Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Public Comments Submitted Online for the November 18, 2021 City Commission MeetingCommission Report Commission Meeting Public Comment - November 18. 2021 November 18, 2021 8:33 PM MST Public Comment motero@miamigov.com First Last Nam Nam e e Mich Hep ael burn Stre et Addr ess 230 NE 4th St, Mia mi, FL 3313 2 Age nda Public Comment Item PZ. 3 4541 Land Use 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38 St, and 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St Dear City of Miami Commissioners, I would like to advocate that you all at this time vote No for items PZ- 3 and PZ-4. The up-zonning being ask for in PZ-3 and PZ-4 needs to be addressed more and should not be approved at this time. Also the redevelopment at (PZ-8) Morningside Park as it relates to the pedestrian walk path, removal of trees, etc. Should be re -reviewed more and discussed with residents to come to an better agreement. Respectfully, Michael Hepburn Davi Oco 499 PZ. Dear Members of the City Commission: My name is David Ocomo. My family and I own and reside at 499 d mo NE 4 NE 37th ST, Miami FL 33137, which is a single-family home and is our legal homestead. Please Note: The 37th 4545 plots on NE 37th ST are part of the Buena Vista Badger Club which runs east to west past NE 2nd Ave into ST, Rez the Design District. As an affected party, I write to express my opposition to the rezoning request and Mia onin application for small scale comprehensive plan amendment by applicant, Magnolia Holding 38th Street, mi, g - LLC, regarding the properties 428, 430, 454 NE 38th Street and 433, 441 and 457 NE 37th Street (the FL 428, "Subject Properties"), if the changes requested are not made as I have detailed below. My property is 3313 430, Located Less than 200 Linear feet from the Subject Properties. My family and I would be directly impacted 7 448, by the proposed rezoning and small-scale amendment to the City of Miami's Future Land Use Map. 454 INTRODUCTION The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street is an enclave which is clearly defined as it is bordered NE to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by 1-195 expressway, to the east by Stearns Park and to 38 the north by NE 38th Street. The Location of the Lots, especially on NE 37th Street (the Buena Vista St, Badger Club Lots), has significant bearing on the value of their Land and structures due to the existence of and external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th Street runs parallel to 1-195. 433, In addition, the Lots on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street are in the path of major air traffic, according to 441, the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings wilt be challenged to be 457 of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point (Magnolia) if NE Limited to the current zoning T5-R, therefore Land utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best 37 value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, but simply accidental from a historic point of view. The St dwellings not associated with the applicant have been kept in best condition. If there are sections of the enclave which Look upkept, those appear to be through the neglect of the applicant and should not be used to characterize the enclave. Increased height and more flexibility to construct selective mixed use properties should be allowed UNIFORMLY on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without increased height or changes in the zoning, this enclave wilt remain challenged. There has not been any new construction in this enclave since 1991. There are 3 empty Lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are being used as temporary parking Lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay Point. PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS "SPOT ZONING" 1 would only support the application 11117 Submittal -Public Comments Submitted Online for the November 18, 2021 City Commission Meeting First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item for the upzoning of the lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS ILLEGAL. It would not only unfairly devalue the remaining lots if only certain lots are upzoned and the other lots are not upzoned, but it would serve to compromise the availability of the tools necessary to maintain their equal opportunity to improve in UNIFORMITY for the area as a whole which is in the best interest of not only the residents but the City. The applicant is trying to get a spot upzoning in this secluded enclave of only his assembly of properties. The applicant has 2 properties on NE 37th ST and 4 properties on NE 38th ST. If the spot upzoning were to be approved as per the application, there would be only 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and one property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. Only 240 Linear foot of the 540 Linear foot on NE 37th Street would be allowed to have some form of commercial and/or mixed use white the rest would be Limited to residential T5-R. Spot zoning doesn't get more dearer than this. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, two of the applicant's properties are Located on my street (NE 37th ST) which have a combined Linear feet of 240. The rest of the street including my property is an additional 300 Linear feet for a total of 540 Linear feet. My property has 120 Linear feet and it is the property fronting the bay view. If the City permitted the upzoning of this secluded enclave on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street only for the applicant's assembly of properties, it would mean that there would be spot upzoning only 240 Linear feet of the 540 Linear feet. The City does not permit spot zoning. The excluded parcels from the upzoning would be at a disadvantage in their relationship to the applicant's parcels. There is no assurance that the applicant wilt not raise objection to those 5 properties in this enclave (499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street ) which are currently excluded from his application from being upzoned in the future on the basis that they wilt block the view of the bay for his structures. ALL the properties in this secluded enclave need to be afforded equal opportunity and flexibility for improvement which wilt keep the uniformity of the enclave. There is no uniformity or benefit to the neighborhood or its residents for the existence of 2 significantly different zoning on the same street (NE 37th Street) which has only 540 Linear feet. More importantly, assigning the entire NE 37th Street to have the same upzoning would not be injurious to the applicant. Spot Zoning would be inconsistent with the City's goals. The requested rezoning proposes changes the current zoning, TR-5, to change it to T6-8-O. The change would be significant by allowing commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and increasing density up to 150 units per acre, which more than doubles the current allotted 65 units per acre. This change would result in classic spot zoning, by bifurcating a residential neighborhood without any transitional buffering. Unlike the other commercial zones in the area, which are separated by roads and highways, there is nothing to separate the residential uses in the neighborhood from the Subject Properties. This spot zoning would have the effect of devaluing existing residential neighboring Lands including my property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS INCOMPLIANT WITH CH. 163, F.S. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses and would also amount to a comprehensive plan version of "spot zoning". Approving the amendment, without including the rest of the neighborhood in said amendment, would subject it to challenge under F.S. 163.3187(5), as the amendment violates the rule of providing for compatibility of uses under F.S. 163.3177(6). It would also be subjected to challenge for inconsistency with policies expressed in the comprehensive plan, under F.S. 163.3215. The following policies would be violated by approval of the requested amendment: Policy LU-1.1.3 — "strategies to protect existing neighborhoods"; protect all areas from "encroachment of incompatible Land uses" Policy LU-1.3.15 — City wilt "encourage a development matter that enhances existing neighborhoods by developing a balanced mix of uses included areas for employment, shopping, housing and recreation in dose proximity to each other". Policy LU-1.6.9 — City wilt "establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements". There are no transitional buffers between this proposed commercial change, and the immediately adjacent residential uses. It is not consistent with the above policies and cannot be approved for this additional reason. CONCLUSION Therefore, I would Like to formally put on the record that if upzoning is allowed for the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street, the same upzoning should be conferred on the other Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street which are 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street, but at a minimum the entire NE 37th Street should be upzoned equally especially due to the external obsolescence. I would Like to bring to your attention the Comprehensive Plan Amendment along the Miami River. ORDINANCE 13753. The Commission found it necessary, when faced with a similar situation, to make amends to the upzoning so that there was uniformity. ORDINANCE 13753. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION 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 FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1515, 1529, AND 1543 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A'; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. http://miamifL.igm2.com/Citizens/DetaiL_LegiFite.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=1885&MediaPosition=&ID=3403&CssCLass= I would kindly request that it be First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item included in the record that if you approve this upzoning application for 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street then you should also find it necessary that the same upzoning should be applied to the other lots that run along 37th/NE 38th street which includes 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street. I cannot support Spot Zoning of only the lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street. The zoning on these 2 streets should be applied uniformly. Furthermore, the existing alleyway between NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street is a communally owned by all of the parcels on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street with easements and rights of way which must be respected and upheld. If the applicant was to exdusiveLy take control of the alleyway within his project site (thus excluding all others), it would create a taking of private property from the adjacent Landowners (by a private individual) without just compensation. I would assume that would be illegal and thus not something this Commission has the power to approve through an agenda item. Respectfully, David Ocomo Davi Oco 888 PZ. Dear Members of the City Commission: My name is David Ocomo. My family and I own and reside at 499 d mo SE 3 NE 37th ST, Miami FL 33137, which is a single-family home and is our Legal homestead. Please Note: The 3rd 4541 plots on NE 37th ST are part of the Buena Vista Badger Club which runs east to west past NE 2nd Ave into Ave, Land the Design District. As an affected party, I write to express my opposition to the rezoning request and Suit Use application for small scale comprehensive plan amendment by applicant, Magnolia Holding 38th Street, e LLC, regarding the properties 428, 430, 454 NE 38th Street and 433, 441 and 457 NE 37th Street (the 400 428, "Subject Properties"), if the changes requested are not made as I have detailed below. My property is 430, Located Less than 200 Linear feet from the Subject Properties. My family and I would be directly impacted 448, by the proposed rezoning and small-scale amendment to the City of Miami's Future Land Use Map. 454 INTRODUCTION The NE 37th Street/NE 38th Street is an enclave which is clearly defined as it is bordered NE to the west by Biscayne Blvd, to the south side by 1-195 expressway, to the east by Stearns Park and to 38 the north by NE 38th Street. The Location of the Lots, especially on NE 37th Street (the Buena Vista St, Badger Club Lots), has significant bearing on the value of their Land and structures due to the existence of and external obsolescence from the adjacent 1-195 highway traffic noise. NE 37th Street runs parallel to 1-195. 433, In addition, the Lots on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street are in the path of major air traffic, according to 441, the 2001 FDOT noise study report. Because of these conditions, these dwellings wilt be challenged to be 457 of the same use and value as some of the dwellings in nearby Morningside or Bay Point (Magnolia) if NE Limited to the current zoning T5-R, therefore Land utilization at this moment is not consistent with its best 37 value, purpose or potential and is inappropriate, but simply accidental from a historic point of view. The St dwellings not associated with the applicant have been kept in best condition. If there are sections of the enclave which Look upkept, those appear to be through the neglect of the applicant and should not be used to characterize the enclave. Increased height and more flexibility to construct selective mixed use properties should be allowed UNIFORMLY on these 2 streets NE 37th/NE 38th Street because of the unique problems and isolated/exclusive nature of this particular enclave. Without increased height or changes in the zoning, this enclave wilt remain challenged. There has not been any new construction in this enclave since 1991. There are 3 empty Lots which have sat empty since the 1980s, 2 of which are being used as temporary parking Lots. The NE 37th/NE 38th Street enclave has unique problems and needs which demands that it should not be grouped as the same zoning district as Morningside or Bay Point. PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS "SPOT ZONING" 1 would only support the application for the upzoning of the Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street if the zoning is to be equally applied to all the Lots on these two streets. SPOT UPZONING IS ILLEGAL. It would not only unfairly devalue the remaining Lots if only certain Lots are upzoned and the other Lots are not upzoned, but it would serve to compromise the availability of the tools necessary to maintain their equal opportunity to improve in UNIFORMITY for the area as a whole which is in the best interest of not only the residents but the City. The applicant is trying to get a spot upzoning in this secluded enclave of only his assembly of properties. The applicant has 2 properties on NE 37th ST and 4 properties on NE 38th ST. If the spot upzoning were to be approved as per the application, there would be only 3 properties on NE 37th ST (499, 491, 481, 471) and one property on NE 38th ST (520) which would not be included in the upzoning. Only 240 Linear foot of the 540 Linear foot on NE 37th Street would be allowed to have some form of commercial and/or mixed use white the rest would be Limited to residential T5-R. Spot zoning doesn't get more dearer than this. To illustrate the fact that is would be illegal spot zoning, two of the applicant's properties are Located on my street (NE 37th ST) which have a combined Linear feet of 240. The rest of the street including my property is an additional 300 Linear feet for a total of 540 Linear feet. My property has 120 Linear feet and it is the property fronting the bay view. If the City permitted the upzoning of this secluded enclave on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street only for the applicant's assembly of properties, it would mean that there would be spot upzoning only 240 Linear feet of the 540 Linear feet. The City does not permit spot zoning. The excluded parcels from the upzoning would be at a disadvantage in their relationship to the applicant's parcels. There is no assurance that the applicant wilt not raise objection to those 5 properties in this enclave (499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street ) which are currently excluded from his application from being upzoned in the future on the basis that they wilt block the view of the bay for his structures. ALL the properties in this secluded enclave need to be afforded equal opportunity and flexibility for improvement First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item which will keep the uniformity of the enclave. There is no uniformity or benefit to the neighborhood or its residents for the existence of 2 significantly different zoning on the same street (NE 37th Street) which has only 540 linear feet. More importantly, assigning the entire NE 37th Street to have the same upzoning would not be injurious to the applicant. Spot Zoning would be inconsistent with the City's goals. The requested rezoning proposes changes the current zoning, TR-5, to change it to T6-8-O. The change would be significant by allowing commercial uses in a residential neighborhood and increasing density up to 150 units per acre, which more than doubles the current allotted 65 units per acre. This change would result in classic spot zoning, by bifurcating a residential neighborhood without any transitional buffering. Unlike the other commercial zones in the area, which are separated by roads and highways, there is nothing to separate the residential uses in the neighborhood from the Subject Properties. This spot zoning would have the effect of devaluing existing residential neighboring Lands including my property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IS INCOMPLIANT WITH CH. 163, F.S. The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map is incompatible with the surrounding residential uses and would also amount to a comprehensive plan version of "spot zoning". Approving the amendment, without including the rest of the neighborhood in said amendment, would subject it to challenge under F.S. 163.3187(5), as the amendment violates the rule of providing for compatibility of uses under F.S. 163.3177(6). It would also be subjected to challenge for inconsistency with policies expressed in the comprehensive plan, under F.S. 163.3215. The following policies would be violated by approval of the requested amendment: Policy LU-1.1.3 — "strategies to protect existing neighborhoods"; protect all areas from "encroachment of incompatible Land uses" Policy LU-1.3.15 — City wilt "encourage a development matter that enhances existing neighborhoods by developing a balanced mix of uses included areas for employment, shopping, housing and recreation in dose proximity to each other". Policy LU-1.6.9 — City wilt "establish mechanisms to mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of new development on existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and buffering requirements". There are no transitional buffers between this proposed commercial change, and the immediately adjacent residential uses. It is not consistent with the above policies and cannot be approved for this additional reason. CONCLUSION Therefore, I would Like to formally put on the record that if upzoning is allowed for the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street, the same upzoning should be conferred on the other Lots on NE 37th/NE 38th Street which are 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street, but at a minimum the entire NE 37th Street should be upzoned equally especially due to the external obsolescence. I would Like to bring to your attention the Comprehensive Plan Amendment along the Miami River. ORDINANCE 13753. The Commission found it necessary, when faced with a similar situation, to make amends to the upzoning so that there was uniformity. ORDINANCE 13753. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION 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 FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.77 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1515, 1529, AND 1543 NORTHWEST SOUTH RIVER DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A'; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. http://miamifL.igm2.com/Citizens/DetaiL_LegiFite.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=1885&MediaPosition=&ID=3403&CssCLass= I would kindly request that it be included in the record that if you approve this upzoning application for 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street then you should also find it necessary that the same upzoning should be applied to the other Lots that run along 37th/NE 38th street which includes 499, 491, 481 and 471 NE 37th Street and 520 NE 38th Street. I cannot support Spot Zoning of only the Lots 428, 430, 448, 454 NE 38th Street and 443, 441 and 457 of NE 37th Street. The zoning on these 2 streets should be applied uniformly. Furthermore, the existing alleyway between NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street is a communally owned by all of the parcels on NE 37th Street and NE 38th Street with easements and rights of way which must be respected and upheld. If the applicant was to exclusively take control of the alleyway within his project site (thus excluding all others), it would create a taking of private property from the adjacent Landowners (by a private individual) without just compensation. I would assume that would be illegal and thus not something this Commission has the power to approve through an agenda item. Respectfully, David Ocomo First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item CA. 2 1093 Esteemed commissioners, I am a 20 year resident of Miami Dade County and currently represent the 2 climate action group 350 South Florida 350 SFL supports the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reduction plan as Ado critical first step in mitigating the impacts of climate change. We are particularly appreciative of the efforts ption to include and solicit ideas from the community and climate activists throughout this process. However, this plan is a political comprise, and physics of global warming do not comprise. We urge the city to adopt GHG this plan with the understanding that more work needs to be done to save Miami from the flooding, 1555 Red extreme heat, storms and other impacts of climate change we are already starting to experience 2 things Ofen CLev uctio the city can do right away- 1- Adopt the proposal mayor Suarez made on Earth Day to cease new Erik Band elan n methane gas hookups. We are very disappointed with the recent reporting in the Herald that TECO heavily d Rd Plan Lobbyed City Leaders to eliminate this plan. We cannot continue to play potiticat games with the climate. 2- Make a commitment to fully divest city funds Like pensions and general funds from fossil fuel companies. Mia Bonds, stocks and other financial vehicles attached to fossil fuel companies are bad investments for the mi future, both financial and environmental. Lowering investment demand for fossil fuels de-incentivizes new Fore fossil fuel projects, decreases the demand for fossil fuels, and helps accelerate the global transition to the ver renewable energy economy of the future. Incidentally, Lower demand for fossil fuels would result in Lower Carb consumer prices as weLL. WE URGE the city to pass the GHG plan but to keep working to make Miami on 100% sustainable and carbon free. Neut raL CA. 2 1093 2 Ado ption GHG HeLto I am Nicole Level representing 350SoFLo and the climate community. We are fully supportive of the Red ghg resolution and also propose divesting city finances from fossil fuels in order for the city of Miami to 2410 continue to be a climate Leader. 350 SoFLo presented Last week a proposal for divestment to the resiliency uctio Nicol Leve Brick office. Divestment simply means getting rid of stocks, bonds, pension plans, endowments or any e L eLL Plan investments out of fossil fuels. 12 major cities belonging to C40 which the city of Miami is a part have Ave divested those cities include NYC, LA, New Orleans, Pittsburg, Berlin, London. We have also presented our neighbor city City of Hollywood which has successfully passed the resolution and have committed to Mia mi it. we urge you to include fossil fuel divestment as part of the city's climate mitigation strategy Fore ver Ca rb on Neut raL First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item CA. 2 1093 2 I am a parent, a teacher, I taught Climate Change in college for about 9 years. I am with Parents For 6751 Ado Future Miami, and you can find us online at ParentsForFutureMiami.org.. Last summer, along with other N ption parents and students, I joined the Mayor's Resilience Action Group. During the meetings, we pointed out the flaws in the Miami GHG reduction plan. "Net Zero by 2050" and the intermediate target are Ken dall GHG incompatible with a stable climate. A climate scientist explained it like this: "Net zero by 2050" has 2 fatal Red flaws: one is "net zero" and the other one is "by 2050" Another problem is the conflict of interest at the Dr Miha Pred A10 uctio heart of C40, with Michael Bloomberg bankrolling and leading C40 while at the same time promoting n fracking and investing in oit & gas. You can read more in our Open Letters to the city. So, the plan as it a 7 Plan stands wilt not give us a safe climate. But if you must pass it, pass it and then let's start acting on the Pine crest Climate Emergency. We raised the issue of Negative Emissions with Mr. Dodd and Commissioner Russell: FL Mia counting on the next generations to dean up the mess left behind by this one. They didn't know their Plan 3315 mi does that. So for the sake of our children, I am asking you to let me explain this aspect of YOUR PLAN to 6 Fore YOU. Please let me know when we can organize a workshop. I am going to need more than 2 minutes for ver it. Do this for your children and your grandchildren. Thank you. Mihai Preda Parents For Future Miami Carb www.ParentsForFutureMiami.org on Neut ral CA. 2 1093 2 Ado ption GHG 737 Red SW uctio Grac Kuki e elka 109t n I support the GHG reduction plan! h Plan Ave Mia mi Fore ver Ca rb on Neut ral Ther Pint 1951 CA - Miami City Commission Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 November 18, 2021 esa o NW Con RE: Public Comment on Item CA.2 Resolution Adopting the Miami Forever Carbon Neutral Greenhouse 7th sent Gas Reduction Plan Dear Miami City Commission: The People's Economic and Environmental Resiliency Aven Age Group ("P.E.E.R. Group") advocates for economic and environmental sustainabitity in Miami through a ue, nda community lawyering approach that shifts power back to marginalized communities. Our vision of justice Suit recognizes the need for structural and systemic change that empowers vulnerable populations, provides e equitable access to benefits, and advances restorative protections from harm. We thank you for your time 600 in reading this comment on Item CA.2 today. We strongly support the mission of the Miami Forever Mia Carbon Neutral Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (herein "Carbon Neutral Plan"). As a low-lying, mi, subtropical, coastal city, Miami is highly susceptible to the harmful impacts of sea level rise, flooding, FL intensifying tropical storms, and extreme heat driven by global climate change. And the harshest 3313 consequences of climate change are already being felt along racial and socioeconomic lines throughout 6 Miami. Low-income, predominately Black and brown residents face the largest inequities imposed by household energy burdens, climate gentrification, and physical vulnerability to climate impacts without the resources necessary to relocate to safer areas. The City of Miami's commitment to aggressive emissions reductions is an essential step toward mitigating climate change threats and preventing a global temperature increase of 2 C by 2100. As the Carbon Neutral Plan notes, local governments must be Leaders in their commitment to ambitious actions that drastically reduce emissions to avoid the worst First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item impacts of climate change. Thus, the City has the duty to combat climate challenges and help create a resilient and sustainable city for all. We support the City's pledge to invest in a new green economy and workforce, support climate justice initiatives, and spur a green and just recovery to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also support the City's incorporation of climate justice considerations in its decarbonization policy framework. Where 41% of Miami workers receive median hourly wages that are below Local Living wages, the City must develop policies to help alleviate pressures on climate justice communities by promoting economic diversification, creating Living -wage jobs, and preparing more Miamians for jobs in the emerging green economy. Climate justice impacts and benefits, which were considered in the development of the Carbon Neutral Plan, must be made a priority in the implementation of City policies created under this framework. Climate change is already impacting Miami's most vulnerable communities, and such impacts wilt continue even if emissions are mitigated over the next several decades. Further, meaningful community engagement must be maintained to ensure that the City's policies are equitable and effective in meeting the needs of Miami's historically marginalized communities. However, some technical shortcomings in the policy framework developed under the guidance of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group are concerning because under our analysis, they wilt not meet the stated goals of zero carbon emissions by 2050 and ameliorate global temperature increase. Under the C40 framework, the City employs offsets of excessive emissions through negative carbon technology or carbon credits in order to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2050. But negative carbon technology is not widely employed on industrial scales for effective net carbon removal. By re Lying on uncertain future technological innovations to achieve net carbon neutrality, the City avoids making bold, aggressive policies that would actually mitigate carbon emissions and misses the opportunity to expand existing carbon -free technology to complement the emerging green economy. The City also diminishes the urgency of the need to mitigate emissions now, where we presently face a climate emergency. Further, total emissions can technically increase over the next several decades, white net emissions decrease through the City's purchase of carbon credits. Absent such technology, C40 Likewise suggests that cities must reach net zero emissions as early as 2030 to prevent a global temperature increase of 2 C. Failing to sufficiently Lower total carbon emissions wilt exacerbate intergenerationaL injustice, where people being born today wilt be paying for negative emissions technology to dean up the excessive greenhouse gas emissions of earlier generations and facing harsher impacts of climate change due to positive feedback bops. However, the City's commitment to reducing emissions by 60% by 2035 does not meet the standards recommended by C40 to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2050. C40 recommends that its member cities achieve a 95% reduction in emissions by 2035 (although, this policy still relies heavily on negative emissions technology to account for the remaining excess). Moreover, EN -Roads, a climate simulation tooL, shows that, even under the most favorable outcomes of the action steps Listed in the Carbon Neutral Plan, the City cannot meet its substandard 2035 goal of 60% emissions reductions, nor its 2050 goal of carbon neutrality. Thus, it is unlikely that the City's inadequate emissions reduction commitments will sufficiently mitigate the climate impacts that increasingly threaten Miamians and the world. Furthermore, C40 and AECOM, the institutions overseeing Miami's Carbon Neutral Plan, Lack the necessary expertise and may have potential conflicts of interest that would interfere with the required actions to meet the carbon reduction goals that would keep global temperatures below 2°C. C40 is an administrative resource and not a scientific institution with sufficient expertise to inform science -based climate policy. C40 is also primarily funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, an organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, a Long-term supporter of the fossil fuel industry. Additionally, AECOM was hired to provide expertise on carbon emissions mitigation, but AECOM's purpose is to develop "infrastructure [that] creates opportunity for everyone" and this does not necessarily translate to the expertise needed to formulate carbon neutrality. Thus, these institutions both Lack the expertise necessary to inform and may have potential conflicts that unduly influenced the final policies included in Miami's Carbon Neutral Plan. The City of Miami's Forever Carbon Neutral Plan is an ambitious climate commitment that wilt require careful implementation to ensure that the needs of the City's residents are met. Where climate commitments are rarely enacted in the way that community members have envisioned them, the City is Liable to its residents to achieve net carbon neutrality using robust science through evidence -based and equitable policies. The City has the duty to facilitate the transition to a healthy, climate -resilient future and a more sustainable, inclusive economy to protect Miami's most vulnerable communities as climate impacts worsen over the century. Sincerely, Theresa Pinto, Esq. M.S. President People's Economic and Environmental Resiliency Group, Inc. CC: Mayor Francis Suarez fsuarez@miamigov.com Commissioner Alex Diaz de La PortiLla adiazdeLaportiLla@miamigov.com Commissioner Ken RusseLt krusseL@miamigov.com Commissioner Joe Carrillo jcaroLto@miamigov.com Commissioner Manolo Reyes mreyes@miamigov.com Commissioner Christine King cking@miamigov.com (footnotes attached) First Last Nam Nam e e Yaidi ra Dian a Rodr igue z Stre et Addr ess Age nda Public Comment Item PZ. 4 4545 Rez onin 601 g - NE 428, 36th 430, Stre 448, et 454 Mia NE mi, 38 FL St, 3313 and 7 433, 441, 457 NE 37 St 9030 SW 56th Paci Terra n- ce, deG Mia ongo mi, ra FL 3317 3- 1604 FL - Futu re Legi slati on November 17, 2021 Esteemed City Commisioners, The Blue Condominium Association, located at 601 NE 36th Street, Miami Florida, publicly reiterates its opposition to the proposed ordinances amending ordinance 10544, as amended, and the zoning atlas of ordinance 13114, as amended. Attached is this Association's initial opposition letter submitted to Commissioner Ken Russell on September 27, 2018. Our views since our first opposition have not changed, the proposed amendment will, among other things, exacerbate the area's already overwhelmed traffic situation and will fundamentally change the neighborhood's residential nature, to the detriment of its neighbors and the value of their property. To whom it may concern, We, as the board of directors for Blue Condominium Association, located at 601 NE 36th Street, Miami Florida, would like to publicly oppose the upcoming request for the up -zoning of the seven parcels on 38th Street. We believe it is in the best interest of our community, and our building for these parcels to remain at their current zoning designation for several reasons. The T6 zoning permits 8 floors, as oppose to the 5 floors permitted by the current T5 designation, but T6 can get 4 bonus floors, coming to a total of 12 floors. These 12 floors of residential, commercial, and parking will distress our property values, neighborhood and traffic to degrees yet to be seen. The first reason for our request for denial lies in the fact that it has been our understanding since our associations' inception that the end of Edgewater, or the intensity increase area as per the comprehensive plan, is at 1-195. This is a logical designation given the landscape and urban design as it stands. The requested up -zoning would in effect open the door for higher density population, leading to similar developments in the same area, further obstructing our view and lowering our property values. Another reason for our recommended denial, lies in the fundamental change to the neighborhood as is being proposed. This side of Biscayne is considered a neighborhood friendly place, with an air of calm and little to no solicitation or heavy business interests. This is good because there is almost a distinct line as to where the high density of businesses and commercial space begins, and where the neighborhood area ends. This neighborhood remains one of the Last places in Miami where there is a safe, family friendly feel, only a few steps away from the intense nature of the developments south of 36th street. White the applicant argues that 3801 Biscayne is already commercial, we believe that a chitdren's hospital and a few floors of offices don't realty have the same feel as a hotel and a ground floor of commercial operations coupled with residences somewhere in the middle. This wilt change the friendly local character of the area, to that of crazy passerby traffic as is seen in midtown or the design district. The final reason for our opposition to this re -zoning, is due to our current, poorly designed traffic situation. The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and N 38th street, is already very congested, and during rush hour, this becomes a hot spot for accidents wildly ranging in intensity. In the morning and evening, the traffic here is relentless and not very driver friendly. We strongly believe this up - zoning wilt significantly impede our ability to leave our homes to go about our days and lives . We do not believe that a traffic garage there wilt fix the situation, nor do we believe that valet runners crossing the exit of the Julia Tuttle Expressway to Biscayne Boulevard to fetch cars wilt help the situation. Furthermore, we do not believe that the addition of 10 feet of road that wilt be given up by the developer wilt remotely compensate for the additional traffic the up -zoning wilt bring, regardless of whether this increase in roadway happens before or after the construction begins. The proposal consists of putting a 12 story mixed use development completely surrounded by high-speed, high density highways in the middle of a populated area, there wilt be very little recourse for any traffic pattern modification if the development turns out to be a traffic disaster as many are already predicting. In conclusion, we believe that these reasons support the findings of the City of Miami planning department in denying the up -zoning. We feel that Miami 21's purpose was exactly to prevent this type of re -zoning, so that the city could maintain a sense of neighborhood separation. Developers in the area have all been able to create profitable developments without the need for up -zoning in recent years. The negative effects that we are foreseeing with respect to Mr. Bloomberg's ideas and proposals, could very welt initiate the unstoppable decay our neighborhood. We believe the increased traffic wilt further drive property values down, and Miami will lose something very special if home owners, on both sides of the development, choose to relocate for these reasons. Cordially, Blue Condominium Board of Directors Reducing green house gases (GHG) is a priority of the City of Miami. An overlooked way in which the city can reduce GHG is through the reduction NON BIODEGRADABLE DISPOSABLE OR SINGLE USE PLASTIC FOOD SERVICE PRODUCTS BY CITY VENDORS, in ALL CITY PROPERTY, and to ban the INTENTIONAL RELEASE OF BALLOONS CITY WIDE. Fossil fuel extraction to manufacture plastics, the process of manufacturing them, transporting them and then use and disposal are a significant contributor to GHG, currently equivalent to "232 million tons of CO2e gas emissions per year. This amount is equivalent to the average emissions from 116 average -sized (500-megawatt) coal-fired power plants." ( The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change, https://wwwbeyondplastics.org/s/REPORT_The_New- Coa l_Plastics_a nd_Cli mate-Cha nge_10-21-2021. pdf) First Last Nam Nam e e Stre et Addr ess 455 NE Willi Quin 24th am Lan Stre et #710 Age nda Public Comment Item CA. 2 1093 2 Ado ption GHG Red uctio n Plan Mia mi Fore ver Ca rb on Neut raL Strongly in favor of adopting the GHG reduction plan End of Report