HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Meena Jagamath-Amended Statement of Objection and Evidence RE Magic City SAPSubmitted into the public
record fpr itfm(s)
°" lb/ •
AMENDED STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS AND EVIDENCE ON
MAGIC CITY INNOVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL A' A PLAN
CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION - PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
November 15, 2018 - Agenda Items PZ 1 and PZ 2 (First Reading)
ity Clerk
The Family Action Network Movement("FANM") on behalf of itself and its inembers and ,
submit the following Statement of Objections and Evidence in the quasi-judicial proceedings
related to the Magic City Innovation District Special Area Plan ("Magic City SAP") application
presented by MCD Miami, LLC ("Developer"). The first reading on this application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning change is on the City of Miami Commission
Planning and Zoning agenda for November 15, 2018. A separate letter requesting intervenor
status with facts supporting certain entities' legally cognizable interests that entitle them to
intervenor status was submitted initially on September 24, 2018 and has since been amended and
re -submitted on November 15, 2018. It is attached hereto as Appendix A. This statement
incorporates by reference all facts therein.2
A. INTRODUCTION
The undersigned are deeply concerned about the Magic City SAP application as currently
proposed. While it boasts a number of exciting prospects for Miami, it does not do enough to
address the likely tremendous impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhoods, and on Little
Haiti in particular.
Eight years since the passage of Miami's form -based zoning code, Miami 21, we are witnessing
the danger of the Special Area Plan, a zoning mechanism that allows any property owner with over
nine (9) contiguous acres of land to bypass the zoning code and essentially rewrite their own code
for their property. While the stated intent was to encourage streamlined, master -planned
developments subject to increased process to encourage dialogue with the community, the creeping
of the development proposals into well -established neighborhoods like Little Haiti, far from the
urban center downtown, potentially threatens Miami's cultural history. The economic pressure on
land prices and rental rates caused by large SAPs can be dramatic, driving displacement of low-
income, vulnerable populations. If not done right, with the proper mitigating policies tailored to
the specific area, these developments can transform the character of a neighborhood in one fell
swoop.3
With one SAP already approved in Little Haiti4 and three additional large scale SAP applications
pending or forthcoming over a 20-block stretch along NE 2'd Avenue,' there is ample cause for
Family Advocacy Network Movement, Inc. (FANM) is a Florida Not -For -Profit corporation located at 100 NE 84" Street, Miami, FL 33138 in
Little Haiti. FANM has a long-standing commitment to meeting the needs of low to niodcrate-income families and children since 1991 through
counseling, wrap around services, access to health care, community outreach/ education, job iiathingleconomic development, financial literacy,
organizing & advocacy services.
One particular concern that is also of deep concern is the high number of Alcohol Service Establishment permits being requested by the
Developer (10), especially since the Development Agreement eliminate distance requirements from churches, schools and other establishments
under the Miami Code.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/commun ity/miami-dade/article 126501 109.html
Miami Jewish Home and Hospital, located off of NE 2' Avenue across from what is now Design Place. While this SAP is also a significant
development. the density and building heights (maximum 8 story buildings) proposed are far less than what is being proposed by Magic City and
Eastside Ridge.
The present pending Magic City SAP, the pending Eastside Ridge SAP at 54' and NE 2" AVCI1U. and forthcoming SAP application expected
for the t'ormer Archbishop Curley -Notre Dame property.
ttri •
- s\n, (),\0yk,\\tIA 0A\ Lki\(\,,Ak.e1
Is'aloce)\1 5N
ilbmitted into the pu
(-cord for ite (s)
on Wl
7ic
atlen
Citsr Clerk
alarm. This is what makes it imperative that we approach the Magic City SAP application in a
measured, well-informed manner. This development has great precedential value for the other
SAPs that may arise in the area, and large scale developments in neighborhoods across Miami.
As this Statement will show, the project is inconsistent in numerous ways with the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) and with the Miami 21 zoning code. The scale,
density and intensity of the project are grossly out of proportion with the surrounding
neighborhood, such that its impacts will ripple out far beyond the bounds of the SAP area in terms
of traffic, noise, environmental impact and dramatic building height increases in a neighborhood
largely zoned for building height no greater than five stories. Furthermore, the project risks deeply
altering the housing affordability of Little Haiti as to land prices and rental rates, its demographics
and cultural heritage.
B. BACKGROUND
The proposed project, the Magic City SAP, is located within the neighborhood of Little Haiti. This
project stands to impact not just the immediate surroundings of the SAP area, but the whole
neighborhood of Little Haiti as defined by the census tract6, and particularly the area within the
officially -designated bounds of Little Haiti.'
A large percentage of the tract of land that makes up the Magic City SAP area comes from what
was formerly the Magic City Trailer Park, eventually closed and cleared of its 40 or so mobile
homes in 2015.8 Other properties in the area were gradually acquired over time, resulting in the
17.75 acre assemblage that is now the subject of this SAP rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment application.
The density and intensity proposed in the application — approximately 2,6309 residential units, 432
hotel rooms (or 201,600 square feet), 2,208,540 square feet of office space', 520,970 square feet
of commercial space, 119,610 square feet of expo space, 6,061 parking spaces, 215,493 square
feet of civic space and additional 370,000 square feet for surplus parking (or 8,164,140 square feet
total development on 17.75 acres) — is grossly out of proportion with the surrounding neighborhood
and stands to permanently alter the lives of the residents and business owners in Little Haiti.
Specific impacts include:
• increased traffic caused by the proposed commercial, residential and entertainment uses of
the property;
• introduction of nuisances into the neighborhood, including noise, alcoholic beverage
establishments allowed in proximity to religious institutions and schools;
• increased load on the public infrastructure, including roads, schools, potable water and
utilities;
https://statisticalatlas.comineighborhood/Florida/Miami/Little-Haiti/Population
https://www.miamiherald.cominews/local/community/miami-dade/article80151417.html
http://biscaynetimes.corn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2051:the-passing-of-a-neighborhood&catid=50:community-
news&Itemid=258
9 The number of residential units varies throughout the application and ordinance documents. In the title of the proposed ordinance (File ID
4668), the number cited is 2,662 but within the text of the ordinance, it is 2,630. The 2.630 number is used for the economic impact study, while a
2,490 residential unit number is used for the Water and Sewer Availability letter. among others. FOI the sake of consistency, the number s.,,e will
cite from here forward is 2,630.
16 This number also varies between documents.
2
Submitted into 0:7 ruhi ic
record fo iterf(s)
on cityClerk
• transformation of the skyline from one with few buildings higher than three stories to one
with towering buildings jutting out of a relatively small area; and
• a change in rental rates and land prices in a neighborhood populated by predominantly low
to moderate income households.'
Nothing has been presented to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project. It is
puzzling that an environmental impact statement is not a condition of approval of zoning/land use
changes of this magnitude, but rather remains listed only as a condition of the issuance of a building
permit. At the same time, the Developer has not proposed sufficient resiliency measures beyond
the simple statement that the land happens to be located along a coastal ridge that is of relatively
higher elevation.
In addition, the Development Agreement and Regulating Plan fall woefully short of the measures
needed to mitigate the above -mentioned impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The City can
hardly justify granting what amounts to a windfall in development capacity by allowing the SAP
rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments as presently written without realizing better, more
enforceable and clearer benefits for the community. To do any less at a time when the City is
facing a deep affordability crisis, overburdened roads and climate change issues would be to invite
future problems that the City will be left to clean up without adequate resources.
Finally, the three other approved, pending or forthcoming SAPs in Little Haiti will intensify the
impact of the Magic City proposal.' (See Map 1 on next page) The SAPs (approved and pending")
should not be analyzed individually but in relation to one another. To analyze them individually
would be to ignore the cumulative impact of all projects together on the surrounding neighborhood
with respect to such keys things as traffic, displacement and density. And yet, the Magic City SAP
is moving at break -neck speed through a process purportedly designed to maximize community
input without properly engaging in a community -wide dialogue about the nature of the project and
without taking into adequate consideration the previously -voiced request that the City of Miami
consider the impact of the projects together.
II According to a 2015 Needs Assessment, 70% of Little Haiti residents are low to moderate income. See Planning Department Comprehensive
Plan Amendment Staff Analysis (-Comp Plan Analysis") at 9.
12 Though the Design District SAP is also technically in the Census tract of Little Haiti, it is a farther distance from the project in question.
" As of the submission of this document the status of the Archbishop Curley Notre Dame High School property is up in the air, but we are
including it here as a potential property to be rezoned as an SAP.
3
Submitted into the pub ic
record lo 115teni(s)
on / City Clerk
06
Map I SAPs approved, forthcoming andpending in the Little Haiti neighborhood (based on Census tract)
4
Submittc-1 't7 r)1ic
record fo • lie' i(s) 27,,
on II% Clerk
C. THE MAGIC CITY SAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MIAMI
COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBO' OOD PLAN
Pursuant to Florida statute, the standard for determining the legality of comprehensive plan
amendment is consistency. "A development order or land development regulation shall be
consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects
of development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and further the
objectives, policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets
all other criteria enumerated by the local government.- Sec. 163.3194(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018)
(emphasis added).
The statute goes on to define "consistent":
A development approved or undertaken by a local government shall be consistent with the
comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and
other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the objectives, policies,
land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it meets all other
criteria enumerated by the local government.
Sec. 163.3194(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added). By this standard, based on the substantial
and competent evidence, presented below it is clear that the project is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
(a) The Planning and Zoning Department's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Analysis
identifies multiple inconsistencies of the proposal with the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan.
In the Staff Analysis attached to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment agenda item ("Comp Plan
Analysis"), the City of Miami Planning Department found certain changes to be inconsistent with
several criteria under MCNP. A Department memorandum was issued on October 26, 2018,
finding that some of the inconsistencies have been cured, but there are still gaping holes. The
following chart summarizes the Comp Plan Analysis and adds commentary based on any changes
that may have taken place since the date of the analysis:
MCNP Criterion
Staff Analysis
Staff Finding
July 2018
Staff Finding
October 2018
Changes since analysis
completed?
(Our commentary)
Objective LU-1.3 —
Unclear
Inconsistent
Consistent, given
We still have questions about
encouraging
whether new
that General
whether the "select light industrial
commercial, office
industrial
Commercial land
uses" allowed under the General
and industrial
activity will
use allows for
Commercial land use resolve the
development
be
select light
issue of the overall depletion of the
concentrated
in an area
where this
capacity
currently
exists
industrial uses.
land in Miami with the "Light
Industrial" designation.
5
bo��1b�oobli/
Submitted-- ' .-
ocord for item(s)
on
Policy [L-ii3—
protection from
encroachment of
incompatible land
uses, adverse
impacts on
surrounding
neighborhoods,
degradation of
environment,
ecology
0bjccdvesLU-4],
42.4.3—mixed
income
developments and
affordable and
attainable housing
Goal 80-\—
increase the supply
ufsafe, affordable
and sanitary
housing for
extremely low-,
very \mv',low- and
moderate -income
households
Goal B0'2Livuhle
city center with
variety of urban
housing types for
persons ufall
Applicant is
chunging|5+
acres of Ligh
Industrial land
to Restricted
Commercial
inthe Future
Land Use Map
—tkis is found
0ubean
encroachment
of Restricted
Commercial
into the Light
Industrial
[[D
designation
Current
application is
requesting
higher density
but envisions
by its
Economic
Impact
Analysis that
lOOY6ufits
residents will
have an
income of
$75,000
Need for
affordable
housing in
Little Haiti is
well -
documented
Plan is
walkable and
hospitable to
multiple
modes of
Inconsistent
Inconsistent
Inconsistent
Consistent,
however
Applicant must
think further
on
Consistent
Inconsistent —
should be
uuennA u
percentage of
dwelling units,
not habitable
Consistent —^'The
Applicant is
making
provisions for
affordable and
workforce
housing inunarea
of the city with u
great need for this
type o[kousiog.^
_
No comment.
_
In addition, the lack o[information
(i.e., an environmental impact
statement) makes it difficult to
assess what potential adverse
envinunmcntul or ecological
impacts the projectwill have unthe
surrounding neighborhood. Not
clear that the traffic impact is
sufficiently mitigated.
The environmental impact
statement should be submitted
before second reading.
The 7%affordable units and 14%
workforce units promised need not
be on -site. The regulating p|uo
does not specify where the
affordable housing should hobuilt
(and itcould also beapayment in
lieu) and the workforce housing
need not be built on -site either,
only within 1,500 feet of the G/\9
area. Furthermore, workforce
housing isnot even preferable for
the area since, i[HUD AM\ is used
and the Applicant opts to build
them at 140%/\M/ (as opposed tu
the 120% /\M[ that the City asked
to be the upper limit of the
workforce u||owuocc but the
Applicant has refused toabide ky),
rents will be set at ngos far above
local market rate. (About Si83Ofor
u |QK as opposed to the
approximately $1200 current
market rate for |QKupmb/rents)
Grc above. For the scale of
development proposed, 7% is not
an adequate amount. Further, the
language about where the housing
will hclocated and whether it will
be actual units built or u cash
contribution in lieu is uoc|cur.
Wccd more specificity; public
benefits offered in exchange for
bonus height should be focused on
affordable housing.
0cWhcr 2018 analysis does out
address this and the concerns
remain.
6
Submitted into the public
on City Clerk
income levels inu
walkable, mixed
use development
Policy TR-ii|'
Concentration and
intensification of
development
around centers of
Policy TR'i\4—
infiUclose to
nmbinodo
transportation
options
TR'i52—
transportation
control measures
(TCK0o),hunsb
discount and fare
subsidy programs,
transportation,
but analysis
assumes all
residents will
earn $75,00
while
purporting to
target incomes
inthe range uf
S55,OOO'
75,OOO
On transit
corridor on
NS2nd
Avenue.
Access to
commuter rail
is anticipated
to become
reality inthe
near future.
Kcdcvc\upo
idle site.
PresentsinOO
redevelopment
to take
advantage of
transit
corridor on
NE nd
Avenue
Applicant
focuses on
road network,
bicycle
infrastructure.
VVhUc
improvement
for bicycling,
need true
TCK0sto
reduce
vehicular
congestion.
'
Consistent
with
qualifications
regarding
Light
Industrial land.
affordability
component to
the residential
program, since
residential
component is
based unu
household
income of
$75,0OOinthe
projcct`s
Economic
Analysis
Consistent
Incunoioten—
notenough
-
-
-
Consistent '
TCMs have been
accepted by the
Office of Capital
Improvements
and
Tmospunudoo
Sufficiency Letter
was written on
/\u8um 21` 2018
memorializing
the Applicant's
TCMo as
acceptable. This
cures the stuff
report's findings
uyincunoix/rncy.^
The failure to make u true
commitment to building on -site
affordable or workforce housing
(us reflected in the Development
Agreement and Rc8u|u'in8 Plan)
makes it unclear and doubtful that
this development will truly be
mixed income. There also need »o
be more specific provisions
providing housing for the elderly.
Sec also above comment on
x'ork5nroc housing.
The staff analysis isnot adequate
on this point as it does not correct
the assumption that there will be u
commuter rail inthe future tocalm
By the City`s transit oriented
development map and plans, there
is no ougiun planned or likely
possible for the K4u8ic City area
(since there are planned stations at
79`" Street/Little River and
Midtown/Design District). VVki\c
buses and bike lanes exist, it is not
clear they can absorb the additional
proposed density
The u68jmJ staff analysis is
flawed. Transit along NE 2"d
Avenue ioprimarily 6ybus, trolley
or jitney. It is not o\cur that the
density proposed can 6cadequately
served by d6csc op/ions to truly
reduce dependency on
automobiles.
We remain concerned about
vehicular traffic tobegenerated hy
this dcvc\upmcoL Bicycle,
pedestrian and bus ohc|mx
infrastructure iswelcomed but will
not make u reasonable dent in the
traffic concerns, given Miami's
Still have questions about the
extent towhich the traffic impact
has been measured alongside other
development that may come to the
7
Sllbmitted into the pulglic
record for ite (s) V1,, 7,C .)
on 111 . City Clerk
Policy TR-2.2.9 —
SAP is
Inconsistent —
Looped in with
Remains unresolved.
transportation
designed for
need to
Criteria 11 on
systems accessible
people in
provide for
TCMs.
Now finds the project consistent on
to those in need
income ranges
more inclusive
this point, however the
$55,000-
of members
argumentation in the October 2018
75,000, but
with various
memo doesn't address the question
workforce is
drawn from an
area with high
poverty rates.
incomes,
abilities, etc.
about inclusivity. No discounts or
fare subsidies are contemplated in
the Development Agreement.
The finding on this policy should
remain inconsistent.
While the Staff ultimately recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions attached
to the rezoning item, it is not clear that the conditions adequately resolve the issues raised in the
above analysis, particularly with respect to the housing, transportation and equity criteria. Indeed,
the Comp Plan Analysis itself concludes by noting "Staff has genuine concerns about the current
proposal under the goals, objectives, and policies of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan. A quickly diminishing inventory of FLU designations that support activities that have
potential to provide the most diverse opportunities for incomes that are above the median income
is a grave concern of the Planning Department."'" The subsequent October 2018 memorandum
found that some of the inconsistencies had been cured, but we continue to have concerns about the
continuing inconsistencies as to the lack of adequate measures to ensure that this development is
truly an inclusive, mixed income project. Furthermore, Staff must revisit the assumption that a
commuter rail will come to the area, which served as the basis of the consistency finding for TR
1.1 1
(b) Theproject does not meet prevailing criteria for an "innovation district"
Planning and Zoning staff engage in an important and pointed discussion in the Comp Plan
Analysis querying whether what is being proposed is truly an innovation district. The Analysis
cites 12 guiding principles for innovation districts compiled by the Brookings lnstitute.ls While
this project attempts — in narrative form — to check some of the points from the list, there are
significant holes, including a firm partnership with an educational institution16, a true commitment
to diversity and inclusion and forward thinking on affordability. We have particular doubts as to
these latter two, which we discuss further in the subsection (c) below. Furthermore, while we
understand that comparing different campuses with different configurations is imperfect, the
difference in the density between the proposed Magic City SAP and other innovation districts
(cited in Developer's application) is marked:
Project
Land area (in acres)
Square Feet of Develo!tient
Magic City SAP
17.75
8.16M
Kendall Square (Cambridge)
24 (of 43)
4.15M
South Lake Union (Seattle)
206
9M
" Comp Plan Analysis at p 21.
is Comp Plan Analysis at p 10.
16 The Developer has alluded to conversations with Florida International University. but the Development Agreement does not inspire confidence
as to a commitment to securing an anchor educational institution, as it cites only "good faith" efforts to secure such a partnership.
8
Submitted into the public
record fo it cs yl
on 1_J1iJit City Clerk
IDEA District (San Diego)
95
6.68M
Midtown Innovation District
(Atlanta
1.2 square miles (768 acres)
6.86M + 7,600 residential
units
Spring District
36
3M office space + 2000
residential units
Indeed, the Analysis also cites the Brookings warning to guard "against across-the-board rezoning
for increasing density, proximity, and mixing of uses due to the effect such zoning changes have
on land prices."j7 This is precisely our concern, and the very reason why we ask for more measured
approaches to zoning and density increases. At the very least, we should take the time to play out
the consequences of approving such a large project at one time.
(c) The scale of the development and minimal attempts to mitigate impact on the surrounding
community demonstrate further inconsistency with the MCNP.
The sheer size and density of the proposed Magic City SAP are staggering and out of scale for the
surrounding neighborhood. The U.S. Census counted 28,346 residents in the neighborhood
occupying 9,289 households.' 8 As stated above, this project will add 2,630 new residential units,
a 28% increase in density. Given this massive increase. it is vital that we interrogate who this
project seeks to attract to the neighborhood, and who, in turn, would be displaced and denied the
opportunities that come with increased public and private investment in the neighborhood. Per the
Developer's own application, this development is not being built for City of Miami residents. much
less current Little Haiti residents. In fact, their own economic impact analysis assumes that more
than "half of the tenants within Magic City innovation District will relocate from outside of the
City."I9
In that same analysis, the developer purports to be targeting households with incomes between
$55,000-$75,000 (though the total residential income in is calculated based on 100% residents at
the $75,000 level).2° Median Household Income for the City of Miami is $31,600, and $24,800 for
the Little Haiti area. By these numbers, it would take three Little Haiti families to afford just one
apartment at the proposed Magic City SAP. The proposed micro -units could hardly accommodate
such an arrangement.
The standard of affordability for housing is thirty percent of income.21 This means that for the rent
of the Developer's targeted demographic to be affordable, rent would have to be capped at $1,875
per month across the entire development. And yet the Developer has made no assurances that rents
would be attainable to people at the high end of the income range they are supposedly basing their
numbers on. Instead, the Developer is painting the 14% workforce housing provision in the
Development Agreement (at 61-140% AMI, but no specificity as to the number of units at the
different income levels in that range) to be a boon to the surrounding community. when income at
the highest end of the workforce allowance would equate to $73.220 (based on 2018 HUD AMI
17 Comp Plan Staff Analysis at p 11.
18 https://statisticalatlas.comineighborhood/Florida/Miami/Little-Haiti/Population
'9 Lambert Advisory, L LC, Economic Impact Analysis: Magic City Innovation District (June 2018) at p 5.
2' Id.
htips://www.huduser.gov/portal/glossary/glossary_a.html
9
s,111-nitted into the p4lic
record for itevi(s)
on 11 I 15 IS . Ciq Clerk
level for Miami -Dade County - $52,30022) — an income at the upper end of their supposed target
population.
At the same time, median rent for a one -bedroom apartment in Little Haiti was measured as $1,200
as of February 2018.23 Given the likely distortion that Magic City's over 2,600 units priced at
income levels significantly higher than Little Haiti's median income will cause in the
neighborhoods, it is imperative to include units on -site within the SAP area that are affordable to
the surrounding community, at or below 60% AMI. A cash contribution in lieu will not go as far
as brick and mortar units, since land prices are increasing in thc neighborhood.
Furthermore, while the current community is 73.4% Black, Black households are underrepresented
in the income brackets targeted by the developer, making up roughly 17/0 of Miami -Dade
County's households at that level. Failure to take these demographics into account will inevitably
lead to a sweeping demographic change of Little Haiti and an uprooting of the Haitian -American
community from its cultural home. This would represent a loss not only to residents of the
neighborhood, but do irrevocable harm to the fabric and identity of Miami as a whole. It is
particularly concerning that this displacement coincides with new public investments in roads,
schools. and other infrastructure that promises to turn Little Haiti into a neighborhood of
opportunity.
(d) The project is inconsistent with additional criteria in the MCNP.
The Staff is right to be concerned about this project. In addition to the criteria listed in the above
table, there are other key criteria that the Staff did not include in its analysis that show further areas
where the project is inconsistent with the MCNP.
Policy LU-1.3.2 — "making available commercial loan funds fbr rehabilitation and small business
loans and seed moneys, particularly to local minority businesses and encouraging the maximum
participation...of..property owners and residents of the areas."
* While Paragraph 16(g)(4) of the Development Agreement (DA) includes a quota for
subcontracts to go to community business enterprises or community small business
enterprises (CBEs, CSBEs), there is no hard requirement, and no mention made of
minority, women owned or disadvantage business entities (MBEs, WBEs, DBEs).
* Though Paragraph 16(h) of the DA also provides for 20% of the retail merchandising units
to be dedicated to Little Haiti businesses or residents, there is no subsidy, seed money or
other support offered to incentivize participation of local residents.
Policy LU-1.3.8 — "foster or develop and implement job training, vocational, and educational
programs to assist the City's existing and future residents...support minority and semi -skilled
residents of the city...."
• The only place where the DA mentions job training is in Paragraph 16(f) about the Magic
City Innovation Foundation, which does not have specific language committing the
22 http://www.miamidade.gov/housing/income-limits.asp
https://www.zumner.comlblog/2018/02/mappinu-miami-neighborhood-rent-prices-wi nter-20 1 8/
10
Submitted into the public
record for itenpi(s)
on A /15 . City Clerk
Applicant to undertaking this activity. Similarly, the language to make good faith efforts
to partner with an accredited educational institution is overly vague and does not commit
the Applicant in any way to providing educational or training programs so that residents
can benefit from the job opportunities created by the developments.
• Though there is a loose commitment in Paragraph 16(g)(1) of the DA to local hiring
according to a zip code schedule, there is no language specifying the time periods for
recruitment or binding the Applicant to a certain percentage of local hires (and providing
training opportunities to meet that percentage). Similarly, the DA should include an
expanded list of workforce development, community organizations or community media
channels located in or primarily serving the Little Haiti neighborhood for job recruitment
and advertisement.
Policy LU-1.3.14 — "City will continue to enforce urban design guidelines...which shall be
consistent with the neighborhood character, history, and function, and shall be in accordance with
the neighborhood design and development standards adopted.... "
Objective LU-1.5 — "Land development regulations will protect the city's unique natural and
coastal resources, its neighborhoods, and its historic and cultural heritage.
• This project is grossly out of proportion to the surrounding neighborhood. While Applicant
has accepted to adhere to the Little Haiti Creole Design Guidelines for properties along NE
2' Avenue, the overall height, density and use of the property is not consistent with the
neighborhood character, history and function. Simply including cosmetic design elements
along NE 2" Avenue is not enough to reflect the historic Haitian and Caribbean roots of
the neighborhood.
• More concerningly, the virtual elimination of Floor Lot Ratio (FLR) as a standard to
measure intensity in the Regulating Plan is of deep concern and reveals a severe
inconsistency with this provision.
Policy LU-1.6. 7 — "The City will provide adequate opportunity for public comment regarding
zoning changes and variances within neighborhoods."
• As the community raised as an objection at the Urban Design Review Board (UDRB)
meeting, the scheduling of the UDRB hearing for the same day as the Planning and Zoning
Appeals Board (PZAB) hearing prevented meaningful community input at both events.
Generally, these processes take place on two different days, giving time for the Applicant
to resolve any comments by the UDRB before the PZAB hearing. An ask we would have
raised at the UDRB hearing (a need for a community wide meeting to evaluate design
elements and other aspects of the project) was nullified by the fact that we had to present
before a different board later on the same day. This appears to flout the spirit of the SAP
approval process that includes multiple steps for the very purpose of soliciting feedback
from the public and incorporating that into the project's ultimate design.
11
Submitted into the public
record for iten(s) Z 11_
on I\ /13/I‘g, . City Clerk
D. THE MAGIC CITY SAP IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MIAMI 21 ZONING
CODE.
The Planning and Zoning Department staff also submitted a Staff Analysis ("Zoning Analysis")
for the zoning change, which approved the project and found it consistent with the zoning code
subject to heavy conditions. The below is a discussion of that analysis, which incorporates a
granular critique of the Regulating Plan. Overall, we are deeply concerned that a Regulating Plan
that so sweepingly changes and adds on to provisions of the Miami 21 code will undermine the
spirit of the code in the long term and in fact prevent the community from realizing much needed
benefits in exchange for the extreme density and heights requested.
(a) The Zoning Analysis misses some critical inconsistencies and incompatibilities with
Miami 21.
a. Miami 21 Article 3 Analysis24
We recognize that some adjustments on building heights for the MCID designations have been
made since the initial application that proposed 29 stories, and that the project is designed to step
up to the most intense buildings. However, even with these modifications, the tallest buildings in
the MCID-1 (max 20 stories, 12 by right and 8 bonus) and MCID-2 zones (max 25 stories, 12 by
right and 13 bonus) will still tower over neighboring lots, including T-3 L, single-family or duplex
residential areas to the east. The FEC train tracks are not an adequate buffer from the noise, traffic
and other impacts the development may bring.
A limit on building height should be contemplated and calculated according to the cumulative
effect of this SAP together with other applications in the area. Affordable housing bonus height
should be assigned to lower floors (13-17) so that height is not the trade-off for a critical
community benefit. Moreover, both MCID-1 and MCID-2 bonus height should be eligible to be
satisfied by affordable housing to further incentivize affordable housing construction. Any money
contributed to a commuter rail station can go towards higher stories (18-20, for example),
especially because it is highly unlikely that a commuter rail station will come to the area. See
subsection (C)(c)(b) below. The recommendation to retain D-1 zoning on some parcels would also
help reduce the intensity of development proposed while still offering a dynamic range of uses.
We echo the Staff s concern about accessibility of the Open Space to the public, even with the
expanded hours. There are few entry points into the area, and as the Regulating Plan is written, it
appears that restaurant patios and other uses serving the surrounding businesses will dominate the
area surrounding the walkway. It is not clear that there will be ample public space that is not
oriented towards clients, customers or tenants of the development property. Furthermore, the
Developer retains exclusive right to determine programming, landscaping and design of the area,
which also raises questions about whether this Open Space is truly at the disposal of the public.
Developer should not get the same amount of bonus height for space that is not in fact public. The
tree preservation and relocation, however, are welcomed.
The public art should reflect the culture and history of the Little Haiti neighborhood. At present,
under the DA Paragraph 28, the Developer has sole discretion over the art chosen for the park and
'4 Staff Analysis and Maps ("Zoning Analysis"), File ID 4459, pp 8-13.
12
Submitted into the public
record fo,r iterp(s) 1
on \\ / 1 5 / . Ci Clerk
has not specified any percentage of that art that may be commissioned from local artists. In addition
to the community providing input into the Historic Lemon City/Little Haiti Creole District Design
Guidelines (which should apply beyond just the properties fronting onto NE 2nd Avenue), there
should be some public input into the art that will be displayed in the civic space if it is truly going
to be dedicated to the public.
b. Miami 21 Article 7 Analysis
Criteria 1 cited in the Zoning Analysis asks whether the proposed amendment furthers the goals,
objectives and policies of the MCNP, Miami 21 and other city regulations, and whether there is a
need and justification for the proposed changes.'
Though the Planning and Zoning Department found the project to be consistent with the above
criteria, as Section B above noted, there is substantial and competent evidence, including the
Planning and Zoning Department's own analysis, to show that the project and its proposed FLUM
changes are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Similarly, while the Staff Analysis
indicates that the project is consistent with Miami 21, there are multiple, highly concerning
alterations to the Miami 21 zoning code, the need for which has not been adequately shown.
The Regulating Plan does not "emphasize compatibility with the Little Haiti neighborhood" for
the multiple reasons detailed in the sections below.
c. Elimination of Floor Lot Ratio
One specific concern includes elimination of Floor Lot Ratio (FLR) as the measurement of
intensity. Under Miami 21, Sec 3.4.2, FLR is to be used to calculate intensity, but the Regulating
Plan creates its own criteria (Lot Coverage, Setbacks, Height and Floorplate standards) that appear
to still be overly vague. Are the measures of total Floor Area for the different zones of the project
in DA Paragraph 8(c) combined with the Article 4, Table 2 numbers enough of a measure to
substitute FLR as a measure of intensity?
While Developer may say eliminating FLR is necessary to have more flexibility with floorplates,
it throws off the ability to regulate intensity altogether. There are many other measures that are
tied to FLR. For example, can FLR still be used for the purposes of determine public benefits?
Even so, Regulating Plan in some places has eliminated mention of FLR and retained it in other,
inconsistent places.
d. Public Benefits section of the Regulating Plan has been amended to
minimize actual benefit output responsive to community needs and
dramatically alters Sec. 3.14.4 of Miami 21.
A close reading of the changes made to the Public Benefits section of the Regulating Plan
(generally found in Sec. 3.14.4 of Miami 21) reveals that the Developer attempts to reduce to the
extent possible the public benefits that accord with the asks of the public (affordable housing,
decent jobs, funds for community activities, small business incentives) while maximizing the
25 Zoning Analysis at 13.
13
Submitted into the public
record for itcl '1 1(
on \` l / '1 . Ci Clerk
amount of bonus height they can get for elements of the project that would be constructed anyway
as part of the project.
While it is not a surprise that the Developer would propose such modifications — because, after all,
they are trying to maximize their profits to the extent allowed by law — the City of Miami and the
people of Miami need not accept it as is without significant conversation interrogating whether the
benefits truly serve to mitigate the overwhelming impact this development will have on the
surrounding neighborhoods. It is incumbent upon City officials and the broader public to look
closely at these documents and ensure that the Developer is creating the community space
necessary to engage in the kinds of exchanges that will ensure that this development (and the public
benefits it is offering in exchange for significant height bonuses) is responsive to the needs of
Miami residents.
More specifically, the table below details some of the changes the Regulating Plan makes to Sec
3.14.4 of Miami 21 Public Benefits Program section. Our major concerns and comments are in the
right -most column (below only includes the provisions of concern).
Benefit
Bonus Square
Footage Under
Sec 3.14.4 of
Miami 21
(ratios expressed in
square feet given :
square feet of bonus
height)
Bonus Requested in Magic
City SAP Regulating Plan
Our Comments
and Questions26
a.1(a) Alt to above:
Cash spent on
development of
affordable housing
treated as cash
contribution to Public
Benefits Trust Fund
DOES N(YI
EXIST
Each dollar spent on
development of affordable
housing on site or within
1,500 ft of SAP area
(including shared spaces) =
1 dollar towards cash
contribution to Miami 21
Public Benefits Trust Fund
This formula may be applied to
any affordable housing
developed outside of the SAP
area. Should not be option to the
exclusion of option (b) below.
Need more precise numbers on
market rates to be able to
evaluate which option is more
favorable to the community.
a.1(b) On -site
Affordable Housing
This is an
additional
provision. Seems
duplicative of
3.14.4(c) below,
but ratio here may
be set at 1 square
feet : 2 square feet
bonus.
I :3
Considers within 1,500 feet
of the SAP area to be on-
site.
1:2 for truly on -site housing.
1,500 ft of the SAP area should
not be considered on -site.
a.2 Affordable Housing
Off -Site
1:1
1:1
More than 1,500 from SAP
Area is considered off -site.
Anything outside of the SAP
Area should be treated as off -
site.
However, to encourage building
within 1,500 feet of the SAP
26 These are initial comments we offer but are in no way meant to supplant a process by which these benefits are discussed with the public at
large.
14
Submitted into the pu lic
record for ite (s)
on 11 1151 Ci Clerk
a.3 Trust Fund
Contributions
b. Office Floor Area
c. 1
Affordable/Workforce
Housing on -site (seems
duplicative of above)
c.2
Affordable/Workforce
housing off -site
c.3
Trust fund contributions
(seems duplicative of
above)
d. Public Parks, Open
Space or Park
Improvements
d.l .iii — Park
improvements
d.2 Public Open Space
Cashcontribution
based on a
percentage of the
market value per
square foot price
being charged for
units at projects
within the market
area up to the
bonus height and
FLR.
DOES NOT
EXIST
1:2
1:1
Same as a.3
1:2
Park
Improvements for
Public Parks in
areas below 50%
media income
threshold shall be
allowed 2 times the
valuation.
Public Open Space
as approved by the
Planning Director
provided on site is
given 1:1 bonus.
As City defines per square
foot price
1:3
1:2
Considers within 1,500 feet
of the SAP area to be on -
site.
1:1
More than 1,500 from SAP
Area is considered off -site.
Same as a.3
Adds Civic Space to this
section. (to cover the
Promenade du Grand Bois,
which is considered to be a
Civic Space Type)
Adds public Open
Space/Civic space within
the SAP area in exchange
for bonus height, 1:2
valuation.
Adds Civic Space Types (to
cover Promenade du Grand
Bois, again). Eliminates
requirement of Planning
1irector approval. l:l
bonus
area, perhaps a ratio of 1:1.5 can
he offered
Need nwie clarity on per square
foot calculation. Need to also
specify a required percentage of
on -site units and a certain
amount of Trust Fund
contributions to go into a
revolving loan fund for Little
Haiti.
1-low is this a public benefit?
Should eliminate.
1,500 ft of the SAP area should
not be considered on -site.
See also Section xx on housing.
Anything outside of the SAP
Area should be treated as off -
site.
Same as a.3
Is not Civic Space a threshold
requirement for an SAP
application? Seems to be double
counting.
Also duplicative of 3.14.4.h
This should be eliminated.
Seems to be a triple counting of
civic space that is not even a
public park. Only if a
commitment to improving a true
public park is made should this
be allowed to stay (as written
originally in 3.14.4.d.l.iii of
Miami 21)
Should only be able to count any
civic space towards bonus once.
Should require Planning Director
approval because some pieces of
open land are unusable for the
public (e.g., the areas between
615t and 62nd street on NE 2nd
Avenue)
15
Submitted into the public
1
record for iten(s) 11
on 11 15 / 1?)_ . City Clerk
h. Civic Space Types
and Civil Support Uses
1:2 bonus for
donation of Civic
Space or Civil
Support Space on
site to the City of
Miami
Adds "within SAP area
donated to the City of
Miami or dedicated to for
public access" Again,
counts Promenade du Grand
Bois towards this for a 1:2
bonus
Should not be allowed to double
or triple count area.
Notwithstanding above, space
dedicated for public access
should not be valued the same as
donated space in terms of bonus
i. SAP
DOES NOT
Monetary contribution to
Language is opaque.
Passenger/Commuter
EXIST
Development cost of
Rail Station
passenger/commuter rail
station that is being
privately funded in whole
or in part by an SAP Owner
is treated as a cash
contribution to the Miami
Not likely to be a commuter rail
station in the SAP area. See
Section D(e)(e)(ii) below.
21 Public Benefit Trust
Fund. Amount of bonus
area in exchange is
determined by applicable
price per square feet set by
City.
If the bonus heights were more appropriately allocated, without double counting or unduly
rewarding things that should not be counted as benefits, there is significant room for achieving
higher numbers with respect to affordable housing, good jobs and other benefits responsive to
community needs.
e. There are multiple other concerning elements of the Regulating Plan
i. Micro -Units
What is the purpose? If not to increase affordability, then is it to decrease the costs for the developer
while increasing density? As per the Regulating Plan, micro -units may have a common kitchen
and living areas. This appears akin to dormitory -style living. It may reduce the costs of
development but will they actually be affordable
As indicated above, the hard bargaining we had seen from the Developer27 to reduce the
commitment of workforce units is bewildering given the fact that we are dealing with 50% of
residential units as micro -units. If we take 140% of HUD -defined AMI ($52,300) and set the rent
at a rate affordable to that salary, then rent would be $1,830.50. That certainly is out of proportion
to the current market rate of $1,200 and thus we must infer that these micro -units will not address
the affordability crisis in Miami.
Finally, in the Article 4 Tables of the Regulating Plan, the MCID Zones are allowed a density of
150-1,000 units per acre, which is staggering. There has to be more clarity on this aspect.
27 I.e., the initial application included no provision for affordable housing and only a vague reference to workforce housing until the Planning and
Zoning Department prevailed upon them to include 7% affordable at 60% AMI or below and just 14% at 60-140% AMI.
16
Submitted into the public
record foir ite (s)
on \
Clerk
ii. Parking reductions because Regulating Plan claims that SAP is in a
transit oriented development (TOD) area.
The SAP area is located along a transit corridor, but not in a TOD area, which is defined under
Miami 21 as being VI mile from a transit node.
Based on the map created to track TOD in Southeast Florida, there is no planned station for the
Magic City/Little Haiti area.28 Instead, there is a planned station at 70 Street/Little River
approximately 1.8 miles to the north of the SAP area and a planned station approximately 1.2 miles
south of the SAP area. The standard spacing for a commuter rail is 2-8 miles,29 making it highly
improbable that a commuter rail station will eventually come to the Magic City SAP in the near
future. Add to this the uncertainty of the funding and bureaucratic approvals of the project and the
probability sinks lower. As a result, all references or policies dependent on the project being in a
TOD area should be removed. Similarly, the map included as Diagram 1 1 of Article 4 is misleading
because the Developer drew in the station they want to build even though the official Miami 21
TOD diagram does not have that station included.3° Article 4 Tables include significant parking
reductions (50-80%) based on being in a TOD area. This does not make sense based on the above.
iii. SAP Permits
While we understand the desire for a more streamlined process, the City might want to look more
closely at whether there are elements that would require more process than what is required to
obtain an SAP Permit.
(b) Appropriateness of Magic City SAP
The Staff Analysis found that the proposal maintains many of the goals of Miami 21, however,
several aspects of this project raise questions about whether these goals are truly being met. First
of all, since "a primary purpose of [Miami 2 1] is to implement the Comprehensive Plan," the
inconsistencies listed in Section B above apply to the rezoning analysis as well. Under Sec.
2.1 .1 (b), the purpose of Miami 21 is "to promote the public health, safety, morals, convenience,
comfort, amenities, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and to provide a wholesome,
serviceable, and attractive community."
The project certainly projects out creative space making and mixed uses, with a potential to
catalyze new things in Miami. The question is, for whom? This is the question we must ask
ourselves when a development like the Magic City SAP comes to a neighborhood like Little Haiti
where 70% of the population is low- to moderate income.
As presently configured, with a Regulating Plan actively seeking to reduce the commitment of on -
site resources that go towards affordable housing, a Development Agreement making vague,
unenforceable promises regarding jobs, housing and other conirnunity benefits, and an active
resistance to holding an open, community -wide meeting on the project, the Magic City SAP, in
hlip://www.citiesthatwork.com/tod-inventory-and-map-2017-update-draft/
hnp://www.fdot.goy/roadway/CSI/W2/TransitFundamentals.pdf
On file with the City Clerk, but see: www.city-data.corn/forutn/.../miami/644 l9d12772 l2837-subway-miami-transit.pdf
17
Submitted into the public
record fqr ite7(s
on I
Ci
1,5
Clerk
both substance and process, seems to undermine the purpose and intent of Miami 21. The complete
circumvention of the use of FLR as a measure of density, for example, is one way that the project
sees itself as unbound by regulations that Miami 21 seeks to use to encourage uniformity across
developments.
(c) The Staff Analysis recommending approval of the zoning ordinance change is heavily
conditioned, however, Applicant has not adequately met certain conditions.
The numerous conditions that the Planning and Zoning Department staff attached to their Zoning
Analysis are indicative of the serious concerns this project presents with respect to its potential
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and the failure to adequately mitigate those impacts
through design, benefits or other mechanisms.
(d) Development Agreement (DA) falls far short of meetin re uirements for rovidin
benefits and must be ne otiated with the communit
Though we will not go through the content that should take the place of the current DA, as that
should be the result of a negotiation, the current DA has multiple foundational flaws (this list is
not exhaustive) and merits much closer scrutiny:
By:
• Does not include explicit language that the covenants included therein run with the land.
• The agreement is overly vague, failing to include such important details as affordability
periods, a specific recruitment and hiring timeline for local jobs, the governance and
structure of the Magic City Innovation District Foundation (which serves as a non -
transparent catch-all for all fund for community programs) and loose commitment to
partnering with an educational institution, though that is a key element in an innovation
district.
• DA in Paragraph 21 calls for ten (10) Alcohol Service Establishments (outside of Food
Service Establishments that may serve alcohol) that are exempted from Chapter 4 of the
City Code or Miami 21 from any restrictions on the maximum number or location of
Alcohol Service Establishments, including distance restrictions from churches, residential
districts and schools, whether inside or outside of the SAP area.
E. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, FANM and LIBRERI MAPOU present this evidence related to the
Magic City SAP development and ask that the City Commission take a much finer look at the
content of the project and work with the community to secure greater, more appropriate
benefits before apprgAing the SAP.
M na Ja annath, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 102684
meenagcommunityjusticeproject.com
3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 106
Miami, FL 33137
Dated: NoYclinh.er .5., 201.8
18