in the City of Miami, and that's what I could afford. But if they had assembled those lots, I wouldn't have been able to afford to live in that neighborhood. So, you know, that was a smaller situation about 30 years ago. All I'm saying is, is if you're talking about -- and that's affordability, which is an incredibly important issue in the City of Miami -- and I'll be talking to you all about it in another issue coming up -- but the fact is, is that affordability isn't one of the standards for your review of this issue of whether or not you split the lot. It's the standards that we've talked about, which is the neighborhood context, it deals with density and those issues, and that's the issue here before you. Chair Hardemon: What does your next witness have to add to the --? Mr. Gibbs: My -- pardon me? Chair Hardemon: What does your next witness have to add to that? Mr. Gibbs: My next witness, Amy Pollock, who lives directly across the street from this project -- from this proposed development. Ms. Gralia: Can I just clarify something for the record? Because I want to make sure that we understand. This is not a lot split; there's a very big difference. Vice Chair Russell: You're correct. Ms. Gralia: So that's all. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: It's a diminishment, yes. Ms. Gralia: That's right. Vice Chair Russell: We'll use the right terminology. Mr. Gibbs: I apologize. I will call it a diminishment. I will try to remember that. Amy Pollock: Good evening. My name is Amy Pollock, and I live at 3540 Avocado Avenue, and my home is directly across the street from the property that we are discussing tonight. I had a lot of things that I was going to say, but I think what might be more valuable is to directly answer some of the things that have come up. First, let me say that I have lived in my home for 15 years, so I was in the home when the two previous owners of the colonial home that was on one piece of property -- There were two previous owners that lived there. It was -- it's a -- it was a beautiful home on a very well land -- highly landscaped piece of property, surrounded by a coral rock wall, all the way around the space. One of the things that they were talking about, as far as affordability, is -- that I would like to say is that affordability is not one of the reasons that they want to split the lot. The homes that they will be building on these lots are going to be as large as they can possibly be on these lots, and they are not going to include garages, they do not have any backyards, there will City of Miami Page 158 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 be homes -- there will -- excuse me, I'm a little nervous. There will be cars, at least two cars per home, which will add six cars to a very narrow, small private road; and the homes are going to be well over $1 million; that's what they're offering them for. So it's not going to be affordable housing. Vice Chair Russell: And I apologize that we went down that route, because it's -- you know, development philosophy is something we can talk about for hours here, and we should honestly workshop the whole thing some other time. We have many people waiting for the budget hearing, which we haven't even begun, so I'd like to try to stick to the facts of what we're dealing with here, which will help us determine whether or not their appeal is valid or not. Ms. Pollock: It's a beautiful property; it had a large home. The nature and character of what they're building, while they are three homes, they will have the look and the feel of three condominiums -- or townhouses, as you would say, because all three of them are being built out of the same materials. They all have flat roofs, they're all modern in design, they all will -- they all are stucco and wood. And while they are three separate ones, all three of them have the same exact look, so it will give you the appearance of a development. And I just hope that we can preserve the unique aesthetic character of the Grove for all of our children and grandchildren. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Ms. Gralia: May I --? Vice Chair Russell: Would -- Ms. Gralia: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- you like to cross-examine? Mr. Gibbs: I have one example -- Ms. Gralia: I have -- Mr. Gibbs: -- one question to ask my client. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: To my -- to ask my witness. Excuse me. Did you get a notice for the demo -- I'm sorry. Ms. Pollock: No. Mr. Gibbs: Did you get a notice for the demolition of this property? Ms. Pollock: No, I didn't. And as a matter of fact, I'm glad you asked me that, because not only did I not get a notice of demolition, but prior to the demolition, one morning, there were landscape trucks that came into the property from the previous owner of the property, and they started clearing the land. They cleared the land, and I immediately sent an email to the Commissioner at the time, and I got a response within 20 minutes. Trucks showed up. They stopped the land clearing, and they found out at that time that they had no -- had applied for no permits to clear the property, and they had applied for no permits to demolish the home. At that time, that owner gave up. He sold the property to somebody else, who then, apparently, applied for a permit to demolish the home, and we had no notice of that, as well. City of Miami Page 159 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Would you like to cross-examine? Ms. Gralia: Yes, thank you. I wanted to ask you, what is your lot size of your home? Ms. Pollock: I don't know. Ms. Gralia: Is it 7,000 square feet? Ms. Pollock: I don't know. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I looked it up. It is 7,000 square feet; very similar to what we want. We want 7,000 square feet. And then second question -- Ms. Pollock: Square footage of my home? Ms. Gralia: Lot size. Ms. Pollock: I understand, but what is the square footage of my home? Ms. Gralia: No, I'm asking what is -- Ms. Pollock: You probably know that, too. Ms. Gralia: -- the lot size of your home? Yes, I do. So what is the lot size of your home? 7,000 square feet. Would you -- is that correct? Ms. Pollock: Well, you're telling me that it is, so -- Vice Chair Russell: What's your address, ma'am? Ms. Pollock: 3540 Avocado Avenue. I don't know the size and I don't really know the exact square footage, either, but I do know that I have a double -- a two -car garage. I know the setback of my house, compared to the setback that the house would be -- that you're proposing, the three houses that you're proposing. I also know that behind my house, I have enough space to have a large patio, a pool, and grass, and a million trees behind it; a few less trees since Irma, but a million trees behind it. And so, I know that my house is -- has to be smaller than what you're proposing. Ms. Gralia: So did you confirm that? Is it 7,000? Vice Chair Russell: It is a 7,000-square-foot lot. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And can you see how the area of the house is, as well? Vice Chair Russell: The living area is 3,100 square feet. Ms. Pollock: Okay. 3,100, and you're proposing 3,700? Ms. Gralia: Okay. No. Mr. Arthur: That's the adjusted area. Ms. Gralia: That's the adjusted area. That's for tax -- but we want to know what the real area -- Vice Chair Russell: 3,100 is the living area. City of Miami Page 160 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: -- the actual area is -- Vice Chair Russell: Actual area is 4,700 -- Ms. Gralia: -- it's 4,000 -- how much? Vice Chair Russell: 4,007 square feet. Ms. Gralia: 4,007 square feet. Would you say that that's bigger than --? Ms. Pollock: Wait. Is it including the two -car garage? Ms. Gralia: No, no. I'm asking you the question. Ms. Pollock: Okay. Ms. Gralia: One second. So my question is that you would agree that 4,000 square feet on a 7,000-square-foot block -- lot is larger than what we're proposing? Because our largest house is -- how much, William? Mr. Arthur: 3,700 square foot. Ms. Pollock: Okay. What is the square footage of a two -car garage? And in the adjusted living, do they count for covered patios; is that part of that? Ms. Gralia: I have no further questions. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Ms. Pollock: Well -- so -- And I'll say one other thing: That all three of these homes, while I have no problem with design aesthetic at all, they are modern flat - roofed homes, and because of that, since there's no pitch to the roof the visual -- While it meets the standards of being the correct height, like mine, and it may be even lower than mine, the fact that there is no pitched roof means that the visual impact of a wall going up, a cement wall, is much higher, because there's no pitch to the roof. Ms. Gralia: So since you mentioned it, how many stories is your house? Ms. Pollock: Two. Ms. Gralia: Two. Thank you. I have nothing else. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Ms. Pollock: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Gibbs, you're next -- Mr. Gibbs: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- witness, please. Mr. Gibbs: Carol Bethel. City of Miami Page 161 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Carol Lopez -Bethel: Thank you. My name is Carol Lopez -Bethel. I reside at 3907 Loquat Avenue, which is a 7, 000-square foot lot, with a 2,100-square-foot home. I want to address something that we all know: That the NCD-3 Overlay states quite clearly, the Single -Family Residential District is intended to protect the low -density residential and dominant tree canopy characteristics of Coconut Grove, and prevent the intrusion of additional density uses and height. So I will restrict my comments to the density issue; height is not as much an issue, as I'm concerned. But I do wish to say to the Commission, which I do thank you very much, and I hope that you will please uphold the Planning & Zoning Board's decision, given that if every platted lot of 7,000 square feet, plus or minus, in the Coconut Grove area is allowed to be developed to 3,500 square feet or above, everything that the NCD-3 sought is lost. Your decision here will not be made in a vacuum. I urge you to recognize that there's a dangerous precedent here that in -- that will send a -- that denial of this appeal sends an encouraging message to the aggressive redevelopment that is trending on Hibiscus, Avocado, and Loquat Avenues, between -- all the way from Solano to Hibiscus. To date, there are proposals to build as many as nine homes between Pomona and Hibiscus; 12, if madam appellant, who lives under an -- Ms. Gralia: May I object? I don't -- Ms. Lopez -Bethel: -- LLC (Limited Liability Company) -- Ms. Gralia: -- this is about -- Ms. Lopez -Bethel: -- at 3900 -- Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment. Ms. Gralia: I object again. She's not talking about the application here. She's talking about something that's going on that's not -- that hasn't been presented here. I have no idea about other things -- Ms. Lopez -Bethel: Let me finish; I will be quite clear. Ms. Gralia: Well, we -- I think that if -- since the Chair isn't here -- Ms. Lopez -Bethel: Precedent. Ms. Gralia: -- Vice Chair, I object. Ms. Lopez -Bethel: Ken, you know this. Ms. Gralia: She needs to keep her testimony -- She's a witness. She's got to talk about the application at hand, period, and I think Mr. Gibbs should instruct her to do that. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Let's -- stay as much concise to the actual application as possible. I do understand where you're going, though, in terms of trying to set the stage of character of the neighborhood and size of lots, and such. Please continue. Ms. Lopez -Bethel: I think it is very important to send a message to the development community, of which this appellant is a very aggressive developer, who owns multiple sites in this area, a precedent that is given by denying -- by granting this appeal will allow for as many as 12 houses where three existed on four sites, within 2.5 blocks of this. City of Miami Page 162 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: And I have to object again. This doesn't have a thing to do with the application -- Ms. Lopez -Bethel: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and Key Biscayne. Ms. Gralia: -- at hand. Mr. Gibbs, I've been really kind, and I didn't object to having all your witnesses come up here, but I think that we need to stick to the procedure at hand, which is this application. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Vice Chairman, I'm dealing with lay testimony. I'm doing the best I can do. You all get to weigh whatever evidence you want to understand. I will tell my clients again to -- and I have -- to focus on facts that deal with this application Vice Chair Russell: Right. So -- Mr. Gibbs: -- and this appeal. Vice Chair Russell: -- maybe you can help me understand, though. The purpose of this testimony is what with relation --? Because we're not -- Our job is not to send messages to anyone. Our job is to uphold the Code. Mr. Gibbs: Exactly. I think the issue was to con -- I think she was trying to explain the context and the potential for the precedent that would impact the quality of life and the context, the neighborhood context here. Vice Chair Russell: That's been made clear. Mr. Gibbs: And I understand, sir. Vice Chair Russell: You can wrap it up. Is that it or --? Ms. Lopez -Bethel: Pretty much. I just wanted to add that, I mean, it's quite -- this is a notice that I actually checked. According to the U.S. operation statistics, which are part of the United States Government, the standard, the average for 3,500- square-foot proposed homes would bring an average of 3.5 additional cars to each one of these homes. That's now nine houses on that lot; not to mention the others. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: So I have a question. Vice Chair Russell: Would you like to cross-examine, please, Ms. --? Ms. Gralia: One question. So did you check statistics of how many cars in a home of 14,000 square feet would bring? Ms. Lopez -Bethel: There's no reason that the market would allow a 14, 000-square- foot -- Ms. Gralia: Okay. Ms. Lopez -Bethel: -- home to be bought there; no reason for me to waste my time. Ms. Gralia: All right. Thank you. Ms. Lopez -Bethel: I was a real estate broker for 35 years -- City of Miami Page 163 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Ms. Lopez -Bethel: -- here. I understand the market conditions. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: Roland Castro, who lives on Hibiscus Street, two houses from this project -- this property. Vice Chair Russell: Who is going to speak to the specifics of this case? Mr. Gibbs: I think you'll be very, very impressed with his presentation. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, can we ascertain how many more speakers are going to be, and see more or less when -- how much longer we're going to be -- Roland Castro: I'll be very short. Commissioner Carollo: -- in this case, before we come to some conclusion? Mr. Gibbs: Three to four; that's it. Vice Chair Russell: Three to four more witnesses? We're trying to be indulgent, but -- I understand what you're doing is you're painting a picture of the changing character of the neighborhood. What we have to deal with here specifically is whether or not this application is in line with the character of the neighborhood, and how -- whether or not to uphold the Planning & Zoning Board decision, so I hope you're going to speak to that. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Can I point out --? Mr. Castro: I'm not an expert. My name is -- Commissioner Carollo: You just lost quorum, too. Vice Chair Russell: We did, didn't we? Mr. Min: You can continue taking testimony, if you prefer. Vice Chair Russell: As long as it's -- as long as our decision can be upheld. Mr. Min: I'm sorry, not the testimony; public comment. Vice Chair Russell: We're not taking public comment; this is testimony. It seems like public comment, but it's testimony. Ms. Gralia: Right. City of Miami Page 164 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Min: You can -- the quorum is necessary for the vote. Ms. Gralia: Right. Mr. Min: I believe -- and I will confirm -- that the elected officials are watching in their offices. Vice Chair Russell: I do not want to put our decision at any risk on appeal, for it to be said that we didn't have quorum when specific information was given. Oh, the sergeant -at -arms, they're getting up. They're going to go drag a Commissioner out of his office. Mr. Min: Mr. Chair, since we are taking a brief break, I do need to announce the shade meeting for October 12. May I read that into the record? Vice Chair Russell: All right. We'll recess for five minutes. We're going to try to gather quorum here; five minutes -- and a hard five minutes. We're going to gather quorum and get back together and wrap up this Planning & Zoning session. Later... Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) everyone who showed up for the budget, you've been very patient, and it's probably one of the most important meetings we have of the year, and for it to get pushed this late, I know it's very difficult for the public. But you can see how seriously we take our jobs. This is very important that we get this right, and we are in a quasi-judicial format. All I would ask, Mr. Gibbs - - where is Mr. Gibbs? -- that I would like for you to walk your witnesses through this, please, be -- Mr. Gibbs: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: It's fine if there's two, as long as they're relevant, and what they speak on is germane to the situation. I would like, though, rather than just a free- form discussion from their part in like a public hearing format, if you can help guide them through the relevant parts of their testimony, which have to do with this case. Mr. Gibbs: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I will do that (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes, I will do that. Vice Chair Russell: All right. I'm still alone up here, so we're going to get quorum, and then we're going to continue. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Later... Vice Chair Russell: I see number two. Ms. Gralia: Number two? Vice Chair Russell: The Chairman is in the back; that's two of us. I need one more. Ms. Gralia: You need two more. Vice Chair Russell: Not for quorum. City of Miami Page 165 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: No? One? Vice Chair Russell: And we have three, Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: Yes, sir. Okay, we're ready to go. Commissioner Gort: We don't have quorum; not yet. Vice Chair Russell: We do. We have more than quorum. I mean, the Chairman -- Commissioner Carollo: I think you'll be better off -- Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Commissioner Carollo: -- I think you'll have more luck getting a quorum if you leave this on recess and begin the budget hearing. You'll have a better chance of getting a quorum. Mr. Gibbs: We're -- No, we were getting there. You want me to start? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, please. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. I'm going to introduce Mr. Roland Castro and ask him a couple of questions. Mr. Castro, could you come up here and speak, please? Mr. Castro: Yes. Good evening. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Castro, if you -- could you give your name and address, please? Mr. Castro: My name is Roland Castro. I live at 3683 Hibiscus Street. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Castro, how far away is that from this project that is the subject of the hearing tonight? Mr. Castro: It's basically about two houses on Hibiscus. Mr. Gibbs: Two houses north; two houses south? Mr. Castro: North. Mr. Gibbs: North. Thank you very much. What is your position on this application? Mr. Castro: Well, I'm against it. I think the density is too much for our neighborhood, and I'm not in favor of these three homes in that lot. Mr. Gibbs: Question: How many years have you lived in this neighborhood? Mr. Castro: 28 years. Mr. Gibbs: 28 years. Thank you very much. Ms. Gralia? Ms. Gralia: Good evening, Mr. Castro. Mr. Castro: Good evening. Ms. Gralia: How many stories is your house? City of Miami Page 166 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Castro: Two. Ms. Gralia: Two? Mr. Castro: Two. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And what is the lot size of your house, if you know? Mr. Castro: I don't know exactly. It's an unusual lot, because it's a triangle, and it's a -- it's over 8,000. I'm not -- Ms. Gralia: Correct. And -- Mr. Castro: I don't think it reaches 9. Ms. Gralia: Yes. And you're absolutely right, Mr. Castro, and I'm looking at the property appraiser's website, and Mr. Castro's home -- I'm going to read out the address so that we make sure that it's the same house. It's 3683 Hibiscus Street. Mr. Castro: Correct. Ms. Gralia: Okay. And your house sits on a lot that's 8,065 square feet. Vice Chair Russell: I'll ask the same of you, as well, ma'am, please. You're making your case on the aggregate of homes in the area, the averages of the homes in the area, so I don't know how relevant it is to each person who's spoken here what their home is personally. I do understand -- The point you're making is that, how can they complain about a house with a certain size if they live in a house of a certain size? Ms. Gralia: I'm only trying to direct the testimony to the criteria that's found in Article 4, Table 12, and the final decision from the Planning & Zoning Department that it was unusual to have houses that were two stories in height; that is it. That is the purpose of asking these questions. I have nothing else. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs: The final witness is Dr. John Nordt. John Nordt: Hi. Mr. Gibbs: Dr. Nordt -- Mr. Nordt: I'm John -- tell who I am? Mr. Gibbs: Yeah. Mr. Nordt: I'm at 3580 Royal Palm Avenue. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. And let's ask, okay, your position on this application. Mr. Nordt: We don't need to increase the density of the neighborhood. I've been there for 30 years. My house was built in 1918, before the City of Miami took over Coconut Grove in 1925, and before permits were issued for rock walls. Mr. Gibbs: So you're pretty familiar with the neighborhood and the con -- and what the neighborhood looks like, and has looked like in the past? City of Miami Page 167 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Nordt: Correct. Mr. Gibbs: And you've seen it -- Have you seen it change? Mr. Nordt: Terribly. There's a house on my street, same size lot. It's about 44,000 square feet, and they're asking $4.8 million for it, and it hasn't sold yet. Mr. Gibbs: So -- Mr. Nordt: And may not, I hope. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Nordt: But I -- Mr. Gibbs: Cross -- oh. Mr. Nordt: -- thank you. Mr. Gibbs: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cross-examination. Ms. Gralia: One second. I'm sorry, I didn't get your name; I apologize. Mr. Nordt: John Nordt. Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Can you show me where your house is in this chart? Mr. Nordt: I haven't seen those. They've been all -- Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gralia: Thank you. So here's Royal Palm Avenue. Mr. Nordt: Right. Ms. Gralia: Where is your house? Is it here anywhere? Mr. Nordt: I don't -- Unidentified Speaker: There's Plaza (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Nordt: Yeah, but this -- Ms. Gralia: Here's Plaza; here's Hibiscus. Mr. Nordt: I'm right here -- no, that's not -- that's not Royal Palm. Unidentified Speaker: This is where I'm going. Mr. Nordt: That's -- I think that's the wrong street. Ms. Gralia: Royal Palm -- Vice Chair Russell: You're pointing out that he's outside the radius of -- Mr. Nordt: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lot there. I'm right here. City of Miami Page 168 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Gralia: Thank you. So -- Vice Chair Russell: -- but certainly within the neighborhood. Ms. Gralia: -- yes. So what I was trying -- Did you ident fy -- Mr. Nordt: Too far away to be influential, like -- Ms. Gralia: -- it's -- Just wanted to say that his house is outside the radius; the area that is in question here; that was it. Mr. Nordt: It's across the street from my church -- Ms. Gralia: Thank you. Mr. Nordt: -- and it would really be an eyesore. Ms. Gralia: Thank you very much. Mr. Gibbs: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Gibbs? Mr. Gibbs: We have nothing more to say. Vice Chair Russell: All right. Thank you. Ms. Gralia: Okay. So I'd like to just finalize this. I'm going to ask my client just to give a brief statement to the board. She has not really had an opportunity to speak, so I'd like her to say a couple of words. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. This will be a closing statement? Ms. de Seta: Absolutely. My name is Amanda de Seta. As I said before, I live at 3900 Loquat. I'm a real estate developer in the Grove, community member of the Grove, and I own the Coconut Grove Bookstore. It would seem to me tonight that all of us are in an awfully stuck position, because we have a Code that seems a little gray and a little fuzzy, and we have a lot of issues on our plate that are seemingly not quickly resolved, or solved in a way that's going to serve everyone on all sides. And what we're seeing with our Code and our warrant process is that we end up having these hour-long meetings, discussing very picayune details that seemingly end up just with neighbors fighting neighbors and not liking each other, and developers who have to work with staff arguing across the table, and this is not progressing the City of Miami forward. It's wasting time and resources, and I think that we need to come out of this tonight or next week, or whenever we do, and like you said, Commissioner Russell, really workshop how to fix this, because it's broken. Perhaps it wasn't written right in the first place. So what is it that goes there? Is it three lots? Is it one lot? Is it one big house? Is it one little house? Is it one park? What is it that it becomes that will serve all sides? And I'm not sure that there's an easy answer. The three Commissioners in front of me are going to be asked to look at: Did my application comply with Code? Am I maxing out on my lot size coverage? No. Am I maxing out on my height? No. Are the three platted lots within the neighborhood context? We have just proved via testimony that most of the lots are not 21,000 square feet. So if I have relied on Code, I have relied on staff to help me to move towards a place where I can comply with Code, and I am still denied, what is the point of the Code? And what is it that we're going to come out of this with? So I ask you to carefully consider all of these options. If you uphold the denial, that means City of Miami Page 169 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 that neighborhood opinion trumps property rights. If you upturn and give me my appeal, that means that property rights trumps neighborhood opinion. And that's not an equitable situation on either side. So if a property has applied for a warrant, followed Code and complied, and still denied, what -- where, then, does that leave us? It leaves us in a Catch 22. And perhaps coming to an equitable solution of a public space for everyone to enjoy right behind the doctor's church so that everyone can enjoy what they have looked at for so many years; which I have heard again and again, and again, perhaps that is a solution that will then springboard us into rewriting a better Code for our City that will reduce the amount of picayune battles in this chamber. So gentlemen, personally, I want to thank you, the three of you, for your tireless service to the City. I really admire what you do. I want to thank you very, very much for your time tonight. Thank you for listening to me speak. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Gralia: I'm sorry. I have one housekeeping item. We bought -- we have presented all these boards as evidence tonight. It would be too cumbersome to leave these boards with our Clerk. I can provide a CD (compact disc) -- I'd like to provide a CD to the Clerk tomorrow that shows all the boards that we presented here tonight, and I just want your permission to do that -- Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Ms. Gralia: -- tomorrow. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: No objection. Thank you. Mr. Garcia? Mr. Min: If I could just add to that, Ms. Gralia, the legislation will not be finalized until that is submitted, which means any appeal period will not tick -- not begin until that is submitted. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garcia. Ms. Gralia: It would be submitted tomorrow morning, so. Okay? We can even bring it back tonight; I'm not kidding, we can. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: We'll be here. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. Mindful of the time, I'll be very brief and I frankly don't think that I'm going to say anything that hasn't been said before by me or gotten at by the testimony you received. But I think what I can do by giving you probably two minutes' worth of testimony is to summarize our position, and insert and infuse clarity in what others have told you is very vague and gray regulatory language. First, I'll say briefly and parenthetically -- but I have to say it; I don't want to let it go unaddressed -- this is probably the first time in my very long public service career that I -- that it has been alleged that I personally, or we, as a department, caved to pressure from the neighborhood. We have a long record to stand by, and I'll let that speak for itself. But I think everyone knows that we are happy to make unpopular decisions if they have to be made, so long as we uphold the writing of the Zoning Ordinance; that's what we're here to do, and we take that very seriously. Now, to the main of our presentation; it's really only four quick steps. First, let me emphasize that context, vague and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) though it may be, is all important. And because it is admittedly a vague and somewhat subjective concept, it is difficult to capture it into writing, and especially difficult to capture it into regulatory writing. However, as far as regulations go, I think Miami 21 and its Appendix "A" are fairly clear, and I'll tell you why. I'm going to make reference to three quick paragraphs. Paragraph 1: I'm citing verbatim from Appendix "A," City of Miami Page 170 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 which is the Neighborhood Conversation Districts; in particular, Section 3.6. This happens to be the intent statement for single-family residential districts, which the subject of property -- the subject property is in. It says the following: "The single- family residential districts is intended to protect the low -density residential and dominant tree canopy characteristics of Coconut Grove and prevent the intrusion of additional density uses and height"; "density" is the key word there, clearly. One larger building sites splitting to more building sites yields higher density, because it yields higher -- a higher number of single-family residential units. So this is instructing us that whenever approving or reviewing a permit in the NCD-3, we must be mindful of density and density increase, and potentially protect against it, number one. Number two -- and I'm going to read verbatim from Section 3.6.(g).1 of exactly the same document, where it says: Whenever an existing single-family residence or lawful accessory buildings or structures is located on one or more platted lots" -- and we've established that there are three platted lots here, make no mistake about it; no contradictory evidence as pertains to that -- "or portions thereof such lots shall thereafter constitute only one building site, and no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one single-family residence, except by warrant," period. The reason I say "shall thereafter" is because, frankly, it is immaterial to us or immaterial to the Zoning Office in referring the warrant to us in the Planning Office that the structure is demolished, no matter how legally appropriately it has been demolished, or no matter what other considerations there may be to it, because once those three lots were developed once upon a time as a single-family residential building site, they shall thereafter constitute only one building site. Why is this? Very briefly, I happen to have been around long enough to have been around when this particular language was drafted. This is probably circa 2007, 2008, and the intent was then -- because the trend was to subdivide or break apart larger lots that had been aggregated -- Unidentified Speaker: Finish. Mr. Garcia: -- the intent was then that even if a single-family residence were to be demolished that that site, the entire site shall continue to be constituted as one site -- unity of title notwithstanding -- as a placeholder to be replaced by another single- family residence, and nothing else. So the intent of the language and I think the effect of the language cannot be read as anything other than if one house sat there, if one single-family residence sat there, the presumption shall be that it continues to be a single-family residential lot until or unless a warrant is obtained. The warrant then allows us to provide a proper review to consider the impact of that splitting of the building site into two, three, or however many there are. So section 3.6.(g).1 triggers the warrant, and that is the way it has been interpreted consistently, and that was the intent; that a warrant should be required. So at some point in time, a warrant referral was made from the Zoning Office to the Planning side of the Planning & Zoning Department, which was not contested. We receive a proper application for a warrant by the applicant, and the submittal of that warrant application then triggered, as stated by the applicant, Article 4.12, and make reference again, simply to be clear, to the key language, the applicable language in Table -- rather Article 4, Table 12, and I'm going to skip through the very many criteria. Some of them apply to more or lesser extent. The one that clearly applies as pertains to this particular issue is that the building function and density shall respond to the neighborhood context and the transect zone; bringing up again the concept of neighborhood context. So the only thing left with us to do with this particular application is to determine whether the splitting of this single building site that is 21,000 square feet in area, approximately, into three 7,000-square feet building sites is appropriate and contextual. And you have in the record, and we have set forth that in our best estimation, based on all the evidence submitted by the applicant originally and available to us in the City's record, our best professional opinion, based on that competent substantial evidence is that in order to allow for City of Miami Page 171 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 development to take place in the single building site that is contextual and appropriately so, two lots of the result would be approximately 10,500 square feet, would be an appropriate measure. I'm here to tell you categorically -- and we have the record to prove it -- that that conversation was had with the now -appellant, original applicant, as to whether two might be a satisfactory outcome, right? And the answer was, "Thanks; but no, thanks. We really want to have three." Our response, definitive and captioned on the record is that three is too many. The appropriate size, the appropriate number of lots that should emerge from this single building site in order to remain contextual is two, but the refusal to apply for two or consider two then yields us back to one. One is certainly contextual, because there are certainly other lots of the same size, of the same area; 21,000 square feet, thereabout. So one is satisfactory. Two may also be satisfactory, we'd be happy to consider it, and that would now hinge on whether or not the architecture is appropriate and the conservation of the canopy is appropriate; those are subsequent issues. But certainly, three is entirely too many, and we stand by our record on that. That's all I have, sir. Thanks. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. I'd like to make sure that the gavel is passed so I'm free to make a motion and a statement. I appreciate everyone's patience on this. This is not about neighbors versus property rights. This is a -- It's always very difficult with regard to property rights and conservation. This is about conservation within our Code versus property rights. And the spirit and the letter of the Code should coincide. The spirit of the Code is clear, exactly as Mr. Garcia said, to conserve the neighborhood for the single-family character and reduce the density, and maximize the canopy. The letter is where -- the letter of the Code is where we sometimes get caught up, and that's where a property owner has rights within that Code. I think there were several failures in the system here for this home; not necessarily for any applicants or the neighbors, but the house that was there, as we saw in the pictures, in my mind, if it was demolished and notification wasn't properly received -- not to say it wasn't properly sent, but wasn't properly received -- that's on the City, because we have a requirement to send it, and have proof that we sent it. We don't have to have proof that you received it. So maybe you never got it. But I would guarantee that if there was an appeal filed on the demolition of that house, we would have a room as full as we have here, if not more, trying to save it; which brings me to the next part of the conversation, which has to do with historic preservation. This was not an historically -designated home. That wall behind -- on Lot 10 -- which may have predated even our legal qualification of walls and may have been an -- historic, was not historically designated. The owner did not self -designate. They made promises to the abutting neighbor, which don't necessarily constitute a legally binding promise that gives you rights here to keep a property owner from doing what they want to do. But I definitely see where the NCD and the rewrites that we are doing at this moment, and that we have been workshopping with the neighbors, which solve a lot of these issues, one of the changes is going to be the -- that we're looking at potentially -- is that all diminishing will have to go through a warrant process that can be denied or appealed; not just ones that are built before a certain date, not just ones that are -- had a previous building site, but all. And I definitely want to look at before anything is demolished that the historic -- over a certain age -- that the Historic & Environmental Preservation -- I'm sorry -- our department analyzes them on whether they should qualify for historic; not whether they already have qualified, but whether they should, prior to demolition. That's the last chance, and for that home, it's also the first step in the development stage of diminishing lots, building new homes, and creating the marketability of the neighborhood; unfortunately, at times, to the degradation of the quality of life of the neighborhood, or the character of the neighborhood. Now, we do have a Code. We do have very specific things, and whether you call it a windshield survey or a walk -your -dog survey, if you were to City of Miami Page 172 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 walk -- which is it; Avocado or Hibiscus, which is what the original house used to front? Unidentified Speaker: Hibiscus. Vice Chair Russell: Hibiscus. Thank you. And if you would walk that from Royal Palm heading north, you would pass three houses that are over 19,000-square-foot lots; not quite, necessarily, right next to each other, but you can see the character of a neighborhood along a frontage, with all those large homes fronting Hibiscus. Now, what goes on behind them may be different. There may be smaller lots and homes, but that is clearly the predominantly frontage road; whereas, in this case, the original platting, which is what they're looking for, faces the side road, and makes it more in line with the character of the smaller homes that are behind. I believe in this case that our Planning & Zoning Department has used competent and substantial methods to analyze this. I believe that their decision was correct that three is an unacceptable diminishment of this single lot size. I believe that the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board also got it correct, and I move that we deny the appeal. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Gort: I'll second it. Chair Hardemon: Seconded. Commissioner Gort: I'll second for discussion. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Gort: I think somehow we -- you need to get together with your neighbors. You need to sit down with them and have the correct criteria, because a lot of those people, these people make the presentation, but they think that they were complying with the designation of that area. Now, you need to really work on that, because you're not going to have 21,000 square foot and homes anymore; I don't think that exists anymore. I understand you want to maintain the criteria. Then you need to create the historical site in there. You need -- you got to make sure that whatever you have in there, it continues to be historical so the people that come up in front of the City of Miami or that buy a property, they can understand what they can do and what they can build. That's something -- one of the things I requested from the City is I'd like to make sure that if we have zone that they're considered historical site, they should somehow be -- let it known to the public when they're going to buy a home that they're a historical site or they have the protection of being a historical home so they understand what they're getting into. The problem is a lot of times, we're not very specific. From all the presentations I read here, they feel like they did the presentation and they feel that they comply with the ordinance, they feel that they complied with all the requirement of the NCD-3. Now, my understanding, also, if you're going to build something, you got to build according to the building Code. You could have a setback. I don't care how much the lot is or the house, you have setbacks; that doesn't change. But it's important that those people be able to know what they're going to be doing. Vice Chair Russell: And I do want to clam that my motion does not have to do with the preamble about whether the original home is magnificent or should have been saved or whether notification was properly given. It's solely based on the competent substantial evidence and that was provide -- or testimony that was provided by our department and the decision of the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board, you know. So this -- it's -- it is a very tough decision, because you are dealing with people's City of Miami Page 173 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 property rights, but I do believe that the Planning & Zoning staff did give a recommendation for what they thought was appropriate. So it's not that diminishment was impossible; they recommended to go for two. The developer chose to go for three. It was deemed inappropriate, it was denied, and it's being denied here if the votes are here. Ms. Gralia: Mr. Chair, can I please address that? I'm telling you here today, Mr. Garcia, we were never told, except for a meeting with Mr. Cejas. We had met with Mr. Cejas and Ms. Jacqueline Ellis. When we said to Mr. Cejas, "How about if we do two properties?" Because we had met with the neighbors, we had a breakfast at the property. Many of the neighbors came; not all. The next door neighbor, Ms. D'Andre, did not attend the breakfast. A whole bunch of other neighbors did attend the breakfast, and at that meeting, they all said, "We're okay with two building sites." We went back and we spoke to Mr. Cejas. Mr. Cejas said, "I don't see a problem with this. We" -- "I don't have a problem recommending it." Ms. Jacqueline Ellis walked out of the room, and we never heard back again from anyone in the Planning & Zoning Department about that concept of a two -building site. And let me go a little bit further. The problem with the two -building site is that not only -- during the same time -- I think it was last year, in 2016, December of 2016 -- you changed your Zoning Code. You then said that in order to divide a property that was legally platted before in the T3 transect zone, you would be able to get a covenant in lieu of unity of title, if you had a legally platted property, to subdivide. Somehow, in December of 2016, they changed that and said, "Now you have to go through a platting process." Chair Hardemon: A whole process (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Gralia: So now we're stuck, because not only do we have three legally platted lots, but you're forcing us to go -- We could easily -- If you would have not done that, we could have easily subdivided this property; but now, we're not even allowed to do that. And so, this is what we're facing. It's not as though we want to not do what -- We want to make everyone happy. My client doesn't want -- She lives in this community. She lives on Loquat. She is neighbors to most of these people here. We don't want to do anything that's so controversial. We didn't think we were doing anything controversial, but our hands have been tied by this Commission, because not only did you put -- Your staff is -- You have a Code. We think we followed the Code. We did everything that we were supposed to do. And then, they tell us, "No; two." The Planning Department wasn't -- They walked out of that meeting. Mr. Cejas can testify to that, because he was there with me. He walked -- she walked out of the meeting, and then we were never asked to come back again. And then, we were given a document, which I had asked Ms. Ellis to bring to another meeting, because I wanted to know -- "Wait a second. We can't even subdivide this property anymore, because now the rules changed again." While we were in the process, the rules changed. So that's where we're at, and I just wanted to clam that, because I don't want an impression that we didn't meet with the neighbors, that we didn't try to comply with everything; that we didn't say, "Okay, fine; we're going to subdivide," but then we find out we can't subdivide. So we've tried to comply with the rules of the City, and every single time, another obstacle is put in front of us. Thank you. Mr. Gibbs: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Mr. Gibbs: May I respond on that comment? You all were in the middle of a vote. I'm amazed how this could happen, but I just want to say one thing. Chair Hardemon: It's called (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City of Miami Page 174 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Gibbs: Their hand -- Commissioner Gort: I'll tell you what can happen. Mr. Gibbs: Pardon? Commissioner Gort: When staff says that they were told that they could build two, that's how it happened. Mr. Gibbs: I understand. Commissioner Gort: Okay? That's it. Mr. Gibbs: But the -- Vice Chair Russell: Staffs saying they weren't told. Mr. Gibbs: Right. Commissioner Gort: Listen -- Mr. Gibbs: And staff said that during the body of the hearing. Commissioner Gort: You're ahead. Mr. Gibbs: Staff did not state -- I know. Staffs saying -- Commissioner Gort: You're ahead. Mr. Gibbs: -- staff did not say -- Chair Hardemon: We were in the middle -- not of a vote. We were in the -- it was a motion and a second. Mr. Gibbs: A motion. Chair Hardemon: We can go back and recon -- Vice Chair Russell: And we're open for discussion; no further questions. Mr. Gibbs: Okay. I'm -- Vice Chair Russell: You know, clearly, for me, it's not a discussion about one, two, or three. The request here was for three. Three was denied at department -- at Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and that's what we're dealing with here today. And in my mind, the spirit of it, it was one big house on one big lot, and that's what's being asked to be diminished, and for that, my vote is "no." Commissioner Gort: Call the question. We got a chance to come back and do some other things. Chair Hardemon: Well, seeing that there's no further discussion regarding the motion on the floor, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. City of Miami Page 175 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): For the record, motion passes, 3-0. (Applause) Commissioner Gort: Hold on, hold on. That's -- Chair Hardemon: This meeting is adjourned. Commissioner Gort: There's a lot of fixing that needs to be done here. And I might just say -- Vice Chair Russell: There really is. PZ.14 ORDINANCE First Reading 1972 Department of Planning and Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1.2, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS OF TERMS," ARTICLE 4, TABLE 3, ENTITLED "BUILDING FUNCTION: USES," AND ARTICLE 6, TABLE 13, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS"; 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, Carollo, Suarez ABSENT: Gort Note for the Record: Item PZ.14 was continued to the October 26, 2017, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.14, please see "PART B: PZ - Planning and Zoning Item(s)." END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) City of Miami Page 176 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 M - MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS City of Miami Page 177 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 D1 - DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT ONE WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT END OF DISTRICT 1 ITEMS City of Miami Page 178 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 D2 - DISTRICT 2 VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL END OF DISTRICT 2 ITEMS City of Miami Page 179 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 D3 - DISTRICT 3 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT THREE FRANK CAROLLO END OF DISTRICT 3 ITEMS City of Miami Page 180 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 D4 - DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT FOUR FRANCIS SUAREZ END OF DISTRICT 4 ITEMS City of Miami Page 181 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 D5 - DISTRICT 5 CHAIR KEON HARDEMON END OF DISTRICT 5 ITEMS City of Miami Page 182 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 FL - FUTURE LEGISLATION END OF FUTURE LEGISLATION City of Miami Page 183 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 NA.1 3005 Commissioners and Mayor NA. NON -AGENDA ITEM(S) RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTING THE SUBMITTAL OF A RESPONSIVE BID IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (`RFP") FOR AMAZON.COM, INC'S., SECOND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH THE OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ENTERPRISE FLORIDA, THE BEACON COUNCIL, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, AND PRIVATE ENTITIES IN ORDER TO SUBMIT A RESPONSIVE BID TO THE RFP BY OCTOBER 19, 2017. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0469 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: So what I'd like to do is I'll open the floor for public comment. During public comment, if there is any item that is on this agenda that you want to discuss, you have an opportunity to do so. What I will ask is that you approach either of the lecterns; state your first, your last names [sic]; and you may state your address -- Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: -- and then which item it is that you want to speak about. Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I -- there was a couple of pocket items I wanted to address; possibly, a lot of people are here to speak on, so I was hoping to get them in before public comments so that their concerns may be addressed. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: Chair, I'm leaving, so I'd like to -- I know one of them, I think, was put on some sort of a publication about Amazon, and I think that's an important one I'd like to hear, if possible, because I got to leave literally in two minutes. Chair Hardemon: What we still need to do is allow the public to speak on those items. Commissioner Suarez: I'm not going to be -- I have to go. Chair Hardemon: I understand. What I'll do is this, is before I move into the public discussion about everything on the agenda, I'll allow the Vice Chairman to present his item first, the Amazon item. Commissioner Suarez: Right. City of Miami Page 184 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: So I'll allow you to present that item, and then we'll have public comment on that item, and then possibly the next one. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the leeway. I wanted to speak briefly before we get into public comment on Amazon and their hunt for a new headquarters throughout the country. There's about 40 cities or municipal areas around the country that would quality potentially for what Amazon is looking for. Currently, they have a headquarter [sic] in Seattle; they're looking for a new headquarters. I would like to believe that Miami is an excellent candidate, and I know that we're in the consideration in the running, under the lead of the County s Beacon Council. And so, I wanted to bring a resolution today that would show our support for this effort as a part of this offering to Amazon; not to say Miami or downtown alone, but that the region, that we are in favor of this. And let me tell you why. Amazon in Seattle has invested over $30 billion in the last six years in that area, and their coming here would mean 50,000 jobs; that's 10 percent of our City s population; 50,000 thousand jobs, with an average income of over $100,000. This is transformative, potentially, to the City of Miami, and I believe we should put our best foot forward. So my resolution is simply that we basically unleash our Administration to assist the Beacon Council. I'm also the chairman of the DDA (Downtown Development Authority), where we passed a similar resolution yesterday; and I'll be bringing something at the Omni CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), where I'm the Chairman, to basically take all of our staffs to work together to help make the best possible offering for Amazon. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Discussion. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Vice Chair, and I want to thank Commissioner Carollo on a couple of other items that I may not be here. My dads getting "Keys to the City" from North Miami. Sometimes it feels like a rush to get on the agenda with good ideas, and I think you've got a couple of great ones that I would have loved to co-sponsor with you, regarding housing and preparation for storms. You know, the Vice Chair set it up very nicely. The City of Miami is changing. Technology has changed the way we do business. Nowadays you can order from Amazon something, even faster than through the actual manufacturer of it, and get it within 24 or 48 hours for free, with shipping, and I think it's changing the way that we do business. Things are being much more concierge in their nature, and you can essentially shop from home. Your supermarket now has become your desktop computer or your laptop computer or even your phone. And you can even reorder things. There's a lot of things that I order and then I just reorder them; and it's unbelievable how efficient it's become, but it's really changed the way that we do business on a regular basis. And so, as a company, that is the future, and our city has to be promoting businesses that are the future of our economy and the future of our city. The fact that they -- that we would put together -- together as a Commission, as a Mayor, as an Administration and the next Administration, whoever that may be -- in an effort to get this headquarters, I think symbolizes where this city is heading; symbolizes the fact that we are not going to sit and wait for things to happen; we are going to take charge; we are going to be proactive. As you said, it's a significant amount of jobs. The jobs are in the tech sector, which is what I believe will be the next driving industry of our economy, if it's not the current one. And so, I wanted you to know that I fully support your efforts. I'd love to cooperate with you. You know, obviously, in my time as Commissioner in the sunshine, and, you know, if I'm blessed to serve in the public in the future beyond that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. City of Miami Page 185 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: The other day, during the Convention & Visitors Bureau board meeting, we can see the good teams putting together to bring the Emerson here. The economic impact that it can create for the whole region is great, so I agree with you, and thanks for bringing that up. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: The -- I will say that the City of Miami has been using its resources to already begin the process of attracting Amazon to our wonderful city. And, of course, there are other cities around this nation that are also doing similar things, and they've created some cheesy videos, some marketing ploys, and things of that nature. But I believe, at the end of the day, it's going to be the hard facts about the City and its proximity to the downtown areas and our airports, and our cultural destinations that's going to make this city stand out. I think this is a place that a company like Amazon would want to be in. And when I think about where the site could possibly be and where we have the land, the one place that I automatically think about is the Overtown community. So this may be something that could be a boom, especially if it's designed -- the building itself is designed in a very inclusive way with the neighborhood. It could be a boom for that area, for a number of jobs for people who are there, and really raise the standard of living for people who want to live, work, and play in Overtown. So, you know, all of us, I believe, in the City of Miami are excited about this possibility, but we know that we have national competition. I just believe that we're going to do the professional job and not the -- you know, not the marketing ploy that a lot of cities are doing to attract this great company. Mr. Mayor. Mayor Tomas Regalado: No. I just want to add that the RFP (Request for Proposals) that they issued is very specific, and you said it; it's 900, 000 feet going to one million, but it has to be less than 45 minutes from the airport; it has to be next to a transit station -- Commissioner Suarez: Chair? Mayor Regalado: -- and it has to an urban setting. Chair Hardemon: Check. Mayor Regalado: So if you triangle everything, the only land is in Overtown. Chair Hardemon: Hey. Mayor Regalado: So I'm just saying. But I think the RFP is due in October 15. Vice Chair Russell: Very soon. Mayor Regalado: October 15. Chair Hardemon: He can make it happen. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, we'll figure it out. Chair Hardemon: So what I'll do is I'll open the floor right now for discussion on this motion that's on the floor regarding support for the Amazon relocation. Seeing no one that's here to speak on that, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." City of Miami Page 186 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, ifI can -- Chair Hardemon: Against? Commissioner Suarez: -- just add one last thing. I think we should invite our private sector partners who may want to come to help supplant and support the RFP process, because -- Vice Chair Russell: If I could mention -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: So, yes, we've already been working together with the Beacon Council at the DDA level and the City Administration; the Manager's been involved, and the private sector is there. And what I'm asking them to create is a basically -- is basically a map utilizing the Miami Central Station as a hub, with a radius going out from that of all available lands, both public and private, which may be a part of this offering, and the Beacon Council can then take that universe and package it into the RFP itself. So those players are at the table, and they are very interested, because they recognize what it will -- the ripple effect a company like that coming here will be for jobs and other businesses that are attracted in the tech industry. And I -- the reason I'm bringing this today is because not to -- they're already working on it, but the public is not fully aware of what we're doing. Commissioner Suarez: Totally agree. Vice Chair Russell: And I believe that the public needs to know -- Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Vice Chair Russell: -- that we're doing this, and that they support it, and they know why we're doing it. And rather than sending a cactus like -- what was it? -- Arizona may have done to Amazon headquarters to woo them here, I believe that the assets we have with our people and our resources, and our logistics will make the case for us. And I would like to challenge Amazon to be a member of this community. I believe they can be a benefit to us, as we are to them. Commissioner Suarez: I agree. I've gotten ton of emails on it: "What are doing? Are we doing anything?" And so, I think we may have been doing a lot, but I think it's important for the public to know what we're doing as well. Vice Chair Russell: Correct. Mayor Regalado: Well, the Beacon Council don't have land; Overtown Parkwest CRA does. Commissioner Suarez: Amen, amen. City of Miami Page 187 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 NA.2 3002 Commissioners and Mayor Chair Hardemon: I want the record to properly reflect that the motion did pass, although I didn't bang the gavel. So right now, thank you very much for that pocket item. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-33 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, BY A UNANIMOUS AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, FOR THE DURATION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY") EMERGENCY NEEDS OR FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF CITY RESIDENTS RELATED TO REMOVAL OF DEBRIS IN EFFORTS TO RECOVER FROM HURRICANE IRMA, TO ADD QUALIFIED VENDORS TO THE EXISTING EMERGENCY DEBRIS REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL SERVICES INVITATION FOR BID ("IFB") CONTRACT NO. 274253 AND TO ACCESS ANY ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR EMERGENCY DEBRIS REMOVAL SERVICES, AS DEEMED NECESSARY, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR FURTHER CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL TO PROTECT THE LIFE, HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF CITY VISITORS, RESIDENTS, AND PROPERTY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND TO EXCEED FAIR MARKET RATES WHEN DEEMED NECESSARY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNTS TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGER, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0470 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Chair Hardemon: All right, let's move on to BU.1. Oh, you know, before we get to BUJ, I do want to address a pocket item that Commissioner Russell has regarding storm debris removal. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. It has to be unanimous, so thank you very much. This is something very important for our community, and I'm bringing this as a pocket item. It's not on our agenda, but it has to do with the hurricane recovery that we're experiencing throughout our city. While our Public Works and our Solid Waste and our management do need to be commended for their very strong and diligent work, we simply don't have the tools to clear the streets as fast as they need to be cleared. If you live in the City on a residential street, chances are there's a giant pile of very dry and dirty and smelly leaves in front of your house right now, and that is unacceptable, understanding we've just been through a big storm; understanding there's a million cubic yards of debris in the City that we have to try to dispose of and as quickly and efficiently as possible. The residents end up coming last here, because, obviously, we have to clear our roadways and our main arteries first. We have to clear our crucial, functioning hospitals and schools, municipal buildings; we have to clear those second. The residential streets end up getting the short end of the dirty stick; and so, these dirty sticks lay in our streets for a long -- City of Miami Page 188 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 And it's unacceptable, because it's a danger. It's a danger to safety. There have already been car accidents due to the blind spots created by these trees down that are sticking out of the swales. It's a fire hazard, as the leaves now, two weeks later, are very, very dry; one cigarette could put up an entire street. And, you know, from a health perspective, you don't want the rats to start coming around. There's a lot -- now the garbage is starting to get mixed, which we can't say enough. Please, do not mix your piles, but I know it's very, very hard. People are clearing their houses and their street and their yards, and their yard cuttings are now getting mixed with, you know, the household garbage and the regular debris that would be picked up. So what I'm asking for needs a four -fifths of our Commission -- I'm sorry -- it needs a unanimous vote of our Commission, because we normally have a procurement process that brings in our contractors, and it's not working fast enough. And this is the process we use to make sure that we're giving the fairest shake to all contractors; that we're getting the best price for the City, and this can and should only be waived in times of emergency. So my resolution is really affirming that we are in a state of emergency; not just from the hurricane itself but within the recovery and the safety of our residents that we need to waive some procurement rules and empower our Manager to do everything possible to bring in as many contractors as possible. And it's not to say he's not doing that. They are doing the best they can with the legislation and tools available to them. This will free them up further. I want them to be looking at piggybacking opportunities off of other municipalities and counties to find contractors that aren't yet contracted with us but easily could be. I want them to get as many local providers as absolutely possible, and get these subs brought in. But I also want more primaries, because right now the City's only split in two. And if I understand correctly, one of those two just accepted another contract at the County, as if they don't have enough work with us. And so, we really need to maximize our primary contractors; make sure the City is divided up in the most efficient way. Parts of the City have been hurt -- hit worse than others, and I really want to make sure that we're concentrating our strongest forces where the biggest piles are and where the mess is, but this is for the whole City. It's not our fault, but it's a mess that we need to fix. And I believe this resolution, which everyone should have a copy of at this point -- I apologize; the City Attorney's been working very hard with me to get it out very quickly this morning, because otherwise, we're going to be potentially another two weeks without them having the freedom to hire more contractors, so. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: Well -- Commissioner Suarez: Discussion. Vice Chair Russell: I've just been handed it myself so I haven't even -- Commissioner Suarez: Second. Discussion. Chair Hardemon: It's been moved. Yeah, we don't have a copy of the resolution before us right now, so we need a copy of it. Vice Chair Russell: Could we get five -- Commissioner Carollo: Could we have a copy of it? Vice Chair Russell: -- or six; one for the Clerk? Chair Hardemon: And -- City of Miami Page 189 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): We're getting the copies now. Chair Hardemon: So one of the -- I agree that we need more primaries so that we can actually do the work. I have some concerns, though. One, I'm not sure if piggybacking off of the County renders any major benefit to us, considering the fact that in the County, those people who are working are primaries, and they're already picking up things all over Miami -Dade County, one. And then, two, how many more primaries does it really give us? I mean, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) maybe one, maybe two, as compared to if we can create an opportunity for those guys who are actually contracting with those primaries, the ones who are getting abused, or the ones that the County's paying $15 per whatever cubic yard, and they're being contracted now for $8 per cubic yard. But they're the ones doing the real work, and the primary guy is sitting back and getting fat, doing essentially no work. You know, just having the contractor becomes a major benefit. So my thought was, you know, is there any way that we can fast -track a process? And I believe that you said two weeks, and I think that might be the time frame of fast -tracking a process where now even the smaller guys -- these sub guys, who are actually doing the work, have an opportunity to become primaries -- Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Chair Hardemon: -- for this limited amount of time. So now we end up maybe with 12 primaries -- Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Chair Hardemon: --10 primaries, 7 primaries -- Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Chair Hardemon: -- people who actually have the -- who are not just, you know, contracting here or there, or brokers, if you will, but who have a truck and some get- up about them, and can go out there and get the job done. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: And that's what I'm really thinking of. Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I was going to talk about this during the budget, but actually, now that I think about it, as you mentioned, this might actually be -- this is worth talking about right now. So, obviously, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) reimburses to a certain rate, and the rate is essentially $15, unless I'm mistaken, for cubic -- Vice Chair Russell: Yard. Commissioner Suarez: -- yard. Right? So as the Chair just stated, when you sub through two primaries, you have a haircut, whatever it is; $7 haircut; whatever the haircut is, right? My humble opinion, we owe it to our residents -- I'm sure all of you guys have gotten the calls and the texts and the emails and everything. Right? I personally feel if you go a dollar above, we're -- it's not reimbursable, right? If you go to $16, it's not -- the million -- the extra dollar is not reimbursable. It's a million dollars. For every dollar that you go above, it's a million dollars total, approximately, based on how much is out there -- Vice Chair Russell: Including cubic yards, yeah. City of Miami Page 190 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: -- what's left. Right? So my humble opinion is, we should also be able to go a dollar above in a non -reimbursable fashion. Because if you have a $660 million budget, where we have a $28 million surplus this year, or whatever, the surplus is, in part -- the $5 million contingency that we have as an annual surplus is, in part, there for emergencies, like a hurricane. And what worries me is, we're still in hurricane season, okay. We just had a Category 5 hurricane that struck Puerto Rico; that, thankfully, did not come to Miami, but could have. And it's not just about, "It doesn't look good to have this debris piled up in our City, " because it doesn't, and obviously, it's embarrassing, and everyone that calls us, and it's driving us crazy. I will say this in terms of context: I did get a call from the Lieutenant Governor. I don't know if he's okay with me saying this, but he did tell me he tried to put it in context and said, "The State of Florida got hit by the equivalent of five Category 1 hurricanes at the same time," and so 50 of the 64 counties are dealing with debris removal problems. So this is not a City of Miami problem. You go over to Coral Gables, they have the same problem. You go somewhere else, they've got the same problem. But I feel, if we go a dollar above -- if we give the Administration the ability to go a dollar above, everybody will flood to the City of Miami, okay? It won't be reimbursable, so let's not kid ourselves. That will be a dollar that we spend, an extra dollar; a million dollars that we spend that we won't get back from FEMA, but we will get our City clean; it will be protected, if -- in the event that there is another storm, which I think is a huge issue. And I honestly feel that not only for this current pound of debris, but more importantly, in the future, we should have a -- and I'm going to be asking for it in the evening session, in the budget session -- we should have money set aside to allow us to exceed the FEMA premiums or the FEMA allowable amounts, if we want to, to become ultra -competitive, get our City cleaner; we can afford it. It's part of why we reserve money. It's part of what we reserve money for, for emergencies, and I think it makes sense, and everybody will flood to the City; the City will get clean in that 48-hour window that I talked about, and we'll be resistant to multiple hurricanes. There is -- The amount of material that was created is the equivalent of one year's worth of material; one whole year's worth of material. Okay? So we would have to have the capacity to clean a year's worth of bulky trash in 48 hours. The only way that's going to happen is if we have a ton of contractors, like you guys have said, or if we pay a premium to those contractors, and we create the market, if you will. So, just something to think about. I think we should do it, personally. I think it's a good expenditure of a million dollars, but -- Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: So, yes, clearly, the problem is we're not attracting enough of the subs because of the haircut, as Commissioner Suarez said. They're -- but the City -- I mean, we were originally only paying $8 per cubic yard, and the City upped the rate independently up to 15, which was the smartest move that could have been done. But would you need Commission approval to go beyond that, if necessary? Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Vice Chair Russell: Or do you have the --? So -- but you were allowed to go from the 8 to the 15? Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): I'll let Procurement talk about this, but I would like also to say that I want to our Solid Waste Departments [sic] and Zerry to talk about some of the efforts that have been done, because I think there may be some misconception about what's going on out there. We have the ability to go up to a higher number, but it has to be within the FEMA guidelines, if you want to get City of Miami Page 191 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 reimbursed. If you don't want to get reimbursed, then have at it. The procurement guidelines, I want to say, are also something that even if you give me the authority to bring in additional contractors, there are still guidelines for experience, for knowledge. I mean, I don't think that you want us to put in our streets -- Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Mr. Alfonso: -- people that don't know what they're doing, and then when we take these power lines -- Commissioner Suarez: Without a doubt. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Alfonso: -- down -- Vice Chair Russell: The -- Mr. Alfonso: -- and we're going to be knocking cars (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Gort: Then you got a liability. Vice Chair Russell: -- purpose, really, is to waive competitive bidding, because we're already deciding that we want to be one of the higher payers so that we are the most competitive in attracting them, not competitive in getting the cheapest rate. Mr. Alfonso: I want to be careful when you say "waive competitive bidding," because if that's the case, then I think none of it is reimbursable. Chair Hardemon: Right. Now -- because FEMA requires (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Alfonso: Right. But our contract does allow to add primaries; and I think, if we follow that guideline, we'll be fine. If you say, "Waive all competitive bidding," then I think none of it may be reimbursable. Vice Chair Russell: No, and the resolution -- Mr. Alfonso: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: -- does not say that either, so I misspoke, if that's what I meant. But in theory, what I'm saying is, we're -- it's not that we're waiting and waiting for the best price to come along. We know that the need is there, and we know what the market's doing right now in waste disposal and storm debris removal. We need to be with that market, and we need to service our residents. Chair Hardemon: So, Mr. Manager, and to the board members, you know what comes to my mind is, I don't -- I personally don't think that a dollar extra is what's going to cause an influx of people for debris removal. The primary -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh, it will. Oh, it absolutely will. Chair Hardemon: No. I'll tell you why. Because you're looking -- I think you're looking at it as a -- on a macro level, is a million more dollars out there? But, individually, these companies are having their share of this money. And the problem is, from what I've seen, from what I understand, is that that individual person who has -- say if it's -- if we have two, two groups that we're contracted with, they're not capable in a reasonable time to pick up the type of -- the amount of debris that we have, so they have to get subs. Right? Now, when they get the sub, they say, "I'm getting paid $15 an hour, but I'll pay you" -- I'm sorry -- "$15 a cubic yard, but I'll City of Miami Page 192 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 pay you $8 a cubic yard." Now that sub will happily take the job, right? And he takes the job, and he does the work, but they're getting paid a lot less than what -- if they were a primary. Now, that extra dollar, for instance, will cause it to go up to 16. There's no guarantee that that primary's going to give that extra dollar to the person that's working at -- that extra sub. It's not going to happen. It's another dollar for him to pad his pocket. However, if you create more primaries, then there's no need for the -- that one primary or two primaries to pay $8. Now, instead of that sub guy getting that $8 contract, because he's the one that's certified to do the work, as -- he's certified just as much as the other -- the primary is -- he now becomes a primary; and so, now he's making $15 an hour, just like the other guy was making $15 an hour. And I think that's what's going to create the demand, because then, when you start to look at the subs from there, people are going to want to sub with someone who's at least willing to pay them a more equitable dollar. And so, now that guy who's getting paid $15 -- say there's five primaries -- we have more primaries now working -- actually, it's the same amount of people, because these are the same subs, but now they're getting paid at a higher level; now they have more zeal to go out and get more employees, and they go and work. I don't think that that incremental change of $1 is what causes the increase. Commissioner Suarez: Can I just debate with you on that point for a second? Chair Hardemon: Absolutely. Commissioner Suarez: So what we're doing in terms of setting it to the $15, everybody's doing that; every city is doing that. We're not the only one doing it. We're not the only one that figured that out. Everyone figured the same thing out; that they're underpaying; that the primaries are overwhelmed, and that they're subbing stuff at a haircut. Everybody's figuring all this out simultaneously. The reason why -- This is supply and demand. I mean, companies will go where they think they can make the most profit, period. So, if you can make $15 a cubic yard in 34 cities in Miami, 33 cities in Miami -Dade County, 30 -- you know, there's 34 municipalities -- and you can make $16 a cubic yard in one city, everyone's going to go to that one city until their garbage is picked up; then they're going to go to the other ones that are paying 15 bucks. Chair Hardemon: I don't know if you can, because you're saying, "everyone," and we're talking about primaries. Right now we have two primaries? Unidentified Speaker: Two. Chair Hardemon: That's who makes the money right now. Commissioner Suarez: I get you. Commissioner Gort: We only have two? Commissioner Suarez: I don't disagree with your argument on -- Commissioner Gort: We didn't get that third? Commissioner Suarez: -- primaries and subs. I agree with that a hundred percent. I think the more primaries you have, the better, because people are competing with each other. But what I'm saying is, if everybody else is paying the FEMA reimbursable rate -- maximum rate, which is $15, and you're paying $16, everyone is going to go to the person that's paying $16. City of Miami Page 193 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: But you can't say -- this is not an open market; you can't say, "everyone." Commissioner Suarez: It is. Chair Hardemon: It's the two primaries that we have right now. Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no. We have to do -- we can do both at the same time. That's what I'm trying to tell you. You can open it up to multiple primaries, and you can say, "We're going to pay $16, " so that all the pri -- all the contractors in Florida are going to go to the person who's paying the most money. The only difference is, we're the only city that will go a dollar above FEMA reimbursable, so we'll get reimbursed for the 15; what we won't get reimbursed for is the dollar. Chair Hardemon: No, no. Commissioner Suarez: And yet, everybody will come and pick up our bulky trash, and then they'll go to the other cities, because it's just a plan. I mean, think about it. If you could do the same exact thing in one place and make a dollar more, you're going to go to that place, and then you're going to go to the place where you're going to make a dollar less. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort, and then I'll let you speak. Commissioner Gort: If you can tell me that they can do it in 48 hours, I'll vote for whatever amount of money you want. Commissioner Suarez: There you go. Commissioner Gort: But come on; give me a break. Let's be realistic. Commissioner Suarez: I am -- Commissioner Gort: And the one thing -- In 48 hours? Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I don't know -- listen, I don't know that it's -- listen, I don't -- listen -- Commissioner, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know how long it will take, but it'll take a lot less than 45 days. Commissioner Gort: The only thing that worries me is the -- how do we set up the pickup? And I understand the urgency to open up the main avenues, which is very important; the hospital, schools, and so on. But at the same time, I've been asking for a while now how the City's being divided and how the service is being provided. I finally got a diagram in here, and there's a hell of a lot more picked up south of Flagler than north of Flagler. So I want to make sure whatever we do, it's citywide. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Gort: Okay? And to me, that's very important. Vice Chair Russell: It's needed everywhere. Chair Hardemon: It seems like they -- I mean, if I -- Commissioner Gort: And let me finish. And we need to -- wait. We need to educate our community also, because you have places -- City of Miami Page 194 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Commissioner Gort: -- where trash is being picked up -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Commissioner Gort: -- and people continue to dump. And we need to work with the community. We have to inform the community we need their support, and we need their help also. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with all that. Mr. Chair, may I? Mr. Ihekwaba, can you please come to the microphone? What would -- What do you predict would happen if we paid $16 a cubic yard for trash pickup? Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Chief of Operations): Good afternoon. Zerry Ihekwaba, Assistant City Manager. There is no prediction. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Ihekwaba: What is going to happen is that the subs are going to demand for higher rates. Currently, they're being offered about $9 per cubic yard. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Ihekwaba: If they find out that the rates for the main contractors, the primes, have been adjusted upwards, they're going to also ask for an adjustment also. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: Now, I must caution the Commission. The basic issue right now is the availability of trucks. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: There are no available trucks. Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Mr. Ihekwaba: They're not going to fall down from the sky. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly, and that's my point. So my point is, if you have a supply glut -- right? -- and if we're going to create more primes, which means that you can't cut out the -- you know, the sub -- right? -- because what -- that's what the prime does. What the Chair is saying is absolutely correct. The more primes you have, the less opportunity that they have to cut up -- or to haircut the sub. Right? That is -- that's no doubt about it. And there's a finite amount of trucks; we all agree. But in those finite amount of trucks, let's say there's a hundred -- I don't know. How many trucks would you say is in that finite amount; a hundred trucks, a hundred --? I don't know how many trucks. Mr. Ihekwaba: The prime and the monitoring company had already certified about 246 trucks. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Right. So -- Mr. Ihekwaba: It has -- City of Miami Page 195 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Suarez: -- however many trucks there are in Dade County right now, all of those trucks are going to want to go to the City of Miami if we're paying $16 a cubic yard; all of them. You want to know why? Mr. Ihekwaba: Again -- Commissioner Suarez: Do you want to know why? Do you want to know why? Mr. Ihekwaba: -- there's no compelling reason on how we can force the primes to pay them higher rates. Commissioner Suarez: You don't have -- Listen, it's not about forcing the primes. You -- Mr. Ihekwaba: The primes don't have the trucks. Commissioner Suarez: It's not about force -- He just said, we can create multiple primes. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So you can get out from the limited number of primes to create multiple primes, okay? But if you paid $16 a cubic yard, all the primes would come here first. Mr. Ihekwaba: There is a likelihood of that happening. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: It is not guaranteed. Chair Hardemon: I think -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Chair Hardemon: It's "a" likelihood, but I want to say that, you know -- Commissioner Suarez: Some people might -- would like to make less money. Chair Hardemon: No, but many times we look at it and you say, supply/demand. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Chair Hardemon: This is a supply/demand change. Well, I tend to look at it differently. There's a demand and supply. We -- I think we look at it -- sometimes we put the cart before the horse. People supply where there is a demand. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Right? The reason, I would probably guess, that you -- absent some political reason why people prefer District 2 better than District 1, 3, 4, or 5, they have a lot of trees in District 2, especially in the Grove, et cetera. If I were a contractor and I was getting paid per cubic yard, I will go where all the trees are, because wherever I stop my truck, I can pack that truck with as much as possible, as compared to any other district where you have to travel further distances to get more and more supplies. And I know in the City of Miami, we have the City trucks that are going around and helping picking up debris, so we're doing all the best that we can. City of Miami Page 196 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 But my point is, is that the demand is that there's debris on the ground. As long as there's debris on the ground, I believe that we're going to find someone who's going to want to supply us with trucks to pick up that debris. But I really do understand the logic that our dear Commissioner from District 4 is explaining, but I don't think that it makes that difference. I think if you said, "We're getting paid $20 as," compared to 16, now, you know, you may pick up from wherever you are -- wherever the debris is where you are and travel somewhere else to get it. But, I mean, to pass by, you know, a ton of debris to get to the next city's ton of debris for a dollar -- I mean, the gas alone, you know, you may not -- you might not make it up on. Mr. Ihekwaba: Let me make two quick statements. Vice Chair Russell: Just one comment and then -- Zerry, please. There is one way you can guarantee you won't make a difference, and that's by not paying more. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Vice Chair Russell: So, you know, the other side, we don't know the full outcome, but you definitely know the outcome if we don't. And I just want to say, there's a reason we have reserves. Commissioner Suarez: Of course, there is. Vice Chair Russell: And this is one of those reasons. Commissioner Suarez: Of course, it is. Vice Chair Russell: Our job is not to be the most profitable organization in the world. Our job is to service our constituents to the best of our abilities and to the most efficient we know possible. Commissioner Suarez: A no -brainier. Vice Chair Russell: And so, with that many mind, that's why I'm in support of paying the higher rate, making sure we get the best service, and even if we do have to eat some of it at the end, that we clean this debris up as quickly as reasonably possible. Zerry, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Mr. Ihekwaba: Okay, piece of information. City of Coral Gables is paying higher than the City of Miami. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: They are not making a better production than us. They have currently about 20 percent production, and we're about 17 percent. So paying more money does not guarantee that you're going to get a higher rate of production. Vice Chair Russell: The perception is not that way amongst the public. Commissioner Suarez: With all due respect -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Here's our facts. City of Miami Page 197 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Perception -- who 's driving through Coral Gables and driving through Coconut Grove is complaining to me and saying, "Why does Coral Gables look so much cleaner right now than Coconut Grove?" Commissioner Suarez: And with all due respect -- Mr. Ihekwaba: I haven't finished, sir. Commissioner Suarez: -- only -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Some of the challenges the contractors are having is the distances they're traveling. Coral Gables is a much smaller city. So they in Miami are traveling longer distances. We have a higher incidence of contamination of the piles. You go to each individual pile on the street, they are mixed up with green waste, with furniture, with garbage, with all sorts of material -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- and the trucks do not address those piles. They have to go to the next clean pile to pick up. So those are some of the factors that delay delivery -- pickups and collection, and conveyance. So our recommendation, like the Manager said, is to look at the procurement process and see a way we can add -- kind of attract more subs. Even if we're creating more primes, they will need to find and make (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to make sure that the subs are properly compensated. That's the only way you can attract the trucks. Commissioner Suarez: Of course, and that's the point I'm making. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Mr. Ihekwaba: And if it creates 300 primes and you don't have the subs -- And keep in mind, you're going to be stealing from other municipalities. It's the same pot everybody's drawing from. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. That's my point. You're making my point. Mr. Ihekwaba: You're drawing from the same pot. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. So the person who pays the most is going to get from that same pot. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: If you guys -- If there's two Burger Kings, and you'll get a Happy Meal, or whatever -- I said -- Happy Meal is McDonalds. Mr. Alfonso: Commissioners, let me -- Commissioner Suarez: So -- Mr. Alfonso: May I intervene for a second? Commissioner Suarez: I mean -- Mr. Alfonso: If we want to pay a higher rate -- nobody's arguing, you know -- we could pay a higher rate. That's up to you guys. City of Miami Page 198 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Gort: Agree. Mr. Alfonso: That's not my concern. We'll pay a higher rate if you want to pay the higher rate. What I am trying to say is an expectation that if you believe that paying this higher rate will resolve this problem within 48 hours, I could tell you that's not going to happen, because we still have to make sure that these companies have proper insurance, that they're properly bondable, that they have experience, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So we can pay the higher rate. We wanted the authority to not have to come back to get approval to just move forward with adding people, but it is going to take some time. It's not going to happen overnight. Commissioner Suarez: The -- Chair Hardemon: Gort. Commissioner Suarez: -- administra -- Mr. Chair, if I may? The admini -- He just talked about something. Chair Hardemon: Talking to you? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. The administrative part of getting those contractors going, you obviously can't control. What I'm saying is, the minute that contractor -- I don't even know why I'm saying this. This is on deaf ears. The minute that a contractor knows that we're paying above the FEMA reimbursable rate, all of the contractors will want to do the work here. Chair Hardemon: If they -- okay. How many primes is there in the County? Mr. Ihekwaba: Miami -Dade County? Chair Hardemon: Well, the County contractor that the -- Commissioner Suarez: There's five in the County. Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner is trying to ask us to piggyback on. Unidentified Speaker: I believe it's like over 10. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Ihekwaba: They have a pool. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, of course. We have a smaller pool. Mr. Alfonso: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. Chair Hardemon: So -- Commissioner Suarez: We have a kiddy pool. Chair Hardemon: My -- I would say this: My concern is that this is fool's logic. I think that it appears to be one thing, but it may not be what you think it's going to be. An extra dollar sometimes is not worth the extra headache. I do think, though, that if you take someone from making $8 to making $15, that's a difference, and that's the -- increasing the number of primaries to -- City of Miami Page 199 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Subs to primes. Chair Hardemon: -- actually do the thing. By paying a primary that we already have a dollar extra, I don't think it will do anything. So I'm in support of moving someone from $8 to $15 and creating more competition to pick up that trash, because, I mean, if I were a subcontractor, I would just try to go through different primaries and find who's going to pay me the best, and that's what I think is probably going on right now, as compared to, "Hey, the City of Miami said they're going to open up for more primaries. I can be a primary instead of a subcontractor under you." And by the way, I mean, that creates more businesses in all of our districts, because I'm sure there are some individuals within our districts that own a truck that may be, with this, can go to two or three or four trucks. So it does good things for the business community, as well. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I don't have any problem (UNINTELLIGIBLE) putting the additional funds, but let me ask a couple of questions. Who sets up the routes where pickups going to take place? And who's the one that takes the decision where the trucks are going to go? Mr. Ihekwaba: We -- the City of Miami has a daily coordination meetings with all the contractors -- Commissioner Gort: Okay. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- every day at 2 o'clock, and that's at the location where -- and setting, where we decide on the phasing. If you can let me a few minutes to go through the presentation, you will see where they're currently working at and the logistics that influences the phasing. They do not want to be in one location because of traffic impacts, as well as public safety and public health. So they've been phased out in the way that a group is working from the west towards the east; a second group is from the east going to the west; one other group from south going north, and north coming down south. At some point, there's also a crew in the middle. Commissioner Gort: Now, looking at the -- according to the figures you guys have given me and the draft you gave me, south of Flagler is getting a lot more than north of Flagler, and that's what I want to bring up, too. Mr. Ihekwaba: I don't know what you have, Commissioner. That might not represent the status of the progress as of date. Commissioner Gort: They told me it was from you all. I just got it (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Ihekwaba: I did not send any -- Commissioner Gort: All right. Mr. Ihekwaba: I don't think any of my team sent -- Let me clarify. Commissioner Gort: Maybe you should look at it. Now, what I would like to see -- and Commissioners, you need all five votes. What I'm saying is, why don't we allow to give them the funds, and let the professional determine how they going to utilize it and make the maximum use of the funds that we're going to give them. I mean, I'm not a professional. I don't collect. I don't know. I don't have the routes. I don't have trucks, so I don't know how it works. So I think they're the one that have to decide how they're going to utilize the funds and make the best of it. City of Miami Page 200 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Alfonso: Okay. Mr. Chairman, can I ask the assistant director -- the Assistant City Manager to make his presentation? Because it is important -- Chair Hardemon: He has a presentation? Commissioner Gort: Sure. Yeah. Mr. Alfonso: Yes, he does. Chair Hardemon: Why didn't you say that from the beginning? Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, sir. Chair Hardemon: No. But seriously, before you move to your presentation, with the way this has been set up right now -- yeah, I wanted to stand up -- the fat cat is getting fatter. The guy who has the primary subs his stuff out, and in his sleep, he's making, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars every day off of the back of someone who's actually doing the work, someone who's -- who has the same expertise, but just didn't get the contract. If we give that same person an opportunity to do the contract, then I believe you'll have more people flooding to the City of Miami. Vice Chair Russell: There's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: When someone all over the County says, "Hey, I'm going from 8 to 15 in the City of Miami," then they'll come. Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, I do agree that we will -- Commissioner Suarez: But they won't come fast (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Alfonso: -- in a way, cannibalize ourselves as well, because some of the folks that are currently subs will go become primes. I agree with that. That is something that we're okay with doing. But, please, if he can make that presentation and talk about -- Mr. -- Commissioner Gort, I want to point out that the presentation that you got is of what the contractors have done, but it does not include what our Solid Waste folks have done. Commissioner Gort: Well, I've been asking for the copy for all -- Mr. Alfonso: Yeah, I understand. Commissioner Gort: And this is what I get. Mr. Ihekwaba: Good afternoon again. Zerry Ihekwaba. Currently, the City of Miami had been prepared to initiate all the operational plans before the hurricane struck the City. We've had an emergency removal -- debris removal contract since 2011, which is about seven years old, get -- six years old, and we're at the threshold where we should be rebidding. That contract has three contractors onboard: DRC, CERES, and CrowderGulf. CrowderGulf is inactive as of today, because they are currently handling all the debris removal contracts in North Florida, and we've reached out to them, and they have not been responsive in activating this contract. And also, based on FEMA guidelines, we have a monitoring consultant, Tetra Tech. Their job is to monitor all the contract requirements and what the contractors are doing in the field. From the get -go, we've maintained a 12-hour work schedule, Mondays through Sundays, every day of the week. And also, they established a City of Miami Page 201 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 number of their DMS, debris management sites, and staging areas. And just like Commissioner Willy Gort had asked, we have a daily assignment conference meetings, where some of these areas are discussed, and some of the guidelines and some of the modalities and challenges are reviewed prior to activating their crews. We had a number of pre -storm preparations from May, June, July. The City's Fire Department and the emergency office had coordinated all the City's citywide efforts in order to assure that we meet FEMA guidelines regarding storm road clearance and the first push, as well as the second push, which involves the debris removal. Also, a number of equipment and standard operating procedures have been reviewed, and the City's mini dump facility had remained open, regardless of the situation we found ourselves. Public Works had done extensive drainage cleaning before the storm hit, and that is why a number of locations in the City that had been historically prone to flooding did not flood during the storm events. There were some initial challenges, just like the Manager had mentioned, some of which were unavailability of equipment due to storm events in Texas and other parts of the state, and there were also delays due to safety concerns during the initial first week after the storm. The contractors also had some contractual challenges, which have been resolved; and, of course, the FEMA requirement to satisfy every piece of equipment before they can be used, which created this (UNINTELLIGIBLE) delay. There were some slow engagement of local subcontractors, as well as the loss of certified trucks to other municipalities. The City of Miami did something unique and extraordinary, which other municipalities are not doing. We had the Environmental Division of Planning & Zoning conduct a tree survey citywide before unleashing the pickup crews so that we can save as much trees as we can so that we can be (UNINTELLIGIBLE), supported, and repruned. The storm event was on September 10, four days after the City activated all these debris removal operations, because we were able to get the Miami -Dade County transfer stations open on the same day. The contractors, of course, mobilized on the first day right after the storm to engage in the first push, in addition to City departmental forces from Public Works, Fire, Solid Waste, and Parks. The first push included the critical infrastructure facilities, as well as the major roadways in the City. We did not discriminate between the City of Miami roadways or the County and the State roads. The debris removal phasing plan -- Commissioner Willy Gort, you had asked that question -- involved the first focus to be on the critical infrastructures: the hospitals, fire stations, police stations, schools, and et cetera. Then we were able to move over to the major arterial roadways: U.S.1, Biscayne Boulevard, 8th Street, 12th Avenue, 17th, 22nd, 27th, 32nd, 37th, and, of course, parts of Lejeune where it meets within the City boundaries. After the -- addressing those roadways, we moved over into the residential areas based on feasibility and the ability of the contractors to mobilize and deploy their equipment safely within residential neighborhoods, while maintaining a logic of not interfering between subsequent and abutting crews. The assignments were based on existing City of Miami maintenance grid. The City of Miami has 12 maintenance grids, so these were demarcated by having Flagler Street as a boundary and transition between both contracts. CERES contractor was assigned areas north of Flagler, and DRC was assigned areas south of Flagler; and the City of Miami departmental forces, made up of Public Works, Solid Waste, and Parks had to fill in some other areas, in addition to some of the existing maintenance contracts that we have for some of the major roadways in the City. As required by FEMA, we're able to establish debris management sites at Virginia Key, Biscayne Park, and Athalie Range Park. Those three locations were preapproved, prior to the storm event, by DEP, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and that was why we were able to have an early start, compared to other municipalities. Currently, we're looking into additional DMS sites: PBA, which has been activated already; Marlin's Park and a private lot on Biscayne Boulevard are pending certification and sampling. The sampling requires soil testing before and after use. The operational plan requires the use of two contractors, DRC and CERES, the monitoring consultant of Tetra Tech, and as well as the DMS locations. City of Miami Page 202 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Zerry, I'm sorry. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: The -- if you could go back two slides, please. You said one of the new staging areas is going to be just south of Biscayne Park. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. There's a private lot that we're in negotiation to use. It's a seven -acre lot. Vice Chair Russell: That's our cemetery. Mr. Ihekwaba: No. There is a site -- Vice Chair Russell: South of -- even south of that. Mr. Ihekwaba: I think it's on the west side of Southwest -- other than the -- I know where -- the City's cemetery is on 19th Street, but I think it's adjacent to that location. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? May I? How many staging areas does Coral Gables have? Mr. Ihekwaba: I believe they have two or three sites. Commissioner Suarez: And how many do we have? Mr. Ihekwaba: Currently, we have three -- we have four locations, and we're looking to adding two more; the reason being, the contractors want to spread out, reduce travel time -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- and they will be able to pick up more frequently. Commissioner Suarez: Makes sense. Vice Chair Russell: Please continue. I apologize. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. This is the distribution of equipment that the contractors have been able to certify as of today, a total of 246 trucks; and the City had been able to put, in addition to 246 additional, about 68 to 70 trucks. So we're well over 300 trucks or 320 trucks that are picking up debris. There additional equipment, dump trucks, there are also bucket trucks, there are chain saws, there are tractor lubes, and, of course, there are grinders. FEMA requires that every green waste that had been collected needs to be reduced by grinding them into mulch before we can safely and effectively dispose of them at locations. So those two contractors have already procured their grinders. The contractor called DRC has already commenced grinding on Virginia Key compose facility site. If you go out there today, you'll see them having the grinding operation in full scale. This is the equipment (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that the City had mustered and deployed: 62 trash trucks, 26 crane loaders, and a combination of others. In addition to all these, once we finish clearing a street, Solid Waste is required to run a street sweeper to clean up the pavement areas, and Public Works is going to come back with a drainage VAC (Ventilation and Air Conditioning) truck to pump out the drainage system, as well. During the all-important second push, which is what everyone is focused on, we have City of Miami Page 203 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 a number of operations already. Miami Police Department has been very gracious and supportive in providing us additional MOT, maintenance of traffic support to both our contractors and departmental crews, which involves cutting of trees, restoration of trees, opening roadways, and picking up trash. Now, the City Manager authorized the use of additional resources that we have currently in place. Brickell Avenue is maintained by a private subcontractor, so we deployed that contractor on Brickell Avenue. Also, Coral Way was done by Florida Lawn; 8th Street and Cuban Memorial Boulevard is being done by a private contractor, as well, and U.S.1. So most of these arterial roadways are already clean, but there is a challenge. Each time it's cleaned up, there's afresh pile of debris being brought out. We do not know whether the residents or illegal dumping or a combination of both. Debris removal, tree surveys has been done and completed by Planning Department, and we've been trying to save a number of trees. Those trees have been identified in the field, marked and labeled, and the information has been transferred to the contractors. This is a map that shows the areas that the City's currently working on, both from the City's perspective and as well as the contractor's. The areas shown in green had been completely cleared, which shows most of the arterial roadways running north/south have been addressed in order to enable and reduce traffic impact, ensure public safety, and also regulate public health. Also, most of the arterial ways [sic] running east/west are also being addressed, and also the high - density residential areas. The yellow areas -- areas shown in yellow are the areas where we've done at least 50 percent or more cleaning of the roadways. The areas in purple were less than 50 percent. So again, Commissioners, the phasing plan had been blessed by the contractors to ensure that they're able to work in a very safe manner, so that they don't run into each other with equipment or heavy trucks or impact traffic; which, of course, our residents are interested in ensuring. This is the same map that shows the district boundary lines to show how they fit in between the areas. Vice Chair Russell: Zerry -- I'm sorry, Zerry. If you could go back two slides, please. Thank you. So, as we can see here, green means it's been completely cleared. Mr. Ihekwaba: The first run had been done. There is going to be one final run at the end of the whole citywide operations. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: White has not been addressed yet, and then the yellow and the purple are somewhere in between. So, for example, you can see the area of Morningside has been very well cleaned up. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: And they thank you, for sure. But it looks like what we're doing is a complete cleanup of one area before we move necessarily to the next area and -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Not really. Vice Chair Russell: Is that not correct? Mr. Ihekwaba: The contractors are given a number of areas. These are areas delineated in grids, in grid format. So you don't get a street; you get a collection of a neighborhood. City of Miami Page 204 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Right. But they'll clear a street completely -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Exactly, before they move. Vice Chair Russell: -- before they move to the next street. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Now -- and I'm not a specialist in this, so it's not my field of expertise, but it's a question. Would it not be more effective on the whole to be doing a sweep of the entire area, as we do during a week of our normal debris solid -- bulk pickup, so that every part is feeling the lift as we go through, rather than getting one completely right until we move on to the next? Mr. Ihekwaba: I don't know whether it's cost-effective to have the contractors spread themselves thin all over the City without effectively cleaning in the area, which will require multiple trip times, which is a lot of money, which, again, we're -- I don't think there's a procurement (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Vice Chair Russell: It's not as efficient. Mr. Ihekwaba: It's not efficient. Vice Chair Russell: Because the end -- the result is that someone -- you know, they're -- the -- what you're showing, you're showing how much work is being done. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: Which means nothing to that one person who's sitting there staring at the pile in front of their house for the last two weeks and probably for next two weeks. And so, I'm trying to find some relief within that, as well as from a safety perspective, because there are many streets that will continue to remain very blocked; you have to zigzag through them, or have one-way traffic only, until we finally get to them, and that's why we're here. But I just wanted to understand that philosophy of whether it's better to do a street completely or do all the streets halfway, and then come back and do all the streets another halfway. Mr. Ihekwaba: Operation -wise, it's better to get something done before you move on. Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Ihekwaba: Doing 50 percent -- yeah -- is not going to be efficient. Mr. Alfonso: Yeah. For -- think about the truck driver. He doesn't want to go a mile to fill the truck; he wants to go in a block. So if he can fill it up in a block, it's better to fill up the truck in a block than go a mile. Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely. Mr. Alfonso: So you really have to do complete cleanup -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood. Mr. Alfonso: -- before you move on. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with that. Mr. Chair, if I may? City of Miami Page 205 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: I have a couple questions. The first question is, Do you think our residents are satisfied with our progress? Mr. Ihekwaba: Based on the available resources, I think we're doing very well. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. That's not -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Whether we can have -- Commissioner Suarez: -- that wasn't the question that I asked. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- whether we can gauge customer satisfaction at this stage, I think it's a little early. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Ihekwaba: If you look at the trend, the progress of work that has been accomplished to date -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- much work has been done in the past seven days. Commissioner Suarez: No doubt. Mr. Ihekwaba: The first two weeks was based on the FEMA requirements to make sure that the trucks had been inspected, that the City were getting -- every work that has been done is welcome compensated, according to production. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with everything you said, but you didn't answer my question. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah, the question is -- the answer to your question, Commissioner, is -- Vice Chair Russell: The answer is, Do you live in the green or the white? Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: If you live in the green, you're satisfied with the City. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: If you live in the white, no. Commissioner Suarez: How big a percentage is the green -- Mr. Ihekwaba: We'll get there. Commissioner Suarez: -- versus the white? Mr. Ihekwaba: Commissioner, we'll get there. We'll get there. Commissioner Suarez: I understand we'll get there. City of Miami Page 206 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Ihekwaba: And we're working towards that. Commissioner Suarez: I understand we'll get there. Of course we'll get there. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: We'll get there in 45 days, or we'll get there in 60 days, or we'll get there in 90 days, or we'll get there in a hundred. We'll eventually get there. Mr. Ihekwaba: Actually -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course we will. Mr. Ihekwaba: -- we've told the contractors that their feet is on the fire. We made that very clear yesterday. Some of your staff was at the meeting. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I know how your meetings are going, and then -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah, we made that clear. Vice Chair Russell: -- and -- Mr. Ihekwaba: That even though we said 45 to 60 days, we're expecting a much earlier completion time. Commissioner Suarez: Would it shock you to know that private neighborhoods have offered $20 a cubic foot and gotten their debris picked up in 24 hours? Would that shock you to know that? Mr. Ihekwaba: No, it wouldn't. Vice Chair Russell: It makes sense. Commissioner Suarez: Why would that make sense, if in the world that you've just created -- or if you paid more money to pick it up, they don't pick it up faster? Vice Chair Russell: Of course they do. Please continue, Zerry. Mr. Ihekwaba: Fact of life that you get what you pay for. Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. So what I'm saying is, if we pay a little bit more, even if we don't get reimbursed, we are going to pick up our debris significantly faster. Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner, we're not arguing your point about the extra dollar. We've -- if this Commission passes it, we'll do it. It's not a problem. We'll do it. Commissioner Suarez: But I seem to sense resistance on that, for some reason. I don't understand why. Like that's not actually going to make things faster. Mr. Alfonso: No. What we're setting, Commissioner, is expectation. If you want to pay $17 an hour, we'll do 17; we'll do 20. Commissioner Gort: If you want to pay 50 -- Mr. Alfonso: Not a problem. City of Miami Page 207 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Gort: Right. Vice Chair Russell: Please continue, Zerry. Commissioner Suarez: Well, if we did 20, we'd pick it up in 24 hours, clearly, because that's what other people are doing. Mr. Ihekwaba: So, as of yesterday -- sorry -- the two contractors have picked up a total of 78,000 cubic yards of debris. Vice Chair Russell: So we're almost 10 percent there? Mr. Ihekwaba: That's the contractors; that's not the total. I'm coming. This slide shows some of the trees that had been addressed, based on the tree assessment audits and survey that was done by Planning. This slide shows you the overall picture to date. We estimated the total debris haulage to be about 700,000 cubic yards, based on an inventory of about 68,000 households in the City, and each of those households contributing 10 cubic yards. The contractors, like I said earlier, picked up 78,600 cubic yards as of date. Yesterday, the City forces -- the three departments of Solid Waste, Public Works, and Parks -- picked up 39,500 cubic yards. The four maintenance contracts we have on four arterial roadways picked up about 4,500. A total of 122,000 cubic yards had been picked up as of date. Now, the initial estimate is 700, 000, so it's got about 17 percent completion, which is comparable to other municipalities. Vice Chair Russell: Now, this is the first time you're bringing in the City department versus the contractors. Is the City department doing the same type of work that the contractors are doing, and are they taking them to the same places, and are we getting the FEMA reimbursement for the City work? Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. The City's pickups would be reimbursed by FEMA. And we have a less stringent requirement; we don't need the trucks to be certified, because FEMA believes that our trucks are normal trucks. They don't need additional inspections. Vice Chair Russell: They're going to the transfer stations just to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Ihekwaba: They are going straight to the transfer station, if I'm -- yes. And we get tickets, so the estimated volume and the cubic yardage had been estimated once you get to the transfer station. So, comparatively, in the past seven -- one and a half weeks, about 10 days, we've done a lot, but we're not satisfied, and we are praying, and we've told the contractors that this needs to be stepped up while we are looking into obtaining additional resources. Vice Chair Russell: Zerry, I understand how you have the contractors set up and you have your daily meeting. How is the City's team deployed within that grid work? If you got a north and a south for the contractors, how are you concentrating where our City teams go? Mr. Ihekwaba: When the contractors are in any area that has not been assigned to a contractor, and it's a heavy residential -- it's a residential area of high density, we send in City crews. I think, as of this week, the City crews are in Shenandoah. The City crews are in Shenandoah as of this week, because that area was not assigned to a contractor. Yesterday the contractors, DRC, that seems to be doing a lot more, City of Miami Page 208 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 was also assigned additional areas, more than the crews on the north side. I think they're in the Roads, as of last night -- or this morning, rather. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Ihekwaba: Thanks. Again, there are some challenges to some of this work. We have power lines, so we have to rely on FPL (Florida Power Light), as well as the utilities that are hanging on trees. Once we get to those areas, we have to stop and call FPL to address those utilities. And, of course, obviously, there are the impacts of MOT, down traffic signals, which requires to be addressed before we can proceed. Now, FEMA requires -- this is very, very important -- that debris be separated and taken to different sites; that's why we've been talking and stressing the fact of stopping cross -contamination of the piles. If you're listening to us today, please do not mix up the green waste, the green vegetation with garbage, with furniture, and paraphernalia; have them separate, please. Of course, there are areas with unstable trees and branches; they'll be restated and resupported so that they can grow back into healthy trees. Miami believes in this country canopy, and we are committed to the preservation. Some of the other challenges the contractors have complained so much about is the hauling distances, so that is the reason why we're creating additional debris management sites; to reduce the travel time and enhance production and pickups. Vice Chair Russell: With regard to cross -contamination, I know they do pick up some, and then some does end up at the transfer station, and then they separate it there. Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I've seen the pile, and it's quite small compared to what they're collecting. What happens to that pile? I want to know that the garbage that's getting there that's not the typical tree waste is not staying at -- Mr. Ihekwaba: No. Vice Chair Russell: -- necessarily at those transfer centers. Mr. Ihekwaba: They'll be taken out and taken to a proper transfer station or to the land field. Vice Chair Russell: How often is that happening? Mr. Ihekwaba: Once they have appreciable quantities on site. At least a truckload has to be there. Vice Chair Russell: As soon as there's a truckload -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: -- it leaves the transfer site -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- the rest of it stays to get mulched? Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. I'm glad you visited some of these DMS sites, and you've seen that they've been very committed in separating the debris. City of Miami Page 209 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Absolutely -- Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: -- I have, and that's -- Thank you. Mr. Ihekwaba: Okay, yesterday -- and it -- I think in the past two days, we've had inclement weather. It has been a big challenge for the operations; not for Flagler. The DMS site was actually flooded and -- which is why we're expediting opening up additional locations for the contractor. Again, the last bullet point is very important. City department forces, especially Solid Waste, has been conducting street sweeping. We've done that a number of times in some of the major arterial ways, and Public Works is coming right behind them to do drainage cleaning, because we don't want the next rainfall to create flooding, so we're trying to kill several birds with one stone. Recommendations: I think this has been discussed extensively this afternoon. The important thing is that we need additional resources, while we engage in enhanced public outreach and education of our residents to minimize contamination of the piles. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. So I want to speak to the reimbursement portion with regard to FEMA, and that's been brought up, the $15 versus the $16. The City Attorney raised a concern that if we utilize emergency procurement that that may preclude us from collecting reimbursement. But I want to take a look at this fact sheet that you sent me. It seems to say the exact opposite of that, because the "E" in FEMA is for emergencies, so they should be reimbursing for emergency. It does say, "Failure to follow Federal contracting requirements when procuring and selecting contractors puts applicants at risk of not receiving full reimbursement." It does say, "Do not," for example, "piggyback." But to go down further, it says, "Noncompetitive procurement may be used under certain circumstances, one of which is when the public exigency or emergency will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation." So -- and then they give a definition of "emergency" and "exigency," which would allow us, in my understanding of this, to go with noncompetitive procurement and still get reimbursed. Their definition of emergency says -- or tornado -- or, in this case, a hurricane -- "Impacts a city and causes widespread catastrophic damage, including loss of life or power damage to public and private structures, millions of cubic yards of debris across the city, leaving the entire jurisdiction inaccessible. The city needs to begin debris clearance activities immediately to restore access to the community and support search and rescue operations and power restoration." That does seem to fall into the category where we are. Chair Hardemon: Now, I will differ from you there, and I think that whoever FEMA has advocating for them will differ from us. Commissioner Suarez: Guys? Chair Hardemon: Because when you say, "causes widespread and catastrophic damage," that's the first sentence. This is a tornado, as an example. Imagine a hurricane, a hurricane that causes the City -- the impacts to the City and causes widespread and catastrophic damage. I think we'll have a very difficult time proving that. If we were -- Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) key. City of Miami Page 210 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: Right. Then you can say that, including loss of life, loss of power. Yeah, we have that. That's an example of loss of power. `Damage to public and private structures and millions of cubic yards of debris." I mean, so it's like you're kind of cherry picking out of it. And when it comes to getting, you know, reimbursed, I believe that you want to make sure that you -- what you do is reimbursable. If it -- this could be a huge mistake that can cost us a lot of money -- Vice Chair Russell: Agreed. Chair Hardemon: -- if we don't play by the rules. Vice Chair Russell: So we qualify for some of their emergency categories, but not necessarily all of them, and they do list it as an "and" and not an "or," so that's some place we need to be careful. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): Right. So the only reason why I wanted to alert you to that is because, like the Chairman says, you know, they have their team of attorneys; we have our team of attorneys. There may be, you know, back and forth on what should be reimbursable, what should not. I just want you to go with eyes wide open, that it could be, you know, either/or. Also, as Annie will point out, and as you were aptly pointing out, we're going to potentially pass this resolution, but there are other options that -- and it doesn't mean that they're mutually exclusive, like we'll -- there's other options where we could get subcontractors. There are other options where we could piggyback. So, you know, it's just -- you're giving us as many tools as possible to try and figure out the solution for the residents, and Annie can elaborate a little more on that. Chair Hardemon: So when I read this, the resolution itself -- and I'll read the title of it so that we're clear -- all of us are clear, even those of us who aren't here for this. A resolution of the Miami City Commission, pursuant to section 2-33 and 18-90 of the Code of City of Miami, Florida, as amended, by a unanimous affirmative vote, ratifying, approving, and confirming the City Manager's finding of an emergency, attached and incorporated as Attachment `A"; and authorizing the City Manager for the duration of the City of Miami's emergency needs for removal of debris in efforts to recover from Hurricane Irma to add qualified vendors to the existing debris removal and disposal services Invitation for Bid, Contract Number 274253, and to access any additional government contracts for emergency debris removal services, as needed, without need for further -- of further City Commissioner approval to protect the life, health, welfare, and safety of City visitors, residents, and property; authorizing the City Manager to execute any and all contracts and agreements in form -- in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, as deemed necessary; and allocating funds from accounts to be identified by the City Manager, subject to budgetary approval. So -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: -- am I seeing two different ways of doing it, plus a budgetary thing? So it could be a piggyback. It could be an emergency procurement process that will allow people -- or an exigent procurement process, or however you want to title it, to allow more primes to come in, and you won't have to come back before us. Is that what I'm -- what I read there? Ms. Mendez: Yes. It's basically allowing us to do anything that we need to do on an emergency basis, but the Procurement Department and the Administration has the ability to add vendors to the existing debris removal contract, you know, on their City of Miami Page 211 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 own, and then they also are able to seek piggyback with delegation of authority for the City Manager, so there's several options just -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am. Annie Perez: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Annie Perez, director of Procurement. I want to backtrack a little and make some points of clarification. All week I've been pretty much on the phone with FEMA attorneys, back and forth, and I want to make a few clarifications. Commissioner Suarez, the $15 cap that FEMA -- it's not really a $15 cap. What they have said, it's whatever the market is calling for. We were on a conference call, so -- Commissioner Suarez: That's even better. Ms. Perez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: Let's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Perez: So I wanted -- I needed to make that clarification. Commissioner Suarez: That's even better. So what I'm saying is, we could pay $17, and FEMA might actually reimburse the whole $17. Ms. Perez: Right, right. Commissioner Suarez: Or 18. Ms. Perez: It's whatever the market -- Commissioner Suarez: -- or whatever the market -- Ms. Perez: -- is calling for. Commissioner Suarez: Right. And so -- Chair Hardemon: Right now the market look like it's calling for $8 -- I'm just playing. Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no, no, no. No, I agree -- The thing is that we -- sometimes we talk past each other, because we don't listen to each other. Chair Hardemon: I'm not listening to you. Commissioner Suarez: I know you're not. I totally agree with -- everything you said, I agree with. All I said supplements what you said. Everything you said I agree with. There's not one thing that you said that I don't agree with. I don't know what creates consternation when I say, go a little higher because the private sector's going a little higher, and you'll get -- of the limited supply that there is, you'll get more contractors. And you're now telling me that FEMA may even reimburse that higher rate. So why don't we build into the resolution -- and the Manager is allowed to go as high as the Manager feels necessary to create a competitive advantage for the City of Miami. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Well, a competitive advantage isn't market rate, but -- City of Miami Page 212 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Perez: Okay. So if I may, going back to Commissioner Russell, our contract -- you had asked how we raised it to $15. Our contract has a provision for equitable adjustment based on -- there's several things, but what we used was market volatility, so that was allowable through the contract. My suggestion in my conversations with FEMA -- there's a few things. So the new FEMA procurement regulations are covered under CFR 200. We have asked for an extension. We already had an extension of CFR 44, which was the old procurement guidelines, which are a little more lax than the new guidelines. So they were going to grant us an extension of one year to continue with 44. That would allow for piggybacking and things like that, so that's number one. The second thing that's important to say is, I've been asking -- because a lot of our contracts have local preference, so I've been asking, "Well, you know, if it's prohibited, what do I do? Can I use an emergency? Can I use an exigency?" And what they have been telling me is -- numerous times they've told me it has to be for a very finite, defined period. It shouldn't be, you know, for a month or anything. It has to -- and you have to prove that it's a threat to life or safety. So -- Vice Chair Russell: In order to waive local preference or enact local preference? Ms. Perez: No, no. In order for me -- because I can't use my contracts to enact an emergency and be able, under our Section 18-90, just select a vendor, maybe quote; do those types of things. So they've been very adamant. I've asked the questions maybe like four times, and they've been very consistent in answering me the same way. So I warn the Commission that perhaps using the emergency might not be best, because what they have told me is, "If you use an emergency, then you have to start a new procurement immediately with all of our guidelines." So we already have our existing contract, and our contract allows -- has two provisions to allow the addition of vendors. What I was thinking was just delegate authority to the City Manager for a finite period of time through the Hurricane Irma recovery, and allow us to add vendors, pursuant to the contract, and also delegate authority so that we can piggyback, if necessary, off of other contracts without further City Commission approvals. So my humble -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? Mr. Chair, if I may? Chair Hardemon: Move that. Move -- if you move that, then I'm with you. Commissioner Suarez: Can I say something? So -- I'm sorry, guys, to belabor this. But if our two vendors cannot perform -- right? -- because, clearly, they don't have enough resources, because they're stretched thin, they're all over the -- whatever -- why can't we tell them, "Listen, you can add as many subs as you want, so long as you pay the subs directly what the City is paying, without taking any sort of a haircut? Because you're not able to perform. You don't have the resources to perform under the main contract." Right? Ms. Perez: Correct. Chair Hardemon: They're going to say they can perform. They're going to say they can perform with the subcontractor. Commissioner Suarez: They haven't conformed [sic]. Chair Hardemon: But they're going to say they can perform with the subcontractors. But with what she stated earlier, we can add more -- Commissioner Suarez: Fine. City of Miami Page 213 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: -- people. So -- Commissioner Suarez: Fine. Chair Hardemon: -- what I'm saying, the -- As she presented it earlier, allow them to use the existing contract. If you have a provision that allows you to add more primaries, use it. And you've already adjusted the price to make it more competitive or more reasonable, if you will; then continue doing what you're doing. And if you're saying that using the emergency ordinance, like what we have before us, is a bad thing -- Ms. Perez: Possibly. Chair Hardemon: -- from your discussions with FEMA, then if you can do it within your existing framework, then why create more legislation? Vice Chair Russell: But the -- Commissioner Suarez: You can't add more primaries. You can't add -- Ms. Perez: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: What do you mean? Ms. Perez: The contract allows -- the contract has -- Commissioner Suarez: What contract? Ms. Perez: The contract for debris, emergency debris removal; the contract that we have now. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. That was procured. Ms. Perez: Right, that was -- Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. Ms. Perez: -- competitively procured. Commissioner Suarez: And when you procure, you go out to the public, and you say, "Hey, how many people can do this?" And two people responded, and you selected two people. Ms. Perez: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: If you all of a sudden say, "Hey, now we're going to select another eight people" -- right? Ms. Perez: The contract allows you to add as long -- so as long as -- they have to meet all those minimum -- there's a lot of minimum qualification requirements, and they have to meet those qualification requirements. Commissioner Suarez: So what's the purpose of going through a procurement in the first place? Chair Hardemon: Well, I would say it's no different from what we do with our trash -- with our haulers. I mean, with our haulers, there's a list, but the list can be City of Miami Page 214 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 expanded to upon. I mean, there are certain qualifications and things that must be met, but -- Commissioner Suarez: What you're saying sounds more like a franchise agreement. In other words, if you meet all these -- Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) haulers. Commissioner Suarez: -- requirements, you can do business. That's what it sounds like. And whoever meets those requirements can do business -- which makes sense, by the way. That may be the best way to do it. I'm just -- from a procurement perspective, I'm a little bit concerned. Ms. Perez: Okay. So one of the sections of the contract that allows, it says -- it basically says that if we're in a state of emergency -- or if we need more additional contracts, the City, in its best interest, can go ahead and add more contractors Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Ms. Perez: So we can do that, or we can also ask them to add more subcontractors; we can do that as well. Commissioner Suarez: But "Pursuant to what process?" is the question, because that can be in the contract between the vendors, but pursuant to what process? Just anybody liberally can do it? You can just do it? Ms. Perez: Well, they have to meet the minimum qualification requirements, and they would have to provide pricing. Those would be the -- Commissioner Suarez: I mean, that's fine with me. If we can do it that way, I don't have a problem with that. Vice Chair Russell: But if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, we already are in a state of emergency at a State level, a County level, and we're affirming the City Manager's finding of an emergency. So we're not introducing anything new here in terms of a state of emergency that FEMA would now suddenly not reimburse us, which it sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, as it is the Federal Emergency. "E" is for "emergency"; and so, they should be reimbursing for emergencies and acting, you know, accordingly, but -- This new version seems to be something that you already have the power to do, and if that's the case, what are we accomplishing here today, and why haven't you already done it? Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. Ms. Perez: What I need is -- The contract doesn't allow for us to add vendors without coming to City Commission for approval. And the -- and if we piggyback off of a contract, that as well would require City Commission approval. So it would be simply delegating authority to the City Manager. Vice Chair Russell: And this, as written, though, accomplishes that, though, correct? Chair Hardemon: Except as the emergency declaration, if you will. Vice Chair Russell: I don't think the problem legally is about adding the word emergency." It's about waiving things that would otherwise be used outside of the emergency that -- is that correct? City of Miami Page 215 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Perez: Well, we're really not waiving anything -- Vice Chair Russell: Right. Ms. Perez: -- because we're basically just delegating authority to him to add vendors, pursuant to the contract, and piggyback off of a contract, pursuant to our Code -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Ms. Perez: -- but he can't do it on his own; he needs your authority. Vice Chair Russell: And this gives him that. Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Ms. Perez: Okay. I haven't read that, Commissioner, so I don't know what that says. Commissioner Suarez: Well, that's the problem; she hasn't read this, because this does exactly what she's saying. Vice Chair Russell: That was my intention. Chair Hardemon: This -- Commissioner Suarez: Section 2 does exactly what she -- She hasn't read it. I had read it right now. So it's not your fault you hadn't read it; you just got it, so. It does -- it seems to do what precisely you're saying. Ms. Perez: Correct. Commissioner Suarez: Which is -- Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. And I'll -- Ms. Perez: We just don't have to waive competitive, because we can do it. Commissioner Suarez: No. It says here -- Vice Chair Russell: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- it authorizes the Manager for the duration of City emergency needs for removal of debris in efforts to recover from Hurricane Irma to add qualified members to existing emergency debris removal and disposal services IFB contract number, and to access any additional government contracts, yada, yada, yada. So it seems to do the very thing that you're requesting. Chair Hardemon: True. I agree. The question I have is the -- what's just before that, where it states that "confirming the City Manager's finding of an emergency." Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: Is that something that's necessary to be done in that contract? Ms. Perez: No. City of Miami Page 216 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Chair Hardemon: And if it is not -- Commissioner Suarez: It may not. Chair Hardemon: -- I mean, I think that we should strike that language -- Commissioner Suarez: Just delete it, delete it. Chair Hardemon: -- because -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- and that's what I'm asking, so. Commissioner Suarez: I understand what he's saying. He's just pouring it on, like the Commission will also -- not that it has to be done. There's no need for it, legally, but the Commission is supporting his declaration -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: -- of finding of emergency. Chair Hardemon: Right. Commissioner Suarez: So we, the -- whatever. It's not (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: So I think -- Commissioner Suarez: I got you. Chair Hardemon: -- strike that language. Commissioner Suarez: Well, that's fine. Ms. Perez: And we do have situations where we are, you know, enacting Section 18- 90, an emergency and such, but in this case, we really don't need to. Commissioner Suarez: Can I add a section that says that it allows the Manager to pay above -- to pay competitive rates as they are established in the market or as they may evolve in the market? Ms. Perez: That's allowable in the contract as well under "equitable adjustment." Commissioner Suarez: That's allowed in the contract? Ms. Perez: Um-hmm. Vice Chair Russell: That's already allowed; you don't need an amendment. Ms. Perez: That's how we went from $7.22 to 15. Commissioner Gort: Chairman? Vice Chair Russell: And you can go to 17, if necessary, without Commission approval. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, that's fine. City of Miami Page 217 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Ms. Perez: It just states -- it's all based on market volatility. So if we can prove, for example, that Coral Gables is paying more -- Commissioner Suarez: What about like a private neighborhood that pays more and - -7 Ms. Perez: That might be a little -- not -- I think FEMA -- everything I've heard, that might be a little more questionable when they talk market. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Ms. Perez: It's other governmental cities and entities. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. What about us paying more than FEMA? In other words, just understanding that to get a competitive advantage, if all things were equal, which we've heard a lot of testimony that all things are not equal, durations of -- like where you have to take things -- but in other words, to create a competitive advantage so that we actually get it picked up faster -- and we understand that some of that is not reimbursable. We get it. But that is part of our emergency reserve. That's part of our budget. Is that something we can do? Ms. Perez: I don't see why not. I mean -- Commissioner Suarez: Of course it is. Ms. Perez: And -- Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort Ms. Perez: -- also, just -- Commissioner Suarez: Why does that give you heartburn? Ms. Perez: -- I had asked for a written contract -- Commissioner Suarez: Why does that bother you? Why does that bother you? I don't understand. Why does it bother you? Commissioner Gort: No. What bothers me is -- but I think a half an hour ago, I made this statement. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Commissioner Gort: When we said, how much money we want to allocate above the market, or whatever we want to establish, and let the Administration and the professionals -- Commissioner Suarez: That's fine. Commissioner Gort: -- come up with the answer. Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with that. Commissioner Gort: They got all the tools. Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with that. City of Miami Page 218 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: But what -- I don't want to handcuff them to only what FEMA will reimburse. If we are -- Commissioner Gort: No, no. We -- My understanding is, we're going beyond that. We 're going -- Commissioner Suarez: No. Commissioner Gort: -- to add some additional funds, and we might establish a market rate which is necessary to comply with FEMA's, so I don't see any problem with that. Commissioner Suarez: No. If the market is paying 15 or 16 or 17, that is the reimbursable limit of FEMA. Commissioner Gort: I understand that. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. We may want to pay 18. Commissioner Gort: My statement is, if the market -- that's what the market needs, FEMA will pay, so. Commissioner Suarez: I understand. Commissioner Gort: And we don't -- we can go beyond that. We can -- Commissioner Suarez: We can't go beyond that. Commissioner Gort: -- get $3 or $4 -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Commissioner Gort: -- and we'll pay for it. Commissioner Suarez: But can we do that under this? Does he have the authorization to go beyond --? Vice Chair Russell: Do you need authorization from Commission to go beyond the market value? Ms. Perez: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Ms. Perez: Just to be on the safe side. Commissioner Suarez: That's what I'm trying to say. Ms. Perez: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: So what I'm getting at is, I think the Manager should have the authority to expedite this process, to go beyond the market rate and reim -- and pay -- he may not do it. It's up to him -- City of Miami Page 219 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: He has the ability. Commissioner Suarez: -- but he has the ability to do it. Vice Chair Russell: Is that an amendment? Commissioner Suarez: Yes, please. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Gladly. Ms. Mendez: So for purposes of the reso, what we're going to do is just -- Commissioner Suarez: He's not going to do it anyway. Ms. Mendez: -- take out -- Commissioner Suarez: He doesn't want to do anything that we want him to do. Ms. Mendez: -- "and 18-90," which is Section 18-90. And then after the word "emergency," take out "attached and incorporated as Attachment "A," which Commissioner Carollo pointed out as not there. And then -- "and authorizing the City Manager for the duration of City of Miami's emergency needs or otherwise." The "or otherwise," I think, will capture everybody's hesitation or non -hesitation with this. And add the whereas clause that you want, Commissioner Suarez, that has to do with going above -- Commissioner Suarez: I don't think that's a where -- it may be a whereas clause, but it also has to be a recital, right? Because that is a -- that's -- Ms. Mendez: We'll add a whereas and a recital -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Mendez: -- that addresses the "going above the market rate, if necessary." Commissioner Suarez: Correct. Ms. Mendez: I think that captures everybody -- Commissioner Suarez: In an effort to expedite the cleaning of the City. Ms. Mendez: Yes. Does that -- is everybody comfortable now? Vice Chair Russell: Mover agrees. Chair Hardemon: Can you state it again? Ms. Mendez: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: To protect against future natural disasters that may come within this time period. Ms. Mendez: Okay. So what -- with the resolution that you have before you, we're going to remove at -- in the second line "and 18-90." Just remove that. We're going to remove the words "attached and incorporated as Attachment 'A,'" and then we're going to add in the -- one, two, three, four, five, six -- seven line, after "emergency needs or otherwise," so it captures emergency needs and regular needs, both with City of Miami Page 220 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 regard to the removal of debris, and then we're going to add a whereas and a recital that talks about the going above market rate in order to address these issues. Chair Hardemon: But why are we saying, "Going above market rate"? Why are we Ms. Mendez: That is a request -- Chair Hardemon: -- saying that? Ms. Mendez: -- from -- Chair Hardemon: But my question is -- Because if we're allowed now to go from $7.22 to $15 -- Ms. Mendez: Right, as needed, if needed. If the Manager needs to -- if there -- you know, we don't know what the vendors are going to ask. We don't know what the demands are going to be. So, obviously, this is for the Manager to have a little bit of flexibility in order to carry out the Commission's -- Chair Hardemon: What about the section that says, "after a unanimous vote"? Because we're ratifying, approving -- and you're saying, "and confirming the City Manager's finding of an emergency." Is that what needs to be done? Is it the finding of an emergency that needs to be ratified or is it the decision -making? Ms. Mendez: Well, the thing is that the emergency section -- and since a part of this is also for the fact that under 2-33, in order to have a pocket that has a fiscal impact, we have to say that it's an emergency, and it has to be unanimous. If not, you cannot have a pocket that is a fiscal impact -- Chair Hardemon: Got it. Ms. Mendez: -- as well. So -- Chair Hardemon: I hope this works. Ms. Mendez: -- I think all these edits capture the spirit and will of this Commission to, one, get reimbursed where they can; two, assist the residents; three, give the Manager what they -- what he needs to do in order to facilitate all that. Vice Chair Russell: One, assist the residents; two, get the money back. Ms. Mendez: I'm sorry that I did not say it in the correct order. Vice Chair Russell: Priority. Ms. Mendez: Right. Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. I think -- with regards to this pocket item, I think we're set; I'm ready to vote on it. However, I do want to bring up -- and since we're talking about emergencies, we're talking about waiving -- An issue that's arised [sic] that I've been hearing a lot is -- Right now, it's my understanding that our Planning Department is not working with tree cutting permits or tree removal permits. And City of Miami Page 221 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 what a lot of the residents have seen, they've been -- unfortunately viewed how, for years, many of these trees were not trimmed or were not pruned, and all of a sudden, now they want to trim and prune. And some of these trees are overgrown, where, if they just do 25 percent, it's really not enough, because for many, many years they were not trimmed and pruned. So since we are waiving some of these requirements, is there a way -- or can we have a discussion with regards to that? Because like I said, a lot of the residents have gotten rude awakenings of things that they should have been doing or things that should have happened during the years. And right now, I've gotten various residents coming to me saying, "Frank, I don't know about this tree permit," or "I'm afraid of cutting the tree. I'm afraid of pruning it more." And it's my understanding that right now, even if they would apply for a permit, we're just overburdened, and we're not even working towards it. So I think there should be some type of discussion with regards to that, and see if -- are we waiving some of the required permits that we need to pull or not, or where are we with it? Ms. Mendez: Planning will talk about all that. The only thing with regard to permits, I just wanted to point out that there's sections in the tree ordinance that allow for when there is, you know, a tree that's fallen already and it's on, you know, a health/safety/welfare issue. Those could be after -- you know, take pictures. Hopefully, the residents will take pictures, documents, and then they could be cut, and then they could go to the City after the fact to resolve any issues, and it won't necessarily need a tree permit. Commissioner Carollo: Understood, but like -- let's say half the tree fell, the other tree -- the other part didn't fall, miraculously, but the residents are very concerned that, "Hey, in the next one, or whenever, it's going to fall, so we prefer not to have it, because it came inches from falling on the house, the part that didn't fall." So there's been, you know, questions and concerns about that. So not to mention that I've spoken, somewhat, to Mr. Garcia about it, and right now -- and understood -- the permits are not being followed, or right now they're not addressing the permits because of all the other things that they're doing. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chairman. I am addressing that in one of my budget requests this evening, that we will have, you know, more -- that the permits will get processed faster through hiring the right people in that department, as well as inspecting out in the field. I don't know that it's fully related to the reso that we're dealing with before us, but I would not be in favor of relaxing the tree permitting process or waiving -- I mean, right now, on a daily basis, I'm getting calls of people that are actually violating -- they're using the storm as an excuse to clear/cut a lot, and very old trees are just disappearing quietly, because we're under an emergency situation; we don't have the time to deal with it, but our Code -- and even our police are ending up having to deal with it. I'd be worried if we relaxed it more. I would rather help them process them faster so that we make sure and keep an eye on them that we're -- that the correct trees are being removed. Commissioner Carollo: And I think there needs to be a balance, because I would say the majority of the City doesn't necessarily have that problem. They're more concerned of their rude awakening that these trees knocked down the power lines, knocked down -- you know, hit their homes, and they're saying, "Hey, this tree should have either been trimmed quite a bit or even removed in some instances." So I think there needs to be a balance there, because I am telling you that we have gotten numerous residents calling us and asking for guidance with regards to that. So I've come to Francisco, and that's where he's told me, you know, very frank, "Right now we're not even addressing the permits, because we don't have enough staff. " So there just needs to be a balance. City of Miami Page 222 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Vice Chair Russell: Understood, Commissioner. But with due respect, I really wish we could at least complete the item at hand that we have a motion and a second and amendments on; that is not exactly directly related to the issue. Commissioner Carollo: Understood. Commissioner Gort: We can go back to the ordinance. We -- this is something we need to discuss. Vice Chair Russell: That's true. Commissioner Gort: And I agree with you. Vice Chair Russell: It's true. Commissioner Gort: I think we need to discuss it. Vice Chair Russell: It's a lot to work on, but it's a different subject, a little bit. Commissioner Carollo: It's not a different subject. I understand it does -- it's not incorporated within your resolution, your pocket item, but it's still hurricane related. Vice Chair Russell: That's true. Commissioner Carollo: And the reason that we are on your pocket item is because of what happened. Vice Chair Russell: That's true. Commissioner Carollo: And because of what happened is why we're having issues with additional tree trimming or tree cutting, and the rude awakening that a lot of this maybe should have been done way before, and the permits are not being processed. So I'll leave it at that. I guess we'll bring another discussion item and we'll discuss it then, but I do think that we need to at least have the discussion and address that issue. Vice Chair Russell: Fair enough. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion with the motion that's on the floor? Commissioner Gort: Call the question. Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further questions, all in favor of the motion say, "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Unanimous, right? Ms. Mendez: Thank you. As amended on the floor. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Mendez: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Pocket item motion passes. City of Miami Page 223 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 NA.3 3048 Office of the City Clerk RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT ("FIND") GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 17-0139, ADOPTED MARCH 23, 2017; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE SUBMISSION OF THE MODIFIED GRANT APPLICATION, THE EXECUTION OF GRANT OR DEED AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS, MODIFICATIONS, AND EXTENSIONS THERETO, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE EVENT OF AN AWARD OF THE GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0478 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez Vice Chair Russell: In that case, I'll make a motion to change the scope and design of the project. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Commissioner Crowley: Thank you. Victoria Mendez (City Attorney): And I just wanted to clam it was probably a resolution that allocated and appropriated all of that. You are rescinding that resolution once we get the number and passing this new resolution, correct? Just for the record. Because we have an outstanding -- Remember when we had FIND allocations, they'd come by resolution, we appropriate, we allocate. So we'll rescind that one and replace it with this new one? Vice Chair Russell: It won't put the grant at risk, though? Ms. Mendez: It -- no, no. It should not, but -- Commissioner Crowley: So from a process perspective, what I need is, I need the City to come back to us with a bid set of plans. I will then take those plans through my board. You'll have my support. My board, of course, has to vote on it, but the board will approve a modification to the project from the original scope to this scope. Daniel J Alfonso (City Manager): Right. So -- Commissioner Crowley: I mean -- City of Miami Page 224 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 Mr. Alfonso: -- I don't think -- Commissioner Crowley: -- I defer to the City Attorney on the original resolution, but I don't want to do anything that's going to disrupt the City's original approval of the grant application, because that could -- Ms. Mendez: Well, at least to -- it's that we normally don't amend resolutions; we rescind them, pass new ones, but we'll -- if we need to bring it back next time, we'll find out what the reso is. I'll find out this afternoon, if anything, if we need something additional. We'll pass this as is. Vice Chair Russell: It wasn't meant to amend a previous resolution. It was a new resolution to give new direction for design and scope. Commissioner Crowley: Right. And that, for me, is sufficient. So all -- I have a resolution of the City Commission authorizing the application; that's fine. Vice Chair Russell: We'll do our housekeeping. Commissioner Crowley: You guys now come back to me with a change -- a modification, I'll run it through my board, we'll get it approved, and that's what we need, so. Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, I think you're right. Vice Chair Russell: You may be, but I don't want to -- Ms. Mendez: Well, what we'll -- Vice Chair Russell: -- put anything at risk. Ms. Mendez: Right. You passed a reso right now. If we need any -- we're going to pull the other resos and see what, if anything, we have to change, but we'll make sure we get you what you need. Commissioner Crowley: Thank you. Gary Milano: Chair Russell, may I speak? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I mean, it's up to the Chair, obviously. Chair Hardemon: Through the Chair. Mr. Milano: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the redesign. My only concern is, I would hope that you will be able to put this through a review process to make sure that it's stable and long-lasting, and bring it back to the board for review, and give us some time to work with you and the FIND community to finalize a plan. I can see this is a conceptual plan, but as you know, conceptual plans need to be evaluated, and there are some concerns, you know, and I've done this for 30 years, this sort of design. I applaud you for your efforts, and I just want to keep an open door as far as to have a conversation about the design elements. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And as I said during our sunshine meeting, I would like to have a meeting out at the site to envision the upland for the future as well, so. Mr. Milano: Thank you. City of Miami Page 225 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 NA.4 3008 Commissioners and Mayor Vice Chair Russell: And the design will go through the board as well, before it's finalized. Mr. Milano: Could you have staff schedule that with us? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Milano: Thank you very much. Thank you. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WAIVING THE PROHIBITION THAT TWO (2) EVENTS SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE ON SUCCESSIVE WEEKENDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 54-341(C)(3) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, IN ORDER TO ALLOW GROVETOBERFEST TO OCCUR ON OCTOBER 14, 2017 AND THE COCONUT GROVE PUMPKIN PATCH FESTIVAL TO OCCUR FROM OCTOBER 21 THROUGH OCTOBER 22, 2017. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-17-0471 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Ken Russell, Vice Chair SECONDER: Francis Suarez, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Suarez ABSENT: Gort, Carollo Chair Hardemon: The final resolution that we have is another pocket item presented by the District 2 Commissioner. It's a resolution of the Miami City Commission, waiving the prohibition that two events shall not take place on successive weekends, pursuant to Section 54-341C3 of the Code of the City of Miami, as amended, in order to allow the Grovetoberfest to occur on October 14, 2017; and the Coconut Grove Pumpkin Patch Festival, from October 21 through October 22, 2017. Vice Chair Russell: I'll move it. I just wanted to plug those two events. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone from the public that'd like to make a comment about this item? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing about this item. All in favor of the item, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes. City of Miami Page 226 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 NA.5 2850 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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY -CLIENT SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING THE PENDING LITIGATION IN THE CASE OF VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-02997 CA 09, 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, WHICH INCLUDE CHAIRMAN KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, 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 LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS; AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY AND FORREST L. ANDREWS. 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 Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, there -- Can I announce for a shade meeting on October 12? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Min: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the City Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, the City Attorney is requesting that at the City Commission meeting of October 12, 2017, an attorney -client session, closed to the public, be held for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the case of Village of Key Biscayne versus City of Miami, Case Number 15-02997 CA-09, before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami - Dade County, 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 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, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell, City of Miami Page 227 Printed on 11/20/2017 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 28, 2017 ADJOURNMENT Commissioners Wifredo "Willy" Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; City Manager Daniel Alfonso; City Attorney Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief of Land Use Transactions Rafael Suarez -Rivas; and Assistant City Attorneys Kerri McNulty and Forrest Andrews. 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 session, the City Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of the attorney -client session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 pm City of Miami Page 228 Printed on 11/20/2017