Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2016-02-25 MinutesCity of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com r 0 R 1� Meeting Minutes. Thursday, February 25, 2016 9:00 AM Planning and Zoning City Hall Commission Chambers City Commission Tomas Regalado, Mayor Keon Hardemon, Chair Ken Russell, Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 CONTENTS PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS AM -APPROVING MINUTES MV - MAYORAL VETOES CA - CONSENT AGENDA SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES RE - RESOLUTIONS BU -BUDGET DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S) MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS M - MAYOR'S ITEMS D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS City ofMiami Page 2 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ORDER OF THE DAY Present: Commissioner Gort, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and Chair Hardemon On the 25th day of February 2016, the City Commission of the Cit) of Miami, Florida, met at its regular meeting place in Cit) Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:01 a.m., recessed at 12: 56 p. m., reconvened at 4: 48 p. m., recessed at 10: 36 p. m., reconvened at 10:48 p.m., recessed at 11:57p.m., reconvened at 12:03 a.m., and adjourned on Friday, February 26, 2016, at 1: 56 a.m. Note for the Record: Commissioner Carollo entered the Comission chambers at 9:03 a.m. and Commissioner Suarez entered the Commission chambers at 9:54 a. in. ALSO PRESENT: Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Todd B. Hannon, Cit) Clerk Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the February 25 meeting of the City of Miami Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the Cit) Commission are Wifredo Gort, Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez, and Vice Chairman Ken Russell; and myself, of course, the Chairman, Keon Hardemon. Also on the dais are Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager; Victoria Mendez, and the Cit) Attorney -- well, who is the Cit) Attorney; and Todd Hannon, the Cit) Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Gort, and the pledge of allegiance led by the Vice Chairman. All rise. Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered. Chair Hardemon: We will now begin the regular meeting. The Cit) Attorney will state the procedures to be followed during this meeting. Victoria Mendez (City Attorne)): Thank you, Chairman. Good morning. Any person who is a lobbyist, including all paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision by the City Commission must register with the Cit) Clerk and comply with related Cit) requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the Cit) Commission. A person may not lobby a City official, Board Member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code section about lobbyists is available in the Cit) Clerk's Office. Any person making a presentation, formal request or petition to the Cit) Commission concerning real propero) must make the disclosures required by the Cit) Code in writing. A copy of this Code section is available in the City Clerk's Office. The material for each item on the agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Oce, and online 24 hours a day at wwwmiamigov. com [sic]. Any person may be heard by the Cit) Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity; to be heard may be at such later date before the Cit); Commission takes action on such proposition. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item. A video of this meeting may be requested at the Oce of Communications, or viewed online at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. No cell phones or other noise -making devices are permitted in Commission chambers; please silence those devices now. No clapping, heckling, applauding, or verbal outbursts in support or opposition to a speaker or his or her remarks shall be permitted. Anyone making offensive remarks or who becomes unruly in Commission chambers will be barred from further attending Commission meetings, and may be subject to arrest. No City ofMiami Page 3 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 signs or placards shall be allowed in Commission chambers. Any person with a disabilio) requiring assistance, auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the Cit) Clerk. The lunch recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon. The meeting will end either at the conclusion of the deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p. m., or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by Cit) staff and the Cit) Attorney on items on the agenda today. At this time, the Administration will announce which items, if any, are being either withdrawn, deferred or substituted. Thank you. Daniel J. Alfonso (Cit) Manager): Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Mr. Alfonso: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. The Administration would like to withdraw from the consent agenda and from this hearing item CA.6. I'd also announce that item PZ 10, this afternoon when the P&Z (Planning & Zoning) agenda convenes, we'll request that item to be continued to March 24. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Gort: Saying P -- CA. 6 and PZ 10. Mr. Alfonso: And PZ 10 will be continued to March 24 this afternoon. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Are there any other continuances, deferrals, withdrawals from the board members? Seeing none, is there a motion to --? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Chair Hardemon: It's been -- Vice Chair Russell: Second. Chair Hardemon: -- properly moved and seconded that we withdraw CA. 6 and continue PZ 10 to 3124. Is there any discussion or unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor, say 5)ye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Later.. Vice Chair Russell: Right. In that case, I believe we'll be passing the gavel to the Chair so he can decide our next steps. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: I just want to clarify for the record, Mr. Cit) Clerk, that was a denial on PZ 8? Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 4 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: And then, therefore, PZ 9 was denied also, or it's withdrawn or something? Mr. Hannon: PZ9 will show as discussed, but no action needed to be taken since PZ8 was denied Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Two quick things. I don't mind deferring all the items, except for two; one, because our Finance Director, Jose Fernandez, has been here. And he's been here, and he wants to tell us, "Yes, we're going to issue our financial statements on time, " correct, Mr. Fernandez? So I just want him -- or Mr. Manager. Mr. Alfonso: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And the only --and the other thing is, I have seen the people from Ygrene, the whole team from early this morning. They're still here -- Chair Hardemon: They really want that passed. Commissioner Carollo: --at 2 in the morning, so --I mean, I know it's also a discussion item. I hate to do it now, but at the same time -- Chair Hardemon: I don't -- Commissioner Carollo: -- we should have deferred it either earlier and let them know that we weren't going to hear it, but at 2 o'clock in the morning, I will feel bad that -- Vice Chair Russell: I'm willing to hear it, if the board agrees, so. Commissioner Carollo: You understand what I'm saying? Commissioner Gort: Let me ask you a question. Commissioner Carollo: We should have told them earlier that we weren't going to listen to it. Commissioner Gort: This is going to be a discussion item? Commissioner Carollo: Actually, there's two items. There's RE 2 and the discussion item, so it's Commissioner Gort: Well, RE.2, I will not be here. Commissioner Suarez: I think it's RE.1. I think it's RE.1. RE]. Commissioner Carollo: It's RE.1? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, RE. 1. Chair Hardemon: Listen, this thing has to have unanimous consent to move forward to continue this meeting. You know, we have to have -- City ofMiami Page 5 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Oh, I got you Chair Hardemon: -- unanimous consent to move forward, and we don't have that. So, I think it would just be -- it's -- be best -- we appreciate you coming. I gave you chocolate earlier, right? I know. But it's the will of the Commission. Commissioner Suarez: Been waiting all day. Chair Hardemon: So, I just say that we continue all the items that are left on this agenda to the next Commission meeting. Unidentified Speaker: Could we have a time certain for the next meeting? Commissioner Suarez: I think they should be given at least a time certain, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, they've been sitting here literally both -- whoever -- I think whoever has not -- Commissioner Carollo: First -- Commissioner Suarez: Whoever's been sitting in the audience -- Chair Hardemon: First after lunch (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Commissioner Suarez: --for over 10 hours can request respectfully of the Chair a time certain. Chair Hardemon: They say he went to --up the street to one of those fancy restaurants down in -- no, I'm just kidding. Commissioner Suarez: I don't think so. They were eating pizza in my office. I don't think so. Chair Hardemon: No, we can make it a time certain. It'll be when we come back from -- say, we come back from lunch at the next -- Commissioner Gort: On the 11th? Commissioner Carollo: 3 p.m. time certain. Commissioner Suarez: And I think DI 8, as well. Marrisa's (phonetic) been here all day as well. If we -- Chair Hardemon: Who? Commissioner Suarez: Mavrisa (phonetic). DIB. She's been hiding behind one of those like chairs the whole night. Vice Chair Russell: Which item is that? Commissioner Suarez: It's amending the mural ordinance discussion. Vice Chair Russell: That'll require some discussion, so we'll need to -- City ofMiami Page 6 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: -- continue that one as well. Commissioner Gort: And by the way, I've told them that they're welcome to come to my office; I'll sit down with them; I'll tell them all the problems that I have with this, especially the advertising that's going on at this time on radio and so on. Commissioner Carollo: Oh, and Mr. Gort, I don't have a problem with that. It's just that when they're here since early this morning and -- Commissioner Suarez: They should have been told Commissioner Carollo: -- at 2 o'clock in the morning, we tell them -- Commissioner Suarez: They should have been told Commissioner Carollo: -- we're not going to listen -- we should have told them -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Commissioner Carollo: -- earlier we weren't going to listen. That's all I'm saying. Chair Hardemon: We didn't know. I mean, you don't know until you don't know. I didn't think you guys were going to go until 12 midnight, but you went. I have a flight at 6 o'clock. I -- Commissioner Suarez: I can go for another three hours. Y'all want to go, let's just keep going. Chair Hardemon: I'm not ready, so, you know. Commissioner Carollo: Anyhow, with that said, so they'll have a -- the Ygrene, the police program -- Chair Hardemon: Ygrene at 3. Commissioner Carollo: -- at 3 p.m. Chair Hardemon: And then everything else be continued to next agenda. Commissioner Carollo: Yep. Chair Hardemon: So -- Commissioner Carollo: We don't even need a motion, because everything that we don't take up just automatically goes to the next agenda? Chair Hardemon: He would prefer one. Is there a motion? Mr. Hannon: Yes. Because the way the Code is written, they would be continued to the next Rke" meeting, and you want this to go to actually the liext'ineeting, so, yes. Just make a motion for everything that's left on the agenda, and I'll take it from there. Chair Hardemon: It's been moved by Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Move it. City ofMiami Page 7 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Seconded by Commissioner Suarez. All in favor, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) DI8 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) also. Chair Hardemon: Goodmorning, evetyone. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS PRA 16-00236 Honoree Presenter Protocol Item Employee Service Mayor Regalado & City of Miami Milestone Awards City Manager Pins Kaj Baker Mayor Regalado & Commendation Chair Hardemon Olympia Theater Mayor Regalado Proclamation Sgt. Eduardo & Mayor Regalado & Salute Heather Lee Swanson Commissioner Carollo Virginia Key Beach Park Mayor Regalado & Commendation Chair Hardemon Garth C. Reeves, Sr. Mayor Regalado & Commendation Chair Hardemon PRESENTED 1) Mayor Regalado and Cit) Manager Alfonso presented Service Awards to Cit) of Miami employees for their 25 and 30 years of service milestone, commending them for their dedication and commitment to the City of Miami; furthermore thanking them for their hard work and dedication as City employees. 2) Mayor Regalado and Chair Hardemon presented a proclamation to Kaj Baker, an outstanding third grade student at.Ioella C. Good Elementaty who has a 3.7 Grade Point Average, and participates as an athlete on the Miami Northwest Express Track Club. He was undefeated in the one hundred meter dash all season and won the one hundred meter at Atlanta, Georgia. 3) Mayor Regalado presented a proclamation to the Olympia Theater celebrating its historic significance in the Cit) of Miami since its inception in Downtown Miami in February of 1962, as a silent movie palace with its stunning Moorish architecture. The Olympia Theater has served as a venue for numerous performers in the arts and entertainment. City ofMiami Page 8 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 4) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Carollo saluted Sgt. Eduardo Perez and Ms. Heather Lee Swanson for their civic duo) and personal initative in the coordination of the Miami Police Mounted Patrol History Exhibit in Little Havana; making it a successful celebration of the history of the City of Miami Police Mounted Patrol. 5) Mayor Regalado and Chair Hardemon presented a proclamation recognizing the significance of Virginia Key Beach Park which has woven the history of the Cit) of Miami and the struggles of its African American citizenry for equal rights, as well as being recogized as a notable destination for recreational life in the City of Miami. 6) Mayor Regalado and Chair Hardemon presented a proclamation to Mr. Garth C. Reeves, Sr., honoring him as an upstanding, socially responsible and committed citizen who has made exceptional contributions not only to the African American citizenry of the Cit) of Miami, but also the national commonwealth as a whole. Mr. Garth C. Reeves, Sr. served the United States while in the army during World War II, and later was named publisher and chief executive officer of the Miami Times, one of the oldest and largest African American newspaper publications in the Southeast. Chair Hardemon: Now we will make our presentations and proclamations. Presentations made. APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS: MAYORAL VETOES DEFERRED Note for the Record: Approval of the minutes for the January 28, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting have been deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting. Chair Hardemon: At this time, we move on to our minutes from the Planning & Zoning meeting of January 28, 2016 As I understand it, the Clerk would like to provide its additional time, and so would like this item to be continued to the next Commission meeting, because the Commissioners haven't had sufficient time to review the minutes. Is there any unreadiness considering that? Seeing none, then it'll be continued. END OF APPROVING MINUTES NO MAYORAL VETOES CONSENT AGENDA CA.1 RESOLUTION 16-00044 Department ofPolice A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED DECEMBER 28, 2015, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO. 527387, FROM GOLD NUGGET UNIFORM, INC. D/B/AARGO UNIFORM, THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE PURCHASE OF BREECHES AND BOOTS, ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS, FOR AN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM THE END USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVALAT THE TIME OF NEED; City ofMiami Page 9 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL SUPPLIERS TO BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACTAS DEEMED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO SAID AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE. 16-00044 Summary Form.pdf 16-00044 Memo - Manager's Approval. pdf 16-00044 Bid Tabulation.pdf 16-00044 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00044 Bid Response - Gold Nugget dba Argo Uniform.pdf 16-00044 Invitation For Bid.pdf 16-00044 Legislation.pdf This Matterwas ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez R-16-0077 CA.2 RESOLUTION 16-00046 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE Procurement ASSIGNMENT OF BID CONTRACT NO. 249240 FROM JOHNSON INDUSTRIES TO PARTS AUTHORITY GEORGIA, LLC FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT PARTS. 16-00046 Summary Form.pdf 16-00046 Corporate Detail.pdf 16-00046 Back -Up Documents.pdf 16-00046 Legislation.pdf This Matterwas ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez R-16-0078 CA.3 RESOLUTION 16-00048 Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE Procurement CITY MANAGER TO EXERCISE THE SECOND AND THIRD ONE (1) YEAR OPTIONS -TO -RENEW FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 270254 BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY")AND FISHERAUCTION CO., INC. AND RENE' BATES AUCTIONEERS, INC., PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 12-0036, ADOPTED JANUARY 26, 2012 FOR THE PROVISION OF AUCTION SERVICES CITYWIDE, ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACTUAL BASIS. 16-00048 Summary Form.pdf 16-00048 Pre- Legislation.pdf 16-00048 Legislation.pdf City ofMiami Page 10 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 This Matterwas ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez R-16-0079 CAA RESOLUTION 16-00172 Offrce of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY Attorney ATTORNEY TO SETTLE ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CASE OF MELVIN COLINDRES AND ALMA COLINDRES, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF KEVIN COLINDRES, DECEASED AND INDIVIDUALLY VS. CITY OF MIAMI AND POLICE CHIEF JOHN TIMONEY, CASE NO.: 07-13294 CA 03, IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AGREEING TO A CLAIMS BILL IN THE AMOUNT OF $550,000.00; AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO PAY THE PLAINTIFFS THE TOTAL SUM OF $226,512.10, IN SATISFACTION OF ALL CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE SAME, WITH FUNDS ALLOCATED FROM ACCOUNT NO. 50001.301001.545010.0000.00000. 16-00172 Memo - Office of the City Attorney.pdf 16-00172 Memo - Budget Sign-Off.pdf 16-00172 Legislation.pdf This Matterwas ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez R-16-0080 Adopted the Consent Agenda Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, including all the preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the following vote: Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez CA.5 RESOLUTION 16-00151 City Manager's Office A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT'), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ("DOJ"), RELATING TO THE OVERSIGHT OF THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENTS PRACTICES AND POLICIES CONCERNING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE INTENT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE DOJ; WITH FUNDS FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH AGREEMENT ALLOCATED FROM City ofMiami Page 11 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 ACCOUNT CODE NO. 0000 1. 191501.534000. 16-00151 Summary Form.pdf 16-00151 Legislation.pdf Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-16-0076 Chair Hardemon: Call our attention to item CA. S. Mr. Mayor, you're recognized. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Several years ago, after a series of shootings of civilians in the Cit) of Miami by the Miami Police Department, I, along with Congresswoman Fredericka Wilson, asked the Department of Justice, the Civil Right Division, to come to Miami and examine those shootings and the Police Department. DOJ (Department of Justice) responded, they came; they made a series of recommendations; they look into all the protocols and procedures, and they told the Cit) the things that needed to be done. Our Chief of Police at the time, Manuel Orosa, started working with the DOJ, as well as our City Attorney, Victoria Mendez, and then our current Chief of Police, Rodolfo Llanes finalized the work that Chief Orosa began, and talks began to have a settlement. For almost two years, there have been a constant conversation between the Cit) Attorney's Office, the Administration, the Chief of Police, and DOJ. In that conversation, we had also the help of civic leaders that participated in some of the things that were done even before, like the creation of the Civilian Investigative Panel. We had also the support of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and other groups, like PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for Equalit)), and those conversation finally were able to have closure and to have a settlement. That settlement is before you today. I want to say that two weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch, was here in Miami. And one of the reasons that the Attorney General of the United States was here in Miami, it was because of that settlement. On a meeting with the communio) at Miami Dade College in which the City Manager, myself, the Chief of Police, but also the State Attorney, the Public Defender; leaders of the communio) , like PULSE, were there, and the Attorney General praised the City of Miami and the Police Department. Ina private conversation, I had the opportunio) to meet with the Attorney General that same day, and in a few minutes, she told me how proud they were about the settlement, and that the United States Department of Justice was looking at that settlement as a model for the City, because the settlement said, in many ways and in many times, the Cit) "will" continue. It didn't -- it never said the Cit) "shall" do this. So they have accepted the issues that were corrected during all these years by the Police Department, and for that, we are very happy. I know that you're going to have a public hearing and a discussion, and I recognize that some groups may want to insert something. I do think that it's important that we understand that the settlement, as is, is a good settlement for the Cit) of Miami, because the Cit) Attorney can tell you that some of the issues that were talked during the course of this two years would have been a little embarrassing or damaging to the image of the Police Department, but those issues were resolved, thanks to the City Attorney. And I hope -- I have to say that the U.S. Attorney for the Eleventh Circuit of South Florida, Willy Ferrer, was very instrumental in helping to get this settlement. Hopefully, the settlement will be approved as it is, and the Cit) of Miami can move on to continue having a great relationship with DOJ, and also, more important, with our communio) . Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You're recognized. Grady Muhammad: Good morning, Mr. Vice Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Attorney, Madam Attorney, and Mr. Manager. Grady Muhammad, president and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Miami Dade First, 1231 Northwest 61st Street, Apartment 8. It's a great settlement. I told the Chief from --former Chief Manuel Orosa, "Y'all done a great job. " You're City ofMiami Page 12 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 still doing the job, along with Deputy Chief Gomez. It's a great settlement. The only small problem I have is the monitor, the implementer, which is the retired chief from Tampa. They had some issues, and unfortunately, when I -- I said "respectfully. " My community, they like the last of the Mohicans, and they -- she has no affinity or attachment to my communion, who was getting shot and killed, and we have to have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) either PULSE and others to ensure the monitoring and compliance, because I can tell you, the Chief is doing a wonderful job, and I'm definitely in support of this consent decree, without question. That's the only thing that I see as, again, that small piece, because Tampa and -- Tampa has a great Cuban and Puerto Rican population, but here in Miami -Dade County, there's a little small difference, and the communion that's affected is my communion, and she has no attachment to my community. And so, I want to find out how will she be able to work with my communion to ensure the compliance with this here? Because I said, I got all faith in the Chief and the Deptiov Chief. Thank you all. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you vett' much. Would anyone else like to be heard on this? Ray Tasseff Good morning. My name is Ray Tasseff. I'm an attorney, and I'm a resident of the City of Miami. I am here to speak in opposition to this agreement. Vice Chair Russell: Please state your address. Mr. Tasseff: 2333 Brickell Avenue. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Tasseff. I am here to speak in opposition for the following reason: This is an agreement. This is not a settlement of a court -litigated case. This is not, most importantly, a consent decree. A consent decree has the advantage and the power of court enforcement. This is nothing more than an agreement between the Ciov of Miami and the Department of Justice, enforceable only at the actions of the parties. Why is that important? That is important historically and presently. It is important historically because the argument is being made now that there has been significant progress, and that very well may be true; and if it is true, that is a good thing. But that is the vett' same argument that was made in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, when, at the invitation in 2002, the Department of Justice was brought in, just as they were, to the credit of the Mayor, in 2013, were brought in approximately 12 years ago. The Department of Justice was involved in investigation; and at the conclusion of that in 2006, there was no agreement, there was no consent decree reached. And at that time in 2006, when the matter was closed the DOJ issued a warning; notwithstanding, there had been significant progress in the number of police -involved shootings. The DOJ at that time gave a warning to the Ciov that there still needed to be improvement, and what happened? Roughly, three and a half years later, we had the series of tragic shootings that occurred in 2010 and 2011. So history tells us the importance to have real enforcement power, and the Federal government's involvement in the Ciov of Miami Police Department. And I'll say this -- Chair Hardemon: This is your last comment, sir. Mr. Tasseff. Okay, I'll be right to the point. How are we to have confidence when the Chief of Police has stated publicly, quote, tat the concept of Federal oversight is, 'quote, ludicrous. ? How are we to have confidence in this agreement when the Chief -- or the head of the police union that represents the majoriov ofpolice officers in the Ciov of Miami is making inflammatory and racist statements about police killing, police -involved killings? Chair Hardemon: Thank you vett' much. Mr. Tasseff: And finally, ifI may, briefly? City ofMiami Page 13 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Sir -- Mr. Tasseff� How are we to have confidence when, in today's Herald the independent monitor -- Chair Hardemon: Sir? Mr. Tasseff� --is quoted as already judging -- Chair Hardemon: Sir? Mr. Tasseff� -- what may happen? Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Have a nice day. Julia Dawson: Good morning. My name is Julia Dawson. I live at 1701 Southwest 4th Avenue in Miami. I have been apart of the Communiy) Coalition that worked on both the Civilian Investigative Panel and on the policing issues that were involved in the talks that led to the settlement agreement. I reiterate what Mr. Tasseff said. I think this is a very weak and largely unenforceable agreement that does not address serious problems. One of the things that is included in this settlement agreement is communio) oversight, which the communio) representatives fought very hard to have considered by the Department of Justice. And, unfortunately, what is written in here for community oversight falls far short of anything that we imagined could possibly be effective, and I want to address one specific thing, and that is, it says that "The Cit) may use the Community Relations Board to fulfill the requirements of this section of the agreement if they are able to meet the requirements herein, " meaning that the Commission could designate the Community Relations Board to be the community oversight for the implementation of this settlement agreement. That is an entirely inappropriate thing to do, and I'm here to urge the Commissioners not to make that designation. It represents a conflict of interest. The Community Relations Board is an arm of the Cit) of Miami, which is one of the two parties to this settlement agreement, and therefore, that is a conflict of interest in terms of representing the communio) . The CRB (Communities Relations Board) is, additionally, currently dysfunctional. It has only three or four working members on its 13 -seat board. There has been no quorum for six months or more. One Commissioner has never nominated anyone to the CRB. Their one staff person is shared with the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) offices. The most recent public meeting of the CRB that is noticed on its website was for August 26, 2015. The last annual report posted on the CRB website was 2011. And this information on the current status of the CRB I obtained from a friend of mine, former judge, David Young, who served on the CRB until just a couple of months ago. I asked Judge Young if, based on his experience serving on the CRB, in his opinion, could the CRB fulfill the requirements in the settlement agreement for communio) oversight? His answer was that At this time, the CRB could not possibly meet the requirements for communio) oversight. " Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Mrs. Dawson. Ms. Dawson: I have an alternative proposal, which I would briefly like to tell you. The communio) oversite needs to be formed, designated by an outside independent entity. I have spoken to Kat) Sorenson, who heads the good government -- Chair Hardemon: Good government. Ms. Dawson: -- initiative -- Thank you very much -- Chair Hardemon: Ms. Dawson? Ms. Dawson: --which is headed by her, and is affiliated with the Universio) of Miami. She has City ofMiami Page 14 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 agreed to provide that service, in conjunction with the League of Women Voters Local Chapter -- Chair Hardemon: Ms. -- Ms. Dawson: -- two neutral, nonpolitical entities who could perform the -- Chair Hardemon: I want to make something very clear to everyone here. When we start these meetings, there is a procedure that is announced where people have two minutes. That procedure has not changed by me, and it has not changed -- it's not been changed by me, and it's not changed over the many years that I've been following the Ciov of Miami. Each one of us who are -- that have been before this Commission many, many times know that we have two minutes, and so your messages should be tailored to two minutes. Many of you who are attorneys know that you go for your two minutes, and you ask for additional time, and the board is who gives you that additional time; not myself as Chairman. It's at the will of the board. But it's unfair to the Commissioners, it's unfair to other people who are here to continue to go well past the two minutes without being respectful enough to ask for additional time, one, so it can be granted to you; or without delivering a message that is tailored to those two minutes, and -- No, hear me for one second. I just want to make this very clear, because when the two minutes expire, and you all hear the ringing of the bell when it expires, I don't cut you off immediately. I give you a reasonable amount of time to come to a conclusion, and you don't do it, and that's unfair to all of us. And then I have to take time out to explain this message, which makes all of our time here longer. This is an important matter; it really, truly is. And if the Commissioners want to hear additional time from you, we will hear it. However, we must respect the procedures that are established by the Cit); of Miami Commission. That is the only way that things will run smoothly. Ms. Dawson: I apologize for not asking for additional time. I hope, if I had, it would have, in fact, been granted And I got out most of what I wanted to say, so thank you, and I appreciate your comments. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much. Jean Baker: Jean Baker. I'm also here on behalf of the Coalition of Communion Organizations that have been concerned with police shootings in the City, and on behalf specifically of the ACLU. Civilian oversight of the police --that's a little different from communion oversight of the agreements -- is a key element in President Obama's Task Force for Twenov-First Century Policing. It is an institution herein Miami that this Commission has worked really hard to remove it from its dysfunctional years and get it on its feet, and it's doing really well now, and I really thank the Commission, but the CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel) is completely omitted from this agreement. I think it was an oversight that the CIP should continue its -- in its important role here in Miami to -- as a civilian oversight of the Police Department that is accepted by all of the Ciov leaders; it is absolutely accepted by DOJ, but it was completely omitted from the agreement. We ask that three points be included in the agreement. This does not cause a need for any revision. It's just an addition; an addition, which I might add in advance, I called DOJ senior litigation counsel and asked: `Is this problematic? Is this a problem for DOJ? " I was told that the three points I'm about to share with you are completely fine with DOJ. If the City officials agree with it, then it can go into the agreement. And I have precise language, which I will not try to pronounce in my two minutes. But here are the three concepts: One, just acknowledge that the CIP in Miami does exist, and it has a continuing important role; acknowledge its existence and role in the agreement. Two, acknowledge in the agreement that resources devoted to this new plan under the agreement for community; oversight will not detract, will not be taken from or supplant the resources given to the CIP. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Ms. Baker: And third, specify in the agreement that relevant information from the CIP, its City ofMiami Page 15 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 findings and recommendations which it makes regularly on various cases, that that information is provided, to be received and to be reviewed by both the Communion Advisory Committee, which Ms. Dawson was just speaking about, which I support her proposal, but that that information be provided to both the Communion Advisory Committee, which is to overlook the agreement, and to the Independent Reviewer. Right now, the agreement does not make that requirement, and it's just a gap that is befuddling to me, because I know how much this Commission has invested in the improvement of the CIP. It deserves to be recognized to enhance its stature, to help with the reinvigoration path that it is on. If the CIP is omitted from the agreement, it's really a slap in the face. It's as if the CIP doesn't exist, and has nothing to do with police practices in the Ciov of Miami, and that's certainly not what this Commission has invested in. So I ask that those three points be added in. They are noncontroversial. DOJ has said they're fine with DOJ. DOJ has even suggested to me that in discussions with the Cit), they think the Ciov Attorney's Office has no problem. I don't speak for them. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Ms. Baker. Ms. Baker: And thank you very much for my two minutes. Commissioner Gort: That was a long two minutes. Nathaniel Wilcox: Nathaniel Wilcox, executive director of PULSE, 150 Northeast 19th Street. We're grateful for the Mayor and other communion leaders who saw the necessiov of bringing the Department of Justice into the City of Miami to look at the Police Department, their methods and ways after any number of different shootings and killing that took place here in the Ciov of Miami, and we're fortunate that after all those killings that Miami did not erupt in violence and riots; we've learned from our past. And now we've had-- we have an agreement before us that we feel, in some areas, is vague and lacking in clarity. And I also embrace the importance of the Civilian Investigation Panel being a part of this process, and not being swept to the side. Some very important points here. It says, " Communiov oversight. " And I wanted to know -- it doesn't really say what this oversight means in terms of community oversight, and it says that the residents are to provide feedback to the Miami Police Department and Independent Reviewer. The board will leverage the insight and expertise with the community; address policing concerns to promote greater transparency and public understanding of the Miami Police Department. It also goes on to say that we are to advise the Chief, the majors, and also the commanders that we've had our opportunity as PULSE to advise the Chief, the majors, and the commanders about our concerns, and it basically went nowhere. Chief Orosa was one of the best Chiefs that we've had, and after that, we've had some scattery [sic], almost kind of concern from the present Chief. And it says now that "the community oversight is supposed to advise the Chief. " Where is that going to go? "Work with the Chief." Where is that going to go? "Majors and commanders to establish, to cave out community public safety priorities, provide the communion with information on the agreement and its implementation. " So we want to see more than just something that we have here on paper; we want to actually see it carried out, because our communion is depending on it. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Is there any other person? Yes, sir. Eladio Jose Armesto: Good morning, Commissioners. I am Eladio Jose Armesto. I'm chairman of the Florida Democratic League, 350002, Jose Marti Station, Miami, Florida. And we're honored to be here this morning in support of the proposals that -- as well are being supported by our brothers in People United to Lead the Struggle for Equaliov, PULSE, in seeking to increase public safety, to promote constitutional policing practices, and to strengthen the communiov's trust in our Police Department. That's why we support, and we're extremely pleased of the intervention of the Department of Justice in coming in and supervising, investigating, and promoting better practices within our own Police Department here so that in the end, it can be more responsive to the needs of our city. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 16 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir. Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Chairman Hardemon, good morning; Vice Chairman Russell, good morning. Horacio Stuart Aguirre. I'm the chairman of the City of Miami's Civilian Investigative Panel, and I'm here to say that this is a great day for the Cit) of Miami. This is a wonderful agreement. It's far from perfect, and I think we can make it perfect before we leave today, and hopefully, all of us together will get there in the next 15, 20 minutes. I salute Mayor Tomas Regalado. Mayor Regalado, you've done a great job. Congratulations; your leadership, and the leadership of all five ofyou gentlemen on the dais. I salute Police Chief Llanes, a true intellectual, progressive, forward-looking police officer, and a great manager of a great Police Department. There are some rogues in our Police Department; not only do they cause pain and suffering in our communio) , but they cost us a lot of money. We know that every time all ofyou go into executive session, or a curtain session, or a back -room session, you're discussing an expensive settlement to go out to somebody who got mistreated, beat up, hurt, and abused by police officers who overstepped their authority. So I had a great speech for you all. It was going to take about two minutes, exactly. I timed it But Jean Baker, Esquire, did it for me. She, somehow, read my mind, knew exactly what I was going to say, and gave it far better than I will. So keep in mind Ms. Baker's comments; those are mine. And keep in mind that we need to tweak this. You've done a great job, Mr. Mayor. You've done a great job, Madam City Attorney. You've done a great job, Police Chief Llanes, but let's clear up a few of the wrinkles before we codify this. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized. Renita Holmes: Good morning, Commissioner, Mr. Chair, board. I am Madam Renita D. C. Holmes, executive director of the Women's Association Alliance Addressing Injustice and Violent Epidemia [sic], as well as the executive director of Women in Public Housing Education, Finance, and Development. We've recently come together, and it's like, wow. And "wow" upside down spells Thom. "And so, when I think about this injustice, and I remember the murder in Overtown, I think about how many of its -- I think about my son, who was murdered at 13 years old and placed in a dumpster; I think about justice. So it's all about policing, and trust, and oversight. I feel sometimes as a mother that I did not oversee my child well, but my child was not the normal profile: not in school, skipping school; spoke Spanish 13 years; made honors; spoke ex -- played excellent Chess, but he missed his friends from across afar. He missed his mentors, his protectors. I have a issue with my relations in being all that I can be, and when I look at a police department that still has issues with women, or its union insults, everything that a strong woman may do, whether it be Beyonce or its assistant depuo) , I have -- I think that it's internal, so my oversight is the constant watch. I don't want to lose another child. I don't want to lose another officer. I don't want to lose another woman. And I don't want to continue to be in pain, so I'm constantly looking for the option steps. Through the Chair, Madam Attorney, there is language in this resolution. I don't think you'll ever give me justice, particularly with a back shot. I call that cowardly. And so, excuse me if I may seem a bit angry, but then, you know, that's a normal response when you have not quite got justice; you just get rays of justice. So my concern is the implementation in those words in that policy about being -- in order to change or make any necessary changes. In closing, I watched every consent degree [sic], from Department of Water and Sewer, not be implemented to its best and be changed I watched the Homeless Trust turn around, where I still got black women stabbed to death in front of Camillus House, and it's unaddressed. I watched the change, but I still have very little coming to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the letter saying "My son wants to be a police officer, " but because he's black, he's not there, and I still don't see the change of people who really had a full understanding of what my children are going through. There's no protection. There's no trust. And when it comes to women, I want to know if anything you change in there is going to affect the way that women participate, because we constantly keep an oversight. So that's the qualio) in this language. It's too wide open. It's too lose. I can't keep a sight of the changes being City ofMiami Page 17 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 made. When I watch the consent degrees [sic] for everything that have disparately affected black communio) , or the impoverished communio) , or women in the communii)�, it gets changed to be something else, even the povero) initiative monies, even the Homeless Trust. When we walk in here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the building (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and binding. All I ask is that you make sure that language is more specific, and in the oversight that I see more action -solidified items that refer to the best practices of justice, like in Ferguson, and like in LA (Los Angeles), because racism still exists, fearful people still exist, and women are still behind men who are scared to talk to one another and fear each other, and all of them have guns. I want a straight shot in that language that'll shoot down any major changes based on somebody's perception, fear of a (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I thank you for taking the time and listen to me, but I have not forgotten the shoots in the back. As mothers organized, we have not been restored yet, and when it comes to oversight, I have not seen any OPe of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) language in that consent, nor in this one that dwindles down here, because the State and the City has a way of interpreting things that avoid their culpability. I pay them more than taxes and line items for litigation. I'm paying in blood of my children, and these mothers aren't here because they're still working, okay? So I'm here on behalf of these mothers and all others and mine, and the mothers to come. I need oversight of the Police Department. I don't need nobody to make no changes. Excuse me, sir. Either in my independent review panel, I got a problem with racism, because I would never take a woman and pull her pants up for her. Somehow, your perception is that I'm playing some damn game about putting your hands on my children, or putting your hands on me. So I leave this with this: I don't like fake motions. Ifyou going to talk, don't time me, because you still out of time and still making changes. Stop racism. Stop the changes. Stop the racist people that serve on these boards with conflicts of interest. Their only interest is to stop the culpabilio) of people. You hire men that are afraid, that shoot boys in the back, and you hire young boys that are scared of other boys, then that's a issue. I'm just keeping it real. Chair Hardemon: Madam Holmes? Ms. Holmes: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: You know your time has expired. Ms. Holmes: Yes, I do. Chair Hardemon: I've given you enough time. Ms. Holmes: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much for your comment. Ms. Holmes: And for all the other women that weren't here that did not have the time, because that's fairness, and I appreciate your fairness, but change that language because it's too (UNINTELLIGIBLE), it's too wide open. And the pattern and the trend of doing things tons that you make an agreement for with this thing is just really got me feeling as where I don't trust you, because you lied. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Madam Holmes. Ms. Holmes: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other person from the public that would like to speak at this time? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. It becomes -- and now, everyone, when I talk about the two minutes, why -- you see why it becomes problematic, because if I give one person a minute and a half extra, then it would be unfair of me not to give the next person a minute and a half extra, and whatever their message may be is the message that you will hear, and you will sit City ofMiami Page IS Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 through it, and we'll all sit through it because of just that one reason, so that's why I just ask that evetyone try to respect the time that you're allotted. No matter how polished you are, no matter how well-spoken you are, you should be able to get your message together in two minutes, and it should be impactful. I don't believe there's a motion on the floor. Todd B. Hannon (Ciov Clerk): No, sir. Chair Hardemon: So I'll open up the -- I'll open up for public discussion, if there is -- I mean, I'm sorry --for discussion, if there is one; or if there's a motion, I'll entertain it. You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think it's important to note, first and foremost, that for us to have a vibrant city, we need to have the confidence of our residents. I've been working hand in hand with the Coalition for months on potential Charter reforms, and also an ordinance that hopefully will be coming before this Commission shortly, and my emphasis and my effort has been in bringing -- broadening the Coalition, and bringing everyone to the table in a way that we can advance something that the citizens can be proud of, and that our colleagues -- and it can be embraced by really the entire community. We oftentimes look at this as an either/or proposition, or as an antagonistic proposition, or as a zero-sum game, and that's unfortunate, because we all should be working towards the same goal, which is the one that I just articulated. There's a couple other things that I want to say. One is, I have -- I can -- whether we incorporate it into the agreement or not, I do think that the CIP has a valid role in this process. I am willing, by the way, to take advice from Katy Sorenson, who -- I'm a graduate of her program, the Good Government Initiative, and I'd be more than happy to either take advice from her on the members to the CRB, or, you know, obviously, vet the current members, if that's needed, whatever -- I see you shaking your head -- she prefers. I presume that -- Commissioner Gort: Excuse me. Ms. Dawson: Let her (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Commissioner Suarez: Got it. Commissioner Gort: Come on. Chair Hardemon: Ma'am? Commissioner Suarez: Got it. But my point being that I have absolutely no hesitation or heartburn about giving former Commissioner Sorenson a broad role in the shaping of the Communion Relations Board. I also think that the CIP can go before the Community Relations Board, and there can be an interaction between the two. In other words, the CIP can sort of act as a monitor and inform the Communion Relations Board. So I'm not sure that we are disagreeing in any way, shape, or form. Certainly, if the City Attorney can confirm -- and I'm not sure that she can or is willing to, or it makes sense to -- that those minor modifications would be welcomed by the Justice Department. I don't think that I would have any problem with it, but I also am very mindful of the fact that these agreements are very delicate, and that we are sort of at the 11th hour, and I don't like -- I certainly don't like it, and I think we haven't made a practice up here of negotiating from the dais on these kinds of things, and I think that can also set a dangerous precedent, because there is a certain amount of fragiliov and public scrutiny to all of this, and I certainly would not want to go backwards. I do think there's one last thing that I would be remiss ifI did not mention, and I think it goes to the gentleman's point. You know, our department changes often. It changes with personnel; it changes with leadership, and that change also denotes a certain change in tactics at times, and I think many of you came up here and sort of testified that you were very pleased with the work that the prior Chief had made and the strides that he had made to change some of those tactics, and I think we should commend not City ofMiami Page 19 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 only his work, but the officers'. I mean, I think we sometimes fail to appreciate how challenging our cit) can be to police. Our cit) is a very challenging cit). It's a cit) where there is, unfortunately -- and we've talked about this a lot, and the Chair has been a lead and advocate on this, and many ofyou have dedicated your life to this. It's a cit) that has extreme amounts of povero) and violence. I was just the other day with someone who told me that we had 25 murders in just one neighborhood, 25 murders in one neighborhood, which is 5 blocks -by -10 blocks in one area of the Cit) of Miami. That's one-third of all our murders are in one neighborhood. So, you know, I think it's imperative that we all work together towards fixing the structural things that are wrong. And I think the Coalition knows that I am in it for the long haul, as long as I'm up here, and I've had a wonderful relationship with all of them. We haven't always agreed, but the few times that we've disagreed, we've done it amicably, and most of the time we've agreed, and I -- one thing I do agree is in their eminent good faith. I mean, in that sense, there is no hesitation on my part. So, you know, those are my comments and my sort of inner thoughts on this issue. And I'd just like to hear from my colleagues on how they want to proceed. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. ChairHardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to begin by saying that back at a time where the Mayor formally requested that the Department of Justice come in and investigate the shootings in the Police Department, I publicly welcomed any and all investigations also. And I really appreciate the work that the U.S. Department of Justice has done, along with our City staff, City Attorneys, and all involved. I think that we saw that instead of going to court, we were able to draft an agreement where both parties could agree to, and whereas an agreement that, once again, we are putting public safeo) at the forefront. But at the same time, we have to understand the expectations from all sides, the expectations that I have, the expectations from the City, and that's where I'm going to ask several questions with regards to the agreement that we are going to be, to a certain degree, bounded by. And to Mr. Tasseffs point, if this agreement isn't met, in all fairness, Department of Justice could go back to court, and we could then have the Court hear the case and go forward. So this -- by no means, does this mean that, you know, if what we all want to accomplish doesn't get accomplished it can continue to court. So that's where I believe that instead of having a court battle, debate, I think it's better to go with the route Of an agreement. I'll get into some of the details that I want to ask about. With regards to the CRB, from my understanding from what Ms. Dawson said it is stipulated that the CRB Lrould'be that independent communio) group, but it doesn't have to be. That's going to be up to us, so, you know, that would be definitely taken into consideration. And at least, I could already say from my point of view, no, I don't foresee, at least with me, having the support for it to be the CRB. It should be another independent communio) group. And, yes, Ms. Baker, or Horacio, I do believe that, you know, that we should have some mention of the CIP there; at least acknowledging that we do have a CIP, because it's also apart of our whole policing practice, our whole -- an extra layer that was requested by our residents through a vote, so I have no problem including some OPe of language acknowledging that we do have a CIP, a Civilian Investigative Panel, in the City of Miami. I want to now start getting into the actual agreement, because I want to make sure that all of our expectations are clear, and the first one is in number 6. It clearly says here, The requirements of this agreement identify the goals that must be achieved, the mechanisms to achieve them, and specific elements that must be addressed. "So I'm going to be very clear about this. I don't want to be setup for failure, okay? It says here that the goals must be met. So I want to make sure that when we start going into these details that we're able to meet those goals; that we clearly understand -- and that's going to be a question to the Chief, to our Manager -- we clearly understand the goals so that we can meet them, because I don't want to be setup for failure. And going into a little bit more detail, on number 27, it stipulates here, `In addition, Miami Police Department agrees to maintain" -- and I'm glad it says lhaintain, 'because back to what the Mayor was saying, you will see that most of this is "will" continue, so there is good City ofMiami Page 20 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 faith from the Cio) `s part. There is good faith from the City and the Department of Justice, where, flet', we are listening to your recommendations, and we are doing it. "So I'm actually vevy glad that the majority of this does say, lfliami Police Department will continue. "However, here on 27, it stipulates -- and I mean number 27 in the agreement --1'n addition, Miami Police Department agrees to maintain, 'but then it says, and develop, if necessaty, comprehensive, agency -wide policies and procedures that reflect full implementation of every requirement of this agreement. "So my question goes to, do we need to develop any additional policies, or where are we with that? And it could be asked a different way. I could -- and I'll ask it a different way: Do you believe, Mr. Manager, Mr. Police Chief, that we are substantially in compliance with all the recommendations, all the requirements? Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Chief. Rodolfo Llanes: Rodolfo Llanes, Chief of Police. We are, as the agreement stipulates, in compliance with most of the requirements. The anticipated policy changes are O pically going to be ministerial issues on how we collect data, and how we track our training issues, our supervisoty ratios, and those kinds of things. That's what's contemplated when we talk about policy changes within the Police Department in order to comply with the agreement. It's not necessarily with delivery of service, but complying with the agreement. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And ifI may, Chief, Mr. Manager, I want to make sure, because you say that --I want to verify that we use the same language in this agreement. Would you say then that we are substantially in compliance? Chief Llanes: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: That's the language that they're using. Chief Llanes: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: So you do. Okay, so let's go back then to what I'm seeing as far as expectations. It says here in -- give me a second, many pages. In item 92(a), The parties jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement before March 15, 2020, on the grounds that the Cit) has reached substantial compliance with this agreement and maintained compliance for one year. "So, if we already are in substantial compliance, would it be fair to say that I should expect that within a year and a half, 18 months or so, this agreement should be then terminated? Commissioner Gort: No. Commissioner Carollo: And I -- and Mr. Manager -- and what I'm doing is -- again, is I want to manage expectations, and I'll tell you why. These agreements have a tendency of going a lot longer than originally expected and costing a lot more money than originally expected. So that's where I want to start managing the expectations according to what this agreement actually says, and what we're going to be voting on. Daniel J. Alfonso (Cit) Manager): Commissioner, to be clear, this agreement has an end date of 2020. I would say, to be safe, that's the expectation we should have in mind. We will work to see if we can finish it sooner, but no later than certainly March of 2020, as in the agreement. Commissioner Carollo: Right. But Mr. Manager, I'm reading this agreement. Mr. Alfonso: Yes, sir. Commissioner Carollo: And this agreement stipulates -- because this is going to cost us money. City ofMiami Page 21 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner, we anticipate that the monitor will cost some amount of money. We're working with her right now to develop that agreement. It will be less than $100, 000 a year, plus whatever cost we incur from additional training, but I don't think -- that's not exactly cost, I would call that investment in our troops. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo, I want to make it clear, point 92 says, that Agreement shall remain in effect until March 15, 2020, unless any other problem occur. "You have a point A" Commissioner Carollo: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- and it says lir. " Commissioner Carollo: Right. Chair Hardemon: And I want to be clear. It says, "The United States disputes that the Cit) is in substantial compliance with the agreement. " So it appears to be that the movant in determining whether or not there is substantial completion -- or substantial compliance is made by the United States, and then that dispute shall be negotiated between the parties. Commissioner Carollo: But I'm reading number --I'm reading letter A, '{Uhich letter A'�ays, "The parties jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement before March 15, 2020, on the grounds that the Cit) has reached substantial compliance with this agreement and maintained compliance for one year. "Or, but if this is met, technically, those hundred -some thousand dollars -- you said maybe it's less --that's a police officer, in my eyes, out in the streets patrolling. So, you know, I may be in the big scheme of things, the big, you know, picture, you know, it's not -- I mean, with a $600, 000 operating budget, it's not that much money, but it's still a police officer, so I want to make sure when do we anticipate that we are in compliance; and by the way, I want to make sure that we are in compliance, so don't misunderstand my point. But if we're already in substantial compliance, as what the Police Chief said, it seems to me that 18 months from now, maybe less, maybe little bit more, we should be able to terminate this agreement. Chair Hardemon: If the United States agrees with us. Mr. Alfonso: Right. Understanding, it's a multiparty agreement. Commissioner Carollo: Right. Mr. Alfonso: It could be just that we feel we're there, and it's done. Commissioner Carollo: But it says here "the parities jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement before March 15, 2020, on the grounds that the Cit) has reached substantial compliance with this agreement and maintained compliance for one year. " So, again, should I anticipate that, hey, we're going to meet A, 'and therefore, we are eligible to terminate this contract? Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner, we -- Commissioners -- may I -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Mr. Alfonso: -- Mr. Chairman? As I said, we're going to work as hard as we can to come to agreement with the Department of Justice and our monitors to show that we are in substantial compliance. There's no guarantee that they will agree, so this will take some more talking. And, presumably, we will end by 2020; could be sooner. That's about as -- City ofMiami Page 22 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Right. Mr. Alfonso: -- well as I can tell you. Commissioner Carollo: The Lrould be sooner7s what I'm reading here. The Lrould be sooner7s why it could be sooner. So my question will be, how could it be sooner? And I am telling you what it says on how it could be sooner. So, Madam City Attorney, am I reading this incorrectly? Or, if we have substantial compliance with this agreement, and it's maintained that substantial compliance, for a year or more, can this contract be terminated -- or this agreement? I'm sorry. Victoria Mendez (City Attorne)): Yes. Chair Hardemon: Only, though, Madam City Attorney, if the Department of Justice or the United States agrees with us, because it has to be a joint agreement. Ms. Mendez: Correct, but we have laid out in this agreement all the things that we have done, and we have accomplished, and will continue to do, and they will be very hard-pressed to prove otherwise. But, of course -- Chair Hardemon: I know -- Ms. Mendez: -- we're going to maintain doing the wonderful things that this Police Department has done thus far, and any tweaks, obviously, that we have to do going forward, but in a perfect scenario, Commissioner Carollo's deduction is correct. If we do everything that we need to do, any other tweaks that we need to do, and we're in compliance for a year, this could early terminate, and that's what's a -- a good provision in this contract. Chair Hardemon: But we have to be clear, though, for everyone to understand that the parties must jointly agree. So we may feel that way. We may do all that we can, but if the United States does not agree with us, then we cannot avail ourselves of point "A. " We can try to avail ourselves of point `B, " but A Uill be out of the picture, because there is not a -- there's not joint agreeance in that. I think that that joint agreeance --where it says the the parties jointly agree,,, is a -- in and of itself, is a requirement before you get to the substantial compliance. So we must jointly agree that there is substantial compliance. If the Chief believes there's substantial compliance right now, City Manager does, we also, and then we try to avail ourselves of point A, " the United States Government say, hot so fast. " Ms. Mendez: They could, but they would have to prove that we're not in compliance after they've received and passed benchmarks and do certain things. This is very different than the other positions we've been with consent decrees, and things of that nature, that we cannot get out of, even though we've done everything we need to do. This isn't -- Chair Hardemon: If that's true, Madam City Attorney, then point "A" is -- what is written there, and what you intend to mean by it is not the same thing, because point `A" simply says that 1f the parties jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement before March 15, 2020, on the grounds that the Cit) has reached substantial compliance with this agreement, " so that is one -- "and maintained compliance for that one year. " So, me -- Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: -- when I read this, Commissioner Carollo, it is saying that you can terminate it with a joint agreeance if there is substantial completion -- compliance with it and maintained for one year. It doesn't say that the part) -- or either part) has the abilio) to dispute it, or whatever. It just says, merely 5gree. "Now point "B" goes into a dispute process. "Such a dispute will be addressed and negotiation through" -- "between the parties, and if the parties City ofMiami Page 23 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 are unable to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, through civil enforcement proceedings" -- so there's some -- there's more text to assist with that in part B, 'but part A'does not say, in my opinion, what the Cit) Attorney's pronouncing. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, that's why I started saying with, I want to make sure we understand what the expectations are and what is stated here, and that's why I want to get into the details, because -- I mean -- and by the way, it doesn't say -- and I know you read it, but it doesn't say, the parties jointly agree," it says, the parties jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement between March 15, 2020. "It didn't say "if. " "The parties jointly agree in writing to terminate the agreement before March 15, 2020 on the grounds that the Cit) has reached substantial compliance with this agreement and maintained compliance for one year, 'br the other, which goes back to Mr. Tasseffs argument with regards to the court. They could go back to court if they feel, or if we have disagreement onus substantially being in compliance. So if there's some ambiguio) -- I'm not the attorney, but I need to make sure that we understand exactly what we're voting for and what we're agreeing to. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Carollo: Because -- Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry. Let me -- Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, because my interpretation is that we're --we've already done a lot of this work, you know. We've already showed good faith, and we've done a lot of this work You know, we've already complied with most, if not all, of their requirements; and I just want to make sure that if that's the case, then we have an expectation that, obviously, we're going to move forward and do any -- like the —using the Chiefs words, any ministerial items that need to be taken care of, but that this is not going to be some long extensive process that it's going to be years and years and years coming. Do we need to put some type of language? Ms. Mendez: We do not. This is clear that it ends in 2020. If we are in compliance for a year, we can end it earlier. That is the termination provision that you're discussing. Ina perfect world, it would be just like you described- 18 months, it terminates after we meet the provisions, like the Chairman had said, of substantial compliance for one year, and we do it in writing. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Ms. Mendez: So it's -- Commissioner Gort: It'd be more than 18 months. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gort: I can assure you that. Chair Hardemon: I'll recognize Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: But in fairness, as you articulated, it's something that has to be done by mutual agreement of the parties. So I just want to be clear that this is not unilateral in the sense that if something happens, you know, we feel that we're in substantial compliance and that period runs, then we have a unilateral right to cancel the agreement. This is a joint agreement, and therefore, the joinder of both parties would have to come to the same conclusion that we have been in substantial compliance for the number -- you know, the period required by the contract. City ofMiami Page 24 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Mendez: Yes. In order to terminate early, yes. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman, did you have something? Vice Chair Russell: After Commissioner Carollo. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. I'd like to continue. I want to mention, as far as the independent monitor, it stipulates here that the independent monitor was selected -- jointly selected. Was there a process, or how was this person selected? Do we even have her resume? Do we -- how was the process done? Ms. Mendez: With regards to the monitor, it was a painstaking process; because all the monitors that the City of Miami would suggest, which were former directors within the DOJ, and that we could have gotten for free, were not approved by the DOJ. So it was a good back and forth of many, many, many, many months until we agreed on this one person. Commissioner Carollo: But how were those names coming for ward? Was there some o pe of advertisement? Was there just, "Oh, I know so and so"? And "Oh, this person was a former chief here or there"? I mean, how did that happen? Ms. Mendez: Well, there are only a few people that do this o pe of work, so the pool is very limited with regard to monitoring, so it wasn't -- if you're saying was this a -- like an REP (Request for Proposals) o pe situation, no. It was just based on the names that the DOJ would feel comfortable accepting, and then that we would as well, because they, obviously, dismissed many of the ones that we suggested Commissioner Carollo: Right. But when you said that the DOJfelt comfortable accepting and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) thatpool come from? Ms. Mendez: Their base of -- Commissioner Carollo: So they gave you a pool -- Ms. Mendez: --monitors. Commissioner Carollo: -- of names ofpeople? Ms. Mendez: Back and forth, but pretov much, the names that they would agree to, and the names that we suggested, and with the back and forth like that, is where we came to an agreement. Commissioner Carollo: Right. So let's say the names that we suggested how did that come about? Ms. Mendez: The names that we suggested? Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. How did that come about? Was it, "Oh, I know so and so City ofMiami Page 25 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 because he's a former police chief'-- -- "he or she is a former police chief, " or -- I mean, how did those names come about? Ms. Mendez: Just in discussions with the DOJ, of people that worked with the DOJ in the past, those o pes of discussions back and forth, and those were the names that were given. It wasn't a -- an REP, or a worldwide selection, or anything like that. It was just based on people that could handle this situation, and that's how it was -- the back and forth with DOJ. Commissioner Carollo: So there was some type of a screening process or" -- I mean, I -- Ms. Mendez: Obviously, based on -- Commissioner Carollo: Well, I don't know 5bviously. "I mean, all I see is that, you know, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Jane Castor, butt don't what the process has been. I really -- I don't know. I haven't been involved with how you all selected the Independent Reviewer or not, so I don't know the process, so I want to make sure -- and, again, I don't know. Was there a pool? You said that there's very few people that do this type of work, so is there a pool out there of the people that do this o pe of work? Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner -- Commissioner Carollo: And the reason I'm saying, Mr. Manager -- I mean, she has a very key role here. I mean, when you see exactly what she will be -- what her duties are, she has a very key role, which, as a matter of fact, she does quarterly reports, and she actually says whether we're in substantial compliance or not. So I don't know if there's been conversations with her already to see if she believes that we are in substantial compliance or not. Commissioner Gort: DOJsuggested this person. Commissioner Carollo: And it does make a difference, because like I said there's been a tendency in the past where these agreements or decrees have gone way before their time, and has spent a lot of the resources of the municipalities, so. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cit) Manager. Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner, as being somewhat part of the discussion, mostly led by the Cit) Attorney's Oce, I can tell you that the pool of people that the Department of Justice and/or the City Attorney's Oce would consider qualified to do this kind of work isn't very large. So, from their professional experience, both the Department of Justice working with people who do this across the nation, and through our experience here locally, names would come up. Some of the names that we recommended -- professionals that have been with the Department of Justice before that are currently in important positions in academic institutions in the South Florida area were recommended,- those were rejected by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice would propose people. We would look at their background and see if they were agreeable. Eventually, we came to agree on this person. This person was recommended by the Department of Justice as a professional that they've worked with. We looked at it, and, okay, we got to agree on somebody. This seems like a qualified person. They area professional that has experience in the field, and we're going to be working with them at the recommendation of Department of Justice. Commissioner Carollo: Have you met Ms. Castor? Have you spoken with her? Mr. Alfonso: Yes, we did. Commissioner Carollo: And do you know if she feels also that our -- with all the changes that we have done over the years, if our department is also in substantial compliance? City ofMiami Page 26 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Alfonso: We tried --I believe our intent was not to get her predisposition. We're going to enter into an agreement with her. She'll get to review, and give her opinion to the Department of Justice. Commissioner Carollo: How did -- I mean, I'm just going to ask Commissioner Gort: Let me ask a question. Who this person respond to? Who they report to? Ms. Mendez: DOJ. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Commissioner Carollo: They report to the DOJ? I thought they were a mutual part). If I'm reading some of the -- some of her duties -- and I say her, 'because I'm --you know, you provide the name of Jane Castor. Says, "The duty and responsibilities of the Independent Reviewer set" -- "are set forth in this agreement that describe" --and describe greater and greater detail. It says, "The Independent Reviewer will assess the Cio) 's compliance with the agreements, report on the status of compliance to the parties, work with the parties to address any barriers of compliance" -- or "to compliance, and assist the parties to informally resolve disputes or differences, should they emerge. " At the same time, she, I guess, worked as an intermediary, but at the same time, I see here in 29, and it stipulates in the bottom, "If Miami Police Department and DOJ disagree on any aspect of policy that is relevant to this agreement, the Independent Reviewer shall resolve the dispute. " Does that mean that she acts as then a judge between us, and she says, "This is what it is"? So, if she reports to the DOJ, she's also going to be the judge between maybe a disagreement that we have? Ms. Mendez: When we're saying reports, 'all the laser focused investigations that she will be doing, she will grab those reports and be able to advise DOJ of all the benchmarks that we have met or still need to meet. Commissioner Carollo: Right. Before that happens, I think she will be in conversation with us. I think there is -- Ms. Mendez: Of course, of course. And we will be the facilitators, the Police Department, along with the Cit) Attorney's Oce, of giving any information to her in an orderly fashion that will then get reported to the Department of Justice. And if there are any questions as to what we will be doing or, as you described any misunderstanding with what it is that's asked in a certain report, or what have you, then we can discuss with her, we can discuss it with DOJ, and it'll be a collaborative process. This is what's meant to be a collaborative agreement in order to address Commissioner Carollo: That's my understanding when I started reading her duties, but when I read on number 29, the last sentence, it doesn't -- it's not -- it doesn't appear to me as that way. It says, 1f Miami Police Department and DOJ disagree on an aspect of a policy that is relevant to this agreement, the Independent Reviewer shall resolve the dispute. "So that takes her away from that intermediary. It seems to me like she will say, Flet', this is who's right. "So, again, that's why Igo back to my original questioning with how she was chosen, because, again, it's -- I mean, it's a very important position. It could be whether we go to court or not. It could be whether we continue to spend dollars on this agreement. It could be whether we terminate early or not. She has a lot of power, so that's why I'm -- I would like to know a little bit more. I would like to know with regards -- Mr. Alfonso: Commissioner, that is the concept oflndependent Reviewer; she does have independence. We will work with her. We will try to reach an agreement with DOJ. She will City ofMiami Page 27 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 provide reports, but it is an Independent Reviewer. Commissioner Carollo: Understood understood, but it seems to me like she's an Independent Reviewer, and at the same time, she is the -- Ms. Mendez: An intermediary, for lack of a better word. Commissioner Carollo: -- intermediary. Ms. Mendez: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: So I'm saying, can you do both? Ms. Mendez: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cit) Manager, do you have any objection to -- I believe -- I'm going to find her name, because I don't want to -- it's Jane Castor. Do you have any objection to Jane Castor serving as the Independent Reviewer in this? Mr. Alfonso: No, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, in your experience with Ms. Jane Castor, or your review of her background, do you have any objection to Ms. Jane Castor? Ms. Mendez: No objections. I actually spoke to a lot of people that have worked with her, and we did a lot of research as to her abilities. Nationally, she's involved in so many different o pes of think tanks having to do with policing. She was -- when we met her, we were excited at the opportunio) to work with her, so. Chair Hardemon: Has she proven herself to be someone who is not only independent as required, but someone that is polarized in one way or the other; someone who is pro police or pro -constituencies? Or is she someone that is -- that decides cases on a fact -by fact basis? Ms. Mendez: She seemed very fair, and just very open to both sides and -- which is, I think, what we need just a fair and impartial person. Chair Hardemon: And how many names would you proffer that you did not agree on before you came to an agreeance with Ms. Jane Castor? Ms. Mendez: About 10 to 12. Chair Hardemon: And when you came to an agreeance on Ms. Jane Castor, and the 10 to 12 names you did not come to agreeance with, were there any other names that you did not consider? Ms. Mendez: We pretty much considered all those people who do this o pe of work; and it's a small pool, I mean, preto) much, nationally. George W)�song: George Wj�song, Assistant City Attorney. Commissioner Gort: Pick the mike up. Mr. W)�song: One of the concerns -- Commissioner Gort: George, bring the mike up. City ofMiami Page 28 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. W)�song: --from the beginning was that -- and by the way, this was a mutual decision. We had proffered many names to the United States Department of Justice, and they preto) much rejected them all. They gave us a list of names, and we spoke to each of those individuals. The names they gave us, by and large, were your big-time professional monitoring companies; the ones that are currently doing the Cit) of Seattle, the Cit) of Portland, where they have teams come in. And our concern was that some of those monitoring agreements end up costing cities and towns and counties excess of millions of dollars a year. So we expressed to the Department of Justice that we want the best qualified person, but the person -- and a person that can deal with the United States Department of Justice, but that will not bankrupt the City of Miami, because as you see throughout the country, there's these agreements: Seattle, $1.6 million. It's estimated in Ferguson, it'll be 1.7 to 3.5. There's a dispute over those rumors, but they're big money. And so we were surprised, actually, that they liked Ms. Castor. And I believe they reached out to some of the community-based organizations who called the Department of Justice, and spoke with the Department of Justice sometimes more frequently than I did, and it was the DOJ's understanding that they liked Ms. Castor, and so -- and I actually, kiddingly, expressed to the Department of Justice that I was a little concerned about Ms. Castor by the fact that they liked her. I wasn't sure if I did enough due diligence. Why does the Department of Justice like Chief Castor? But as we reached out, we spoke to her, we spoke to other individuals, and -- she's a retired chief of police from Tampa. She's doing work for the Department of Justice now on safe streets in certain communities, and things like that; so we thought, at the end of the day, that she was the best candidate for the position. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. And let me also point out, I'm asking these questions not anything about Ms. Castor. The reason I'm asking is because I really -- listen, she, if she is put in this position, has a lot of power with regards to, you know, what we should should not do; are we doing it; are we not, should we do it a different way? Even ifyou look at substantial compliance, it says -- it's defined as "City has achieved compliance with most or all components of the relevant provisions of this agreement." But at the same time, you saw how in the past -- few minutes ago, I mentioned how we need to do all. So I just -- the ambiguities, and I want to make sure this person is the proper person for the job; how she was selected, and so we don't prolong something that doesn't need to be prolonged. If we are fixed and we fix the problem, we could, you know, move forward, which is what we all want to happen. And you clearly had stated how, in other places, you know, they've bankrupted the cit), and I'm not saying this will, but at the same time, I want to make sure we're cautious with that. Mr. W)�song: Mr. Chair, could I just comment on one thing? Consider the agreement more like a punch list. When the Chief said "substantial compliance, " they're not going to look at substantial compliance with the agreement in total. The way we're going -- how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. There are action items on the list, and we will endeavor to eliminate those action items one by one, the ones that we can. There are some that will be slightly more challenging than others, but that's how we will achieve substantial compliance on each of those action items; and that will be the conclusion of the agreement, once we have achieved and maintained compliance for that period of one year. Commissioner Carollo: Understood I just don't -- I just want to make sure that everyone's interpretation is the same, because there could be difference of interpretations, and that's where -- are we in compliance or not? Are we significantly in compliant or not? And then it seems to me like, at least with regards to this -- with policy, she's the one who says, Yes, this is the way you're supposed to do it. This is the way you have to do it. " And we're bound by whatever she says to this agreement. City ofMiami Page 29 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. W)�song: Right. Commissioner Carollo: With that said, let me move on to compliance coordinator, and, again, with regards to financial. Chief, do you anticipate that the compliance coordinator -- I know it has to be someone already within the Miami Police Department. Do you anticipate that this will just be an additional duty on someone, or do you foresee that this person's just going to be working on this, and then we will have to bring in someone else to do that person's duties? Do you understand my question? Chief Llanes: Yes. I estimate it'll take between two and three people to compile and keep track of the documents and the requirements to satisfy the agreement. I already have a structure in place that I am going to assign those people to. Once we have the monitoring plan in place, then I will move those resources there in order to gather the documentation and communicate with the monitor -- with the Independent Reviewer in order to facilitate the movement of documents and/or any questions. Commissioner Carollo: So you're saying you're going to have two or three full-time persons? Chief Llanes: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Which goes again to what I'm saying. Resources that are not patrolling our streets and so forth, so that's why I would like to -- if we are in compliance, significant compliance, we have done what we are supposed to do, and we're moving forward, and all of our issues are solved, I don't want to take more time than it needs to, because in all fairness, that's two or three bodies that, you know, could be out patrolling, and I said bodies, 'but obviously, law enforcement officers, and I mean it with all due respect. So I -- when I originally read this, it seemed like it was going to be one person as the sole -- single point of the contact with the DOJ and the Independent Reviewer. So you're saying two or three? Chief Llanes: There's going to be one point of contact, but there's going to need to belabor involved in collecting documents and scheduling meetings, and doing all of the things that, ministerially, we need to do to put forth a report for the monitor to then send her report to DOJ. So it's going to take more than one person. I don't know if it's two or three. It would depend on the amount of -- volume of work that happens as this agreement develops. Commissioner Carollo: And that goes to back, again, the importance of the independent monitor's position, because she could request either a lot more, or she could be, you know, satisfied with what's being done. Well, I didn't know it was going to be possibly two or three. Let me ask you about another one. In 43 -- and I agree with most of this, but I still want to point it out to you. First-line supervisors of patrol and of the TOS ("Tactical Operations Section) units. It stipulates that no more than five to eight officers per first-line supervisors. I could see patrol, but somewhere like the Tactical Operations Section, I'm sure they're probably a little bit more focused there. I know SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams usually have 10 members. Does that mean that you have to put two sergeants now for one team or (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Chief Llanes: Well, we're different in that oPe of element, because you also have a lieutenant, so you have a supervisoty structure on a deployment. But, basically, what the agreement in the negotiations to get to that article was that they wanted specific span of control for specific elements of the Police Department; more stringent on tactical units than other units. We came to an agreement. There was long negotiations. So we came to that number to give the City, us, some flexibilio) between five and eight to maintain proper supervision for tactical units and patrol officers. Commissioner Carollo: Understood understood. And definitely in patrol, I agree, and even City ofMiami Page 30 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 tactical, to a certain degree, but like I mentioned, like SRT, SWAT. You have -- and now we have a full-time team, correct? So how big is that team? How many members are in the team? Chief Llanes: Ten. Commissioner Carollo: Ten. What -- Chief Llanes: One lieutenant, one sergeant, and nine officers. Commissioner Carollo: Which is what I thought. So you consider the lieutenant --or at least, DOJ will consider a lieutenant also first-line supervisor? Chief Llanes: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay, good enough. And question with regards to labor, do you know if we're already implementing this in the whole Police Department, or do we need to hire more first-line supervisors in order to meet this? Chief Llanes: We are currently in compliance with that ratio. Commissioner Carollo: So we're in compliance with this ratio? Chief Llanes: Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Good. I don't have anything else right now, Mr. Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Good morning, everyone. This is an incredibly important issue, and we're here for reasons, historically, that the DOJ has focused on the City, and it's -- I think it's important to note that it's not a perfect agreement, but it's not the end all, be all either. This is the start This is the floor of the possibilities of what we can do as a city to ensure that the trust of the public is being honored, and, God forbid, a major situation, such as a Ferguson, comes about that we have done our due diligence, that we are prepared, that we are transparent, that the right processes will be in place, and that we're practicing the right --that our force is practicing the right efforts to make sure that a incorrect use of deadly force is not -- does not happen. Everything seems fine right now, because we don't have that situation in front of us, thank God But I'm very glad that we are being compliant with the DOJ. I have good faith in our Chief, who I spoke with yesterday about this, and the practices that he's putting in place. But it is very important -- and so it's a little surprising to me that this was on the consent agenda, because consent agenda is kind of the place for the rubberstamping of things that are preto) inconsequential or kind of a given. Just the fact of the amount of people that came to speak to us, and even within our own Commission -- on our own board here recognizes that there's a lot to be considered and said, and I'd like to thank the public for coming and bringing the recommendations. I did hear from one of my colleagues, Commissioner Suarez, that there is a potential appetite to introduce some changes, and thatpossibly, since these changes from our side are going above and beyond what was required of the DOJ that they might be able to be implemented without delaying the process or causing any undue problem, and one of those suggestions was to create an advisory panel, if I'm not mistaken. I mean, I -- when I first came into office, I went to visit the CIP, the Civilian Investigative Panel, and I met with Mr. Aguirre there, and I have to say, I -- for an important panel such as this, I walked into a building that needed love, and I walked into a room that was -- I didn't feel the power of a panel with strength. The people there, I could see the quality of the people that are serving, but it -- in -- you know, it City ofMiami Page 31 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 just-- it didn't seem to have the empowerment that it should,- that would give the public the confidence that our Civilian investigative Panel has the tools they need. And even the Herald spoke about this a little over a year ago. And I remember in our meeting, there was a tree on the table, a Bonsai tree that was just dead and wilted and withering, and it was symbolic to me of something that needs some water and love, and that's something that I'm dedicating to help revitalize, along with the Communio) Relations Board, which came about for a reason. I mean, that came about, historically, from one of the worst times that caused such tension between our police force and civilians. And so I would be dedicated to appointing and strengthening that board to make sure that they have a voice with this Commission, that they are active, and seeking to do so. Beyond that, if there is a specific item that anyone on the board feels that we should be adding to the language, I'm open to it. I'm very thankful that our resident accountant is watching closely, because he's absolutely right. This will cost the City, and it's good to point out how much it's going to cost the City, and what we sacrifice amongst force us for expending on this, butt would like to offer my opinion that l feel it's a worthwhile expenditure. It's worth investing in the peace of mind of the community;, and making sure that we have a system of checks and balances; that we trust our Administration, that we trust our police force, but that we're taking all the steps we can to give the best accountability and transparency that's possible. Regarding the monitor, I recognize that there was mention in the public that they wish that there was a monitor from the community and within, and I recognize the need for an external monitor, and it seems that they've done the due diligence. And I'm actually glad that this is the DOJ's person and not our person so that it can never be said that this monitor is biased to our position. We're going to be held to someone else's standards; and when we do meet their measuring mark and we get, you know, the grades we need to get and, hopefully, even end the agreement early for having complied for over a year substantially that there won't be any question, and so I'm confident with that. So with that being said, I am open to passing this as is, and working very diligently, and I'll be bringing a discussion item on both the CIP and the CRB for the next agenda that we can, you know, research between now and then; think about ways to improve that. But I'm also -- if there's a specific request from anyone to make a specific change, I'll entertain that as well from my side of the -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, second for discussion. Is that a motion? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, I will move it. Commissioner Suarez: Second for discussion. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to -- Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: --pass -- Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: -- CA.5 as it is today; seconded by Commissioner Francis Suarez. I'm recognizing -- continue with discussion, Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I got a question. How long are we being negotiated with the GOT [sic] -- with the Department of Justice? For how long have we been working on this? Ms. Mendez: We've been working on this almost -- close to four years, but three and a half, since 2013, in negotiations. Commissioner Gort: Okay. My understanding is, this -- after four years of sitting down and City ofMiami Page 32 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 negotiating with DOJ, we come up with this document here which tells us what the police needs to do to be in compliance with their requirement and to make sure that we don't have the problems that we've had in the past. Am I correct? My understanding is this agreement is giving the Police Department work to be done, to be changed, and to be complied with. Now the person that's going to be administering this is a person who's independent, and that their job is to make sure when the police or we, the Cit) of Miami, give a report, that that report is accurate; that it's according to what they see, and it's accurate, okay? That's my understanding of the interpretation of this agreement. Now, my understanding is from several conversation that I had with several people, just about anybody here can call DOJ and talk to them. DOJ, I mean, everybody here can talk to them, and I know they talk to everyone; they've talked to the residents, so any complaint -- anyone that feels that it's not being in compliance, they can call and let them know. I mean, that happens all the time. People here from the City of Miami, from different department can call and talk to them and give a complaint. Number two, I agree with the CIP changes. My understanding, you were not here, but there was a report that was done by a group of independent individual making recommendations and changes that need to be done in CIP. I agree with it. My understanding is they're going to come tons asking for that. I think the CIP has to be completely independent. I agree with that. And the only way it can be independent is if the budget is not designated by us strictly; and if the people they hire, the attorney and investigators hired by them. I think that's very important. And what I feel about the CIP, it represents Flagami, Allapattah, Little Havana, and Grapeland because I've named two individual from my community to be part of the CIP, because this is going to be for the whole City of Miami. I mean, the -- all the residents of the Cit) of Miami is our concern. I don't care what neighborhood they come from; it's our concern, in any neighborhood. So I agree with the motion; I will vote for it, but I also need to make the changes. Who's going to be the individuals going to be supervising or looking at the job; being CRP [sic], or whatever you guys decide to. I don't want to change this, because it's taken us four years to get here. Any changes in here can make a difference. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I want to make a comment before we move on. The Independent Auditor [sic], to me, always has to be someone that is unbiased and that's why I was asking the question earlier about is she pro police, is she pro -constituencies. I firmly believe that, just like on any other body, if there's a preservation board -- Historic Preservation Board, for instance -- I would not appoint a preservationist, because I believe that you are polarizing that committee. What we should have are preservationists that may give advice to that board. However, the persons who are there should be individuals who are middle-of-the-road people so that they hear the concerns of the communio) , they hear the concerns of the professionals, and they make an decision that is in the best interest of whomever it is that -- they make their decision based off of those recommendations, rather. And so here, I see it the same way. You do a disservice to the City of Miami if someone is pro police, and you do a disservice to the people of the Cit) of Miami if someone is pro -constituencies, without considering all the facts that come before us. So as long as the persons that we are hiring, and as I understand, is -- as long as that person is the middle-of-the-road and considers all the evidence before them and is unbiased and fair, then it all makes sense to me. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: I want to recognize Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: You know, I'll yield to the Commissioner -- Chair Hardemon: Carollo. Commissioner Suarez: -- because it looks like he wants to jump in. Go ahead, Commissioner. City ofMiami Page 33 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Two quick things. First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, my questions (UNINTELLIGIBLE) do not get misinterpreted. I truly understand someone independent, and that's part of the reason why I'm asking how was this person chosen. That's actually part of the reason, because I don't know. I don't know if there was a pool, or what was the process. I don't know. So that's part of the reasons that, you know, I was asking, and I had that serious of questions. I know the Independent Auditor; I know his background, and I know the process that we went through for that. Asa matter of fact, I asked this Commission to redo the process, because I didn't think it was good enough the first time, and we started a whole new process, so -- but I wasn't sure, in a position of this importance, what was the process; how was this person chosen. With that said, I want to ask the Cit) Attorney, if I would make a friendly amendment, does that -- that still would need to go to the DOJ, correct? And the friendly amendment is -- Listen, we do have a Civilian Investigative Panel. I think it should be mentioned that the City of Miami also has a Civilian Investigative Panel that is currently there and is operating, operating properly. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be in there, and that would be a friendly amendment, unless you're telling me, Madam City Attorney, that having language such as that is going to change everything in the agreement, or is going to have difficulties with the DOJ agreeing to it, and I don't foresee that. I think that's a friendly amendment that should be done. Ms. Mendez: The -- any amendments to this contract at this time -- this agreement would probably spark other changes that would be requested, and then we no longer have an agreement that all the parties and the communio) has looked at. You know, it happened with Ferguson; that they added conditions to the agreement when it came to Commission; and the next week, the DOJ was suing them. So this agreement has taken about three and a half years to come to f uition, to come to this point. The CIP is an amazing body, but it also has a lot of ver)� vocal communio) activists. I want to say that Ms. Dawson and Ms. Baker are forces to be reckoned with. They're forces of nature. They access, are able to call, and put forth all of their opinions. I think they met with DOJ more than I did. So I will tell you, they are an amazing group; they keep the process honest, but they don't necessarily have to be a party to this agreement, or mentioned in this agreement, because they are part of the Charter; they're here to stay, and they will do what they need to do to make sure that the communio) is involved and active, just because of the people in the community they have backing them. I know that Renita has no problem calling someone to voice her concerns. So it shouldn't be something that we need to amend this agreement now at this time from the dais. No matter how innocuous an amendment may look, it just shifts things a different way. So I would request that it be passed as is and -- Commissioner Carollo: Follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. So -- I mean, from what you said, you -- it seems like you're preto) set that we should pass it as is. And with that, let me put something on the record. Passing this agreement as is, would it change any of the powers, or would it change our current CIP, Civilian Investigative Panel system as we currently have it? Ms. Mendez: Not at all. Commissioner Carollo: It will not, correct? Okay. Commissioner Gort: Hopefully, after we bring it back next month, it'll be very independent. Commissioner Carollo: Right. City ofMiami Page 34 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gort: And that's what we need to do; make sure that they're independent. Commissioner Carollo: Understood but right now, this agreement, leaving it as is, will not -- Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized. Ms. Mendez: No. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me --please. So I just want to say -- and hopefully, we wrap it up after this --this is part of the healing process. The Department of Justice and this agreement is part of us healing from some of the things that occurred in 2010, 2011. The CIP has also been healing. We have taken up several issues related to the CIP, its governance, its structure, and its specific membership, and its specific employees, and that process has not been finalized either. So I, obviously, have -- would have no objection, personally, to see the CIP mentioned and recognized in this agreement. However, I don't think it's worth -- I don't see -- I don't know if {4orth'is the right word. I don't think it's --you know, if the fragility of the agreement is at issue, potentially at issue, then we should be very cautious and careful. I like the Vice Chairman's advice, and I also like the suggestion particularly of Ms. Dawson, that former Commissioner Katy Sorenson be very involved in this process, and I would welcome her and ask her, because her -- we're always -- her and I are always debating how do we get good government initiative to go from teaching and mentoring to being involved in practical solutions, and I think this is one good way for them to do that. But I do go back to paragraph 65, where it says that the Cii)v "may" use the Community Relations Board, but that also leaves the door open for other potential organizations to fill the communii)v oversight role. And I think it would be a little bit premature. This is just my --I know --we agree 99 percent of the time. We may disagree at ]percent. I think it might be a little premature to substitute CIP before we -- Ms. Baker: That was -- Commissioner Suarez: I know, I know, I know, I know. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. Chair Hardemon: We have to -- Commissioner Suarez: I know that. I know that. Chair Hardemon: --have decorum. Commissioner Suarez: I just think we need to finalize the healing process of the CIP at least by and through the ordinance. I understand the Charter process is a more involved longer process, but I think at least once we finalize the ordinance and see it functioning in the way that it's intended to function, the way we all want it to function, the way we've all been working towards its functionality, I think that will go to the Vice Chairman's concern that we -- and I think he's right -- that we need to monitor as well. We need to monitor the CIP, continue, and I like, you know, Commissioner Gort's strong stance on that. We need to monitor how we -- our Police Department. I agree with Commissioner Carollo that, you know, we need to monitor the Independent Auditor, and the expenses involved in this process as well. But, again, I think the fragility and the work that's been done -- and I understand you had conversations -- independent conversations with them, but at this point, I think the -- Ms. Baker: Could I have 10 seconds? City ofMiami Page 35 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Gort: Stop. Come on. Chair Hardemon: No, I'll explain it to you. Ms. Baker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) accept it. Chair Hardemon: Public -- Commissioner Gort: No. Chair Hardemon: I understand that. The public comment has ended. It's time for the Commissioners to discuss this. We've been discussing -- Ms. Baker: I understand (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- could I -- Chair Hardemon: Hear me out. Hear me out. You don't know what I'm about to say. Please hear me out. If any of the Commissioners have a direct question to you, they're more than welcome to ask you a question. If they don't feel that they a question that needs to be answered by you, then you are not allowed to speak. Ms. Baker: I hear you. The question that I would hope -- would be about the fragilio) . Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to hear it, if that's okay? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I'd be more than happy to hear it; 10 seconds. Ms. Baker: I spoke to the DOJ senior litigation -- Chair Hardemon: Announce your name for the record, please. Ms. Baker: I'm sorry, sir? Chair Hardemon: Announce your name for the record, please. Ms. Baker: Of course. Jeanne Baker, on behalf of the Coalition andACLU. I have been assured that if the Cit) is willing -- and, of course, at the Commissioners' vote -- to add in a reference to the CIP, DOJ will not seek to change anything else. They have -- they think it's final; they are happy with the agreement, but they'd also be happy to have the CIP's existence recognized. Chair Hardemon: We remember you said that earlier. Commissioner Gort: So it's been -- there's been discussing with them for a longtime, so they've been part of the agreement there. Come on. Vice Chair Russell: CIP is part of the agreement? Commissioner Gort: No. They (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Ms. Baker: Well, it isn't, unfortunately, part of the written agreement. Commissioner Suarez: They've been part of the process. Chair Hardemon: Right, I understand that. I understand that. Madam City Attorney, what I hear -- we call that "hearsay" in the court of law. We call that something that is a statement that City ofMiami Page 36 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 is made by someone outside the presence of the intended listener. So one thing is that if there was a DOJperson right here before me who had authority to sign this document that said that you cannot add -- or we will not add, then that's one thing. You don't have that person here before me; that just, to me, makes things unnerving for me. And I will say, I do not question your integrity, whatsoever, in your statement to me. So, I mean, what you have to say, I take it with all full respect. However, that person who then has an -- ink this document could come and say something completely different, and could clearly say -- I was just before a judge just recently, and the person who was on the phone said, `I did not say that," and I could not believe --that was the reason why we came, just because the person said that. So here we are ata time where we have that O pe of -- Ms. Baker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So that's just --that's all that I'm saying. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: I don't mean to be flippant on this issue, because I think this is a serious issue, but it sort of reminds me of the movie M)t Cousin Vinny, 'Where the judge tells the attorney, "The next words out ofyour mouth better be 'guilt)' or 'not guilt). "' And then -- and My Cousin Tunny says, `I think l understand. " He says, "No, you don't. You're in contempt. " Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Commissioner Suarez: So -- Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman, and then I'll recognize the Mayor. Vice Chair Russell: By the same thoughts on hearsay, though, what our City Attorney is telling us is that if we make any changes, we derail the whole thing. Commissioner Suarez: Possibly. Chair Hardemon: Good point. Vice Chair Russell: And is she able to make that assessment as well? Isn't that also sort of hearsay, what the DOJ's follow-up action will be? Chair Hardemon: No, no, don't get tied up in the whole hearsay issue. What you should -- what the City Attorney is saying to you is that, "Listen, there's precedence for how they act." And they've seen in other cities where they've made amendments to the agreement at the Commission level, and the DOJ responded not in kind, but in suing that city, so we elevate this to a higher degree. So the question is, is the benefit of adding a mention of the CIP in it worth the risk of being sued by the DOJ? And that, to me, is a "no. " That's the balancing test that I will give this situation: Is it worth that risk? This is a document that will continue to lead us towards where we need to be as a cit), and how we police our communities. This document is something that everyone within our community can read, can understand. This document guarantees that -- well, it provides to our communio) a roadmap that says, "This this is how policing should handle here, and how we should respond when there are tragedies within our communio) . " And we, as a Commission, should fully intend to exercise this document to the best interest not only of our city, but of our community, because at times, those are at odds. And so I'm confident in where we are. I'm happy that we aren't in a position where we are being sued by the Department of Justice. I think that is something that this cit) should applaud and be thankful for; but now that we are City ofMiami Page 37 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 here where we are, not notwithstanding what happened in the past, we need to have our eye focused on how we continue to police our communities. This document shows tome that DOJ had some confidence in where the Cit) of Miami is going, but it also does not preclude them from suing us in the future if there is some allegation in practice that is against the Constitution of these United States ofAmerica. And so that's -- the balancing test that I stated earlier is what I'm most concerned about. And I want to allow the Mayor to speak briefly before we come to some vote on this. Mayor Regalado: I'll be done in two minutes, but I just wanted to reiterate the private conversation that I had with the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, when she was here in Miami. Twice she said, you know, "We like the agreement as is. " I don't know how forceful is that, but she said it twice, as well as the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Ferrer, so I think that that's kind of a roadmap for the Commission. The other thing is that the CIP is the only board in the Cit); of Miami that was created by the voters of the Cit); of Miami, and it was because of the situation in the African-American community and the police, and the Elian riots. It was a consequence of the Elian riot. How important is the CIP? I really do believe that it's one of the most important citizens' board that we have in the City, and it's up to us to elevate the CIP. So I just wanted to again say that I'm kind of nervous about adding things. I wasn't part of the conversation. I did met [sic] with Mr. Ferrer several times, and the Manager, and him about the agreement, but I think it's something that we need to do. The other thing is, I would ask the union, because it's part of this whole equation, and the union also have an opinion, I understand, about this settlement. So I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if you allow the union president to -- Chair Hardemon: You can yield your time to him to express his sentiments. Javier Ortiz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Javier Ortiz, president of the Miami Fraternal Order of Police. We're in full agreement. We're in full support of this agreement. There's somethings that may influence our terms and conditions in employment. I have no --how do I say this? I have total confidence that we'll be able to work it out. The Cit) Attorney's Oce has done an outstanding job. As far as the communication with the U.S. Department of Justice and our Collective Bargaining Unit, I went to Washington; I met with all the players. We've been in constant communication. In regards to the concern about who is sitting on the board -- or I'm sorry -- who's going to be the person monitoring, there were a lot of questions that were asked from everyone. The only question -- the only thing that we asked was that it was not someone that was either working or from the -- our past Administrations, because I thought there would be a vested interest there or a conflict of interest. But we are very much part of that process just giving that information out. And again, we are fully confident that, you know, working with the DOJ, working with the City Attorney's Oce, we can reach a resolution. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Is there any last unreadiness or discussion from the dais? Vice Chairman -- Vice Chair Russell: Sorry. Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: -- you're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Just a question for the Cit) Attorney. You had mentioned that the monitor that was chosen, Jane Castor, was a recommendation from the DOJ, is that correct? Ms. Mendez: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: So the Tampa Tribune has an article quoting Jane Castor, saying her name was pulled out of the hat because she said she knows the Miami Police Chief, and he recommended her. Could anyone speak to that to clarify? Becausejust -- I just wanted to make sure -- because Commissioner Carollo's question was very specific, because his concerns of the City ofMiami Page 38 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 choosing of this consultant, this monitor, is vett' important to know their bias or their -- which part it came from. And I spoke that I was vett' much in favor of the fact that she was chosen by the DOJ, actually, but I just wanted to perhaps hear what -- if anyone could comment on what the Tribune had reported. Chief Danes: I do know Chief Castor from professional associations. Chair Hardemon: Announce yourself for the record, please. Chief Llanes: Oh, sorry. Rodolfo Danes, Chief of Police. I do know Jane Castor from professional associations, but it wasn't a recommendation from me. It was a tabled item that came, and so that's how it came to be. Vice Chair Russell: Understood Chief Danes: So there may be some -- Vice Chair Russell: So when the Tribune reports you recommended her, it means you vouched for her, but it wasn't your recommendation that brought her to the table ? Chief Danes: But I believe it was -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood Thank you. Chief Danes: -- that she would be a qualified monitor. Vice Chair Russell: That was -- that clarified it. Thank you vevy much. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. You can't believe ever)�thing you read in the paper nowadays. Commissioner Gort: Call the question. Chair Hardemon: So the question -- Vice Chair Russell: I'm sovr)�; was there an amendment on the floor? Chair Hardemon: There was not an amendment. Commissioner Gort: No. Commissioner Carollo: No. Chair Hardemon: The question has been called. All in favor of this -- of approving this as is, speak so by saying 5)ye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motions passes. Commissioner Gort: Now, I want to make sure that all the Commissioners that appointed individuals to the CIP, which is vett' important, okay? Unidentified Speaker: Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: Thank you. City ofMiami Page 39 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 CA.6 RESOLUTION 16-00238 District 2- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WAIVING THE PERMIT Commissioner Ken FEES FOR THE USE OF PORTABLE STAGES AND THE PERMIT FEES FOR Russell THE USE OF DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 38-74(A) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "SAME - ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED", FOR THE MIAMI TASTE OF BRICKELL FOOD AND WINE FESTIVAL TO BE HELD FROM MARCH 18, 2016 THROUGH MARCH 19, 2016 AT BRICKELL PARK. 16-00238 Legislation.pdf Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be WITHDRAWN PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez END OF CONSENT AGENDA Chair Hardemon: We're moving on now to the consent agenda, and as I understand it, there are -- there's one item now that needs to be pulled from the consent agenda, and that's CA. S. We'll pull consent CA. S from the consent agenda for discussion, but other than that, is there a motion to approve -- no? Commissioner Gort: It's CA. 6. Chair Hardemon: CA.6 was withdrawn. Commissioner Gort: Withdrawn, okay. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Commissioner Gort: And you want to take aside CS.S [sic]? Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved to accept evevy item, CA.1 through CA. 4. Is there any unreadiness? Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Chair, I will need a motion and a second. Chair Hardemon: I'll second it. Commissioner Carollo: Move it. Chair Hardemon: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, motion passes. The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. SECOND READING ORDINANCES SRA ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-01657 Department ofPublic AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER Works 54/ARTICLE V/SECTION 54-190 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, City ofMiami Page 40 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS/BASE BUILDING LINES/NONSTANDARD STREET WIDTHS", BY MODIFYING THE WIDTH OF NORTHEAST/NORTHWEST 9TH STREET BETWEEN NORTHEAST 1ST AVENUE TO NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, NORTH MIAMI AVENUE TO NORTHWEST 1 ST AVENUE (EAST) AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE TO INTERSTATE 95, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-01657 Summary Form SR.pdf 15-01657 Memos with Location Map.pdf 15-01657 Back -Up from Law Dept.pdf 15-01657 Legislation FR/SR.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item SR.1 was deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting. END OF SECOND READINGS ORDINANCES FIRST READING ORDINANCES FRA ORDINANCE First Reading 16-00089 City Manager's Office AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 10/ARTICLE IV OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED, 'REGISTRATION OF VACANT, BLIGHTED, UNSECURED OR ABANDONED STRUCTURES', TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES BY MORTGAGEES; DEFINING TERMS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT, AS WELLAS THE REGULATION, LIMITATION AND REDUCTION OF REGISTRABLE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 16-00089 Summary Form SR.pdf 16-00089 Legislation SR (v2).pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item FR.1 was deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting. END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS REA RESOLUTION 15-01636 City ofMiami Page 41 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE GREEN CORRIDOR PACE DISTRICT TO EXPAND ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCING OF QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI. 15-01636 Back -Up from Law Dept.pdf 15-01636 Pre-Legislation.pdf 15-01636 Legislation.pdf 15 -01636 -Submittal -Victoria Mendez-Ygrene Financing Agreement Section 8.pdf 15 -01636 -Submittal -Commissioner Carollo-Addendum Notice of Rights.pdf SPONSORS: HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item RE.1 was deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting in addition to being assigned a 3: 00 p. m. time certain designation. RE.2 RESOLUTION 16-00047 Department of TO BE DEFERRED BY THE ADMINISTRATION Procurement A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE ASSIGNMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF SOUTHLAND THE TOWING COMPANY UNDER THE CITY OF MIAMI TOWING/WRECKER AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS CONTRACT NO. 04-05-054R, TO AMERICAN TOWING OF MIAMI, LLC; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH AMERICAN TOWING OF MIAMI, LLC, FOR THE PROVISION OF TOWING SERVICES, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN RESOLUTION NO. 07-0335, ADOPTED ON JUNE 14, 2007, AND THE ATTACHED ACCEPTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT. 16-00047 Summary Form 3-24-16.pdf 16-00047 Corporate Detail 3-24-16.pdf 16-00047 Pre -Legislation 3-24-16.pdf 16-00047 Legislation 3-24-16.pdf 16-00047 Exhibit 3-24-16.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item RE.2 was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. RE.3 RESOLUTION 16-00074 City ofMiami Page 42 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Department ofPublic A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING A TRIAL AGREEM ENT FROM CLEARWORLD, LLC. TO EVALUATE CERTAIN PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR POWERED STREETLIGHTS TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTHWEST 1 ST COURT AND SOUTHWEST 1 ST STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID TRIALAGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MIAMI. 16-00074 Summary Form.pdf 16-00074 Legislation.pdf 16-00074 Exhibit.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item RE.3 was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. END OF RESOLUTIONS BUDGET BU.1 BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00055 Office of Management MONTHLY REPORT and Budget I. SECTION 2-497 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES (RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET) II. SECTION 18-502 (CITY'S ANTI -DEFICIENCY ACT) III. SECTION 18-542 (FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES) 16-00055 Summary Form.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item BU.1 was deferred to the March 11, 2016Regular Commission Meeting. END OF BUDGET DISCUSSION ITEMS DIA DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00058 Offrce of Grants PRESENTATION BY THE ADMINISTRATION ADVISING THE CITY Administration COMMISSION ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES WITHIN THE YGRENE IMPLEMENTATION. City ofMiami Page 43 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 16-00058 - PACE Presentation. pdf 16 -00058 -Submittal -Commissioner Carollo-Addendum Notice of Rights.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DT I was deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting in addition to being assigned a 3: 00 p. m. time certain designation. DI.2 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00093 Department of NET PRESENTATION BY NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT TEAM (NET) Administration ADMINISTRATION. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DT 2 was deferred to the March 11, 2016 Regular Commission Meeting. DI.3 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00243 District 3- DISCUSSION REGARDING ISSUING THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 FINANCIAL Commissioner Frank STATEMENTS ON TIME. Carollo 16-00243 E -Mail - Discussion Item.pdf DISCUSSED Commissioner Carollo: We're back to the original or the -- Commissioner Gort: Motion to adjourn. Commissioner Carollo: -- general agenda items? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I believe, if I'm the Chair in this moment, I -- Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Commissioner Gort, did you want to address your pocket item real quick? Commissioner Gort: My pocket item is something that I really like to --do to it. It's a -- I don't want to do it now. It's a little longer. It's 1:52. I would like to have the motion to defer. Vice Chair Russell: Great. Motion. Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): Commissioner Gort, then we can place your pocket item as an actual agenda item on March 11 ? Commissioner Gort: Yes. DIA DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00228 City ofMiami Page 44 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 City Commission DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY (MSEA) ORDINANCE. 16-00228 Back -Up Documents from Law Dept.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DI4 was deferred to the March 11, 2016Regular Commission Meeting. DI.5 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00152 District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATE OF 3-1-1. Commissioner Ken Russell 16-00152 E -Mail - Discussion Item.pdf 16-00152 - 311 Presentation. pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DIS was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. DI.6 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00237 District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING STATE OF CONTAMINATED CITY PARKS. Commissioner Ken Russell 16-00237 E -Mail - Discussion Item.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DT was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. DI.7 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00235 District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY GRAND JURY'S Commissioner Ken REPORT CONCERNING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES. Russell 16-00235 Grand Jury Report.pdf 16 -00235 -Submittal -Vice Chair Russell -Memo from FAU.pdf 16 -00235 -Submittal -District 5 -FRA Messaging Guide.pdf 16 -00235 -Submittal -District 5 -FRA Email.pdf City ofMiami Page 45 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 DISCUSSED Chair Hardemon: At this time, we had an 11 o'clock time certain. This is our first item that we've been able to address since we've had that time certain. That is a discussion item. I believe it is DI -- Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): DT 7, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- 7. I want to call that to --for discussion, and I would like to acknowledge from the State Attorney's Oce, Mr. Don Horn, who's here. And I'm not sure if Mr. Horn is actually giving a presentation, or he's just here to answer any questions. So ifyou could, come forward. Don Horn: The latter. Chair Hardemon: The latter, okay. All right. So then this item was sponsored by the Vice Chairman, Commissioner Ken Russell, and it's in order. You want to be recognized for a second? Commissioner Suarez: After the Vice Chair makes his comments, I'd like to say something as well. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. CRAB, communio) redevelopment agencies. There's 170 -something of them in the State of Florida, and they get quite a beating in the press, and the reputation is not golden, which is a shame because the task of these agencies is to do tremendous good. And in full disclosure, when I was campaigning, I was looking for CRA reform as one of the things that I brought about. I was studying, at least in my district, wondering why certain communities, such as the West Grove, did not have a CRA, and would that be a good thing for it; something I'd like to look into in the future. But then I started realizing there's so many problems that are reported about the CRAB; you know, how -- is it possible to fix it rather than abolish it? Is it possible to use it for what it was intended? And I was encouraged also during my campaign to hear Commissioner Xavier Suarez, as well as Daniel Levin Cabo from the Count), looking for that reform. There was an appetite for that. So when I was elected and I definitely volunteered to be the Chair of the Omni CRA, which I am now. We haven't -- have yet to have our first meeting, but in leading up to that, this Grand Jure report was issued, and for me, it's somewhat of a God -send to see a roadmap of potential suggestions come down from the State's [sic] Attorney's Oce at a timing when I was actually looking for, "Hmm, what can we do to strengthen and fix the reputation of these agencies?" They're certainly not all broken, and they're certainly not -- I believe the intention of the CRA is being honored. I think what gets us into trouble is some of the practice --some of the procedures. What they do is definitely make things more efficient for a city to take -- to care out the plan. Are we truly following that plan? Is it being monitored properly? Are we taking the best steps for transparency in involvement of the public? And the -- there were 29 recommendations that were brought about by the Grand Jure, some of which have to be carried out by the State; some of which have to be carried out at the board level of the each CRA, and perhaps, some of which we, as a Cit) Commission, could have a say in. And so I asked our City Attorney to give an opinion on which of those items, of those 29 recommendations, we could look at as a Commission. And I reached out to Professor Frank Schnidman, who wrote me back a letter, which I meant to pass around earlier, but he's here today, so I might ask him to speak in a moment as well. And I invited the State's [sic] Attorney's Oce to come, if they had any suggestions for us amongst those 29, and I guess it's partly for us to understand from our City Attorney as well what things we could look at. But most importantly, I wanted to open up the conversation with my fellow Commissioners to sort of get their impressions of the Grand Jure report, if it's been studied by them, and where we should go from here. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 46 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, thank you. First and foremost, I really want to thank the Vice Chair for bringing this issue before us. I want to thank Mr. Horn and the State Attorney and Mr. Vandergiesen for the report. I've often said as a CRA Board member --and I remember when our good Chair of Overtown was first elected -- that being a CRA Board member was one of the most frustrating parts of my job; and part of the reason why is because, particularly prior to our Chair being elected I felt that the CRA wasn't moving fast enough, particularly in some areas where, since his election, I have to admit -- and I remember the first meeting that we had, if you'll recall, Mr. Chair, where I challenged you, and I think you were kind of taken aback a little by it, but you responded very well to that, you know, and I -- I think I'm -- not only am I thankful for it, butt think the community's thankful for it, because we've seen the byproduct of that action; particularly in Overtown, where we've decided on a policy basis, to do affordable housing right away, to do rehab right away, to do job training that works right away, and I think you're starting to see the difference in Overtown, and I think that's evident by the work that you've done. You know, there are a lot of people that don't like CRAB. They don't like the concept of CRAB. They think it's social engineering, or whatever the case may be. As the Vice Chair said, they can be a force for good. They can be a force for good, if we engage. The important thing is to engage and to make good decisions, and I think -- I've read some of his comments about the Omni CRA, in particular, in the media, and I'm encouraged by the direction that he seems to want to take the Omni CRA, because I really do think that in the case of Omni, it has focused on major projects; and I think now that that has happened, I think we can use some of the resources from those projects to do what is also sorely needed in the Omni area, which is affordable housing, which we've done in Overtown. And I will say that the report makes many recommendations, many of which I agree with, if not all of them. I do think there is one further recommendation that we can make, which goes to procedures. I like the procedures that the Cit) Commission has with reference to getting the agenda five days in advance, the five-day rule; setting our meetings, you know, with a certain amount of notice and regulario) , and I think that's something that we can do better. Look, we saw this -- we just had an issue now with the Justice Department. We have an issue regarding CIP reform, which is a citizen body that is supposed to look over and -- you know, our processes. I am of the opinion that scrutiny can be very good, can be very positive; it can be something that we can use to enact positive reforms, and that's how I take it. You know, I don't take it as a criticism; I take it as constructive criticism, constructive feedback, and I think we should always be open for that, because we can always do better, we can always work harder, and -- but I am very happy with what I feel is the direction, particularly the new direction of both our CRAB, and I think that's something that we should be proud of, and that's something that we should talk about. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I would like to ask -- because there's this mysticism that comes about when you hear about Grand Jure reports. And if the Assistant State Attorney, Don Horn, could explain to us just the process of who's involved with a Grand Jure report; how the information is presented to them; if there is any counter -evidence that is presented, once they receive that information, how they come about making a decision; who writes the reports in that area, and so that we know and the communio) knows exactly what goes into a Grand Jure report. Mr. Horn: Absolutely. Good morning. My name is Don Horn, Chief Assistant State Attorney for Administration in Dade Count) State Attorney's Oce. I'm also general counsel for the Miami -Dade Count) Grand Jure, 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue. I've been doing this now, I guess, about 14 years in my capacio) as the Chief Assistant for Administration. Our Grand Jure is comprised of 21 citizens who get selected from the same roll that regular jurors get called down for either civil or criminal. They don't find out under the new system until they get here and they get called down to the courtroom that they're actually going to be questioned about serving for six months instead of possibly a couple of days. And so they come from, you name it, whatever kind of walks of life, ages, demographics, races, genders, ethnicities, et cetera We get City ofMiami Page 47 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 them selected, also, seven alternates, and sometimes we've actually gone through seven alternates because of things that come up. And during the course of what we call their "Law 101 " class to educate them about their primary responsibilio) , which is to educate them about the law relating to homicides, because their first responsibilio) is to consider evidence and make a determination as to whether there's sufficient probable cause to issue an indictment. That is their statutory obligation, because although we can charge anybody who commits a crime in Dade Count) with everything in the statute, we cannot charge first-degree murder. The law does not want to give that much power to one person. So those cases go to the Grand Jury. One of the things that we also tell them is the practice for our County is in addition to that dtio� and responsibilii)�, one of the things we have done here since the days of Ms. Reno is issue Grand Jure reports. And one of the statements that the State Attorneys usually make to them: `If you've ever, you know, looked at situations, issues, problems going on in our communities, " says, ` jou know what, if I ever had a chance to do something about this problem with" --fill in the blank -- "Well, now you've got that cpportunii)�. " How so? Because part of this process will be: The grand jurors in the room will say, Well, I think we ought to look into this. Well, no, I think we ought to look into this. Well, no, I think we ought to look into this. 'And we go through a democratic process, and they actually take a vote. Sometimes there's a winnowing process; sometimes we bring several people in on several different topics before they actually select the topic that they want to investigate. All of our Grand Jure reports are present on our website, miamisao. com, under "Publications, " and you will see that we have had topics as varied as police use of force, Tasers, mental health, housing, public housing specifically, affordable housing differently, fire safeo) in our public school systems, juvenile delinquency, parks and recreations, traffic; you name it, there's probably been a Grand Jury over the course of the last several decades that have investigated it. So, once they decide the topic they want to investigate, we go about sending out invitations to folks and asking them to come down and educate grand jurors and us about their process. Mr. Schnidman was kind enough to come down and meet with us in the State Attorney's Oce to help educate us; and again, whatever the topic is, we're getting educated too, those of us who are presenting the witnesses. So, preto) much, we bring witnesses down, and just as they do with the detectives who are presenting testimony regarding the indictments, they have the opportunio) also to ask questions of any and all of the witnesses that we bring down. They then have suggestions, recommendations about other witnesses they want to hear based on the testimony and information that they've gotten, and oftentimes, we're asking the witness on the stand, "Okay, who else can we talk to? Do you have any other recommendations we can get for other people who can educate them on the process ? "And pretoj much, we go through that process for evei)� topic on every investigation for every report that gets issued So, at the end of the day, it's not our report; it's the Grand Jure report. And just like they do on the indictments, they actually vote to accept the report, and we're going through, and we're proofing and editing, and everybody's in the room. Can you imagine 21 people going through a report? "Okay, we on page 3. Well, no, I don't think that's right, I think we need to change it. " That's the process, as daunting as that is. So that's preto) much how we end up with a report, and it's -- we -- as we say, it's the view from the representatives of this community, because they come from all over the communii)�. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. I think that's important, because what it informs us of is that it's a layman's report. Mr. Horn: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: It is someone who, just like a jury ofyour peers, is selected and who don't know much information about the law -- or perhaps does, and maybe they do. They may or may not be from particularly the boundaries of, for instance, a -- any CRA, whatsoever. And so, I say that because -- and you can have a seat. I don't have -- unless someone has questions for him, you can have a seat. But I say that because when I read the Grand Jure report, I had lots of opinions. And one thing that I've come to realize is that when CRAB were developed, like any other piece of legislation, there were those who were proponents, and there were those who were City ofMiami Page 48 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 against creating CRAB. The tone, of course, is that -- we first have to remember why they were created and everyone knows these buzz words alum and blight, 'dight? The beaux) in the statute is that it creates a vehicle in which you can creatively address slum and blight and other issues within a redevelopment area. It doesn't tell you how to do it. It tells you, you need to create a plan to do it, and to find ways to implement that plan. It's not narrow minded, and I think it was done that way; I truly believe, because you can implement a plan in, for instance, the Overtown area different than you can implement it in the Omni area and still achieve the same goal. And so, there's much discussion about many things that's been in the media, of course, regarding CRAB, but the one thing that I think has always been constant is that since it was created, there have been efforts to remove it from our way of doing things. And we have to remember that they were created because -- not because there was just slum and blight; it was created because there's been systematic -- there's been a systematic way of not investing into areas like Overtown by the Cit), by the government, by the Count), and by the State. And someone was smart enough to say, "You know, since there has been this abuse of these areas, we should invest dollars into these areas; and to ensure that this gets done, we create this community redevelopment area that will use the tax increments to reinvest into that particular area. Now -- and --for instance, in regards to something like Overtown area, it didn't create significant TIF (tax increment funds) for 30 years, and we all know that there's a life span of a CRA. And so, when that life span is coming to an end, you would hope that you've created enough TIF to actually invest into that area to make things happen. Fortunately now, you're starting to see changes in the Overtown area, because of the revenue that has been put in there. But even still today, I look at -- when I first became chairman of the CRA, the first essay, or public statement that I wrote concerning the CRA was the Count) taking away -- or you tv)4ng to use a capping ordinance, where they took away $800, 000 in revenue and did what they wanted with it, and took that directly from the TIF or the CRA area. Next, we also have to remember when we did the sharing agreement, and that was between the CRA, the Count), and the Cit). And the largest TIF producing entities in those -- in --for instance, the Overtown CRA, we had to share their revenue and --from beyond 2017. Now, share that revenue with the County and City, so you're taking more of the TIF revenue out of that area. And then I continue to hear arguments that -- the way they put it, it's been written that the CRAB divert money from the Count) and from the Cit) that can be used to be invest in other all places within the Cit) or the Count), which is, to me, just what we --just -- it's -- it is against the thought of the reasons why the CRAB were created in the first place, which was to take monies that would have been used elsewhere and spend them there in that area. And so, any time I get a report that, to me, has the potential to hinder the progress of a CRA -- and some of these recommendations, when you talk about even the procurement process, hinders the process of the CRA, and I'll show you an example. For instance, we bonded in the Southwest Overtown/Park West CRA $60 million to do what you see is going on right now: affordable housing development, with new projects of affordable housing, and some other things. And if we had to go through the o pical procurement process that the Cit) goes through or the Count) goes through, for that instance, we would not have been able to bond those dollars; we would have had to put them towards a referendum. So it took us three, four, maybe five years to get to a point where we could even bond, and when I became Chairman, my goal was to bond those issues. And what was presented tons was that capping ordinance, and they said in the Count) that they were not going to allow us to use those funds to bond. We said, as a board, "Well, we will bond what we have, " which was the City's portion, and the portion that's not in dispute, "and then sue you for the rest. " Because we chose to bond when we did, at the time when we did, we end up getting instead of $45 million, $60 million in bond proceeds, and the Count) succeeding [sic] that we -- they cannot site its and keep that portion of the capping ordinance and keep that TIF, so now we receive the full TIF. Now, the reason why I say that ifyou put this towards a referendum, it will hurt our CRAB is because of this: Ifyou are a CRA, and you decide that you want to bond another $40 million to build new development to attract people to that area, to improve upon the conditions there, you have to go through your bond procedure, which may take some time, and then once you go through all of that, say you need the referendum, the referendum may be at a time that is six months later, may or may not be, depending on when in the process you are, but imagine ifyou see a question on a document that says, "Will you bond City ofMiami Page 49 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 $60 million for development of affordable housing in Overtown?" And someone says, "Well, I'm certainly not paying for affordable housing in Overtown. We won't pay for affordable housing in Overtown. Jackson Memorial Hospital maybe; public school system maybe, but people who live in Overtown, who are driving, who are taking all of our police services, who are" -- if they had all these -- whatever negative opinions they feel, and they say, "no, " and you don't bond those dollars, then how do you effectively go about carrying out the mission of that CRA in an appropriate timeframe? You can't. And so, I say that to you all to say, there -- that is the reason why I believe that certain procurement process were left out of the CRAB, so that you can get things actually done in those areas, and you can get it done without concern of those who don't care for CRAB. There are individuals that have given thoughts and their opinions to the Grand Jury, who have adamantly written against our CRAB, adamantly written against CRAB. Put out information that I sincerely believe is misinformation, because -- and then leads a Grand Jury to come up with a report that they feel should be the opinion of the Grand Jure. And so, when you look at things like that, when you look at adding, for instance, County Commissioners to a board that is already political in and of itself, if you think that achieving three votes on a board is easy, try again. Now, if you add three members, say, for instance, from the Count, you really then begin to f zustrate the progress of that board. Imagine then if --just the level of back and forth. Imagine if, for instance, if someone doesn't have the same opinion of this Cit of Miami Commission. Imagine if -- we know that we believe in investing in Overtown, and I think that all of you who have participated within the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA have demonstrated that by issuing the bona by being therefor the ribbon -cuttings for buildings that will house food markets, and by investing in public housing, and keeping away other gentrification effects in Overtown. You've all done that. But if other people don't understand the CRA, and other people don't invest that time and energy to at least reading the statute to understand what things mean -- so, for instance, when someone says to me -- and it's printed in a newspaper, and I know you shouldn't believe everything in the newspaper, but that the -- say, for instance, the CRAB invested in blockparties. Blockparties. In Overtown, we invest in something called the Overtown Music and Arts Festival. This will be our third year, if the board grants it, doing it. And so I said to the Mayor one day. I said, "Mr. Mayor, when is the last time you've seen 5, 000 people in the streets of Overtown? " He looked at me; he said "Never. " And if you've seen -- besides the Overtown Music and Arts Festival -- 5,000 people in the streets of Overtown, raise your hand. And so, the reason that you see those 5, 000 people there is because we invest in this music and arts festival, and that music and arts festival attracts thousands of people to a community that would not necessarily -- or would not get that type of attention, because, as I've read in the papers, as I've seen in the media, and as I've learned over decades, people say, "Don't take your (expletive) to Overtown. " People are dying in streets in Overtown. There's no investment in Overtown. You have no reason to be in Overtown, unless you want to buy cocaine, crack, weed but get it and getout. Or you can put Camillus House in Overtown. You can expand Lotus House in Overtown. But, God forbid if you own property in Overtown. Will your property values go up? Do we continue to put certain things in Overtown without addressing the need for building some type of market -rate housing, building some type of -- not just affordable housing, but housing that's available to people who work for the City of Miami and make $50, 000 a year. So I say -- so, you can't --you cannot dare to say it's a block party when you have thousands of people spending their dollars at places like Two Guys, Jackson Soul Food and places like House of Wings, and places where there are vendors all over the street, where they come and see entertainment, and the City of Miami Police will tell you there has not been one incident in the years that we've been doing this. What that shows me is that people now learned about the Lyric Theater, people now learned about the Black Police Precinct, people now learned about being in a community where they'll have a food destination where they can feel safe, and people can buy property and feel like they can be in that area; and if you read the CRA Act, it gives us that authority under marketing this community redevelopment area; because you can build a city, but if no one knows about it, or if they're afraid to be there, then no one will go. And so, I'm not -- I'm trying not to -- I know I'm long-winded about this, because I'm so -- Commissioner Suarez: Passionate. City ofMiami Page 50 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: -- I could literally talk about this issue for hours, and I won't. But I will say that when you market a redevelopment area, and you spend money to attract people to that area that many ofyou have never been, have never walked the streets, you are doing nothing different than a GMCVB (Greater Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau) marketing Miami -Dade Count), our historic neighborhoods and the beaches. You are doing nothing different than Visit Florida, who are spending millions of dollars marketing Florida. You are doing nothing different than Visit [sic] Tallahassee, but the minute that you start to spend money to say, "Visit Overtown, " there's an issue. I'm here, emphatically, to say that I will stand in the way of every recommendation that I believe will halt the progress of that community. When the railroad -- when the expressway went through Overtown, the reason it went through is because we, who are supposed to be the protectors of that communio) , did not standup enough. And I will not sit down when it comes to this issue. And no politician -- black, white, or other; Count), State, or whomever -- who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of the CRA Act, who doesn't have the heart to develop a community like Overtown, who doesn't understand the necessity of the things that we do under the law that is true, that is correct, and that is legal, and who trivializes with such words as "block parties, "you better beware, because I know that what we're doing in that area will have a great impact; you all will be proud of it in the future, and it will contribute to the success ofMiami. Because ifyou do not allow these CRAB, especially the ones who are doing the right thing, to continue to act with the authorio) that they have, what you'll find is that your dear downtown, your dear Design District, your dear Wjmwood, your dear Calle Ocho, your dear Coral Gables will be threatened, because we all see it. The poor people are being moved out ofMiami, and they don't have a place that they can call their own, and they can participate and become profiteering partners within our communities, at least even in the black communities that they were born in; there will be a revolution, and it's organic. And so, I think that those of us who know better should do better, and don't be moved by any person in academia, especially who theorizes about poor people in my communio) . I am, my family was, we are poor people who were raised in James E. Scott Communio) Projects, what you all call 'Pork and Bean Projects" still today. We live in Little Haiti. We live in Overtown. We live, and we eat, and we breathe every day in those neighborhoods. I can emphatically say -- when somebody from Overtown says, "You're not here, " I can say, "That's a lie, because you're not here, " because I am in this community. And what we want to do for that communio) is grow it, and the only way we can is by using the statute the way that we have it, and not shackling ourselves so that we can't make improvements in that area. And so, this should be a robust discussion. I honestly think that it's probably inappropriate for just this moment on an agenda at a City Commission meeting, because it goes deep. And like I said -- and I'll come to a conclusion, out of respect for everyone's time -- I want to fight for it every step that we can, because now that we're doing it right, they're trying to take it away from us. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think you said something that was very interesting. There's been -- well, you said many things that are interesting. There's been many efforts to undo CRAB, and there are many opponents of CRAB, whether they're outward opponents or not. I'm very proud of the fact that when I was Chair of -- and I satin your chair right now, I had to pass the gavel to make the motion to bond the money to preserve the existence of the CRA. Had we not done that, we may not have the CRA as we know it today, or the resources. Chair Hardemon: And that took courage. And just think about -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure did. Chair Hardemon: --the fact that you had to --the symbolism ofyou having to pass the gavel to move to improve an area like Overtown. Commissioner Suarez: But I will say this, too, because I want to be fair: Part of the reason that City ofMiami Page 51 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 I challenged you that day -- and I think -- I don't think, I know you met and have exceeded my expectations in that challenge -- is because I was frustrated by whatl felt, prior to your arrival, was a lack of real movement. And I think --you know, we hear things that have really nothing to do with Overtown, by the way, because remember that one of the things about this report is that it doesn't specify, it doesn't call out any one particular person. I know it has some references to things that you can maybe connect the dots or whatever, but it doesn't really call anybody out, per se. You know, we've heardfoated out there the possibilio) of gap funding for, you know, museums, or whatever the case may be, and those are the things that I think catch people's attention. Not only have we invested in affordable housing, which I think in -- particularly in Overtown, is important; we've also invested in things that go to quality of life. For example, supermarkets. People take that for granted. I remember when we voted on the grant for the supermarket that I counted the number of supermarkets within walking distance from my home. had one on 37th and 16th; another one off Le.Ieune and Coral Way, and another one off 27th and Coral Way; and yet, there was none in Overtown, so it was a food desert. CRAB are hard. They're hard for a varied) of reasons. If they're successful, they could potentially create gentrification, and that's a challenge. I think one of the ways we've met that challenge is by doing rehab projects, which, by the way, had not done before you arrived. We did a $10 million investment in Town Park that had not been done, and the big reason why -- Chair Hardemon: No, it was $15 million. Commissioner Suarez: Sorry. My apologies. Chair Hardemon: Town Park South, $10 million. Commissioner Suarez: That's right, 10 million, and then plus five for the other Town Park, exactly; 15 total, and I've often said that's one of my proudest moments as a CRA Board member, but the point is that we're stemming the tag of gentrification, which is a real problem when you redevelop an area. The other problem is, and I think the other controversy is, you know, we voted on a big project that is a TIF driver, and so -- and I think at a sunshine meeting, the Vice Chair mentioned it, you know -- TIF -driving projects are important projects for the CRAB to invests in, but you need to see the back side. And the back side is that once that TIF is generated, you have an investment, a tangible investment in the communii)�, either in the form of affordable housing units, which we now have in Overtown, or in jobs, in real jobs, and in real industv)� that will help us get to a point where we don't need the CRA, and will help us get to a point where we don't need affordable housing, because I think what we talked about at the last CRA meeting -- I think it was the last one, when we were reducing the affordability period on a project -- was -- I supported that, because the objective should be that at some point, we have created the conditions under which people in impoverished neighborhoods can get out of that condition, and that's something that I'm very proud ofyour work, because you haven't only confined that to the CRA; you brought that to the City Commission in the context of crime, and some of my initiatives on crime and crime reduction. You said, "Hey, you know, Commissioner, I really appreciate what you're doing in that realm, and I think it's important, but we need to look at the symptom, " and the symptom, in many cases, is the lack of opportunities. It's the povero) . And, you know, just like somebody said earlier today that "Ms. Baker was a force to be reckoned with. " I think you can be a force to be reckoned with, you know. And it's been great serving with you. I'm not -- to me, institutional reform is something that I actually enjoy. I don't really have a problem with it. I propose it at the Cit). I propose it at the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). I propose it just about everywhere I've gone, so it doesn't particularly wore me too much. I don't take it that way, but I understand others may view things differently. Look, I think -- again, my statements to people who would be viewing this is that Overtown and the CRA's heading in the right direction; that, you know, our new leadership in Omni seems to have pivoted in a different direction, in a direction that support, and that am excited about; and, you know, we got a -- we have a lot of hard decisions in front of us, and we have -- this is not easy stuff. Everything that we do is ripe for criticism, everything, you know. And I think we are City ofMiami Page 52 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 on the ground, and we are dealing with these issues intimately, and we do feel the pain. And one of the reasons why I was so frustrated when you came onboard was because I really felt that the money wasn't, at that time, being put to work; and I think, since then, it has been, and I think that's something that you deserve a lot of credit for. Thanks. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman, and then Commissioner -- well, Commissioner Gort, then Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: It's all right. Commissioner Gort: No, no. Go ahead. Vice Chair Russell: I was invited the other day to the Lyric Theater to a Chamber of Commerce breakfast, where the executive director of the Overtown CRA gave a full presentation, block by block, what the Overtown CRA has -- Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA has accomplished, and it's impressive. I mean, these are the unsung songs of accomplishment in terms of affordable housing, community development, education; so many good things are happening, and the ease with which the CRA allows us to accomplish those goals is a testament to that, and the fact that it's being used for the right goal. So why do we allow us to subject ourselves to the press, the public scrutiny that would say -- and not the Southeast Overtown, in particular, but that CRAB are being misused? And I think a lot of it is misperception in the sense that when you say this is an agency focused on, you know, developing a communii)�, eliminating povero) , slum and blight, and then they see a big crystal tower go up, they say, "Well, that's not what we were thinking about, "you know, and it can get -- and, of course, there's -- it's -- part of it is public education for them to understand that part of the job of the CRA is to develop the TIF, to develop the tax increment funding that will then be used for good; and so, to develop that, we need to do big projects; sometimes we need to do TIF agreements that enable developers, and that will generate the funds, and then we have to then expend those funds properly, and I see a lot of that happening in Overtown. And so, I wonder what we're doing wrong that is creating a public perception otherwise. And so, the only thing I can think of is that if we, as a board of five up here, put on a new hat, and we become the board of five of a CRA, and we know our communities, we know our district, we know what's best for them, and we're going to implement this plan, we're basically telling the community, "Trust us; we know what we're doing. We know what's best, and we'll get it done. We'll get there, regardless of procurement process, regardless of different things, " and for me, that's not good enough for what we owe the public in terms of transparency and involvement. And I think that nobody here, including the Grand Jury, is trying to undo the CRA. We're tv)4ng to create it into a accountable force for good. Now, perhaps, some of the steps may be heavy-handed and maybe some of them aren't, and that's part of what I wanted to bring here today, and having our City Attorney and all of us here together is a chance for us to discuss the specific steps. Procurement was one that you had mentioned, and I've been meeting on a weekly basis with the executive director of the Omni CRA, who's been excellent at bringing me up to speed in what the Omni has been up to, and what's accomplished. And according to him, we actually do follow the City's procurement procedures, regardless of the need to do so, but why isn't the need to do so in there? And if it needs to be streamlined somewhat, considering bonding and issues like that, let's tty to do it in a way that becomes transparent for the public that they see every step of the way that we're -- what we're trying to accomplish, and the means through which we're tv)4ng to accomplish it all makes sense and pass the smell test of what a CRA should be doing. I was let down to see of the good things done in the Omni CRA, for example, that they didn't then go that extra step. We're generating TIF, but we're not expending it to what it should be done. And to what Commissioner Suarez said earlier, the broad requirements or the broad task, the mission of the CRA is possibly put in there to allow it to be used with flexibility, but to me, that might be a little too much flexibilio) , because the elimination of slum and blight full stop is not enough. It's -- because, yes, I can put in 20 crystal City ofMiami Page 53 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 towers that moves out every resident that live there, and yes, technically, you have eliminated slum and blight, but have you done good for that community? And so, part of -- one of the recommendations was an oversight of not just financial accountabilii)�, but mission accountability, and I think that could be something tremendous to really look back at the redevelopment plan, which is an official document that said, "This is your roadmap of what you're trying to accomplish in the CRA, " and grade us along the way. Have we done it? Have we done it? Because of the good things even in the Omni, a tremendous new movie studio that could generate TIF and create good things for the community, it's not providing jobs for the people that live there, and it should A dog park that was spent nearly halfa million dollars on in the Omni CRA. I mean, could the argument be made that improving a park will increase home values nearby that will generate TIF? I think it's a stretch. And to the neighbors: I mean, I was at a homeowners association meeting where I had to defend this, and they said, "No, we love that dog park. And for the Herald to demonize that dog park, we want answers. " And I said, "No. You, as citizens, fully in your rights to want that dog park, and me, as your Commissioner, it's fully within my job to help find you -- help it -- help get it there for you. Now, should it have been used? Should money meant for antipoverty causes been used for that dog park? Well, for me, it didn't pass the smell test in terms of "did it generate TIF? " No. And "did it eliminate slum and blight? " There was a perfectly good park there already, so again, no. So that doesn't --for me, it doesn't pass the test. And so, I really want, you know, the transparency there, the process there, the decision making there. And I guess oversight is good and debate is good. I mean, one of the other probably confrontational things that we'll be up against -- it's in this report -- is whether or not to include more board members, and by the statute, if I understand correctly, we have the abilio) to have two more board members on each CRA, up to seven. We have five right now, which is us basically. But to have a member of the community;, and then someone from the Count);, which, I assume, would be appointed by the County Commission. I'm not fully versed on the terms of how we change that, if we want to change that, and who would do that appointing, and how that would then come about. Would it create more debate on the board? Absolutely. But to say, would a County representative, of which that TIF is partly Count); money, also know what's good for our community? I would hope so. I don't, you know -- I think when it comes to personalities involved, it may shift some of our thoughts, but if I think we think CRAB in general and the intention, I would be open to more input on our board. I even questioned whether we or any of us should be on the board originally when I was looking at CRAB and how they're made up. In some parts of the country, CRAB don't have the Cit); Commission as the board members, because they can be swayed by lobbyists who, by the way, are not required to register to visit the CRA, if I understand correctly, but they are to visit us here in Cit); Hall. That's not even one of the Grand Jury's recommendations. I'd maybe even add one of my own. But I really want it clear that I am in no way trying to cripple the ability of a CRA to do good I want it to be -- to do good and be cheered on by the community for doing good. I want us to leave not just knowing in my own heart that we did good but everyone hated us for it, but that we did good, and we did it in a way that the community; could be proud of what we accomplished, as well. So I think we're on the same side here, and that there's no one trying to, you know -- and so, I guess I -- ifI could indulge the -- if the Chair would indulge me, I would love to hear from Frank Schnidman, who wrote this letter, who might just be able to paraphrase it for us in terms of his recommendations tons of what the City as a Commission may or may not be able to implement, and perhaps, our City Attorney as well. You know, if there's any specific recommendations that were made by the Grand Jure that we, as a City Commission, should or could be weighing in on versus just the board of the -- each CRA individually or the County at stake. Chair Hardemon: And I would say -- and I'll let Mr. Gort before Schnidman comes -- Frank Schnidman is one of those individuals who is educated on communio) redevelopment agencies, who's worked as an executive director, I believe, of a communio) redevelopment agency, but had said inflammatory things about our agencies, about the Overtown agency that, to me, is more landed an opinion versus in real truth and facts, so I've read many things that Schnidman has written. And I've written Schnidman, and he's written me back, and he's boasted about his City ofMiami Page 54 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 resume. But at the end of the day, there is no other CRA that you can think of that is more -- in the position as different as the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA; not Lincoln Mall, not Omni, not Lincoln Road, not any of those CRAB, because of the history that exists within that area. And so, when we set out trying to improve upon CRAB in general, such as designating a percentage of their income for affordable housing every year, well, what do you say to the CRA that is already generating more affordable housing than all those CRAB combined? Vice Chair Russell: They're above and beyond the requirement. Chair Hardemon: But what that means is that you cripple that CRA. You're saying to that CRA that you must designate a certain amount of those funds for that affordable housing when -- what about introducing other o pes of housing to the area? What about introducing different oPe of commercial uses to the area? Why say to a CRA that has done what it's supposed to do, that has generated not just new affordable housing, but has rehabbed hundreds of affordable housing for people that live there in that area, so they're finally seeing some use of the CRAB to affect them every day, like we did in Town Park North, Town Park South, and we're doing in Town Park Village, and individual apartment complexes within there. When those people then have affordable housing just because they will be able to move -- and improve upon their areas, and people can't come in and low -ball them on btcying their homes, that's how we slow gentrification there; you can't stop it, because people have a right to sell their home. That's their God-given right in the United States ofAmerica. So don't think that gentrification is as the result of the government, because it's not. It's the result of individual homeowners who decide that they're going to sell their property for a profit, but we can slow it down by giving those who don't want to sell for a profit, but who just want to live in their homes where their roof is leaking, but they have mold in the walls. We as CRAB can help that, and that's what we've been doing. And so, I just want to be careful when -- because we use words like -- we use buzz words. We use 5ffordable housing, 'Phis, that, and a third. And I'll go on the record. I said, in Overtown -- and I'll continue to say it -- that Overtown has enough affordable housing. And people say, "Well, how? " Because the people that live in Overtown can afford to live there. That's why they have enough. But what they need is better qualio) of life. Those that live in housing that is affordable that is substandard, it needs to be brought to a certain standard, but we will, like we've done, introduce new affordable housing projects to that area, but Overtown can't be -- and I'm going to use this term. It can't -- well, no, I'm not using it. Affordable housing -- Overtown can't be the affordable housing place in Miami -Dade County. Overtown can't be the homeless shelter center in Miami -Dade Count). Overtown can't be the social services place to go in Miami -Dade Count), because there are homeowners there that were there before the expressway and that are still there that want their propero) values to increase; and introducing all of these services to an area and making this something that is transient in nature where all the homeless people have moved from downtown to Overtown, and where the enforcement of Pottinger and evevything is not going as we should want, that's affected by the kids that live there in Overtown. So when I walk through Overtown, or when I drive through Overtown, or when I'm eating in Overtown, this is what we see. And so redeveloping an area, eliminating slum and blight, introducing infrastructure to that area, which is what many of these -- even if they're shiny things in the air, this is what they do. But in Overtown, the one thing that you can't forget are the people that live there, and I'm not going to forsake the people that live there for people that have never visited, for people that have theorized about it, or for people that go into a small group and tell them what they should feel about redevelopment in those areas. And so, that's what I believe that Frank statement does. Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Let me tell you, I'm going to give --just vevy brief -- I'm going to be vevy brief. I was elected in 1993 and to 2001, and I can tell you decisions that were made in 19 -- in the '90s is what help create the TIF funds that you receive after many years, because Overtown didn't get the funds at least until after five or 10 years afterwards, so they didn't have the funds at those time. And I can tell you, from looking at the neighborhood -- and I forget; in the '90 -- late '90s when the people from Bacardi came to me and says, "We're going to sell the building, City ofMiami Page 55 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 because I don't think this area's going to go anywhere. " We're talking about Biscayne Boulevard, and the whole area. I think you've seen the changes that have taken place in that area, and the improvement that take place in that area. You can create affordable houses; you can also create ghettos, so you need to mix the economic development with affordable housing. And I, as an elected official, feel very proud of the work that I've done in the both CRA. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: So you brought up -- one of the other recommendations was -- that the Grand Jury had made was that each CRA set aside 10 percent of the TIF -- of the income to be used for affordable housing; and in the case of the Southeast Overtown, it seems they've gone far above and beyond that. So, I'm not quite sure how this recommendation would actually restrict, unless maybe it's about changing the wording of it so it's not an annual 10 percent, but an overall TIF that you've -- I would guess to say, in the lifetime of the CRA so far, you've spent well more than 10 percent of that TIF. However, in the Omni, we haven't even come close to 10 percent, if even I percent of the TIF generated has been spent on affordable housing in the Omni. So I think a requirement like this isn't really speaking to the ones who are doing it, and it shouldn't restrict or cripple them. Ifyoure saying mission accomplished of affordable housing in that CRA, you know, I'm sure that well more than 10 percent would have already been spent, and you shouldn't be restricted with those TIF funds on an annual basis, but for the ones who certainly aren't, you know, I think it's a good recommendation. Chair Hardemon: Can I say something clearly before you --? Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I just want to make a refinement to what he said. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. The --when it comes to requirements of the --for instance, the affordable housing, I'll say this: There is no requirement for CRAB to create affordable housing. There is none. The statute says that CRAB -- I want to use the word "may" or "should, " or one of those words, create affordable housing, or explain in their plan why they are not. So, it is up to that community redevelopment agency -- well, it's actually up to the plan, which takes input from the residents, etcetera, etcetera, which is how we have our plan within the Overtown CRA that talks about job development, things like that. We had that because the people that live there have those as a concern. And so, the affordable housing was a concern, and that's what we created But we have to remember that there's not necessarily a reason to create affordable housing in every CRA. Should there be? That's a discussion, but there's not (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: And that's what I was going to say, Mr. Chair. I think, you know, one refinement to the Vice Chair's point, which is, I think it said, "For agencies that generate more than $5 million, it should actually be 20 percent, " ifI'm not mistaken, "in annual TIE. " Vice Chair Russell: Yes, you're right. Commissioner Suarez: Right. So -- and I think your point is well taken, but I also agree with the Vice Chair, that we can self -regulate and say, "Hey, we should have a minimum 20 percent of affordable housing, " and I think we can do it just in the Omni. You know what I mean? And I think the issue is that the Vice Chair's concerned that that hasn't happened And so, even though it has happened in the Overtown area, I think from the bond money, ifyou consider renewal projects part of affordable housing, which I think you can arguably do, I think you're talking about 80 or 90 percent, some very, very high number of the bond proceeds that we use the capital funds. I mean, I think it was almost the whole thing. So, you know, certainly, I agree with your point. In Overtown, we're way beyond that threshold. City ofMiami Page 56 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: But how did we get there, though? We got there because the CRA owned land We got there because -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah. Chair Hardemon: Right. -- the value of the land -- so -- but in the Omni, it's not necessarily the same. Commissioner Suarez: I agree, and -- but what I'm saying is, I don't object to the Vice Chair, who's the Chair of the Omni saying, "Hey, look, we want to" --you know, `I'm changing the philosophy here. I'm turning the corner. " Chair Hardemon: I thought he was (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and I think, if we're generating more than $5 million of TIF, we should self -regulate and say that, at a minimum, we're going to provide 20 percent of our funds towards affordable housing. I think that's a good self -registration. We've done that. I think you proposed one with reference to the SAP (Special Area Plan) or the NCD (Neighborhood Conservation District). Chair Hardemon: N (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. In Wjmwood, where we talked about maintaining a certain percentage of the TIF funds, ifyou will, of the self-created funds out for affordable housing in that area, so it's sort of a similar concept, so I have no -- nothing against particularly the Chair of Omni saying, "Hey, look, we want to recognize and make a statement to the public that we recognize that the back end stuff hasn't happened, and so we're going auto regulate based on this report, and we're going to stay" -- "make a policy decision that we're going to spend no less than 20 percent of our funds on affordable housing. " We may decide in the future, since it's an auto regulation, you know, 5, 10 -- I don't know if we're going to be here, but, you know, sometime in the future, some Commission may decide, "Look, we've already done that, and now we can release ourselves of that auto regulation, and we can focus on other things, " if the -- assuming the CRA still -- is still in existence at that time. Chair Hardemon: And I agree with you there. I mean, my thing is that it's -- I guess it's almost like a State's right thing, State versus Federal Government. The CRA is tasked with knowing what's happening in that communio) , and so, what I don't want to see is the State then change the law to require that CRA to do something that's going to negatively affect my CRA, because in another jurisdiction, they spend 90 percent of their revenue on administrative costs. You know, that's what I don't want. Vice Chair Russell: Well, similar to what we were talking about with the DOJ earlier, the fact that we've come a long way in making some of our own steps may have made the process a little easier, even though the Cit) Attorney might not say it was that easy, to come to an agreement. And in the same spirit here, if we self -regulate and start implementing some of the Grand Jure recommendations that we find to be, you know, useful, and not restricting to the extent that we won't be able to accomplish our goals, we'll be looked on favorably from the State level, and some of these things won't be imposed onus in way that we wouldn't want and that would actually cuff our hands in the abilio) . But we need to be accountable to somebody other than just ourselves, because that really -- that gains the trust that we need to show that we've done a good job at the end of the day, and we can prove it. I mean, in the Omni, you know, one of the things about the board makeup, even though I'm the Chair, and I'm also the district Commissioner for most of what's in that -- what's in the Omni area, I'm going to look for collaborative input and ideas and thoughts as we move forward, and, you know, part -- in addition to the board of a City ofMiami Page 57 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 citizen, you know, who would in my opinion -- one of the recommendations is that they be a specialist. I've got other thoughts that maybe they should be a stakeholder within the communio) that's almost a watchful eye to go -- to be a constant voice to us about whether we're truly addressing the issues on the ground from a constituent level. I guess I'd like to ask the Cit) Attorney about the board makeup situation. Whose position would it be to actually implement that change? Is it the CRA Board at the board level, the Cit) Commission, or is it going to be handed down to us from the Count) and the State, or what sort of agreement would be -- need to be made if we were open to changing that in one of the CRAB? Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): May I, Mr. Chair? Statute 163.35 allows the CRA Board to appoint additional two board members. However, that being said, I think it's imperative that we look at previous agreements that the CRA, the Cit) of Miami, and the Count) entered into, the interlocal agreements, to ensure that there's no prohibitions or requirements in any of those agreements concerning the bodies, the composition of the Board of Commissioners of the CRA. But pursuant to the State Statute, the body has the authorio) to do it. Vice Chair Russell: So we don't need to address that here at the Cit) Commission level; that can be done on a CRA by CRA basis, each individual? Mr. Min: Yes, sir, unless, of course, like I said, there's some language in any of the interlocal agreements that powers was negotiated away. Vice Chair Russell: Would -- okay, please. Commissioner Gort: The global agreement would have something to do with it? Mr. Min: Perhaps, yes, sir. Chair Gort: Because we have the -- Mr. Min: The only reason I'm not -- Commissioner Gort: That's the only thing -- Mr. Min: -- comfortable committing is because there are so many agreements that the City and the Count) have entered into, including the global agreement, and many modifications to the previous interlocal agreements. Commissioner Gort: The Count) has to approve it also. Vice Chair Russell: The County has to -- So, the change can be at the CRA level, but the County would then approve it? Mr. Min: At the CRA level, again, assuming there's no prohibition in any of the interlocal agreements. Vice Chair Russell: In your opinion, are there any of the recommendations of the Grand Jure that we, as a Cit) Commission, should take a look at? Mr. Min: The Cit) Commission obviously has a prerogative to look at all the recommendations. It is my opinion that there's none that can be implemented by the City of Miami Commission. Vice Chair Russell: Unilaterally? Mr. Min: Correct. What the City of Miami Commission could do, if that is the desire of the City ofMiami Page 58 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commission, is to pass resolutions urging either the CRA Board to take some action, urging the Count) to take some action, urging the State of Florida to take some action as far as amending the state statutes, but as far as the Cit) of Miami unilaterally imposing or approving any of the recommendations, the Cit) of Miami Commission does not have that authority. Vice Chair Russell: I think introducing a resolution to ourselves at the CRA Board might be a little redundant; I don't know. I think it's going to be for us to take up at the CRA Board level; and as you said, you know, each CRA has unique makeup geographically, demographically, and the needs. You know, the redevelopment plan is supposed to be our roadmap, and, you know, I want to see that, you know, looked into and followed,- and I look forward to, you know, our next CRA meeting where we start taking up some of these -- I know it's going to be spirited. I know it may be heated and I think we're on the right track of the right intention, but if -- I did ask, and I -- with a grain of salt, because I do recognize that there can be strong rhetoric when it comes to this on both sides, but I was -- Professor Schnidman had written a personal letter to me, and I just wanted to share it with the Board, and if he would be able to verbalize at least that, and I would -- I think he will hopefully restrict himself to the contents of the Grand Jury recommendation and the letter and not our specific CRAB, or the specific personalities or issues or decisions, but rather my request to him was similar to what I had asked our City Attorney about what, from his expertise, could be recommendations that we, as a City Commission, could look toward. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Mr. Schnidman. Vice Chair Russell: I gave my copy to the Clerk Frank Schnidman: Good afternoon. My name is Frank Schnidman. I am a John M. DeGrove professor and eminent scholar at Florida Atlantic Universii)�, and I've had a long and interesting career as it relates to redevelopment and economic development. Commissioner Gort: Address? Vice Chair Russell: Your address. Mr. Schnidman: Yes. My address is 1858 Northeast 34th Street in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. And I began actually working in neighborhood legal services in 1968, dealing with land(ord/tenant issues in Springfield, Massachusetts. I went on to deal with recreational development planning in the Model Cities Program in Rochester, New York. I had the opportunio) during my career to spend a number ofyears with my mentor, Charles M. Haar, who was the grandiose professor of law at Harvard Law School. I spent a couple ofyears there as a visiting scholar. Charles is the one who authored the HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) legislation. He was the deputy -- we was the assistant secretafy for metropolitan areas, and a confidante of L)mdon Johnson. He's the author of the Model Cities Program. He's the author of the Title X New Communities Program. He'd been involved in significant urban renewal, urban redevelopment activities. I've had the opportunio) to be involved in the judicial process; and one of the involvements that I had was in the Kelo Case, which related to eminent domain and redevelopment, a case where the brief that I wrote was cited by Justice Stevens' authorio) in the majorio) opinion. But to get to the specifics here of what we're talking about -- Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Schnidman: -- remember, when Attorney Horn talks about the Grand Jury report, it's about a dozen other CRAB that exist in Miami -Dade Count), and it is not just the Omni CRA, or the Southeast Overtown/Park West, or the Midtown CRA. There are a number of others that are at issue. And, you know, for example, you know, the whole question of slum and blight. The last recommendation about when you come for an extension, you should redo a slum and blight, you City ofMiami Page 59 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 wonder about that. But ifyou think about what happened in North Miami -- excuse me -- in Miami Beach, you had an obligation of the County to give the City $18 million; and in return for the forbearance of that $18 million, they extended the life of the CRA, and gave the Count) an $800 million obligation to fund a convention center redevelopment that, because they were tax increment funds and not general funds, avoided totally any kind of referendum. And so, that's an example of the fact that they're not picking on you, and I don't think Kathy Rundle feels that they're picking on Miami. It's an investigation of the operation and the governance and the implementation of the efforts to alleviate slum and blight. And for those ofyou who don't think that affordable housing is important, please remember that ifyou look at the beginning of the statute and the justification for why in finding of necessio) , which is the basis for establishing the CRA, it is because there's an affordable housing project --problem. And additionally, the act is 50 years old It was passed in '69. In the mid '80s, the statute was specifically amended to put all that affordable housing language in it. They didn't just make another definition of blight, but they actually, in a halfa dozen places in the statute, amended the statute specifically to talk about affordable housing. And that doesn't mean that when the Grand Jure report talks about affordable housing, it's talking about Southeast Overtown/Park West, or it's talking about Omni, or it's talking about Midtown. It's talking about what in --a Grand Jure that was impaneled in May and met until January recognized as a true problem. Now, one of my students said to me, in looking at the Miami CRAB and the Grand Jure report, "Why is it that the County doesn't have a CRA for Liberty Cit)? Why is it that the County doesn't have a CRA for Little Havana? " Right. Now, why is it that the Count) Mayor feels that he doesn't need a CRA to redevelop Libero) Cit) ? Now, when we look at the activities of the CRAB, transparency is critical; and I can think in my involvement with Miami -Dade Count) and the City -- and many ofyou came to know me when Roberto Martinez and I represented Norman Braman in the litigation related to the Marlin's Stadium -- I can only think of two times when the CRA met between Christmas and New Year's in order to deal with an emergency project: One, the global agreement; and two, the passage of incentives for the World Center project. Chair Hardemon: May I -- Vice Chair Russell: I was going to -- Chair Hardemon: I want to stop him for one second. Mr. Schnidman: Sure. Chair Hardemon: Because, you know -- I'm going to ask you a quick question. Mr. Schnidman: Yes. Chair Hardemon: What's the regularly scheduled meeting date for this --the Overtown CRA? Mr. Schnidman: It's --I honestly don't know. Chair Hardemon: It is the last Monday -- Mr. Schnidman: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- of the month. Mr. Schnidman: Correct. Okay. Chair Hardemon: Do you know what the last Monday of the month was in December? The day that we met. City ofMiami Page 60 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Schnidman: Okay. Chair Hardemon: We attempted to have the meeting sooner in the month to make accommodations for board members. Our residents who live in Overtown, most of them, do you know where they are during Christmastime? In the Overtown CRA, or in the Overtown communion. Mr. Schnidman: Okay. Chair Hardemon: And so I say that to you to say, when you write, when you advocate, when you try to make it seem as if this board met to deceive the hundreds of people that were sitting in that meeting that evening, you are factually incorrect, and you are misguiding their thoughts. Mr. Schnidman: Sir -- Chair Hardemon: And I say that to you because the meetings that we have are regular there, scheduled. When we have hun -- if you come to any of our meetings, there are o pically at least 100 people there -- Mr. Schnidman: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- that are from that area. When you come to a meeting, for instance, with the -- with other CRAB, you barely see that; you barely have this amount of people in the room. The Overtown CRA didn't do anything and has not done anything to deceive that communion. Moreover, there was an ethics complaint -- I don't know if you all know this -- that was written -- well, there was an ethics complaint that was -- it should have been filed -- at least a complaint made to the Ethics Commission regarding the public hearing during that time and regarding us having the meeting then, and we were cleared by the Ethics complaint -- by the Ethics Commission saying that, "Look, they didn't do anything wrong. They didn't violate any rules. Everyone had a chance to speak. " Because the Overtown CRA is one of those creations that allows everyone to have a say in what's happening in their communion. This report that was written by the Grand Jure, one of the lines in it said that the CRAB that have the Commissions on it that are the governing boards, they all meet in the lunchtime of their normal Ciov Commission or County Commission meetings, and thus, they just switch a hat, and they talk about the CRA business. That, in and of itself, is not a true statement. Because we all know, those of us who are in Overtown, those of us who -- on the board, those of us who report on the Overtown CRA know that we meet at Camillus House on the last Monday of every month, and I believe it's at 5 o'clock, or whatever it is, it's on time. That's what we do. And so I'm -- this is a discussion item. This can go on forever. I recognize we have a lunch period. I recognize we also have -- Mr. Min: Executive session. Chair Hardemon: -- executive session, and then we have some time certain, so I'm going to have to cut this to an end, but the one thing I will say in conclusion, that that report mentioned the Florida Redevelopment Association, and they gave it this beacon of light saying that this Association should -- well, if you read the report, it tells you exactly what they said about it, but they looked to the Association as some symbol of hope, and I'm going to read to you a letter from that Association. This letter was sent to the ERA (Florida Redevelopment Association) members, and it says, "CRAB economic opportunity created a message from the Florida Redevelopment Association. On February 3, 2016, the Miami -Dade Counov Grand Jure report" -- "Grand Jure filed a report entitled, 'The CRAB: the Good the Bad, and the Questionable.' This misguided report makes inaccurate claims, and falsely asserts that the highest prioriov of the Florida communion redevelopment agencies should be affordable housing. This narrow view of CRAB reduces their mistakes, their value, and mission as versatile revitalization engines. CRAB are incredibly successful tools for breathing new life into city areas that have been neglected or City ofMiami Page 61 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 forgotten. Their purpose is to eradicate slum and blight in as many forms in a community through leadership and a publicly vetted redevelopment plan, which includes investing in public/private partnerships, and leveraging tax increment financing. While a CRA nurses an area back to health through a strategic blend of redevelopment initiatives, it provides the building blocks and incentives for others in the private sector to be able to invest in and develop these communities, leading to a stimulated economy. CRAB are created by local governments to respond to local needs and concerns. Overall, the comprehensive community redevelopment plans that are created and implemented by CRAB are uniquely designed to address that area's specific needs for revitalization. Creating affordable housing is just one of the many roles that CRAB may play, and should be part of a balanced economic development strategy. There are a variety of community, State, and Federal programs with the primary mission of providing affordable housing, and CRAB consistently partner with and invest in these programs. Chapter 163, Part 3 of the Florida Statutes, the statute which governs the CRAB, is designed to be adaptable to Florida's widely diverse communities. The Grand JuPy report asserts CRAB are not accountable for their spending, and therefore, public tax dollars are being abused by Citi officials. But by allowing elect officials to make decisions at CRA Board members, CRAB provide representation to taxpayers from someone most knowledgeable in what a community's needs are, and someone who was most accountable for the mis " -- "the use or misuse of public resources. There is much transparency in how CRAB spend their money, but there are four different reports or audits that CRAB are required to file, which cover pertinent budgeting and project information, and must be publicly posted on the CRA's official website as mandated by Chapter 189 of Florida Statutes. In addition, it is erroneous for the Grand JuPy report to claim that constitutional statutory county and local requirements for open government, competitive building, contracting, and reporting are not followed. All entities involved with CRAB, including board members, employees, lobbyists, contractors, vendors, et cetera, must comply with Chapters 112, 287, 163, and other provisions adopted to Florida Statutes to govern" -- "that govern open government policies. No government body is perfect, including CRAB, but the Grand Jury's report's suggestion that changes need to be made to state statutes governing all CRAB is not merited based on the review of a small number of agencies in Miami -Dade County. Any issues derived by the Grand JuPy regarding specific CRAB should be addressed at the local level through the local governments which establish the CRAB in question. The Florida Redevelopment Agency looks forward to working with any interested parties to provide information on CRA's legal practices, challenges, and successes. We thank the Grand JuPy for suggesting that the FRA is the respected source for redevelopment guidance statewide. We keep a database of CRA case studies all around the State, including Miami -Dade County, and we are continuously educating members and anyone interested in community redevelopment through our certification program, workshops, annual conferences, and webinars offering in best practices and expert advice. " And then it gives a place where you can visit. "You may visit www. redevelopment. net for more information on how we serve our members and the exceptional work CRAB are doing in Florida. " So the CRA redevelopment authority takes offense to what was actually written in that report, and so I don't want any of us to walk away thinking that this report was God -sent, it is the ultimate say on what should be done, but merely a statement of opinions by 21 individuals that were impaneled to give an opinion based off of the evidence that was presented by some witnesses and by some authorities on CRAB. And I don't know if any of you sat on -- were a part of that, but you probably -- I don't know if you can tell, butt know I certainly was not. So if there is any other further comment from the board -- I know that we want to make it to our lunch so we can have time to come back If -- Unidentified Speaker: Chair, I ask to be recognized before you break for lunch for one minute? Chair Hardemon: I'm not going to do that. I know we wanted to recognize this gentleman here. This is s discussion item. Unidentified Speaker: So this discussion is not open to the public? City ofMiami Page 62 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: No. It's a discussion item that dealt with what the City Commissioners -- no action being taken. Vice Chair Russell: No. I think you -- Chair Hardemon: But I'll stay back for you. I'll stay back for you. Vice Chair Russell: I thank you for your time, and I look forward tons taking this up at the CRA level, at the board level. Mr. Schnidman: I need -- If I may, Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: Excuse me? Mr. Schnidman: If I may have an additional comment to your comment about the meeting that occurred between Christmas and New Year's? Chair Hardemon: No. I think you've written enough about it. Mr. Schnidman: No. I -- Chair Hardemon: I think so. And I read your emails, so I've gotten all kinds of information. I see what you send to your students, and the opinions that you generate from them. Mr. Schnidman: Right. Chair Hardemon: I follow you very well, sir. Mr. Schnidman: Right. Chair Hardemon: So there's no need for that. So I'm going to -- Mr. Schnidman: But I think ofyour character -- Chair Hardemon: -- recess this meeting. You can talk to me afterward. Mr. Schnidman: -- in all due deference -- Chair Hardemon: I'm going to recess this meeting at this time. Mr. Schnidman: --your character -- Chair Hardemon: Be back at 2 o'clock for the executive session. Mr. Min: It's scheduled for 2:30. Chair Hardemon: 2:30 Mr. Min: And it is up in the -- Chair Hardemon: What do you want me to do? I'm at the whim of the body? Ifyou want to make it 3? Three? We'll come back at 3 o'clock? All right. Mr. Min: It is upstairs in the Mayor's conference room. Chair Hardemon: This meeting's in recess. City ofMiami Page 63 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 DI.8 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00239 District 2- DISCUSSIONAMENDING THE M URAL ORDI NANCE TO LIMITTHE Commissioner Ken GEOGRAPHICAL AREA WHERE MURALS ARE PERMITTED. Russell 16-00239 E -Mail - Discussion Item.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DI8 was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. DI.9 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00245 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING INCLUSION AND/OR IMPLEMENTATION OF Commissioner GREEN SPACE IN WATSON ISLAND MASTER PLAN. Francis Suarez 16-00245 E -Mail - Discussion Item 04-14-16.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DI9 was deferred to the March 11, 2016, Regular Commission Meeting. DI.10 DISCUSSION ITEM 16-00246 District 4- DISCUSSION REGARDING STATUS OF VIRGINIA KEY STEERING Commissioner COMMITTEE AND ITS FIRST MEETING. Francis Suarez 16-00246 E -Mail - Discussion Item 04-14-16.pdf Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item DT 10 was deferred to the March 11, 2016Regular Commission Meeting. END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS Chair Hardemon: Before we go into the PZ (Planning & Zoning) item, there was a item, PZ 10, that I believe that the Cit) intended to continue, so we want to now carve that motion. Is there a motion? City ofMiami Page 64 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: So moved. Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Excuse me. Commissioner Gort: Second. Mr. Hannon: We need may be able to address multiple items. Mr. Planning Director, I think there may have been one or two more items to continue, as well. Chair Hardemon: Can you give us that list, please? Francisco Garcia: Yes, that is correct, and thank you for the opportunio) . I'll briefly introduce myself. Francisco Garcia, Planning and Zoning Director. And the items that we are proposing be continued are as follows: You had mentioned, Mr. Chairman, item PZ 10, which we are -- we, the City, are the co -applicants for, and we request that that be continued to March 24. I'm speaking specifically about the rezoning for the property at 240 Southeast 14th Street. And also items PZ I and PZ 2, which are the land use and rezoning application for a property at 840 Northeast 78th Street; that, too, we are requesting be continued to March 24, if it is your pleasure to do so. Chair Hardemon: Is that all? Commissioner Gort: Move it. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we continue items PZ. 10, PZ 1, and PZ 2 to 3124. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Mr. Garcia: Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, can you read into the record, please? Victoria Mendez (City Attorne)): Thank you, Chairman. PZ items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak must be sworn by the Cit) Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have been briefed by Cit) staff and the Cit) Attorney on items on the agenda today. The members of the Cit) Commission shall disclose any ex parte communications, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4(5) of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Staff will briefly present each item to be heard for applications requiring Cit) Commission approval. The applicant will present its application or request the Cit) Commission to -- if the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation and no one from the public wishes to speak for or against the item, the City Commission may proceed to its deliberation and decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary hearing on the record. For appeals, the appellant will present its appeal to the Cit) Commission, followed by the appellee. Staff will also be allowed to make any recommendation they may have, and the public may speak, as stated before. The order ofpresentation shall be as described in the City Code and Miami 21 Code. The members of the public will be permitted to speak through the Chair for not more than two minutes each, unless modified by the Chair. The Cit) Commission requires that any person requesting action must disclose before hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action, pursuant to Cit) Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the Cit) Commissioners that have City ofMiami Page 65 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Hannon: Good -- my apologies, Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If anybody will be speaking on today's Planning & Zoning items -- anyone speaking on today's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand? The Cit) Clerk administered oath required under Cit) Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Later... Chair Hardemon: Bringing this Commission meeting out of recess, we do know that we have rules that state that Cit) Commission meetings shall adjourn at 10 o'clock unless -- Vice Chair Russell: Is that a.m. or p.m.? Chair Hardemon: -- p. in. -- unless the time is extended by unanimous consent of or agreement of the members present of the City Commission, so if there is no objection, what we -- if there is no objection to continuing the meeting, I think that we should at least hear those -- well, we got time certain, right? So there's a time certain at 5 o'clock for item PZ 3 and 4, I believe. And are the proponents and opponents of PZ.3 and 4 here? Are they? Okay, if they are here, I think we should start there. Mr. Garcia: Thankyou, sir. I'll certainly be concise. Chair Hardemon: And before we go on to it -- Mr. Garcia: Sure, please. Chair Hardemon: -- we might as well make this decision now. We know -- we see what time it is. We know that we have lots of things on the agenda to go. I know that there is some interest, possibly, from other people that were going to continue some things and sort of work things out, so if there are items that people wish to continue, I think now is the proper time to let us know so that we can continue those items, and then try to address those that wish to stay for the agenda item; particularly, we know we're going to hear 3 and 4, but are there any other items -- and this is a question for any of those who are -- not necessarily from the dais just yet, but from the PZ items that we want to continue? Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Okay. Is that --speak direct --speak through Francisco, please, because he would know whether or not you are an applicant or an appellant, or whatever it may be. Mr. Garcia: Mr. Chair, what I am hearing, I believe, is that the applicants for items PZ8 and PZ9, which are companion items, may wish to have a continuance. Is that correct? Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). City ofMiami Page 66 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Garcia: They are here and want to have it heard, sir, to clarify. Chair Hardemon: So PZ 8 and PZ. 9 want to be here and heard. Okay. Mr. Garcia: And PZ S, the applicants for PZ S, Miami -Dade Count), also want the item to be heard. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Now, I just explained— other members of the Commission, I just explained the rule that the meetings are supposed to come to an end at 10 o'clock unless you have unanimous consent of the Commissioners that are present. I was going to move forward with items 3 and 4, because they had a time certain at S o'clock, and they're the next persons to be heard. So if there is no objection to continuing this meeting, PZ item 3, 4. PZ.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading 11-00700lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 840 NORTHEAST 78TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00700lu 03-24-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 11-00700lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 11-00700lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 11-00700lu Legislation (v2).pdf 11-00700lu Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 840 NE 78th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Marine Max East, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 5, 2011 by a vote of 8-1. See companion File ID 11-00700zc. PURPOSE: This will change the above property to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ I was continued to the March 24, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. City ofMiami Page 67 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 PZ.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading 11-00700zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "75-R" URBAN CENTER ZONE -RESTRICTED TO "75-0" URBAN CENTER ZONE -OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ATAPPROXIMATELY 840 NORTHEAST 78TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 11-00700zc 03-24-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 11-00700zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 11 -00700zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 11-00700zc Legislation (v2).pdf 11-00700zc Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 840 NE 78th Street [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Marine Max East, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 11-007001u. Item does not include a covenant. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 5, 2011 by a vote of 8-1. PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "75-R" Urban Center Zone - Restricted to "75-0" Urban Center Zone - Open. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ 2 was continued to the March 24, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.3 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-00974lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO §163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0. 17 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS THE EASTERN PORTION OF A PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 0.40 ACRES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, City ofMiami Page 68 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00974lu 03-24-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00974lu Application & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00974lu Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00974lu Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 Design West, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-00974zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will change the Land Use Designation of the eastern portion of the above property from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ 3 was continued to the March 24, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Chair Hardemon: So if there's no objection to continuing this meeting, PZ item 3, 4. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Items PZ3 and PZ4 are companion items. They are, respectively, an application for a land use change and a rezoning for a property at 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue. I'll yield quickly to the applicant to simply introduce it by saying that the changes proposed are on the land use category from duplex residential to low density restricted commercial; on the zoning category, from T3 -L and T4 -L to T4 -O for the T4 -L portion, and T4 -L for T3 -L portion. There are legal descriptions attached to the record that will help delineate that transition. We are recommending approval; your Planning & Zoning Department is, as did the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board with a condition; the condition being that the portion of the property to the east be rezoned to T4 -L instead of the T4-0 originally proposed, and we concur, and -(yield to the applicants. Steven Wernick: Thank you, Mr. Planning Director. Mr. Chair -- Chair Hardemon: Before we move forward I'd like the City Clerk to re -issue the oath so that we can catch all those who may not have been here who would like to speak on the record. Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Thank you, Chair. Yes, the last time I administered the oath was at S p.m., so we may have a few new people in the chambers. So anyone speaking on any of tonight's Planning & Zoning items, ifI can have you please stand and raise your right hand City ofMiami Page 69 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 The Cit) Clerk administered the oath required under Cit) Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving testimony on zoning issues. Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're welcome. You're the applicant in this one, correct? Mr. Wernick: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Okay, let's go. Mr. Wernick: All right. Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Honorable Commissioners, Planning Director. Steve Wernick; address at I -- used to be I Southeast 3rd Avenue. We just moved from Brickell Citi Center -- 98 Southwest 7th Street, Miami, Florida. With me tonight are the owners of this property, Adam Freeman, Karen Ryder, and as well as representatives of the associations: Buena Vista Heights and Buena Vista Stakeholders, who have been a integral part of this process. It's been four-plus months that we've been working together, and -- which is what lead to the compromise that was recommended by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board unanimously, and approved by this Commission 5-0 in December, and we're now here for second reading. A brief history on the site. This is a unique site in the sense that it is one address and one folio, even though it currently has split zoning. It's, I believe, the only site that is like this in the neighborhood, and it's been this way for 50 plus years. It has never been a residential use or residential building. So you can see here what Mr. Garcia was talking about earlier, which is the current zoning, T4 -L on the western portion, fronting on Northwest 2nd Avenue and the corner of Northwest 42nd Street, with the back of the property, which has been an accessory commercial use side yard, most recently a playground use, but never as a residential use. That has a T3 -L zoning, which is consistent with the remainder of the properties to the east. So this existing zoning, this split zoning that it has today, it's got a nonconforming building on the site, where the daycare center has not been there since the summer, and they've had a lot of difficulty bringing in a tenant. The current zoning also restricts the adaptive use and any redevelopment potential, because there's no parking allowed and no commercial at all on the T3 -L eastern portion of the property. Sothis --as I mentioned, the property, historically commercial. And I'm just going to go through a couple of quick slides, showing you the historical aerials, which we went back to -- I think it was 1953, and it's been the same configuration. It's had improvements on the west side that have been the main building, and on the east side, either a vacant piece or accessory use; playground most recently, but never residential, so through the 70s, 1985, 1991, 1998, 2007, and on to today. So the zoning challenges -- the current situation, T4 -L prohibits more than 50 percent of the existing building floor area from being used for commercial purposes. This building --so the zoning basically is encouraging you to do mixed use. You don't see any new development going on in that fashion on Northwest 2nd Avenue right now, and the existing buildings were built to other standards in the past, and there's really no feasible way to use it for residential and commercial. And so, when the tenants come to look at the building, they could only take 50 percent of it. What are you going to do with the rest of the building? It makes it very difficult. So you can seethe existing zoning and future land use map here. The second challenge is that eastern portion. Right now, it's basically not being used. And when a tenant comes in to look at the building, even if they wanted to take the existing building, there are very few parking spaces on site; they all want some more parking onsite. You can't do offsite parking when you're within 500 feet of T3, and so it's just very difficult to try and make it work So quick chronology -- and I think this is really important; actually, probably most important because of all the good work that's been done in the neighborhood,- a completely transparent process and collaborative process. When we filed our original rezoning application in July, we actually filed for T4 -O for the entire property, which is consistent with the parcels to the south. When we met with -- well, the first Planning & Zoning Board meeting, we deferred the item in order to sit down and meet with representatives of Buena Vista Heights and Buena Vista City ofMiami Page 70 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Stakeholders. We worked through some of their concerns on the eastern portion; they thought T4-0 was too intense, and so what we were able to come up with was -- and this was really a suggestion from Donald Shockey from Buena Vista Stakeholders and Evelyn Andre from Buena Vista Heights, both of whom aren't able to be here right now. What they suggested, T4 -L would be would be a transition from T4-0 on Northwest 2nd Avenue to the T3 residential part of the neighborhood, and that would provide that buffer. It would limit it to 50 percent commercial. And that was preferred over a covenant. It basically acts -- it does the same thing as a covenant. Itput in those restrictions thatprovidedfor the transition, but also allowedfor the flexibility to reuse the propero) and bring in a new tenant. So, recommended unanimously by PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) in October; it was approved on first reading December 10 by this Commission. And on Tuesday night, we actually held another neighborhood workshop. It was attended by a diverse group, various stakeholders, residents, property owners, mostly residents and residential property owners; some commercial property owners on 2ndAvenue, and representatives of Buena Vista Stakeholders and Buena Vista Heights. And the vote that was taken at the end of this group was 20-4 in support of these ordinances as they're proposed, so that was Tuesday night. And so, I think it was a great validation of the work that had been going on for four months. Some of the people who were there weren't involved all the way along, and so it was a good way to bring them in, explain what was going on. There are, I believe, a few objectors ofpeople who live in the neighborhood that -- they were, most of them, I think, present on Tuesday night, but I do believe that you will hear from a few folks who don't agree and don't support at least the eastern portion. So this compromised solution, a rezoning of T4-0 on the western portion, T4 -L on the eastern portion, it provides for that limitation, that buffer, but also for some flexibilio) , because there's really no activity going on on 2nd Avenue right now. It's a bit of a scare street, and I think that's what we heard Tuesday night, is we want more activio) , we want some businesses coming in. That will be good for the neighborhood. That will help enhance the neighborhood. So I'll get through just a couple of points, because I think you're going to hear that this is an encroachment into the neighborhood, and I -- and, really, it's not. I think this actually helps preserve the neighborhood and enhance the neighborhood. And just quickly on Miami 21: Article 2, Article 7, both of them have language that speaks directly to the relationship between commercial corridors and the appropriate transitions of densio) and height that you don't have -- Miami 21 does not encourage single -use neighborhoods. It actually promotes mixed-use neighborhoods, walkable neighborhoods. I think one of the most important things is Article 2.1.3.2: "The ordinary activities of daily living should occur within walking distance of most dwellings, allowing independence to those who don't drive. " Well, right now, Northwest 2nd Avenue provides very few services. There is --there are some churches. There area couple of daycare centers. There's a Family Dollar. There's a convenient store that sells limited products, but there really -- there's not a lot therefor the neighborhood. And being able to bring in some businesses, allowing for some flexibilio) for this site, that's a benefit to the neighborhood, and helps to preserve even the residential portion, because it's not an encroachment in the sense that this has always been one site, and it has always been treated as a nonresidential site. And here, the existing neighborhood conditions, the color red is indicating vacant parcels; the color orange is indicating duplex or triplex, multifamily; and the color yellow shows you single family -- some of those single family have an ancillary unit in the back And one of the reasons I wanted to show this is T3 -L would not permit any of the orange properties, so there's already a mix of uses going on. There's already more densio) , more -- there are more residential uses that are already beyond the 1`3-Lpermissibility, so it's not as -- there's not a divide in that sense. I mean, this is an urban neighborhood within the City core of the City of Miami. It is setup with bones to be walkable; and to have commercial along 2nd Avenue that's functional, that's productive, and that's creative to the whole neighborhood, and I think that's what this is all about. Chair Hardemon: Counsel, are you saying that the existing -- Mr. Wernick: This is showing existing conditions. City ofMiami Page 71 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: -- condition. I'm looking at the existing condition. Mr. Wernick: It's not zoning. It's not a zoning matter. Chair Hardemon: Let me just pull this up, and I'm showing you the future land use map, the existing future land use map. On the existing future land use map, the subject property, it appears to be duplex residential. Was your testimony just now that the low densio) restricted commercial that you want to propose it to be changed to is less intense than duplex residential? Mr. Wernick: No, I did not mean to say that, if that's the way it sounded. The future land use map calls out categories, and duplex residential being the current future land use designation. What I'm showing here are the existing uses and existing building o pology that are independent of whatever the zoning map shows, or the future land use map is showing. So what I'm saying is these properties -- this mix of properties is largely -- it's not reflective -- well, let me put it this way: The future land use map is calling for conditions that are not reflective of the realio) , that are not reflective of the existing conditions in the neighborhood that -- this neighborhood is not that simple. It's more dynamic. There's more --there's more of a mix of uses. It's -- you've got rentals. You've got owner -occupied units. You've got --there's places for sale; there's places that are not for sale. The properties to the south of ours are -- you've got a vacant piece. You've got a commercial piece; to the north of us is commercial; to the west is commercial, but the neighborhood conditions are more -- it is not a residential neighborhood that is to be divided from the commercial. It is appropriate to have a transition from T4-0 to T4 -L; in this case, a T3 -L. The difference is, in terms of the building intensio) , are very slight; and really, what we're suggesting on this eastern portion of the T4 -L is the lowest permissible commercial transect zone. So anything lower than this would not allow any surface parking, would not allow any kind of commercial use or flexibilio) , so we're at like the lowest possible zone that we could be including in the application. Chair Hardemon: And I just want you to explain tons how, when I'm looking at the existing future land use map and I consider your testimony -- your testimony was that this property, for as long as it's had that portion of it to the east, has never been developed. And I know one ofyour goals that you presented was the preservation of these neighborhoods. You show me, I don't know, 30 years or so of that neighborhood and that property being the way that it was. So I guess, if I looked at this as preserving the neighborhood, you probed a reason why the neighborhood should stay the way it is, at least with regard to the duplex residential stopping at where it currently is on the future land use map, instead of extending or -- stopping where it is instead of being -- the words you used was Lncroached upon'h)y the 2nd Avenue propero) , the subject property that we're speaking. And then two, I understand we talk about these transitions, but it's just ironic that in this parcel of land, there is no other transition that we're considering, so if I was looking at transitions to the north and transitions to the south, and that's what we're looking at, I would say, "Okay, we're trying to transition these properties into this residential area, " but here, I don't think there's been any better example of what appears to be spot zoning than this. So help me understand why this today would not be considered -- Mr. Wernick: Absolutely. Well, so, from a technical perspective, Article 7 says -- When we go to file an application, we actually cannot file until we show that we are complying with the successional zoning requirement of Miami 21, which says you can only go up one transect zone. You also have to show that you have the minimum square footage, and you have to show the -- or the extension of the transect zone, right? So, in this case, when we went into zoning, they're looking at -- and let me go to the right map here that is going to show you -- there you -- so, here you go. Here's the proposed zoning map, right? So the properties to the south are already T4 -O, right? So we're -- on the western side, we're consistent with all the properties in this corridor to the south. Immediately across the street to the south, it matches up. And the Planning Department Offen tells us, We want to see "-- in this case, on Northwest 42nd Street -- the properties facing one another; having the same zoning, that's a positive thing, and there's a City ofMiami Page 72 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 consistency there that that pedestrian experience on the street has that relationship. The T4 -L is compatible in the sense that there's T4 -L already to the north and, in this case, to the west of this property. So there's that extension, in that sense, technically, of the T4 -L. In this -- the real -- I think the real focus here that -- because I don't want to make this more than it is. I know that the neighborhood -- you know, there is -- in many neighborhoods, there's sensitivity to the idea of moving aline of --you know, making a policy change in that sense. What I'm saying here is that when Miami 21 was adopted, they could have recognized at that time, had they studied this property the way we did -- and, of course, that didn't happen with every single property when that large scale effort happened -- but they could have looked at the unified ownership, they could have looked at the history of the use and easily had put this property in this condition at that time, because it ignored in that sense, the history of the site and the likely future development, being that it was all one site, one folio, contiguous ownership. The deeds that we looked at for 50 years, I think, the legal description includes all of this, so -- Chair Hardemon: And how long -- Mr. Wernick: -- it's been that way for a long time. Chair Hardemon: --has it been a daycare? Mr. Wernick: The daycare, I believe it goes back at least 10 or 15 years with two different operators. I don't have the certificate of use with me, but when we were at the meeting on Tuesday night, one of the gentlemen -- and I'm forgetting his name -- but one of the gentlemen who said he lived in the neighborhood about 50 years thought it was originally a warehouse building, so the daycare use has not always been the use, but if you go out there today, it still has the old Chay's (phonetic) Daycare Center sign, and I think it was -- yeah, I believe -- I'm remembering the certificate of use saying that it went back to like 2001 or 2002 in terms of a day care tpe use. So, perhaps, what I should get to -- because I know it's getting late. Let me bring up Adam Freeman, who is part of the ownership, and has been experiencing, on the ground, the leasing of the property. I've talked to the chronology. I'll comeback at the end just to wrap up with one more minute, but Id like to bringAdam up to just talk for a couple minutes about the leasing efforts. Adam Freeman: Hi. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for your patience. I'll try to be as quick as possible; I know it's late. So we purchased the property back in 2014, and we did it for a couple reasons: One, we saw an enormous amount of potential in Northwest 2nd Avenue, but what we also saw was a need for re -adaptive use, redevelopment along that corridor. If you look at Northwest 2nd Avenue in the Buena Vista area, and you compare it to the Northwest 2nd Avenue corridor in Wjmwood, in Midtown, in Brickell, you see a clear, sort of almost dilapitation [sic], but also just -- it's almost as if it's been a forgotten corridor. So, when we purchased this property, we purchased it from a woman named Juanita Walker, who operated the daycare for many years. She operated several daycares within the area. And she was selling the property because she wanted to consolidate her business, but also, the building needed a lot of work It had a lot of conditions that needed to be repaired, and so and so forth. So when we purchased it, we worked out a sale leaseback, and during that time period we looked for a new tenant for the building, and we began to see that we had a lot of real practical challenges that went beyond the Zoning Code. You know, we showed the property several, several times to various different uses, and every time there was a common theme. There was either not enough parking onsite to actually have a practical business open, or there was -- if you look at the property and you pull up sort of an aerial shot, you'll see that it's sort of a U-shaped building, so there's is a courtyard area in between, and there were three parking spots in that courtyard area; and if you tried to pull a car in there right now, it would be actually really challenging to even get around it or to back out, because the corridor's really small. So, when we showed it to, for example, a furniture store who wanted to come in, they wanted to open up the property with glass to the courtyard, create a beautiful overhang, and sort of expose the views into the courtyard and create a private City ofMiami Page 73 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 setting that would be beautiful. The problem with that and the challenge with that, from a practical standpoint, is then where do we put those parking spaces? If we can't put them on the eastern portion of the site, which has functioned as a complimentary commercial use for over 50 years, we're kind of stuck. So, what -- we would then show it to, let's say, a, you know, creative Office space. There wasn't enough parking on site, you know, to lease it out. When we met with the Dialysis Center, they loved the demographics, they loved the area, but they couldn't load people in and out with a private setting. So no matter what the use was, we've ran into the same practical real problems; and, you know, really, what we've been trying to do here is bring life to a building that really needs it, and to a corridor that needs it, and we've budgeted the expenses to do so, but we're facing a real practical challenge from a limited parking perspective, from a limited complimentary use perspective, despite the fact that it's been one folio and one commercial use for 70 years. So we're just really looking for the opportunio) to do that; and we went about, you know, doing that by meeting with the associations and trying to find a collaborative effort that the whole neighborhood could stand behind, and that we were all on the same page, and I think we did that. So for that, I'm really proud of. It was mentioned, I think, in the first Cit) Commissioner [sic] hearing, you know, that everyone seemed to commend our efforts, and I really, you know, was proud of it as well, because Buena Vista Heights, Buena Vista Shareholders Association have really been cooperative in that regard. So I think we found a solution here that allows us to revitalize the property, add value to the corridor, fix a solution, and also appease the neighborhood. Chair Hardemon: The --when you purchased the propero) , you realized that there was not parking, adequate parking for that building at the time, correct? Mr. Freeman: Well, we realized that there was sort of three parking spots on site in the -- you know, in the existing sort of center --you know, center couro) and area. We also saw that there was some parking on site, but we --you know, speaking openly and honestly, I don't think we realized how big of a challenge it would be to get a tenant in there until we really spent the effort to do so and got their feedback over a course of nine months, and we were very close to getting someone across the finish line, but we really never could because of that issue, and because of the lack of any sort of complimentary use within that outdoor space. When we purchased the property, you know, we looked at it and said, this is a beautiful big piece of land with a building that, you know, can be rehabilitated and can be functional in an area -- on a corridor that can be affordable. You know, the area has gone through significant changes. Obviously, everyone's aware of the Design District, but the Northwest 2nd Avenue corridor has a chance to provide local businesses with affordable rents that, you know, can be sustainable, so that's what we saw on the property. And we thought that we could find a way around it. In doing so and exploring it, I think we've realized that it's a bigger challenge than we had initially anticipated. Chair Hardemon: How many other properties is it that you own that are commercial in nature? Mr. Freeman: Myself personally? Chair Hardemon: Well, no. With the -- whomever it is that you're with. Mr. Freeman: This enti0 just owns one property. Chair Hardemon: Well, okay. So let's not say -- what's this address? Mr. Freeman: 4201 -- Chair Hardemon: Let's not say -- Mr. Freeman: -- Northwest 2nd Avenue. City ofMiami Page 74 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: -- 4201 Northwest 42nd Avenue, LLC (Limited Liabilio) Compan)). Mr. Freeman: Sure. Myself -- Chair Hardemon: Say it to be correct. Mr. Freeman: -- and my partner, Karen Ryder, we have another duplex in the area on North Miami Avenue. It functions as a duplex. We rent it out to two tenants; one on disability. And then we have one other duplex in the area, which is also rented out to two tenants. You know, both are sort of -- neither are in the --);on know, in the same sort of (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Both are, you know, under 7,500 square foot lots. They're not, you know, larger lots, such as this. Chair Hardemon: Thank you vett' much. Counsel, you have anything else? Mr. Freeman: Yep. Mr. Wernick: Yes. I'll just finish up real quick. I think one thing we wanted to do before we finish is since it's gotten kind of late and we lost some people that were here, we've got letters of support from 30 neighbors. We have a letter of support from the Buena Vista Stakeholders group. We've had constant support from the Buena Vista Heights group, and I think Ulysee Kemp is here, and he may speak to you. One of the things I did want to point out is we have letters of support from all of the abutting propero) owners, both commercial owners on 2nd Avenue, as well as the parcel immediately to the east of this site, and immediately to the south of 42nd Street, and immediately to the north, which is actually -- so there's two residential properties, one to the north and one to the east, that are immediately abutting. So all of the closest neighbors are supporting this. We have the support of both of these associations. And I'll just get back to -- in my world, obviously, I work with different clients; and I do believe, for the nature of this application, the amount of dialogue and collaboration on this to get it right that works for the neighborhood -- at least the vast majorio) of the neighborhood is supporting this, the associations; and it allows for a business to come in to make productive use out of this site, which, at the end of the day, is going to help investment in the 2ndAvenue corridor and actually provide neighborhood amenities. So, with that, I'd like to just reserve a couple minutes for rebuttal, if necessavy. There may be some comments, but I thank you so much for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you vei y much. I'm going to open up the floor for public hearing at this time. If there's anyone from the public that'd like to speak on this matter, please come and address this body. Ulysee Kemp: Good evening. My name is Ulysee Kemp. I reside at 76 Northwest 39th Street, Miami, Florida. I am president of Buena Vista Heights Neighborhood Association. And yes -- by the way, I appreciate what you guys doing. It's been a long day; I know. I appreciate the effort and the consideration that both the counselor and his clients has put toward the neighborhood to try to come with medium on this. The entire time, no one had any objections to the upzoning on the 2nd Avenue corridor. The main concern that I was faced with with the neighborhood members is the residential side, and we have particularly some residents that brought some issues to my attention, and they're actually here to speak on them themselves, but they're the ones that are directly being affected. The property that the counselor mentioned that's directly to the south is a commercial property, which is doing filming, and which has become a very annoying property to the tenant that lives just to the east of them, which there's a package which will show you the o pe of activity that's going on there. Most of the support that I've -- very familiar with are from business owners or investors. The -- a directive as to what is going to be placed on this property is a vevy strong concern of the residents. They're concerned as to what o pe of business -- everyone said that it's going to be friendly to the neighborhood, it's going to be something that the neighborhood would appreciate, but as of this point, no one knows really what that is. Miami 21, of course, was just recently revamped, and the court is very City ofMiami Page 75 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 clear; what should be what zone and what shouldn't be. That was a recent rezoning. Also, counsel failed to mention the restaurant that we can walk to, which is right down the street, called Bahamian Pot. It's on the other end of the block. Again, we have been working with the owners and the counselor, and we preto) much had an agreement with the T4 -L and the 174-0 on the west side. However, the tenants, the residents that live just adjacent to it on that street are the ones that are having a very difficult time with the zoning change, and felt that it's going to be such an encumbersome [sic] to them that they would rather sell their property than to be faced with the noise and the pollution that's going to come with the parking lot. Again, we have no objections on the business corridor of that, which is Northwest 2ndAvenue; it's just that the tenants, the residents that are actually directly being affected have a very strong concern, and they're here to voice their opinion. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Let me hear from the next person from public hearing, please. Mr. Wernick: Mr. Chair, can I just ask one quick question? Because he came up to speak as the president of the Buena Vista Heights Association, which he is, but it sounded more like he was giving an introduction to not so much the opinion of the Association, but explaining some of the concerns of these residents. I guess my question is, is the opinion of the Association to support the item as it was on first reading? Or is it -- is the Association just not taking a position, and you were providing that as information? Mr. Kemp: At this point, as an Association president, my main concern and my primary concern will always be the residents. Mr. Wernick: But Mr. Kemp, what I'm asking is, did the Association take a vote? Chair Hardemon: Would you allow him to explain? Let him -- allow him to explain his answer. Mr. Kemp: Excuse me? Chair Hardemon: I was allowing you to explain your answer. Are you complete? Mr. Kemp: Well, my primary concern is that of the residents. I'm there to protect the residents and to speak up for the residents. Yes, initially, when I came to the previous meetings, I did tell you that I appreciated the efforts, and of course, we were in agreement that that would be a correct transition for the neighborhood, but then the residents that were directly affected contacted me and talked to me about it, and that was the reason why we had a continuation from the last meeting to this meeting, because of that. You all came out; you spoke with the residents. You know that we did have some conflicting areas that were being addressed, which were not actually answered, and that's where we're at today. Mr. Wernick: But we had a workshop on Tuesday night -- through the Chair; I apologize. We had a workshop on Tuesday night in which, at the end of the meeting, you took a vote of the attendees, many of whom were residents, and the vote was 20-4, but you're -- the way you're explaining it sounds like all the residents you've talked to have voiced concerns, but you're not talking about the residents who voiced support for it. Mr. Kemp: You're going to have residents that support, and you're going to have some that don't. And I explained when I started that the residents that I was mentioning to you, the neighbors, are the ones that adversely are being affected that live directly on 42nd Street. The ones that we got preto) much the votes that you were mentioning to, if we were to get addresses from all of those, they're not on 42nd Street. And not only that, the meeting that we had did not mention in any of the notices that we were going to be taking a vote. I did that as a general idea and a consensus to see preto) much where that meeting was going. But no, we did not publicize City ofMiami Page 76 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the fact that we were going to be taking a vote to determine which way this should go. That was onpromptu [sic] at the meeting. Mr. Wernick: Okay, so I -- so just to clarify. There wasn't a vote -- so you're not representing the Association's opinion; you're just giving us that information about who's contacted you about the concerns, and that there are folks on 42nd Street? Mr. Kemp: Which part of it are you really confused on? Mr. Wernick: I'm just asking whether you're -- Mr. Kemp: Are you trying to -- Mr. Wernick: I'm just asking -- Mr. Kemp: -- get a certain answer as such with -- an attorney would do -- Chair Hardemon: Decorum, please. Mr. Kemp: -- if we were in court? Is that what you're -- Chair Hardemon: Decorum. Mr. Kemp: -- trying to reach? Chair Hardemon: Decorum, decorum. You stated your -- you've given your public -- this is the public hearing time; he's expressed his two minutes. He's not a witness here today. Mr. Wernick: I understand. Chair Hardemon: And so -- Mr. Wernick: I understand. I apologize. Chair Hardemon: I gave him a little bit of -- Mr. Wernick: I just wanted to clarify that -- it doesn't sound like it's the Association's position Chair Hardemon: Now, I can understand -- and -- I mean, you can tell by -- well, let's say this: He's expressed himself. I'm going to allow the rest of the public opinion to go on, and our board will be able to consider all the testimony that's been put before us. Who's next? Anyone next? Vice Chair Russell: I actually did just have a question -- Chair Hardemon: For -- okay. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Kemp. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Kemp. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Kemp. City ofMiami Page 77 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Kemp: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: The Vice Chairman has a question for you. Vice Chair Russell: So the homeowners association, the vote was, though, in favor; is that correct? But you're expressing concerns of certain neighbors who have -- Mr. Kemp: The vote that the homeowners -- you mean the members of the board -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Kemp: -- is what you're speaking or Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Kemp: It was actually a split decision. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Kemp: And that was for my reason that I wanted the neighbors to go ahead and give a determination on it. Vice Chair Russell: Understood Thank you. Mr. Min: Mr. Chair, just so the record's clear, we're opening the public hearing for both PZ.3 and PZ 4. Chair Hardemon: That is correct. The public hearing is opened for PZ 3 and PZ 4. Thank you, sir. Deborah Wright: Goodnight, evetybody. Unidentified Speaker: Goodnight. Ms. Wright: It's been along day. I don't know how you have the patience and the endurance to do this, and I'm glad that we're not debating a house of worship today on this one, thank goodness. I just handed you a memo that I prepared. I'm one of the relatively new homeowners in the neighborhood, and have two lots on 42nd Street. So, before I invested in here, in this neighborhood, I did all my research of what you all wrote what Miami 21 says, and I bought in a safe zone not to have a parking lot next to my house or across the street from my house. And, you know, I'm queen of research, so I'm a little surprised that it's gotten this far at this point. My goal here is just to support the advancement of Northwest 2nd Avenue. It's already coming. Anybody that was here during Art Basel knows -- there were galleries; even some of our realtors in the neighborhood support, and know that - Panther Coffee is coming up the street; whatever else is already coming to 2nd Avenue, and we're talking about a really big lot right here on 2nd and 42nd. It's over 10, 000 square feet just on the commercial portion. If you go up and down, even through Wjmwood, there's so much that can be done on over 10, 000 square feet. There's no problem with the right developer developing this property appropriately, without moving their parking lot from their beautiful courovard into my neighborhood in front of my house. So, if you look at the Miami 21 zoning map, there's no other precedent for this. There's no encroachment over that line. My house, my lot, my neighbors are supposed to remain residential, according to your decisions. And while there may have been support in Buena Vista Stakeholders, not one of those letters of support are from somebody on this block. If you look at one of my exhibits -- City ofMiami Page 78 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Wernick: Just for the record, objection. We passed out four letters from residents who live on this block. Ms. Wright: Is this a court trial right now, because I want to know ifI should be prepared? Chair Hardemon: Itis. It's -- just continue on with your --he's just doing that just for the record. Ms. Wright: Okay. Exhibit B-3, the neighbors specifically adjoining the eastern portion of this property, the people that actually live there that are residents, not necessarily the absentee property owner who's excited about an investment opportunii)�, perhaps; the actual residents are the first two on this list, and they don't want a parking lot next to their house. I live relatively across the street, diagonal in a way; I do not want a parking lot next door or across the street. I'd rather move. I didn't buy three years ago on that expectation. So, it's important to note that Exhibit B-3 has signatures from all the residents on that block; and whether you take a vote of 20-4 or 10-4 or 15 to -- it doesn't matter, because every single person on that block, which will directly be affected, says, "No, They don't want to live next to this. So ifyou live on the east side ofMiami Avenue and you vote for this, of course, it's not your issue, butt personally will have headlights in my eye. There's no reason. So, a lot of the support, if any, comes in that we want to see 2nd Avenue get redeveloped There's aline of people waiting to redevelop properties like this, and they will do a good job with it. Not wanting to change a structure to accommodate parking or all the other uses of this lot is not an excuse to encroach into residential communities. You have to -- ifyoure going to play in the game of commercial real estate, you do what you have do to abide by the rules and by the Code. So it's --you know, we don't want it to move over, and it sets a ver) bad precedent for the neighborhood. There's not that many families on this block. On 42nd Street, between I st and 2nd Avenues, there's about five families on each side; just five families. Many of us may own a lot and expand it to two lots, or people that have been on this for over 40 years on this block that are not in support of having a parking lot encroaching into the commercial part, into the residential neighborhood. And we're talking about parking lot, but really, there's no condition for that. They're looking for full commercial zoning, so it would allow much more than a parking lot. That said, going on notice, you'll see in my memo -- it's late. I don't even want the bore evevybod� with the details. But in my memo, you'll see explanations on why we believe the Planning Board may have put this forward, and some of it is on incorrect information, which I sat down with the actual examiner and went over some things with him, and he even noted some issues. Then notice; there's been a whole big mess about notice in the neighborhood, and we don't have to get into that in detail. It is in the memo that's for the record, but as you heard from the main HOA (homeowners association) that I know of, it's not supported by the neighbors, and we have several of the neighbors here, some that will speak, some that are not going to speak, but there are neighbors that are here for 3 years, 40 years, 45 years that just oppose this only on the residential portion; that's it. On commercial, if they came in here for even more upzoning, we want to see 2nd Avenue developed, and it will develop. There's a lot of interest coming in 2nd, and I'm all in support of walking around the corner to my favorite store. I want to do that. I don't want to live directly next door to it, and I did not buy next door to it. And the new people coming to the neighborhood are investing the same amount per square foot as these people paid for their commercial propero) . Why would we get jilted? It just -- it wouldn't be right. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much. Is there any other person that's here for public hearing? Mr. Cruz. Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57 Street. I've spoken on this item at first reading. I want to backup and echo the young lady's sentiments just now by quoting something I've read many times in many zoning analyses from the Planning Department over the years, although not on this specific one. Quote, "This could set a negative precedent and create a domino effect," unquote. So I would ask that you apply that considerate logic, and protect this young lady and City ofMiami Page 79 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 her neighbors from this intrusion into the residential zone. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other person? You're recognized, ma'am. Gina Veillard: Goodnight, everyone. My name is Gina Veillard. I live on 120 Northwest 42nd Street. It's been along night; I know, for all of us. I've been living on 42nd Street for over 25 years, and 1 personally know every family that lives on the block. I don't know one person that lives on 42nd Street between I stAvenue Northwest and 2nd Avenue that's in favor of this residential zoning -- rezoning. Absolutely, I'm for the growth of Northwest 2nd Avenue. It's happening,- it's evident. And I'm sure many others are as well. You know, this improvement will bring a lot of life, as we all know. It's happening. We see Wjmwood It's going all the way down -- in my perspective, all the way down to 79th Street. I support the commercial upzoning. However, I do believe that this can be achieved without crossing the residential zoning. And most importantly, all the business on 2nd Avenue Northwest are able to operate in the same lot space that 4201 Northwest 2nd Avenue has. We just want to preserve our neighborhood. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized. Shiller Jerome: Good evening, Commissioners. Shiller Jerome, 24 Northeast 47 Street. I'm not a resident of Buena Vista Heights, but I am a property owner in Buena Vista Heights. I just want to give a brief scenario, and for the past -- in -- 15 years ago, when I first went to Buena Vista East, one of the first things we wanted to do was develop our commercial corridor, get more restaurants in, and it's been very successful. One of the impacts we've been having with that is the fact that, as you develop your commercial corridor, you need parking, and our neighborhood has been direct impact with the fact that there is no parking issue. So I think, as Northwest 2nd Avenue look to be developed, those who lives there and those who also own there need to consider the fact that with the changes, the livelihood, the viability of that corridor, parking has to be addressed, and even if this is not the correct means by doing it, there needs to be a means of which parking and commercial viabilio) can work as one, because I don't think any resident here wants parking in front of their streets, which is why there's a decal parking on most of those streets. So I think what happens is similar to Northwest 2nd Avenue; other corridors in Little Haiti and other areas is these corridors were never intended for this oPe of density as far as commercial, but again, we're realizing that it's coming, and the communio) needs it, whether it be for jobs, for development, and so forth. So I think this Commission has a big task on their hand tonight, because what happens is how do you put -- how do you balance out the viabilio) of a core in which this issue is going to be going on not only for this propero) ; other properties? But also, you know, take into consideration that with development, there has to be some parking needs. And as you guys know, Northwest 2nd Avenue is a count) road, so the idea of just having crane -- to see a crane parking under zone is not a mechanism that's currently in place right now, but I would say that, you know, there has been success stories; and if a compromise can be reached, it should be reached. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other person that'd like to speak on public hearing? The quiet one speaks. Lorena Ramos: Good evening. Good evening, honorable Chairman and honorable Commissioners. I am just as exhausted as you are, because you all saw me writing therefor seven hours, okay? My name is Lorena Ramos. My address is 20 Northwest 45th Street, and I am the chairman of the Buena -- the chairperson of the Buena Vista Stakeholders. Our boundaries are from Northwest 36th Street to the south to Northwest 54 Street to the north, from North Miami Avenue in the east, and Northwest 2nd Avenue to the west. I am fiercely, fiercely protected [sic] over our neighborhood. And by the way, Vice Chair, welcome to you. The last time we were together was in a dark alley, and that was for the 3801 application. So on September 26, I was called by Peter Ehrlich. He says, `Did you know that there is an item on the agenda for PZAB? " I didn't know. Mayor Tomas Regalado was one of our attendees at our City ofMiami Page 80 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 monthly meeting, and I said "So sorry, but I'm going to PZAB. " I went there; I requested a deferral, together with Evelyn Andre, because we wanted to know what was going on. And on top of that, the Planning & Zoning Department was recommending a unified recommendation of the property to T4-0 that included the eastern parcel. We requested a deferral; we were not in agreement with that, and we went back to our neighborhood. We had then a meeting with not only Buena Vista Heights Association, but ours also: Ulysses Kemp; Evelyn Andre, the Vice Chair; myself,- and also our urban planner, who's aboard member, Donald Shockey. We took an enormous amount of time. We walked the site. We walk --I mean, we went through every scenario that could be possible. But as Commissioner Suarez said today, sometimes it's better just to mediate. And if the Planning Department is requesting and -- I'm sore; recommending -- I apologize -- a T4 -O, well, we said "You know what? Our Northwest 2nd corridor is blighted. There is nothing happening. " All there is on Northwest 2nd Avenue in the evening is dark, pocketed areas, full of a lot of drug activio) , and nothing happens during the day, nothing. Even Evelyn Andre, who's the Vice Chair of the Buena Vista Heights, at this last meeting said, she avoids going to Northwest 2nd, because of the horrible nature that we all have to undergo. So to mediate and to get something that is really good for our neighbor, we said, "You know what? Let's get the eastern portion to T4 -L. " It's not a parking lot as we're talking about that's going to be built. They're parking spaces that will allow the 174-0 that everybody seems to be, okay, wanting to now bring life to our corridor, to then start developing. We really have no development. Everybody is waiting. You know why they're waiting? Because there's nothing they can do with their properties right now, nothing. And so what we have is graffiti everywhere, okay? I have to say, though -- and I have to digress here --your Department director of Solid Waste, Mario Nunez, thankfully, has done a fantastic job in cleaning up on Northwest 2nd -- because it's -- 2nd corridor, because it's really been a dump. It's much -- it's better than that. Although, I can't say it's, you know, still not a dump, unfortunately, because it's just ugly. The fact is it's ugly. And we need development now. And the T4 -L is one store up. It's not as though it's going to be lights going in. We've requested landscaping, the director can tell you. Your codet mandates that, that we need to have landscaping. All of that is part of what we had agreed to, including Buena Vista Heights. I'm completely taken aback by what has happened tonight, because we were both in agreement as of Tuesday; not only theirs, but ours, and the majority of the people, yes. And another thing that I have to tell you that is so important: When we tell the property owners, and we tell the developers come back to the associations and work with us; and then, after many months of working together and having residents come to our meetings, and bringing our applications forth to them and we agree, and we come to first reading, and Chairman was happy that we all had collaborated, what do we do now? We're going to be the laughing stock. We tell people come tons, agree with us; and then we turn around and we come here after, unfortunately, Ms. Wright, who had -- who says she had not been noticed -- she acknowledged she received all of our notices. Ms. Wright: No, I didn't. Ms. Ramos: You told me you've received mine. Ms. Wright: Absolutely not. Ms. Ramos: She's told-- I'm sore. I'm under oath. That is what she had told me; that she has received it, but because she lives six months out of the year in New York that she may not have had the time to have been there at that particular meeting. Ms. Wright: That's exactly (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: All right Well, decorum. Ms. Ramos: I'm sorry. I didn't think I was being rude, so if I have been, I apologize. I didn't think I was. What I'm saying is that we go through all this process, and I believe in process. City ofMiami Page 81 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 This --I'm a court reporter, for goodness sakes; I'm in it every single day. We go through the process. We put everyone through what we calla very aggressive and could be very annoying to them, time costly; we don't care. We're going to do the best for our communio) as a whole, and really, that's what we came to; was a collaborative effort to do what was better for the communio) as a whole. That does not mean that we're dis -- being disrespectful to the neighbors on the street of 42nd Street. Absolutely not. We weren't even aware, because nobody ever voiced an objection. That is why we ultimately had an agreement, both associations. So with that said ifyou have any questions, I'm here to answer any of them. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just, once again, wondering if there's room therefor more mediation, and for there to now be additional discussion between, you know, the parties to see ifyou come to an agreement once again. Chair Hardemon: It seem -- well -- Commissioner Carollo: So I'm saying that; and at the same time, to a certain degree, I'm asking, you know, because I don't know if they're too far away and -- or if there's a possibility for that to happen. ChairHardemon: You know, I'll tell you that may be something that the parties may want to consider. The way that I see this, I told you, I mean, from the vett' beginning, it appears to be -- spot zoning is what it appears to be to me. The difference was that if someone says, "Well, in my neighborhood, I want it, " then, hey, that's what you want, right. That's what you want. And, certainly, there are conditions that are within -- or there are goals that are within Miami 21 that can lead us towards agreeing that it's not technically spot zoning; it may be some transition that we're trying to put on 42nd, 44th, and 45th Street; that's possible too. This is the first steps towards transitionary zoning, but -- well, you have to admit, we have three different bodies of constituents. The body that is most affected by this, those who live on 42nd Street as -- what was proffered by witnesses say that they don't want it, and they provided us a list of signatures. A homeowners association that has been therefor quite some time said that, "Yes, we took a vote, but it was a vote, and we didn't give notice that we were having this vote, " so there could have been more opposition to this. That's basically what he says. And then Buena Vista -- the Stakeholders Association says, "Look, we took a vote also, and my constituents want them. " But, still, ifI had to weigh the relative importance, if I had to consider the fact that one president has come and said, apologetically, really, `I can't support" -- "our organization can't support this with the way that we did it, and with the recommendation that is against" -- or "in the face of the people that live on 42nd Street. " So, if I were making a decision about this particular site, I would look to the residents on 42nd Street. I mean that I --, and I think that any one of us would probably look at those residents there. And so, ifyou think that you want to have additional time to iron this out, because I think you were taken aback also by the statements of Kemp, then it's probably something that you should do. Ms. Ramos: And before you say something, also, I have to tell you, Vice Chair Evelyn Andre spoke up vociferously, vehemently at the Tuesday meeting that she was this favor of it. This is not something about an association against another association. This is not about a -- Chair Hardemon: No. Ms. Ramos: -- win for the stakeholders, or a win for -- this is about the communio) . Chair Hardemon: Right. I don't think -- City ofMiami Page 82 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Ramos: This is about being able to walk our streets. This is about being able to walk to our corridor and get something to eat. As Ms. Wright says, she is an attorney. She's a real estate attorney. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Ramos: Okay. So we know that. And if we want that, well then, we'll have to have the other. Chair Hardemon: No. Listen, I understand what you're saying, but you also have to consider the fact that when I look at this future land use map between just south of 40th Street and just north of 45th Street, I'm looking at a zoning line that is -- the straightest line that I've ever seen within the Cit) of Miami, and I'm looking at a square footage that appears to be almost equal throughout that commercial boulevard. Does that mean that because that square footage is that way and no one has -- I can't tell you what the parking is like on every single one of these buildings, or if a business can be supported in every single one of these buildings. A business was supported therefor 10 years at this site that you're talking about, which is a daycare, so I'm not here to make that comment. What I'm here to speak about relatively is spot zoning. And if I'm going to make a decision that I think is against what I would normally think, I at least want the residents'support, and right now, at best, it's splintered. Mr. Wernick: Mr. Chairman, I hear your concerns; and I think, based on what you've heard tonight, I can totally understand that. I would like to respond to a few things, because I think there's one very important thing. Ifyoure most concerned with 42nd Street, one of the most important things is the fact Concepcion ktazquez, who lives at 167 Northwest 42nd Street, which is the orange color property immediately to our subject propero) , the most affected property owner, has signed a letter in support of this application, which was submitted to you earlier, and that letter was signed today. The other thing I'd like to mention is all of the people who are on that petition -- of all the people who are on that petition, how many of them who knew of the meeting Tuesday night -- because everyone in the neighborhood knew of the meeting, because the fliers were handed out by Evelyn and others, and door to door. Everyone -- literally, it was on their block. This was -- meeting was taking place on the block, and how many of them showed up on Tuesday night? Chair Hardemon: I'm going to say this to you: Have you ever heard the expression, You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole? And I say that to you because I already have trepidation because of where we are. If there is an issue that you think you need to settle with the residents in that communio) , I think you should. Have you -- I can't tell you where this is going to go. I know that the last time this was here, I had residents that expressed that they were against this. And I know there are residents (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Wernick: No. Last time this was before us? Chair Hardemon: Yeah. I think it was like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Mr. Wernick: At --in December? Chair Hardemon: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I remember particularly, the two young ladies that are sitting in front of me making comments about this. Just --I remember that. Mr. Wernick: The item was deferred last month. They were here in attendance, and perhaps, that was when that happened. In December, this item was approved 5-0 -- Chair Hardemon: My question -- Listen -- City ofMiami Page 83 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Wernick: -- by this Commission. Chair Hardemon: -- do you want to continue with this today? Mr. Wernick: I think there's -- there are some very important things that have not been established correctly, and there are a couple of things about what Ms. Wright submitted which are very troubling to me, including just misinforma -- I mean, this -- I feel like what is occurring is this Commission is hearing a very mixed bag. You mentioned that there are three groups. If you were at this meeting on Tuesday, which Lorena spoke of, and Evelyn -- I'm sore -- Evelyn Andre, who is the vice president of the Buena Vista Heights Association, who signed a letter of support, who lives at the corner of I stAvenue and 42nd Street, but is not here because she's a flight attendant who's on a airplane right now. Everybody that has heard this in a transparent forum has either unanimously recommended approval and given their support, or an overwhelming majorio) has given their support. So I just -- I hear what you're saying. I think the only competent substantial evidence that you have before you shows that you should approve this. Your staff has actually recommended approval for something greater, and I think their -- the fear of the impact is not real in the sense that they're concerned about things they may be seeing in the neighborhood, which they believe would happen here, but if -- none of those properties are designed or permitted to Miami 21. If there was a parking lot here, it would be need to be screened with a six-foot screen wall or liner unit. Parking lots in this neighborhood don't have that. The T4 -L restrictions, 50 percent max commercial. There's very little that really could occur here that would have any sort of impact of that sort. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. I see some common ground happening here, and I think it would be a shame to push it to an extent where neither part) is happy at the end of the day. I see that on Northwest 2nd Avenue, there seems to be some consensus. It's the property to the east. And I guess I just want to understand before I probably recommend the same, as I'm hearing from my fellow Commissioners here to possibly bake this a little bit more amongst residents, because it seems that you felt there was more consensus than there is. The people who are on your side don't necessarily show up. They feel that the people who are dissenting obviously are more vocal, but there is a mixed bag here. I guess I just want to know -- understand, under the current zoning, what could be done with that lot? Right now it's all one property, correct? And it's a learning center, home of the Soaring Eagles. Mr. Wernick: It was. It's vacant now. Vice Chair Russell: Okay, but there's a -- that's -- that lot is the playground of the learning center, correct? So if left in its current zoning, would you have to split the lot and do something separate with that portion, or could you develop it with what's being recommended on the west side and do something within the T3 -L there? Mr. Wernick: That's a very good question. The graphic that's up right now actually would show you that they couldn't even do what most of the other neighbors have on their property. They could not do a duplex or triplex. They couldn't do any commercial. They couldn't do any accessory. They basically could continue using it as a playground for a daycare center, or build a single family home maybe, but that --there's no practical --I mean, to build a single family home within the property that they own, which has on this part a two -store commercial building, essentially, on the same unified site, it's just -- there's no -- there's really no way to do that. So, as I mentioned before, the T4 -L zoning was the compromise. The original application, it was T4-0. There was good dialogue to arrive at a point --we actually had to go to the Planning Department to convince them to, you know, support less than they were already supporting. The Planning Department saw this as meeting the criteria, as meeting the vision under Miami 21. So T4 -L was the -- we said we could do a covenant with T4 -O, or T4 -L would also put in some City ofMiami Page 84 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 preto) substantial restrictions. There's not a whole lot we could do with T4 -L. Probably, it's going to be a surface lot to support a tenant and -- Vice Chair Russell: So it wouldn't be -- Mr. Wernick: -- it wouldn't be too much more. Vice Chair Russell: -- like a three -stove parking lot or anything like that under T4 -L? Mr. Wernick: No. There's -- it's a 7, 500 foot lot. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Mr. Wernick: You have to do setbacks, landscape islands. There is -- Vice Chair Russell: Surface (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Wernick: In the future, down the road, perhaps, it could be a mixed-use site with some ground floor retail with some residential, but -- Vice Chair Russell: I certainly see the intention for the transitional zoning, and it does make sense. And I'd love to hear from our Planning & Zoning director, who wouldn't normally approve the -- taking a straight line and making it not a straight line, but I'm sure he has his reasonings as well. But the mixed bag or the conflict we're hearing is that you heard that you've got abutting residents who are in support, and then we're hearing here that there's abutting residents who are not, so it seems like you've got some more work -- Mr. Wernick: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- to do in terms of gaining consensus. That's all. And that seems to weigh as the most important factor to the Chair is the will of the abutting residents in this case. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner, you want to be recognized? Commissioner Carollo: That's where I was trying to see if there would be some more -- Chair Hardemon: It's really up to the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I could tell you, I mean, I have two motions that I can make. I can move to deny, or I can move to continue. Move to deny it, it may fail. It may fail, because I'm sure there's some Commissioners here that say, "Hey, you know, let's give them an opportunio) . " But, certainly, I mean, I've had someone present themselves who's been in that communio) for 25 years, and I had someone to present who bought into that communio) in 2014, and they have differing interests in what should be there, or at least what the intrusion to the residential area would look like. And when the property owner referenced Wjmwood and Brickell, I mean, certainly, you can't compare 2nd Avenue to Wjmwood, because in Wjmwood, I mean, it has so much encroached into the residential area that the only residential areas that they don't have are public housing. If not for public housing, you know, the area that people are excited about in Wjmwood wouldn't have any residential places. And I think the Clerk needs a five-minute break, because he has some funny system that he can't change until after 12 o'clock So you should think about it while we take this recess for five minutes, so the Clerk -- to change his tape. Mr. Wernick: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Calling the meeting back into order. I know where we left off before. I know we previously closed the public hearing, but there's a gentleman in the blue shirt that apparently City ofMiami Page 85 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 had been waiting to speak for public hearing. For some reason, he did not speak, but I did see him diligently waiting. Sir, you have two minutes to address us. David Luis Herrera: My name is David Luis Herrera. I live at -- Chair Hardemon: We closed the public hearing (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Herrera: Ladies first, please. Unidentified Speaker: Ladies first. Chair Hardemon: She actually doesn't have a right to speak We closed the public hearing while she was sitting right there. Mr. Herrera: Yeah, I was standing up earlier, and I was standing behind her. Chair Hardemon: Okay. All right, all right. Okay, go ahead No, please. Mr. Herrera: My name is David Luis Herrera. I live at 45 Northeast 38th Street, and I really double or concur with what she said as far as what happened at the meeting. They were very courteous. They showed us exactly what they were doing, what they were planning, and the majority of the people present were in favor of it --are in favor of it. Everybody signed. I don't understand what now the change is going on. And I, as a resident, long-time resident of Miami -Dade Count) over -- now 50 years, I see that if we demonize these developers, the domino effect, like the gentleman said earlier, will happen in the manner that developers and investors are not going to come in and invest; and what's going to continue is what's happening now, which is drugs, murders, and nothing really positive. So, if we demonize these developers and not support them, which is why we showed up, it'll be a continuance of Miami back to 1978, '79, '80s is what's going on on Northwest 2nd Avenue. We want to see development occur. Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Braun. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I -- let her speak. Go ahead. Susan Braun: Good evening, Commissioners, Chairman. My name is Susan Braun. I live at 45 Northwest 44th Street in Miami, and I've been a homeowner in Buena Vista Heights for 15 years; and before that, I rented for a few years. I would like to clarify a few of the things that were spoken about this evening. One about the property being a mirror of the zoning to the south, and I notice that was in the conclusion of the Planning Department's zoning analysis. The property actually to the south is zoned single family with ancillary T3 -L. It's not T4 on the residential portion. Another discrepancy that I heard this evening was about the transparency of the process when, in fact, in September, the developers and the attorney met with the homeowner board members, but the residents didn't know about it, and they made the decision to support this very important zoning and land use change without any of us knowing about it, and I'm very involved in the communio) . A follow-up email, I think, was sent out basically just announcing the results on the Stakeholders' website. And this is a disturbing pattern that's developing with the homeowners going against the impacted residents; and deciding, disregarding how we feel, what they want. And Lorena Ramos of the Stakeholders, who I think is doing wonderful job in many of the aspects of her association -- we have agreed to disagree on encroachment. When she said she fiercely defends the neighborhood, when, in fact, a term in a contract she made with another developer supporting encroachment has that she and the developer would contact the Planning Department to upzone -- change the zoning for the residential portion from, I think, 39th to 44th; four residences. And there was no meeting in October ever presenting the 4201 project to the residents, and I attended that meeting, and I even have her agenda with me. So, when you hear City ofMiami Page 86 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 that the homeowners are supporting it, we're not. It's just a few select board members. And even at the meeting the other night, it was the Stakeholders who were present. It was -- no one lives on 42nd Street. I think there's a term in sports -- Ringers, Ul ere people come, and they voted, and they have nothing to do, and that's -- and, perhaps, those are the letters as well, because all of the impacted that homeowners on 42nd Street do not want this. And, actually, at the meeting, I tried to speak up about the zoning, and I'm not an expert on Miami 21, but I did represent the neighborhood during Miami 21's development. And when I tried to speak about encroachment and spot zoning, their board member actually cut me off and would not let me talk; and it was like, "Okay, let's do a vote. Hands up who wants prosperity? Okay, who doesn't want prosperity? Oh, well" -- and that's how -- it's being oversimplified to the neighbors this very important issue of development and encroachment. It's not about prosperity. Well, prosperity for all will be good. It's late, gentlemen. Thank you very much, and I appreciate -- Mr. Wernick: I have a -- Chair Hardemon: And I just want the record to reflect by the gasp of Ms. Ramos that she was in objection to the statement that you made characterizing that she supported three or four houses within encroachment. That's all. No, no, no. I just wanted for the record that she addressed -- Ms. Braun: I --yes. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: I have a question for you. Ms. Braun: I could present -- I could forward it -- Chair Hardemon: No, that's okay. Ms. Braun: -- ifyou would like. Chair Hardemon: No, no, I don't. Vice Chair Russell: What do the neighbors want to see there? What would the neighbors find acceptable there? Ms. Braun: You know, Commissioner, I forgot to mention that, and I'm really happy you brought that up, because when they were talking about Northwest 2nd Avenue, it's not the neighborhood that I've lived in for almost 20 years. Sure, it can be improved, but we're in the process of developing. We have a very funky hair salon. We have a cotta lounge that maybe some of us will go to tonight afterwards. We have an event planning that I hear P. Di&d goes to. We have -- one day ata time. We're really getting there. And these other investors in the commercial corridor did not come seeking special treatment; and ifyou make this precedent, as Mr. Cruz presented earlier, we fear it could have a domino effect, as he said. Vice Chair Russell: I understand that, but on this particular lot, which -- and I could very well understand if this was, all by itself, one lot and someone was tr)4ng to change the zoning, but it already is apart of that other property. What would you like to see as a neighbor? Because you're saying nobody's considering what you want it to be, and they're saying it's a parking lot, and you don't want that. What would you want it to be, and what --? That's why I'm trying to -- what could they do with it in its current zoning versus the change they want to make ? Ms. Wright: I'm going to stand with her on this one, because -- Ms. Braun: Well, Commissioner -- City ofMiami Page 87 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Wright: -- as far as the neighbors that have spoken about this and what they want to see, there's so many options here. There's options -- at one point, this lot was combined. It can be subdivided. They're both very practical. What they paid per square foot would still work if that was subdivided, because it was a residential per square foot price compared to what people say. Vice Chair Russell: So you're saying, send it back to residential? Ms. Wright: For that portion. It's zoned residential. Ms. Ramos: No, it's not. Ms. Braun: And they -- Ms. Wright: It's zone -- the -- Ms. Braun: T3 -L, and they knew it was zoned -- and the developers knew -- Ms. Wright: It was zoned that way when they got it. Ms. Braun: Yes. Ms. Wright: And then on the commercial side, what we're saying is, with everything else that's happening on 2nd which is why I moved there, let it be whatever can work. There's a lot -- there's coffee shops, there's hair salons, there's holistic centers. I went to three different art galleries up and down Northwest 2nd during Art Basel. We support growth on that corridor, so if it's a -- whether it be a restaurant, whether it be a art gallery, it can be redeveloped properly; not to try and work with a legal nonconforming. They should redevelop it properly, or give it to a developer that can invest in the neighborhood properly. If --you know, if it's a matter of, "Oh, they can't afford to do 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z' in order to make that propero) work, " sell it to somebody who can, because 2ndAvenue -- there's a line ofpeople waiting to develop on 2ndAvenue; really great assets that are good for us. I mean, we are women in the neighborhood that want to walk on 2ndAvenue. I want that, you know. There's a lot of things that can be done there. Vice Chair Russell: Well, you have a developer who's in line and trying to do something here now. I -- Ms. Wright: And we support that. Vice Chair Russell: -- would hope that you all take this back and discuss it. I think, ifyou push forward, you're definitely at risk of losing this one. Mr. Wernick: Commissioner Russell, I appreciate your comments. I think -- and I think -- I didn't want to have to ask questions, but Mr. Chair, may I direct a few questions at Ms. Wright, which I think are important? Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: I don't think it will be appropriate. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wernick: Well, she's made comments that I -- Chair Hardemon: Can you stop for a second? City ofMiami Page 88 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Gort: Look. Chair Hardemon: Yes, Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Let me ask you a question. The district Commissioner has got two motions. Mr. Wernick: I understand. Commissioner Gort: You're an attorney; quit while you're ahead. Chair Hardemon: Well, Commissioner Gort, you know the two motions that I would like to consider -- if there's one of them that you would like to proffer, I'm certainly willing to hear them now. Commissioner Carollo: Yes. And in an attempt to find consensus, I'm going to make a motion to continue this item; and then, when it comes back, we will make the final decision, but we're hoping that there is some consensus. Other than that, what you mentioned was that the other one would be for denial. So with that said, I'm going to make a motion to continue this item. Vice Chair Russell: Second. Mr. Min: Before there's a vote, Mr. Chair, will you be closing the public hearing so when it comes back, you can just proceed straight to deliberations ? Commissioner Gort: Yeah. Mr. Wernick: Mr. Chair, I would think it would be important to hear from people who weren't here. Chair Hardemon: I think -- yeah, we need to know what the feedback was on this whole issue. I'm certain that it won't take as much time as we took with St. Jude, but it may take just a little -- Commissioner Gort: Second the motion. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that this item is continued to the next like Planning & Zoning meeting. Is there any further unreadiness? Hearing none, motion passes to defer or continue items PZ 3 and PZ 4. Commissioner Carollo: `Aye "for the record. The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Okay. PZ.4 ORDINANCE 15-00974zc Second Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3 -L "URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4 -L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" AND T4 -L "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T4-0 "GENERAL URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT City ofMiami Page 89 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 APPROXIMATELY 4201 NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00974zc 03-24-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00974zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00974zcApplication & Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00974zc Legislation (v3).pdf 15-00974zc Exhibit 1.pdf 15-00974zc ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 4201 NW 2nd Avenue [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Steven Wernick, Esquire, on behalf of 4201 NW 2 Avenue, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. See companion File ID 15-009741u. Item does not include a covenant. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval, with conditions, on October 21, 2015, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will allow a Zoning Classification change from T3 -L "Urban Transect Zone- Limited" to T4 -L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" and T4 -L "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Limited" to T4-0 "General Urban Center Transect Zone - Open" for the above property. Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez Note for the Record: Item PZ 4 was continued to the March 24, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ 3 for minutes related to Item PZ.4 PZ.5 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00976zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.04 ACRES FROM T6 -8-L "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED" TO T6-8-0 "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ATAPPROXIMATELY 1150 NORTHWEST 11TH STREET ROAD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBITA", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; ACCEPTING A COVENANT PROFFERED BY THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, PUBLIC HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City ofMiami Page 90 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 15-00976zc 02-25-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00976zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00976zc Application.pdf 15-00976zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00976zc ExhibitA.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 1150 NW 11th Street Road [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5] APPLICANT(S): Miami Dade County, Public Housing and Community Development FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on November 4, 2015, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will allow a zoning classification change from T6 -8-L "Urban Core Transect Zone - Limited" to T6-8-0 "Urban Core Transect Zone - Open" for the above property. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Chair Hardemon: Mr. Clerk, PZ.1 and PZ. 2, that was continued, right? Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Yes, sir. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Okay. And I know that there are other people that are here. I know we're trying to get out -- okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to say this to the board members: The Cit) Manager has said that any items that are on the agenda referring to the Cio) 's business, he's willing to defer to the next meeting. You also have to be willing to defer your discussion items. But before we do that, I know that there was an item that was supposed to be heard involving a -- let me find it. I believe it's rezoning, PZ S, 1150 Northwest 11th Street Road. We had public hearing on that. We had it continued till today. So, PZ. S, 1150 Northwest 11th Street Road. That's the property involving the County facility where there was a covenant being proffered to allow it to have more beds for an ALF (Adult Living Facilit)). I've heard the competent testimony from the last hearing, and at this point, I would move to pass or to accept PZ S. Commissioner Suarez: Second. I move it, I guess, ifyou -- Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry. Commissioner Suarez: I'll move it for you. Chair Hardemon: It's been moved by Commissioner Suarez. Is there a second? Commissioner Gort: Second. Chair Hardemon: Seconded by Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Carollo: That's first reading, PZS? City ofMiami Page 91 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: This is first reading -- Commissioner Carollo: Gotyou. Chair Hardemon: -- PZ 5. Commissioner Carollo: Gotyou. The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Depuo) City Attorney Barnby Min. Mr. Hannon: And just for the record, a public hearing isn't required, Mr. City Attorney? Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): If I heard the Chair correctly, the public hearing was previously on January 28, 2006, and that's when comments were taken and -- Chair Hardemon: That is correct. And as I understand it with the way that the sunshine law and public hearing, especially is written is that as long as that public hearing is held in -- is being held in a meeting that is in -- it's getting late -- in a meeting that is a part of the decision-making process, then it suffices as public hearing being held for the entire item, and so it's -- this is -- it's been heard once before, before it was continued. We're doing it today without public hearing. However, the next time it comes up, we can also have another public hearing, but it's not necessarily required. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): May -- Chair Hardemon: Francisco, yes. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. May I request also that mention be made of the fact that a covenant has been proffered that, perhaps, the Commission is willing to accept? Chair Hardemon: Right. I thought I made clearly that the covenant was a part of it. Mr. Garcia: Thankyou. Sore. Mr. Min: And ifI could just play with the words. It's not --we're not having a public hearing today. It's -- we've already had the public hearing. Chair Hardemon: We've already had a public hearing, and we may have another one in the future. Mr. Min: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: We like to have two, three maybe, sometimes. Is there any further unreadiness? Mr. Hannon: So the covenant, is that modifying the legislation? Mr. Min: Yes. The ordinance would be as amended to reference the covenant. Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item PZ 5. Commissioner Russell? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Carollo? City ofMiami Page 92 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Yes, on first reading. I'm sorry; yes, on first reading. Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Gort? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Suarez? Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Sorry; jumped the gun. Mr. Hannon: Chair Hardemon? Chair Hardemon: For. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, as amended, 5-0. Chair Hardemon: Okay. PZ.6 RESOLUTION 15-01386a A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AFFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S INTENDED DECISION NUMBER 15-194 TO REMOVE TWO TREES FROM THE MEDIAN ALONG NORTHEAST 6TH COURT BETWEEN 57TH AND 58TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA. 15-01386a 02-25-16 Fact Sheet.pdf 15-01386a Appeal to City Commission.pdf 15-01386a Analysis.pdf 15-01386a (v2) Legislation.pdf 15-01386a (v3) Legislation.pdf 15 -01386a -Submittal -Planning Dept. -PowerPoint Presentation on Samanea Saman.pdf 15 -01386a -Submittal -Elvis Cruz-Powerpoint Presentation. pdf 15 -01386a -Submittal -Elvis Cruz- Handout. pdf 15 -01386a -Submittal -District 2 -Jennings Disclosure and Emails Received.pdf LOCATION: Median along NE 6 Court between 57th and 58th Street [Commissioner XXXXX - District X] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami APPELLANT(S): Aisa Michel, abutting property owner, and Elvis Cruz, co -appellant FINDING(S): ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES OFFICE: Recommended approval of the Intended Decision. PURPOSE: The appeal seeks to reverse the Intended Decision issued to remove trees from a public right-of-way. City ofMiami Page 93 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-16-0083 Chair Hardemon: All right, is there any other item that we -- need to be heard? PZ 6. PZ. 6. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Remaining on the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda are PZ 6, PZ 8, and PZ 9. Would you like me to move to PZ 6? Chair Hardemon: Please. Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. I'll describe it briefly. Item PZ 6 is an appeal of an intended decision for the approval of the application to remove two trees. The applicant in this case is the City of Miami, and the two trees that the City is applying to have removed are two specimens known as "Monkey Pods " in the vernacular, which were planted by an agent other than the City. The two are presently in place, and the appellant, Mr. Cruz, is asking that the trees be left in place. I'll mention briefly -- and then yield to, perhaps, Mr. Cruz through the Chair -- that in discussions with Mr. Cruz and pursuant to visits made to the site, the City is willing to modify its posture slightly to allow for one of the two specimens, which is proven to be healthy and in good standing, to remain in place, and I'll have some more details about that. And as pertains to the other specimen, which I believe all the specialists, all the experts agree is not in good health, that that specimen be removed. I believe we may have a discrepancy between us, the Cit) as applicants, and the appellant, is as to whether that second specimen, which is unhealthy and should be removed, is to be replaced by the same species, a Monkey Pod, or the City's preference is that it be replaced by a specimen that is preapproved by the Cit) , and we think better suitable for that condition. Our recommendation then -- and this recommendation involves both the Environmental Resources Oce, as well as Public Works Department, the steward of the public right -of --way, is that the healthy specimen remain in place; that there should be an agreement entered into with the appellant, Mr. Cruz, that they retain responsibilii)� for maintenance; and that the second specimen, the unhealthy specimen be removed and replaced with a specimen to be determined by the City of Miami Public Works Department, which is not to be a Monkey Pod, and which is approved and appropriate for the site in question. I'll yield. Elvis Cruz: Thank you, gentleman. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57 Street. Thank you for outlining the situation, Mr. Garcia. Okay, this is a picture of the species of tree that is planted at the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, some of the most sacred ground in America. This is the tree in question. There was extensive research done on this tree to make sure that it was appropriate for planting in our street median. The immediate neighbors met and agreed to have this tree, Samanea samara, planted in the median in 2007. Former Cit) Manager, Pete Hernandez, heard the scientific facts and issued a permit for planting six of these trees, and here are the locations of the six Samanea samans planted on 6th Avenue and 6th Court in the medians in Morningside, some of them dating back to that permit in 2007. You can see them numbered in this slide. As you may be aware -- Chair Hardemon: Those are the trees that you planted? Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: These six that you just showed are the six that you planted? Mr. Cruz: Those are the six locations. Chair Hardemon: Those are the six that you planted? City ofMiami Page 94 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: And those six that you planted, you're saying that you had a permit to plant those -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- granted from the Cit)? Mr. Cruz: Yes. You have a handout that you were just given. I think page 21 of the handout is the original permit for the original planting of the six. Now, most recently -- and I'll get to that -- two of them died and were replanted, and that's why we're here today, to talk about that. So, as you may be aware, the Cio;'s lawn equipment has a long history of damage and -- damaging and killing street trees. The reason we are here today is because I had been spraying the grass around the base of these trees since they were planted in 2007 with an herbicide in order to protect them from the City's lawn equipment. That was and still is a common practice, but it's now known that, over time, that can harm and eventually kill a tree, and that's what happened here. I was a victim of misinformation, and there's the irony. I accidentally killed two trees tr);ing to protect them from the City's lawn equipment, and when I replanted them, the Cit); wanted to cut down the new trees; and in the interim, the Cio;'s lawn equipment has been frequently damaging them. But I'm very happy that the City, as Mr. Garcia mentioned has recently decided to let tree number three stay, and I thank you for that, but the irony has continued. On .Ianuary 20, the City lawnmower again struck and damaged tree number one, as you can see in this picture. The bark was completely sheared off. Here, I've outlined the damage in red, and the two red arrows point to previous lawnmower damage on that tree. Adding insults to injury, on February 8, someone opposed to these trees sprayed what appears to be a poison around the trunks of the trees. That was a despicable criminal act. Chair Hardemon: Before you move forward, Mr. Cruz -- Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- is there anyone else from the Cit) that can attest that these are, in fact, photos of the trees that are in question? Vice Chair Russell: And that it's poison? Chair Hardemon: Right, and that's another good one. And that will represent poison. Quatisha Oguntoyimbo-Rashad- Good morning, Commissioners. Quatisha Oguntoyimbo, Planning & Zoning, Environmental Resources. Yes, these are the trees in question. Chair Hardemon: Okay. And what is represented by Mr. Cruz on this photograph that is dated February 8, 2016, do you recognize that to be any type of poison on this tree? Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: I do recognize it to be a chemical that's applied to the base. However, we're not sure what oPe of chemical. My understanding that it has been tested to determine the actual chemical and if it's poisoning. Chair Hardemon: Have you gotten back the results of that testing? Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: We have not. Chair Hardemon: And have you seen this in person? So, are you sure that this picture actually depicts what it's proposed to depict, which is poison on a tree? City ofMiami Page 95 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: Yes. I observe the chemical that's depicted in the photographs here on Monday -- this past Monday, yes. Chair Hardemon: And it still looks substantially in the same condition as this? Ms.Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: Yes. Chair Hardemon: All right, Mr. Cruz. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. And one more, and it's probably meant for our Public Works Department. The pictures in the testament of Mr. Cruz, does the Cit) agree that the City Public Works or Cruz caused that damage? Eduardo Santamaria (Director, Public Works): Commissioner, I really don't know who caused that damage. I can tell you it is possible, in the act of providing maintenance at that median that a lawnmower may have struck the tree. I can also tell you that it's possible that it didn't. It does happen on occasion. But I cannot connect what we saw in those photographs to any incident that may have occurred recently. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Because I want to make sure if that's happening, how do we start preventing that from happening? Mr. Santamaria: That's a good question, sir, and that would be a matter of training. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz, please continue, please. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, Commissioners, and I appreciate your questions very much. Sothis was on February 8. Then, on February 17, the City lawnmower once again struck tree number one and damaged it. The red outline -- Chair Hardemon: Did you witness that the Cit) lawnmower hit this tree? Mr. Cruz: I've been looking at those trees daily throughout the course of this vett' controversial issue. As soon as I heard the lawnmowers were in my neighborhood, I went over; they had already cut the grass. You can see in the background of this photograph the grass is very low; it's just been cut, and I observed afresh wound. Now, let me point out -- Chair Hardemon: You can't testify to the fact that you saw it, but you're saying that you saw it before it was cut on that same day or the day before? Mr. Cruz: The day before, there was no wound. Chair Hardemon: And then you saw it the day after -- Mr. Cruz: No. Chair Hardemon: -- it was cut -- Mr. Cruz: The same day that the lawnmowers had just gone by -- Chair Hardemon: And this is what you realized? Mr. Cruz: Yes. City ofMiami Page 96 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Cruz: And let me continue. I'll give you some more information along the lines of what you're asking. The red outline you see in this picture is the damage from January 20. You can see that it was already starting to heal with that rust) brown color. And then the blue outline is the new fresh damage that was done on February 17. Now, you wanted --you asked a question of the Public Works director: Is it possible that this lawnmower did this damage? Let me draw your attention to the blue outline on the left side about a quarter of the way down of that blue outline. You see that reddish mark? You see the red? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Cruz: That is a paint mark Now, let me go backwards in any show. All right, you see that lawnmower there on frame left? You see at the very front of the lawnmower, how it's painted red? Do you see the metal fork that holds the front wheels ? It is my belief that that is what struck the tree, the front of the lawnmower as it was going by, and it left that red paint mark. Chair Hardemon: Can you go back to the photo with the -- Mr. Cruz: Of the tree? Chair Hardemon: -- tree trunk that was struck? Commissioner Gort: It's kind of high. Chair Hardemon: It looks very high, right. That's the same thing I was thinking. It looks high (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Vice Chair Russell: That's a very close-up photo. Mr. Cruz: Yeah, that is a very close-up photo, but that -- the heights do lineup. Vice Chair Russell: But I do have to say, that's a very big lawnmower to be mowing a very small median. Mr. Cruz: Well, they need to move quickly, and I understand that, but I guess the picture speaks for itself. Anyway -- Chair Hardemon: I want to push you to the -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- heart of our issue, because I think the City proffered a position. What's your stance on the position? Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: Show me where our points of contention are. Mr. Cruz: Okay. The -- and I know where you're coming from. It's 12:32. You want to cut to the chase, Commissioner, I'm with you. Here's the store: The Cit) is offering to let us keep tree number three, which is nice and healthy. They say tree number one is not healthy; I agree with them completely, and you know why I think it's not healthy. And this tree has had multiple open wounds, disease; fungus, insects could have invaded it. Down the road, it may have some serious problems. Where I'm having conflict with the Cit) is that they do not want me to replace City ofMiami Page 97 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 this tree with the same species. We have four of these trees in the median. It's a symmetrical planting,- two on either end. This tree is completely appropriate for this median. I have extensive evidence that I can show you; 20 photographs of an exact same median like this in Honolulu with this tree. Chair Hardemon: But besides that, it was previously approved by the Cit) -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, it was. Chair Hardemon: --to plant it? Mr. Cruz: In 2007. Chair Hardemon: What about tree number four? Mr. Cruz: I'm sore? Chair Hardemon: What about tree number four? Mr. Cruz: Tree number four and tree number two are thriving and doing well, and they're not the subject of this discussion. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Cruz: It's only trees number one and three. Chair Hardemon: All right. Vice Chair Russell: If I could, Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: Please. Vice Chair Russell: There's an element to this I do want to understand, procedurally, with permitting, because the two that are -- that we're talking about are two that have already been replaced, is that correct? And this is their second chance at life, if we will. Mr. Garcia: I believe that is correct, yes. Vice Chair Russell: And the first time around, Mr. Cruz was granted a permit to plant these trees, two of these trees died, he replanted them without further permitting; is that correct? Mr. Garcia: I believe that is correct. Vice Chair Russell: Within our process, is that allowed to -- if -- would he -- would or should he have gotten a new permit to do the replanting, or would it be the opinion of the Cit) that the second planting was actually illegal? Mr. Garcia: No, sir. Our position is that the new trees would have required a replanting ideally, and to that lack of compliance, there are two remedies. One is to require the planter of the trees to obtain a permit after the fact. The other one, which is the one the Cit) chose to exercise, is for the City itself to request a permit to remove the trees, and that is the subject of today's appeal. Vice Chair Russell: Right. But, normally, if the tree were to die, to do replanting would mean a new permit, correct? City ofMiami Page 98 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: So that, to me, is relevant to this in the sense that I see the Cit) being a bit flexible here and being -- they're looking for compromise with you. Rather than taking the hard line of these trees shouldn't -- neither of these trees should be here at all, because they didn't make it, whether it was by your fault of the herbicide or by who knows what other cause could have caused them to die; they were gone. And so, they were replanted without appropriate permitting,, yet, the City is happy to say, "Hey, if they're both alive and making it, let's let them stay. One of them is not making it; it's got to go. The other one's making it; let's let it stay, " which is a significant compromise, I have to say, from their position earlier. The question is simply about the one that has to be removed, which it seems you do agree needs to be removed, what replaces that tree. Am I correct? Mr. Cruz: Exactly, exactly. Now, if I can continue and speak to that precisely. And this is the tree photographed this morning -- actually, yesterday morning now. It's still looking good, but it has those wounds, and so I draw your attention to this map. You can see trees number one and three. The green colored properties are those households right around the trees that have signed a petition in favor of keeping Samanea saman as the planting in that median. We just had the neighbors here on a zoning issues, and there was great weight placed on the opinion of the abutting neighbors. Gentlemen, here you see a very strong majority of the neighbors want to keep the symmetrical planting of this tree. So I was disappointed to hear in a conversation earlier tonight that the City was opposed to replacing this tree with the same species. Why? I'm aware that staff was not familiar with this tree before this issue came up. The City staff believes this tree will get to be too big, and that it'll have destructive surface roots. Will it? No. There's not enough root area. Now, Commissioner Russell, I know you've been to Hawaii. You may not have been looking at trees while you were there, but I have many slides here of this exact tree in medians exactly like this one, so please look at these. As Igo through, you'll notice these trees have been therefor many years. The median is the same size. You don't see destruction of the median. You don't seethe curb being broken. You don't see massive tree roots. The trees are not enormous. They're not gigantic. Why? Because they have limited root area. They're not growing in a wide open field where the roots can extend as much as they want, which would allow a tree to get enormous; instead they are restricted by the size of the median. Again, you see no broken curb. This is a Bonsai, the Japanese art of miniature trees. How do they make a tree miniature? By restricting its root area. This is the exact same species, Samanea saman, a picture I found online of a Bonsai. But to better illustrate the point, consider a tree we all know very well, the Southern Live Oak tree, Quercus virginiana. It's considered native. It's planted throughout Miami for many decades. Does it get too big? Do the roots damage curbs? It depends on the root area. Here's the Florida Champion Live Oak. Look at the size of it. It's enormous; 83 feet tall 150 feet in diameter. Look at all these enormous live oak trees. We plant this tree routinely on the streets of our city in swales only four feet wide, and yet, look at the size of these things. Why would any Cit) official ever dream of allowing this tree to be planted on our streets or in our medians when it is capable of growing to this enormous size: 63 feet tall, 141 feet of spread; 68 feet tall, 139 feet, and look at the extensive tree roots on the surface. But this is what we're used to seeing, isn't it? Why? Because of the limited root area. And, yes, even this tree can be turned into a Bonsai. Now, here you have a median that's right in front of my house. This is -- Chair Hardemon: It looks like Miami Shores. Mr. Cruz: -- 100 feet from the median in question. That's my house on the left. I planted these trees in 1981; yes, with a permit. This photograph was taken in 2007 when they were 26 years old, and here, this photograph only a month ago when the trees are 35 years old The curbs are not broken. The trees are not enormous like those gigantic oaks you saw earlier. Why? Limited root area. The fear that Samanea saman will become enormous is not going to happen. The same way you have a Bonsai at the extreme; in the middle, you have a median with limited root City ofMiami Page 99 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 area That gentleman sitting right there is Jeff Shimonski -- I'm introducing him shortly -- he will testify to that. I have letters in that packet from five separate local experts on trees. There's Jeff, Robert Bobson, 26 years of experience, Tropical Flowering Tree Society; Bob Brennan, who was here for many hours earlier, but he had to leave, chief arborist at Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden; Larty Schokman, 60 years of experience, director emeritus of the Kampong of the National Tropical Botanical Garden; and Steve Pearson, 40 years of experience, director of the Gifford Arboretum at the University of Miami, and president of TREEmendous Miami. Their letters are in that packet, ifyoud like to read them; I've got them highlighted And they'll all tell you that this is an excellent tree for a situation like this. And you may have seen 355 separate petitions that went out; people in favor of these trees. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: I just want to make sure we're getting evetything straight. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: The petition that is signed -- Mr. Cruz: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- does that have to do with the original question of whether the two trees should be removed or killed, whether or not -- healthy or not, or do they specifically have to do with whether this one tree that is unhealthy and agreed to be removed should be replaced with a Samanea saman, or the choice of the City? Mr. Cruz: Yeah. The petition has to do with both in the sense that it talked about saving a symmetrical planting of Samanea samara. Again, two and two on either end of the median. Vice Chair Russell: You say it has to do with both, but it was signed before the issue changed, right? So the petition specifically says, "I am opposed to the removal of two Samanea samara trees from the median" -- Mr. Cruz: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- "as proposed by the City of Miami's intended decision. " Mr. Cruz: Right. Vice Chair Russell: Right? So it doesn't necessarily have to do with how this -- I mean, at this point, you're not even opposed to the one tree that is unhealthy being removed. The question is what to replace it with, and it seems that this petition doesn't have anything to do with that specifically. Mr. Cruz: Ifyou could read, sir, the third sentence: "Their continued presence will enhance the neighborhood by providing symmetry with the other two preexisting Samanea saman trees in the median. Trees are ornamental. Vice Chair Russell: I agree with that. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: But I don't -- City ofMiami Page 100 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Cruz: Trees are ornamental. Vice Chair Russell: -- believe that the petitioners were specifically signing to the --I hear your point. I hear your point. Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: But I think it should be noted -- I'm just -- Mr. Cruz: Well, for what it's worth -- Vice Chair Russell: Please trust me; I'm not trying to challenge you from the negative position here. I want to make sure we're all comparing apples to apples and discussing the same thing. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: When you show pictures of 200 -)�ear-old live oaks, and then compare that to what looked like probably a 15 -year-old live oak in the median, you're not really comparing apples to apples. We do have live oaks here that buckle the streets. We have Mahoganies here that buckle the streets. We have the Elamboyants, the Poincianas that buckle the streets. We're not containing their roots necessarily. I don't know if, in Hawaii, they have a different system of root containment within their median, whereas we're letting the roots just go under I don't know that answer. But I think we should be very clear on what we're comparing. And, know, as you can hear from what I'm saying, I'm a tree lover myself. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: And so, you know, let's all hug the trees. I --you know -- Chair Hardemon: The former -- Vice Chair Russell: -- so I'm taking everything with a grain of salt, and definitely listening very much. Chair Hardemon: The former District 2 Commissioner witnessed tree -loving, ifyou remember that. It was during the Ultra situation. A young lady was making love to the tree, and they thought it was a little odd, but hugging it is a little bit better. Mr. Cruz: The oaks that you -- that I showed you in the median, 36 years old, so -- Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Cruz: And, by the way, those curbs in that median in Morningside, 6 inches wide, 18 inches tall, with two rebars in them. I supervised that on behalf of the neighborhood when it was constructed. I'm very familiar with that. So -- Vice Chair Russell: How deep -- do you know how deep the median --? Mr. Cruz: The curb? Eighteen inches. Vice Chair Russell: Into the ground. Mr. Cruz: Yes. City ofMiami Page 101 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: So that it's -- Mr. Cruz: Yeah, it's about six inches above and about -- Vice Chair Russell: What I'm wondering is what sort of root restriction do we actually have in there, or are they able to go under the street? Mr. Cruz: They don't like to go under the street, for the simple reason that there's not a lot of water there. It's -- the street keeps water from going down. Roots like to go where there's water. Vice Chair Russell: Ever looked at Main Highway, where the street -- I mean, it's where the -- they don't have anywhere else to go, and if there's a path of least resistance and there's dirt, they'll try, right, and that's where the buckling begins. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. I have an expert here, who I'm going to introduce shortly, and he'll be able to answer all those questions, sir. Chair Hardemon: Can I ask something? These trees had been therefor -- well, these trees in questions, are these the ones that have been therefor 35 years? Mr. Cruz: They've been a little over a year Chair Hardemon: Oh, over one year. Mr. Cruz: But the ones that were planted originally, trees five and six, were there since 2007. Chair Hardemon: And has there been any buckling there? Mr. Cruz: No, none whatsoever. Chair Hardemon: And Mr. City Attorney, could we instruct -- or could we have an opinion as a board -- I'm just trying to figure out our latitude -- to say, "Hey, replant the same trees"? Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): Yes. You could grant the appeal, you can deny the appeal, or you can add any conditions that you think are appropriate. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Commissioner Carollo: Why is the Cit) opposed to planting the same tree? Mr. Santamaria: IfI may, Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: Yeah, yeah, you're recognized. Mr. Santamaria: Ed Santamaria, director of Public Works. These trees are not native trees. The tree that we're talking about likes volcanic soil; that's its preferred growth medium. And number two, these trees grow twice as wide as they do tall, so it's not the ideal tree for a residential median. Chair Hardemon: So why would they have granted the permit to plant the tree in the first place? City ofMiami Page 102 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Santamaria: I'm not sure why the permit was granted a number years ago by the Cit) Manager. Chair Hardemon: So now that we have, what, three trees there? Vice Chair Russell: Six. Chair Hardemon: Six. There's six trees -- Mr. Santamaria: Six trees. Chair Hardemon: -- in the same matter, what's the harm in letting another one go, or be planted there? Mr. Santamaria: You mean planting another one? Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, the same type. Chair Hardemon: In its place. Mr. Santamaria: The same o pe. Replacing the one that's -- Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Santamaria: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with the same type? It would be our preference, since the trees -- Mr. Cruz says that the trees have been replanted. What he doesn't say is that they've been replanted several times. It's my understanding, there are several iterations of these trees that have failed in the past. And so my fear is that we're going to go through the same exercise, and we're going to have to eventually replace that tree. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz, has that happened? Has this tree been replanted on numerous occasions, more than two times? Mr. Cruz: No. What happened was they were plant -- six were planted in 2007. Chair Hardemon: I'm depending on you now. I'm (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- Mr. Cruz: Don't you worry. Believe me, and I can lookup pictures, ifyou want. Chair Hardemon: Because I'm about to have you teach me how to plant trees in my median next to my home. Mr. Cruz: It would be my extreme pleasure. Chair Hardemon: But go ahead, I'm listening. Continue on at the mike. Mr. Cruz: But the first thing you want to do to plant trees in your median is go see that attractive young lady and get a permit. Chair Hardemon: Okay. All right, go ahead Mr. Cruz: Okay. Six trees were planned in 2007, and I started applying the herbicide from day one. Commissioner Carollo: And that's why they died City ofMiami Page 103 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: And that's why they died Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: Four of them in the upper median suffered massive cold damage in the upper limbs, in the two week-long cold spell of 2010. Ifyou were here in 2010, you remember, we had a brutally cold winter. The trees did not die, but they were badly damaged. They didn't look good, and so they were replaced, but they did not die. Why did they suffer cold damage? Because that's one of the things that the herbicide does: It makes trees less cold resistant, so now we know that; we didn't know it then. It's on websites. I've showed the Commissioner that information. That's what happened there. And so then we were -- we're doing great, but again, I was still applying the herbicide, and these other two died. I haven't been using the herbicide; things are looking a lot better. And you're right, we've already got five; why would it matter if we put one more? It's -- by the way, you mentioned volcanic soil. These trees are not native to Hawaii. They're actually native to Central America, and there's a lot of places where -- they don't need to have volcanic soil. They're legumes. They have their own nitrogen -fixing nodules in the roots, so it's really not a volcanic soil thing. And again, I just showed you about 10 photographs of the trees growing in medians just like this, and they've been there in Hawaii. For 150 years, they've had this tree that they've been using there. As far as them being native or not native, trees don't have to be native to be planted. I -- you -- even on the street tree list for Miami -Dade County, there's plenty of trees that are non-native. Chair Hardemon: Now, I say we continue this, and let's take a trip to Hawaii. Mr. Cruz: Well, I offered to take Quatisha, but instead I just went on Google Street Maps, and I got the pictures. Vice Chair Russell: I mean, I remember as a child, my father used to grow Orchids here in South Florida; and whenever we'd get a significant freeze, we'd have to either bring them in or we'd risk them. And he always threatened to move to Hawaii, because there he could leave his Orchids out year-round. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: And I guess we're in a bit of an experimental phase with this particular species to see does it like South Florida Mr. Cruz: Actually, not so much. Ms. Quatisha did see this tree in beautiful splendor in Morningside Park, where we have about a dozen, and -- let me wait for the Commissioner -- the State champion tree is in Fort Lauderdale. It's 60 feet tall, and it's been therefor about 80 years. And so, that means it's experienced even more cold than here, and it's lived through all those hurricanes, and it's lived through the first day it snowed in Miami, Januaty 19, 1977. Vice Chair Russell: I remember that one. Mr. Cruz: It's lived through the second day it snowed in Miami, December 25, 1989. It went through that brutally could winter of 2010, so there's no question that the tree can grow in South Florida. Vice Chair Russell: If I may interrupt, I do need to make my Jennings disclosure, which I forgot. I've received over 90 emails on this subject from residents of Morningside, both for and against the issue, and I just needed to mention that. Mr. Cruz: No problem. I'm also done, gentlemen, ifyou can bear with me for about another 30 City ofMiami Page 104 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 seconds. Let me say something very diplomatically. There has been much behind -the -scenes politicking on this issue. Because of misinformation that was on the Internet, there has been opposition to these trees since they were first proposed in 2006 It's been very small opposition, but it's been very politically well connected. I'm respectfully requesting that this Commission grant me permission to replace a tree that the Cit) has repeatedly damaged, completely at my expense, so as to end the politicking and resolve this issue. Furthermore, in order to help ensure the continued health and viability of the six Samanea samara trees, I'm also respectfully requesting permission to trim, fertilize, water, and maintain the trees, including the placement of plastic curbing and mulch around their trunks, like you see in this picture, to protect them from the lawnmowers and the weed eaters; again, completely at my expense. In closing, from my perspective, this has been a classic example of "No good deed goes unpunished. " Commissioner Russell, all I'm trying to do is plant and protect some beautiful trees in my neighborhood. I hope you will accept my offers for a win-win for both the Morningside neighborhood and the Cit). Thank you. I'd like to now call Mr. .Ieff Shimonski. He can attest -- Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to say -- Commissioner Carollo: Right. Chair Hardemon: See, don't -- remember, this quote. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Never snatch -- Mr. Cruz: Okay. Chair Hardemon: --the victory from the mouth -- Mr. Cruz: Am I there? Shall I shut up? Chair Hardemon: --of defeat. Yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yeah, I'm tired. Vice Chair Russell: Yes, and I think we can probably wrap this up. I have a feeling the City may have -- by being friendly and compromising, you may have actually weakened your case in the sense that ifyoure willing to accept the other Samanea samans that do exist that they're not a threat to our streets, or our safety, or the cars that it wouldn't hurt, in your opinion, to put another one there; am I correct? Oguntoyimbo-Rashad- No. Well, I wanted to bring clarity to that. And in an effort to answer the questions that were asked regarding why would we not want to replant the same species, FIT going to briefly display some photographs of some other Samanea saman trees that are planted within Miami -Dade County, and it would depict some surfacing roots. Ifyou see in the screen here, this is in Miami -Dade Count). There was recent root pruning -- Chair Hardemon: Not within the Cit) of Miami? Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: Not within the Cit) of Miami, but in Miami -Dade Count). Chair Hardemon: They have worst soil in Miami -Dade Count). Vice Chair Russell: We're more of volcanic. Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: So, ifyou can see to the right, it's 2007, and these trees are -- been planted for seven years. They're fast-growing trees. So you have surfacing roots; the neighbor City ofMiami Page 105 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 complained about it. Their -- the root -- I'm sorry -- the roots were root pruned, so they were actually larger than what you see herein the photographs. And now fast forward in 2015, you still have the surfacing roots, which you can see are impacting the infrastructure in the sidewalk. Mr. Cruz: May I -- Ms. Oguntoyimbo-Rashad: You also have here this -- these are two Samanea trees that are planted within Morningside Park, and ifyou can -- it also depicts the surfacing roots that would most likely exceed the median that they are currently located in. These, originally, trees were relocated out of the median due to the concern, I believe, maybe 10 years ago. These were replanted into the City park so they can thrive. This is the appropriate area for this species and this size, open land, but ifyou see here, again, you have surfacing roots high above ground that would impact the median. And also, to the case of why would the City allow Samanea trees to be planted. It's the old cliche: "When you know better, you do better. " At the time, we have trees that were planted, Samaneas; we have Royal Poincianas, we have Gumbo Limbos and Black Olives that were pointed -- that were planted at one point in time, but we know now that they're a more suitable species to be planted in the right -of --way, and that is what the Planning Department and the Cit) is working their way to; you know, providing proper trees in the proper place, and that's our effort, and that's what we're trying to do here. Mr. Cruz: May I speak to those photographs? Could you backup the slide to the one that was in the Count), please? Okay, I'm very familiar with that location, because in 2007 -- Chair Hardemon: Where is that location? Mr. Cruz: That is in the southwest -- probably like the Kendall area. I could look it up. I actually have photographs of that same location, and I went there. Those trees were planted by Mr. Robert Bobson, who is the arborist who planted the trees in Morningside, who I hired. I went to that location to see what was going on with those trees. You'll notice in the picture in the upper right-hand corner -- look at the foreground, look at the bare earth there. There is very, very little topsoil in that location. In that location, it's essentially corral rock just right below the surface. Now, what do we know about tree roots? Tree roots exist to find water. They want to go down and find water. The reason a tree has roots at the surface is because it can't get down to where there's water. It's that simple. Those tree roots are telling you that it's tough for them to go underground. Tree roots prefer to be under ground. So I went to that location. I took a screw- driver, and I did a hammer test to prove how many hammer hits it would take, a penetration test, and I showed that to Cit) Manager Pete Hernandez, who is a professional engineer; he understood exactly what I was doing. I then went to the median in Morningside in question, and I hammered the same thing, and showed him the comparison. I just showed you about 10 photographs of medians in Hawaii that had no tree roots on the surface. It's all about the soil conditions. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Cruz. Mr. Cruz: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Vice Chair. Vice Chair Russell: I think you've made your point, and -- Mr. Cruz: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: -- it seems our Chair was correct: Our soil in the Cit) of Miami is better than the County, okay. I think I can put this to rest. I have one question to ask you and you: If we're allowing -- if we would allow Mr. Cruz to plant, would we be also asking him to maintain City ofMiami Page 106 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the tree? Commissioner Carollo: He said he would. Vice Chair Russell: And if so -- and here's the stretch, and I'm going to ask you if you're interested in this -- would he also be allowed to maintain the median? Now, one of the issues we have is that the City's machinery is killing the trees, and especially since they have to mow. Now, I campaigned a lot in Morningside, and there were complaints about the Cio) `s maintenance of the medians and such. And there's several neighbors who are interested in a legume called "Perennial Peanut. " You don't have to mow it; it's a ground cover; it stays an inch and a half, and it's green, and it's repellant to insecticides. Just a thought. Here's a green ground cover you don't need to mow, and I'm wondering if he would be able to maintain the median within certain OPes of choice of shrubbery or ground cover, as is -- approval by the City, that -- would he be allowed to do that? Mr. Santamaria: Yes, sir, he would We do have an `Adopt-A-Median"program. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Cruz, would you like to adopt a median? Chair Hardemon: The "Elvis Cruz Adopt -A -Median" program. Commissioner Gort: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Cruz: Well, I -- Mr. Santamaria: Put his name on it (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Come on. Mr. Santamaria: We'll put his name on it. Commissioner Gort: We'll name it after you. Commissioner Carollo: I -- Mr. Cruz: You're being very generous with my time. Commissioner Carollo: -- think it should be "Adopt -A- Tree" program. Mr. Cruz: What I'd like to do is just, again, as I offered, be allowed to maintain the trees. Now, the actual mowing of the median, the Cit) comes out, as long as they don't hit the trees, I'm fine with them. Vice Chair Russell: We can't guarantee that, and so I'm toying to get one step ahead into the future. Mr. Cruz: Okay. I'm going to take you up on your offer, sir. Here in front of the TV (television) cameras, on the public record, yes, I will happily adopt a median, if that's what it takes to make you happy. Vice Chair Russell: Before I proffer my motion with that amendment, I would thank you for your activism vett' much. Mr. Cruz: Appreciate that. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 107 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: But I would say, if they die, you cannot plant them without another permit. Mr. Cruz: Understood. And, by the way, since you should mention that, a year ago, before I planted these, like the day before, I committed the sin of planting a coconut in a median -- in a circular median that already had coconuts, and I've come to find out that now coconuts are on the black list. Did you know that? Coconuts are now no longer allowed to be planted in medians. Vice Chair Russell: Is it because the nut might fall on a car or a --? Mr. Cruz: I don't know. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Cruz: I lived in Miami all my life. Vice Chair Russell: Different subject. We'll fight that battle -- Mr. Cruz: We had coconuts everywhere. Vice Chair Russell: -- another day. Mr. Cruz: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because you put the lime in the coconut. Vice Chair Russell: Coconut vigilante, okay. Mr. Cruz: Yeah, they've put a lien on -- they're fight to put a lien on my house -- I'm serious; I got the document -- because I planted a coconut in a particular median. Vice Chair Russell: Different subject. I would like to make a motion that -- Chair Hardemon: Francisco first. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sore. Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) he wants to be acknowledged Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, Francisco needs -- Mr. Garcia: Yes, if I may, sir? I would just, perhaps, condition your motion -- or I would suggest that you condition your motion, subject to an agreement to be entered into between the Public Works Department and Mr. Cruz to the Cio;'s satisfaction. We do want to cross "T's" and dot `Ts. " And I would like to place on the record, as well, that should anything happen to any of these trees, and should they grow or behave erratically or in a way that is unforeseen, the Cit);, Of course, reserves the right to apply for a permit to remove the trees, should they prove dangerous to the public health. Thank you. Mr. Cruz: I accept that. It's totally logical and rational. Vice Chair Russell: Agreed. I'm very sleepy; if someone could help me with the wording on my motion. I'm trying to -- Mr. Min: The intended permit is to remove two trees and plant four. Mr. Cruz, I believe, City ofMiami Page 108 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 objected to the removal of the two trees. Mr. Cruz: Correct. Mr. Min: If the board -- the Commission wishes, they're going to grant Mr. Cruz's appeal, allow the two trees to remain, with the condition that Mr. Cruz adopts the median, and it's subject to the procedures -- Vice Chair Russell: You're incorrect, Barnby. Commissioner Gort: No, no, no. Mr. Francisco: It's late. I mean -- Vice Chair Russell: One of the tree -- there's an agreement that one of the trees will go, due to its health condition, but that it can be replaced with the same variety. Mr. Min: I apologize; I'm tired Vice Chair Russell: Same species. Mr. Cruz: Same species, yes. Thankyou, Commissioner. Chair Hardemon: So we're clear on the motion? Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Min: Motion to approve. Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Excuse me, Chair. Chair Hardemon: Hearing none, motion -- Vice Chair Russell: That does include maintenance of the median and planting of the median at Mr. Cruz' cost. Commissioner Gort: Yes. Mr. Min: It's a motion the approve the appeal -- Mr. Cruz: Yes, sir. Mr. Min: -- with the -- as modified. Vice Chair Russell: And all of my Jennings are being entered in -- all 90 emails are being handed to the Clerk now. Mr. Cruz: And may I say, Eleazar Menendez -- Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Mr. Cruz: -- has done a heck of a job. City ofMiami Page 109 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: You know, I think you just get those emails. Chair Hardemon: I just -- you know, I don't even look at them; I just -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) say anything. Roll call vote, or how does that--? You read into the record? Mr. Hannon: Good to go. It's just a resolution. There was a motion and a second on a modified motion, and so you can vote it up or down. Chair Hardemon: All in favor, say 5)ye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Chair Hardemon: Against? Motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Cruz. I just knew you were going to lose this one, but you won it. Mr. Cruz: Let me know when you want me to help you plant. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Cruz: I'm here for you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Cruz: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you vett' much. PZ.7 RESOLUTION 15-01612ha A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL FAAS, RAFFAOULAJAMI, WASIM SHOMAR AND SHADI SHOMAR AND REVERSING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD, DENYING THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1501 BRICKELLAVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDAAS A HISTORIC SITE DUE TO A FAILURE TO HAVE THE REQUIRED FIVE (5) CONCURRING VOTES FOR DESIGNATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 62-29(D) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED. City ofMiami Page 110 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 15-01612ha 02-25-16 CC Fact Sheet.pdf 15-01612ha Supplemental Report.pdf 15-01612ha 02-25-16 CC Docs & Submittals from 07-25-13 CC Meeting.pdf 15-01612ha Legislation (v2).pdf 15-01612ha Legislation (v3).pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Summary of Opinion by Dr. John Garner Preservation Consult, 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Ellen Uguccioni Resume.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-John S. Garner Resume.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Opinion by Ellen Uguccioni.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Souraya Faas-Letter of Support.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Megan Schmitt -City of Miami Preservation Office PowerPoint Presentation. 15-01612ha-Submittal-Gilberto Pastoriza-Historic Designation Report.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Steven Avdakov-PowerPoint Presentation. pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Church Petitions.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Petition in Opposition of Item.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Designation Reports and Resolutions.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Minimum Inspection Procedural Guidelines.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-District 2-Emails from Constituents. pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-District 2 -Email Responses to Constituents. pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-District 2 -Memo from Amy Boulris.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittals-Amy Boulris-Email Update on PZ.7.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-District 2 -Jennings Disclosure.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Response to Historic Designation Report.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Amy Boulris-Petitions in Opposition to Item.pdf 15-01612ha-Submittal-Dr. Aya Chacar-Powerpoint Presentation. pdf Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon R-16-0082 Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Russell: A request regarding procedure for appearances in public discussion: I was wondering if it would be possible for -- at least within my district; I don't know how the others feel -- the public to speak after the applicants. Chair Hardemon: Oh, the intent was for them to speak after. I'll explain where we are today. We're looking at item PZ 7, I believe. That's what -- that was a time certain? Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Correct. All right. Vice Chair Russell: But I meant in regard to all PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, at least within -- Chair Hardemon: Let me -- I'm doing it anyway. Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Chair Hardemon: The -- so here we are. To explain where we are in this process, we know that City ofMiami Page III Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the HEP (Historic & Environmental Preservation) Board had a meeting on April 8, 2013, where they heard evidence from different parties, and at that -- when they heard that evidence, they followed and had a resolution, which was Number HEPB-R-13-012, where there was a vote of 4-2 on item number 1, failing to designate the property as a historic site due to the lack of required five concurrent affirmative votes required for designation. From thatpoint, this matter was appealed. It was appealed to the Cit) Commission. The Cit) Commission at that time, which would have been on -- well, the Cit) Commission granted the appeal, thereby designating the property as historic in accordance with Section 23-4 of the City Code. At that point, that decision was then appealed to the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court issued an opinion. The opinion ultimately stated that they were --that it granted the diocese's writ, quashing the City Commission's decision, and remanding this matter back to the Cit) Commission for further consideration, consistent with this opinion. Ultimately, the opinion spoke about the primacy significance test. And so I'm sure that the attorneys from both sides understand what the primary significance test is and what this Commission will be looking for. So properly, in procedure, we are back as the City Commission hearing the initial appeal from the HEP Board; the HEP Board's 4-2 decision, failing to designate the property as a historic designation. So as of today, where we sit, there is not a historic designation upon the church, and we're going to hear evidence de novo. You can add additional evidence, but the evidence certainly that has been presented to the HEP Board is being considered, and is a part of the record. What we will do, we will have 10 minutes for the City staff to make its presentation. We will have 10 minutes for the appellant, which, in this case, the appellant would be the parishioners or the petitioners. And in all fairness, I will allow 10 minutes for the church itself to make a presentation. I remind you that the test that we're looking for to satisfy is the primary significance test. Soifyouarea member of any of those bodies that is advocating for a position -- not of the general public -- but ifyou are a member of any of those bodies advocating for a certain position, then you should follow that significance -- primaty significance test, because that is the evidence that will be used to make the decision one way or another by the Cit) Commission. Additionally, the general members of the public will be allowed to speak on the record during that time -- oh, I'm sorry, I won't say curing that time "-- but let's say after all parties have made their presentation so that we can have opinions from the public that is put onto the record. Generally, we have a two -minute --we allow two minutes for each person. Our rules allow us to assign a certain amount of time if you represent a group of people. I see a lot of green shirts in front of me. I assume that you are a group of people; you are one organization. Ifyou have a spokesperson, can that spokesperson please raise their hand? Is there a spokesperson? Commissioner Gort: You got to go to the mike. Chair Hardemon: Can you step up to the mike, please, and state your name for the record? Wasim Shomar: Mr. Chair, I'm Wasim Shomar, 45 Almeria Avenue. The people wearing the shirts are simply united in the historic designation support, but they're not necessarily from the same organization. Chair Hardemon: Okay, understood With that being said, I will allow each person who wishes to speak before this Commission two minutes. I will hold you strictly to two minutes. There is a sound, a -- I can't call it -- is it a buzz? Mr. Hannon: A buzz 1vill work. Chair Hardemon: There is a sound that you will hear that will signal that your time for speaking has terminated. I will not cut you off when that sound is made; however, within 15 seconds of that sound being made, ifyou have not concluded, I will cut you off. All right. This is done in an effort to respect everyone's time in order for us to move this meeting expeditiously. Okay? Ifyou respect the time limit, evevyone else will respect the time limit, and we can all move forward in a positive and efficient manner. And so with that being said, now that we lined out the process -- City ofMiami Page 112 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 also, one last thing: I will allow -- at the very end of public comment, I will allow a two -minute rebuttal from either party, so Parties'being the -- I will allow the Cit) , if they have any rebuttal that they wish to make to clarify anything,- I will allow the appellants, and I will include the church if they want to make a two -minute rebuttal; just two minutes. Same way, after 10, 15 seconds, ifyou have not come to a conclusion, I will end that discussion. I assume, without objection, that 10 minutes is enough from each of the parties to make their presentations. I see someone approaching the lectern. Can you state your name for the record, please? Amy Boulris: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm Amy Brigham Boulris of the Gunter Firm. I'll be representing the church today. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Ms. Boulris: Your assumption, without objection that 10 minutes is sufficient, I'm not sure is going to be enough. We have two expert witnesses, but they'll be intentionally brief,- however, 10 minutes is very tight. Chair Hardemon: So we will assume 10 minutes. If at the time the 10 -minute mark comes and you have not sufficiently made your case, you can state at that time that you need additional time Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chair. Chair Hardemon: --and whatever you proffer, you'll have that cpportunio) . We will most likely grant it ifyou need it, but -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chair. Chair Hardemon: -- right now, I'm going to allow 10 minutes -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- so that we make those presentations. Ms. Boulris: Our goal is to be very concise. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much. Gilberto Pastoriza: Commissioner, Gilberto Pastoriza, 2525 Ponce, on behalf of the petitioners, and we have the same concerns that the church has, so we will -- at the end of those 10 minutes, if we require more time, we will beg for your extension. Chair Hardemon: Yes. And I ask that as attorneys representing each party that you are keen to the issues. You know what the issues are. I'm sure you read the opinion. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chair Hardemon: And you know what we're here to decide and how we are to decide it. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Understood? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. City ofMiami Page 113 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Okay. At this time, I'd like to begin by -- Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair? ChairHardemon: Yes? Vice Chair Russell: May I give my Jennings disclosure before they do the presentation? Chair Hardemon: Oh, absolutely, sure. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Chair Hardemon: Time for Jennings disclosures. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. As you know, this is in my district, so there's a lot of interest and contact with my office. I'd like to clarify my Jennings disclosure. I, Ken Russell, and my staff, member, Eleazar Melendez, had a telephone conversation with Father Damon Geiger on January 6, 2016, at approximately 2 p. in., regarding this PZ 7 item; the proposed historic designation of the property located at approximately 1500 Brickell Avenue. He advised me as to certain facts about the item; namely, the diocese's desire to prevent the historic designation of the property. I stated in response that I would explore it and study the issue. In addition, my staff members, Eleazar Melendez and Kimberly Bentley, met with Attorney Gilberto Pastoriza of Weiss, Scrota, Helfman, Cole and Bierman on February 16 at approximately 9 a.m. Mr. Pastoriza advised my staff this his clients, consisting of several parishioners, also present at the meeting, desired the historic designation of the building. My staff members stated in response that they would analyze and study the issue. My staff members, Eleazar Melendez and Kimberly Bentley, also had a telephone conversation with Amy Boulris, an attorney with the law firm of Gunter, on February 17 at approximately 3 p.m. Ms. Boulris advised my staff that her client, the diocese, was opposed to historic designation, but declined to meet with me personally, citing concerns about the quasi-judicial nature of this hearing. My staff members stated in response that we had been advised by the Ciov Attorney that Ms. Boulris' concerns were unfounded. My staff member, Eleazar Melendez, followed up later that day at approximately 8:30p. in. via email, memorializing the conversation with Ms. Boulris. I'm entering the email of Mr. Melendez into the record. In addition, my Ciov of Miami email account has received 189 emails from interested parties and residents, both for and against the historic designation. In response, my staff member, Eleazar Melendez, advised each individual who wrote an email that I would consider both arguments for and against historic designation. I'm submitting a copy of each email received and each email responded into the record. In addition, the District 2 office staff has fielded several dozen phone calls from parties both for and against historic designation. In response, my staff has limited itself to advising callers that the item would be heard by the Commission. I'm disclosing this communication pursuant to the City's applicable regulations in order to give the applicant or other interested affected parties an opportunity to rebut or comment on anything of what was mentioned to me at that meeting. If the applicant wishes to move for a continuance, the items can be deferred to the next regularly scheduled meeting of this Commission to afford ample time to the applicant to refute any information. These communications have not swayed mein any fashion, and I continue to be as impartial about this item as I was prior to the communication. My disclosure will be made part of the record. Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: Are there any other Jennings disclosures that want to be made? Seeing none, I will begin our first 10 -minute presentation by staff. Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. I will be brief and simply introduce the item, and then quickly yield to both Mr. Craig Leen, the City Attorney of the Ciov of Coral Gables, who is here today to provide us legal counsel; that is fis, 'Phe Planning & Zoning City ofMiami Page 114 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Department Preservation Oce. And I will say simply that, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, the hearing today is de novo, and it is our duty as your staff to -- in adherence to the District Court's order and instruction to provide to you competent and substantial evidence to further support what we think is the -- should be the designation of the subject property. I'll add briefly and parenthetically that the subject properi)v is 1501 Brickell Avenue, and it is known as the St. Jude Catholic Church. And with that, I will quickly yield to Mr. Craig Leen; and, certainly, we'll all be happy to answer any questions. Craig Leen: Hello. This is Craig Leen, City Attorney for Coral Gables. I'm not here on behalf of Coral Gables today. I'm here on behalf of Cii)v of Miami City staff. I will be very brief. The Circuit Court Appellate Division gave you a very specific instruction, and it's in the decision itsel( on page 8. It says: Therefore, to qualify for designation, St. Jude's historical or architectural significance must exceed its religious significance. "So what the Historic Preservation officer did was she took that instruction; she went back, she took a look at this again, and came forward to you with a designation report. That designation report makes it very clear. What the evidence will show and what she will show to you when she speaks in just a minute is that this is an iconic architectural -- architecturally significant structure. It's evident when you drive by it or even look at it; it's extremely clear. And this architectural significance, which is of an historical nature, takes precedence over all of the other factors, including the religious one. So there is more than substantial competent evidence in the record today supporting your abilii)v to designate this structure. And with that, I will turn it over to the Historic Preservation officer. Megan Schmitt: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Megan Schmitt. I'm the Preservation officer for the Cii)v of Miami, with offices at 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue. We're going to be setting up my presentation now. In the interest of time, though, I'm going to just start with my opening statement. I'd like to begin my presentation by stating that it is my opinion as Preservation officer for the Cii)v of Miami that the primary significance of the structure located at 1501 Brickell Avenue is its architectural value. Though the social, cultural, and religious importance of the site has been established as credible, the structure's clear primary significance is its architectural integrity. If the building had ceased to be used for active worship decades ago, the building would still be eligible for designation due to its architectural significance. If the Operation Peter Pan activities had not occurred at this site, the building would still be eligible for designation due to its architectural significance. The building's architectural significance clearly outweighs its social, cultural, or religious significance. The architectural significance alone is sufficient to meet the criteria for designation. So I'm going to be explaining these comments and backing it up with my presentation. So today, the subject property, as Mr. Garcia mentioned is 1501 Brickell Avenue; picture of it on the screen. It's now known as St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church. It was built in 1946, making it 70 years old 50 years old is the threshold for consideration as a landmark. It was originally called the Chapel of Our Lady of the Assumption, and it was built by Henry D. Dagit and Sons Firm. Just for some context, this is the site here, sort of at the entrance of Brickell Avenue. So speaking of context, I'm just going to provide a little bit of national context about how we designate religious properties, and then local. What you're looking at right now is a building called the Church of the Holy Communion. It's a Gothic revival church located in New York City. It was designed by a very important architect named Richard Upjohn in 1844. In 1965, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission was established. This structure was designated in 1966 I'm doing this -- I'm presenting this because I want everyone to realize that we've been designating religious properties here in the United States for a very long time. And also, I want to point out that this is actually an interesting example of adaptive reuse, because in the '80s, after serving various functions once it ceased to be a church, it became a very famous nightclub called "The Limelight. " So on the screen, what we have here to the left, to my left, is Jesu Church and Rectory in downtown Miami; to the right, Plymouth Congregational Church in the Grove. These two buildings are important. When the church -- excuse me -- when the Cit); of Miami's Heritage Conservation Board was established in 1982, Jesu Church and Rectory was the eighth property; City ofMiami Page 115 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 that this board recommended to the Commission for designation. This action was taken after only the second meeting of this board. At their third meeting, the board voted in support of the designation of the Plymouth Congregational Church. This was only the 12th recommendation cio) wide that this board made to be designated. So, again, I'm just trying to establish that for over 30 years, the Cit) of Miami's various entities, boards -- this is the Heritage Conservation Board that now we refer to as the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board. We've been designating religious properties since the beginning of our abilio) to do so. I just also want to point out that we're looking at these buildings, and they were designated primarily for their architectural significance. So, again, if today either of these buildings were to cease function as a religious gathering space, that would not mean that their designation would be compromised. We could put an adaptive reuse in there, and their significance would remain. Currently in Miami, we have 12 locally -designated religious properties -- excuse me, I'm going to say Lrhurches "-- and we have a 13th on the National Register, and this is an example of them. They've been deemed historic, even though most are currently actively and continuously used as houses of worship, because their historical and architectural significance outweighs the religious significance, and the same is true for 1501 Brickell. So let's get to the specifics about this building. There was some talkprior about whether the architect was actually a significant architect. So the firm, Dagit -- Henry D. Dagit and Sons was formed originally in 1922; however, Henry D. Dagit, Sr. started to practice architecture in the year 1888. So in 1922, he brought in two of his sons to expand the firm; a third one joined, I believe, in 1925. So this is the firm that is credited with designing 1501 Brickell. I'm going to give you some examples of their work. This is a property that's called the Church of the Transfiguration. It's located in Philadelphia. I mentioned that the Dagit and Sons Firm is based out of Philadelphia. This is another church in Atlanta, the Cathedral of Christ the King. This was described as the most beautiful building in Atlanta when it was first constructed. So I want to give you guys some context, because my argument is that the builders are actually quite prolific and important church architects, and this is what kind of leads the store to Miami. This is called the Ravenhill Chapel; it's located in Philadelphia And when the Sisters of the Assumption first came to the United States, they came to Philadelphia. This chapel was built for them, and it was designed by Dagit and Sons. So in 1942, the Sisters of the Assumption came to Miami, and in 1946, when they decided to build a chapel, this is what they built. They brought down Dagit and Sons as their firm. This was a common practice in Miami. It was still a new cit). There were lots of architects that were getting commissions that were not necessarily based here in the Cit). So the primary significance of the property, like I keep mentioning, is its architectural significance. And the original -- excuse me -- designation report talks about the significance of this -- the layout of the church as being very reflective and very true to a Romanesque church. So I'm just going walk you through some of the different sections that sort of call out why this is such a strong example of Romanesque. So you have a narthex here, which is sort of a fancy word for a vestibule. The nave is here. This is where the parishioners sit. You have these transepts here, which is where secondary alters tend to be. Oh, sorry. And then you have the altar area here and the sacristy, which is where storage tends to be. I'm just pointing out that this is the plan from the Dagit and Sons firm. Okay, so Romanesque -- why is this a good example of Romanesque? What we have that you see, like I said in plan, you can see articulated here the narthex; it's just that massing here. You have the nave here, and this is the massing of the transept. But in addition, we have some kind of refined -- it's not a -- it's a very simple building, and you have here an example of some of the minimal decoration, so this quatrefoil window here is typical of Romanesque architecture. You have the appearance of cut limestone. It's actually a reinforced concrete structure, and they faced the interior and exterior with limestone. This is because Romanesque buildings were built with very heavy masonry units, so you have that replicated here with this cladding. Chair Hardemon: Ms. Schmitt, this is evidence that was presented at the HEP Board, correct, this is not new evidence? Ms. Schmitt: This further --this presentation was not presented at the HEP Board. City ofMiami Page 116 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: So all of this is new evidence? Mr. Leen: This is a de novo hearing, so that's appropriate. Chair Hardemon: No, I'm not saying -- Mr. Leen: But it is, it is new. It is new evidence. Chair Hardemon: I just want to know whether or not it was new evidence. Mr. Leen: It's a new report based on the Circuit Court Appellate Division's instructions. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Leen: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Do you require additional time to continue your presentation? Ms. Schmitt: I have two more slides. Chair Hardemon: Take your time. Ms. Schmitt: Okay. Chair Hardemon: Put five minutes on, please. Ms. Schmitt: I see the -- you have here the lancet and the rose windows; again, these slender windows here. And then the circular windows are the rose windows; again, very common with Romanesque architecture. And then finally, the stained glass. This is artistic glass, ornate and very beautiful. Again, this would be a representation of the Romanesque. And then finally, just this subtle -- it's the -- one of the few areas that you have these subtle ornaments put on, because, like I said, for the most part, it's sort of a austere kind of a formal building for -- sort of removed or ornamentation. So I just want to close by saying the architectural distinction of St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church is its primary significance, and it greatly outweighs any cultural, historical, or religious importance. The architectural significance alone is sufficient to meet the criteria for designation. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Schmitt: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Before you go, I'd like to have the appellants, who would be the parishioners -- if the attorney for the parishioners would please take the lectern, I just want to take -- come to this one for me. Because this is new evidence, because (INAUDIBLE) de novo hearing, I want to give you an opportunity, ifyou wish, to cross-examine her, I mean, as she's put on new evidence, and so if there's anything that you wish -- if not, you can decline the cpportunio) to cross-examine. Mr. Pastoriza: I will not. I don't need to cross-examine the Cit) expert. Chair Hardemon: Well, thank you very much. Can you state on the record who you are so we know -- can you state on the record exactly who you are, sir, so we know it's clear? Mr. Pastoriza: Gilberto Pastoriza, 2525 Ponce de Leon. City ofMiami Page 117 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Okay. And you represent? Mr. Pastoriza: I represent the petitioners. Chair Hardemon: All right, is -- do you have -- do you want to cross-examine? I can assume you would Ms. Boulris: Mr. Chair, I rose because you called for the attorney for the parishioners, and that's me. I represent the church. Mr. Pastoriza correctly said he represents the petitioners, so I just want the record clear. ChairHardemon: I'm sorry, I meant Petitioners. "That is my misstatement. I meant the petitioners. Ms. Boulris: No problem; just wanted -- you called me forward, and I came. Sore. ChairHardemon: Understood understood. So I couldn't -- Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). Chair Hardemon: No, but we're talking -- ma'am, first of all, let's have a little order. In the -- where we are in this case, the petitioners would be those who are seeking to have this historically designated, and so those are the ones who actually appealed the -- I'm sorry. Those are the ones who are seeking historic designation, so let's just keep it clean. So we've given you an opportunio) -- well, I have some questions. I don't know -- you may have some questions that you may have for her, so I'll let you ask any questions ifyou have any. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I notice that the entire presentation concentrated on the architectural design as the historical qualifier, but are there other factors that we should be considering today? Ms. Schmitt: The reason that I decided to position my presentation with the focus on the architecture is because the -- at the end of the day, like I said in the beginning, the activities surrounding the Peter Pan, though significant and worthy of note in our original designation report, my point is that had they not occurred there, the significance of this building would remain. So I do think that there are cultural and historic activities that occurred that are very significant for many people that are here in the audience, I'm sure. It's not to take away that significance, but my point that I really want to make to all of the Commissioners is that had those activities not occurred, it would not compromise the eligibility of this structure. Victoria Mendez (City Attorne)): Chairman, ifI may just -- are you placing any information from the previous hearings that the Board can rely on with regard to all the other significances ? Ms. Schmitt: That's in the supplementary designation report that I made. Mr. Leen: We're incorporating all of it, and you can make your finding based on that, but ultimately, the decision you need to make is that those other factors are more significant, weigh more than the religious significance. And we thought, for ease of presentation, the primary one is the architecturally significant one. You can weigh those two and make your determination. We do think that it's clearly more significant. Chair Hardemon: Okay. You want to say something? Vice Chair Russell: I was just going to ask, I guess, to the Chair, if it's in the supplemental City ofMiami Page 118 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 documentation, is it not necessary for it to be put into the record verbally here? Because if it should be, then I'd love to hear -- Chair Hardemon: Not necessarily. Vice Chair Russell: -- all the factors. Chair Hardemon: However, for the purposes of this hearing, we know that our test -- and let's be very clear -- is the primary significance test. Your task, and the Cit) staff is tasked with determining whether or not the historical or architectural significance outweighs the -- it would be the --how this facility is being continued to use for religious purposes. And so I think what my Vice Chairman is saying is that he has not heard any evidence, just in saying how it outweighs, moreover than the conclusory statement that it outweighs the religious purposes. The reason that this was remanded from the Circuit Court was because of conclusory statements that it outweighs. So, if you would, in the last -- I believe you have four minutes left -- can you determine -- or explain to this body how it outweighs the religious purposes that it's being used for, also. Ms. Schmitt: This property was built in 1946, so if the church had been in service and been used as a church, let's say, until 1960, the architecture remains intact. There are no changes to the exterior. The building remains in use, let's say, as a commercial use; let's say a restaurant. 2013 arrives, and the building was used for 10 years as a religious institution. It was --from 1956 to 2013, it was used as a restaurant; again, no changes to the exterior. Changes to the interior, we don't regulate. Had the business owner at that time come to the Preservation Office and said We think that this is an eligible building based on its architecture, 'ive would have taken the item before the board. So my point is that religious significance for this building, though it's true and it's real for many people in Miami, from an objective point of view, the religious use, had it gone away 10 years after; had it gone away two years after the building being constructed in 1946, it would still be eligible, based on its architectural merit; that's the way that we look at these things in Preservation, which is that it's true that there's a use, and that use has a significance to the store, but it's not the primary significance. Mr. Leen: May I add a little bit of argument to that? The --what we would say you should look at from City staffs perspective is, is there a unique religious use to this that would outweigh -- well, ultimately, you're determining whether the architectural significance, historical significance outweighs, but in weighing that, which is what you're asking us to do, let's look at the religious use. Every church that's used as a church has a religious use. Is there something unique to this religious use that would outweigh the clear historic and architectural significance? And I would say, no. I mean, it is an important church, and we're not saying it's not. That's not what you have to find today. Every church is important. People worship in churches, and we're not discounting that, but there's not something about this church that is unique in a way that would require you to say, You know what? What the City of Miami is really doing is recommending that this be designated as an historic propero) because it's a church, and they want to preserve it as a church. "Even very important churches, like St. Patrick's in New York City, which is the seat of the New York City -- it's the cathedral for New York City is my recollection. Even a church like that can be designated and is designated because of its significant historic value, and its architectural beauty and value, and that's what we're arguing today. Chair Hardemon: But counselor, I haven't read anything from the Circuit Court's opinion that talked about anything being unique. The test was simply a balancing test, which was, does the historical significance outweigh the religious purposes? Mr. Leen: Certainly, but what I would say in response is every church is important. So what the Circuit Court told you to do was to make every word in the test matter, and they said that the City ofMiami Page 119 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 reason why they were sending it back was because they wanted you, as the ultimate body that makes this decision, to weigh both of those. And what we're saying to you is there is not something specific about this church that's in the record that would demonstrate this it's -- that this is being done because of its religious significance. It has clear historical and architectural significance. That would outweigh any general or common religious importance to every church. Chair Hardemon: But that's what --what we're trying to figure out is this: It appears that there may be some historic significance. There has not been anything on the record, you said, but at the same time, the petitioners have not had an opportunity to present, so maybe they will give us evidence as to its religious purposes. Mr. Leen: Of course, yes. Chair Hardemon: So I want you to understand that if you're staff, and you're recommending that this is a historically significant church, and it outweighs the religious purposes, and therefore, it can be allowed to be declared historical that you have the -- you have to give us some evidence to rely upon to say that the historical significance is here. And my hand is saying that it's atone level, and the religious significance is below that level in which the historical significance is. Mr. Leen: I understand what you're saying, Mr. Chair, and what -- and you should obviously check with your Cit) Attorney as to that, but our position would be that you do that weighing. Chair Hardemon: No, we do it. Mr. Leen: You will hear the evidence, and we have presented to you significant evidence of the architectural and historical significance, and you will hear other evidence. You will weigh them and you'll determine if there's substantial competent evidence that demonstrates that the historic significance outweighs the religious. We think it does. Chair Hardemon: So your position is that you will present the historical significance, they'll present the religious significance, and then we'll do the weighing. Is that your position? I just want to be clear. I didn't know ifyou had -- Mr. Leen: No. I do think the record, for example, mentions that there had been -- that this has not just been one denomination at the church. There is evidence in the record about the religious use of the facilio) , but I think what the Historic Preservation officer is saying is even if it's not used as a church, you would still designate this property; it's so architecturally significant. There's a lot of churches that can be very significant, but there has -- the -- there's no evidence, and we're not presenting evidence that this is -- and it's not, it's not the -- there's nothing unique about this particular church that would indicate that that is what really is driving the historic designation. All the evidence demonstrates is because of its architectural significance and the fact that it's a Romanesque structure, and it's unique -- and, frankly, any church or use could be there, and you would still -- it would still outweigh the religious use. Chair Hardemon: Are there any further questions from --? I'll allow -- Commissioner Suarez: I think Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I have sort of a question, and I have a comment. I think what you're saying is that, for example, a church can be very meaningful, and yet, it has to have some other significance if it has architectural significance that outweighs the religious significance. For example, there's one in the city that you represent, St. Augustine. I'm sure that church is very City ofMiami Page 120 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 significant to many people, because maybe many people have been married there, but I presume and I believe that the archdiocese is intending to demolish that and build a new structure at some point. For example, Epiphany was recently -- and I think it's also in your cit), or maybe in South Miami; I'm not sure -- but that one was also rebuilt, in other words, so there is an cpportunio) , depending on the structure. If the structure itself is not architecturally significant, then that could qualify for some sort of a, let's say, demo, and rebuild to fit a greater capacity; is that correct? Mr. Leen: Yes. And I'll let you respond, too, but exactly. If a particular church was the seat of a particular religion, and it was very important for that reason, or important church figures came there a lot, or important church decisions were made there, and that was the reason it was being designated, frankly, under your Code, you couldn't designate it. But even important churches, like St. Patrick's or the Vatican, which, of course, have significant important -- and I'm not saying you're designating the Vatican today, but I'm telling you, there are important works of art in the Vatican. It's an important historic structure. Even then, being perhaps one of the most important churches in the world, you could still do that weighing. Your— what you have to do is to say, A there something about this church that makes it so religiously significant that the historical aspect of it doesn't outweigh it? "And we think we put a lot of evidence in the record about the historic significance, but that the evidence regarding the religious aspect demonstrate it's used as a church. It's been used by multiple denominations. There's not something specific about this church that makes it --and I'm not saying that it's not important to the parishioners. I just want to be clear, we're not saying that. For them, that may be the most important reason in the world they go there, but there's not something from your perspective that makes it religiously significant in a way that that would outweigh -- and again, you're not looking whether that outweighs. It's just -- I'm saying that that doesn't outweigh the important architectural aspect of it; and, in fact, the architectural aspect outweighs the religious one. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair -- Chair Hardemon: I want to say for the record -- Commissioner Suarez: --I had a second question. Chair Hardemon: Go ahead. Commissioner Suarez: Just very quick This seems like it's very technical insofar as, obviously, the City is sort of presenting, ifyou will, expert testimony on the architectural significance of the structure, and I presume that the church representative, whoever they are, will presume [sic] potentially opposing testimony or different testimony. My question is: We have 45 members of the public here, at least, that have signed up to speak, if not more. As a finder of fact, how is their testimony supposed to be instructive onus and on the determination of significance? Because I'm not an architect; I'm not an historian; I'm not an expert on architecture. I'm obviously the trier of fact, but if I'm a member of the public, I'm none of those things, most likely. So how is -- how does there testimony supposed to influence us ? Are they -- can they give testimony regarding -- that's where I'm a little bit tripped up, because you're clearly an expert, and they're clearly going to present experts, so I'd like to know how the public can inform us in their decision, in their discussion, and I think they probably would like to know. Ms. Schmitt: I'm going to answer it from the Preservation Office perspective -- Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Schmitt: -- and then if there's a legal response, I'll turn it over to Mr. Leen. But this is sort Of a complication of the job; is that meaningful spaces and places don't necessarily qualify for historic designation, and so that's where what I have tried to do is lay the groundwork for an City ofMiami Page 121 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 architectural argument, because it is -- it's a very uncomfortable position to be put in to turn to a group of people and say that the religious significance of their building is not primary when that's, as you mentioned probably why many people go to the building at all, but when I do a weighing -in analysis of a structure's eligibilio) , what I'm looking for is a little bit more objective, because, like, for example, I'm going to go back to 10 -- in 1956, had this church ceased to be a church and it became a restaurant, and they had stripped all of the architectural ornamentation, and they had removed the rose window and the lancet windows, then we would be here -- we wouldn't be here, because there wouldn't be anything architectural left of significance. So from my perspective, where the stories of the history and the significance of where -- any of the Peter Pan activities, that's something to listen to. The religious significance is something to listen to from people that attend the church, but from my office's perspective, like I said if meaningful spaces was the only way that I had to determine eligibilio) , then you can imagine most of Miami would be designated, because most of Miami is meaningful to people. Commissioner Suarez: Right, but I guess my question has to do more with the public's participation, because we have, again, 45, maybe 50 members of the public that want to speak on this. If 25 come up and say, You should designate, we love the church, it's historically signif cant to us, 'and 25 come up and say, You shouldn't designate, we're members of the parish, " et cetera, et cetera -- we're trying to judge whether we've received competent and substantial evidence here to either designate or not designate. And so my question is -- you know, that sounds like a very specific determination. And my question is, in helping the public and form our decision as the finder of fact, what are we looking for from the public input perspective on the question of whether or not the architectural significance is the reason for historic designation, or not? Vice Chair Russell: Could I expand on that question some more before you answer? I would imagine a lot of the opinions we may hear have to do with the historical timeline of events that have happened there, or uses of the church, including the Pedro Pan and the harboring of Cuban immigrants. Are you implying that those are factors we should not be considering, simply by the fact that the architectural historical value of it outweighs the religious, and that's enough? Or should we be also considering -- because if I'm not mistaken, it was sent back from the Appellate Court partly because no evidence in the record as to the secular role, if any, the remaining structure did play in the Operation Pedro Pan, and education of women, et cetera So were they sending it back, looking for more of that evidence, or were they saying that's not significant to this decision? Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney, the -- well, Madam City Attorney Ms. Mendez: Basically, the Court sent it back because they wanted more of the architectural evidence, and more of that significance, and not more of the religious significance. Vice Chair Russell: But I wasn't asking about Peligious. "I was asking about historical events that may have occurred at the location, at the site, regardless of it being a church from a secular perspective, which has to do with Pedro Pan, history of the Cuban exiles. Ms. Mendez: Right. At the end of the day, the architectural and the historical needs to outweigh any religious. Vice Chair Russell: So we should not be considering any of those timeline factors, of which I assume many of the people will be bringing tons today as factors in this decision? Ms. Mendez: Ifyoure going to weigh the evidence, the evidence shall be architectural, historical; religious at the, you know -- Vice Chair Russell: Okay City ofMiami Page 122 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Mendez: --unfortunately, at the bottom. Vice Chair Russell: Well, his -- but when you say historical, 'that, to me, implies all of those events, as well, are we not? Ms. Mendez: Yes, but they cannot be your only (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You can -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood But we're not -- seem to be talking about them at all at this point, and that's why I'm wondering if we -- it wasn't presented in the Cio) `s case as to why. They're -- Ms. Mendez: Right. Vice Chair Russell: -- hanging their hat completely on the architectural. Ms. Mendez: Because the -- technically, the -- based on the City's presentation, the architectural is enough to outweigh any religious -- and even any of the historic, even though the historic can also be apart ofyour substantial competent evidence. Chair Hardemon: So basically, with the Cio) 's presentation -- and I'll allow, Francisco, you to speak after this. That's why I was questioning them as to -- the Cit) -- as to evidence that -- of its religious significance, and how it outweighs it. And what -- essentially, what the City is doing is saying, We presented evidence of a historical significance, and we believe that this evidence that we've given you, once you've heard evidence of the religious purposes, it will outweigh that evidence. "And then our job would be to weigh those two positions, and that's what we're here for. So we'll have an opportunio) to do that. And it's important -- I want to kind of put this into perspective. I'm reading from the -- Part 2, where it says, "the writ. " In the second paragraph, second sentence, it says: The Cio) 's historic designation ordinance expressly excludes properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, unless the religious propero) derives its primary significance from its architecture, artistic distinction, or historical importance rather than its religious purpose. This criterion requires a comparison of the site's religious versus its historical architectural importance. St. Jude is owned by the Melkite Catholic Mission, and is continuously used for its religious purposes. "So this statement here, I just want to make it clear that what the Court wants us to do is just to weigh those two aspects, and put on the record not just a conclusory statement that one is greater than the other, but what factors, what facts support that idea. That's the competent substantial evidence. If -- and I believe from -- if we -- if there's competent substantial evidence one way or the other, that that evidence is put on the record, and a decision is made, we would have satisfied what the Court asked us to do. Francisco. Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir, thank you. Briefly, we are here today making to you -- making in front of you the case that there is a structure at 1501 Brickell Avenue that we believe rises to the level of significance where it should be a preservation item. It is a resource of value to the Cit), and therefore, it should be preserved, and therefore, qualifies for historic preservation; the nomination that we are seeking today. And we are saying -- and you heard in the presentation today -- we are saying that it rises to that level based essentially on two salient grounds; one being that its architectural design and character, that being, as mentioned by the Preservation Officer, of the Romanesque, with admittedly somewhat of a hybrid Gothic so4e. That, in and of itself, is unique, and the way in which it has been accomplished in this particular structure is of -- rises to a level that warrants that designation, that preservation designation. In addition, you've heard that the architectural firm responsible for its design also is of high prominence, and therefore, that, too, warrants its preservation. The best way we know to make the case that those are the two salient criteria that make it worthy of designation is by simply telling you that regardless of any other value or merit that this structure may have or this site may have -- and City ofMiami Page 123 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 we know it has other value -- but regardless of that value, those two criteria since to earn its status as a preservation resource for the Cit); of Miami. Chair Hardemon: Thank you for making that clear. City Attorney. Ms. Mendez: And Chairman, if -- I just need to just crystalize a couple points. The Commission determines the weight of the evidence, the probative value of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses; but most importantly, remember that the court order had mentioned -- and why the City's staff report more talks about the architectural value is that the historic significance, as the Vice Chairman mentioned, some of those structures are no longer there. So you really can't weigh too much on the historic; you shouldn't weigh too much on the religious. It really comes down to the architectural value, and then that -- whether that outweighs the religious. So I just wanted to put that in perspective for when you make your -- and listen to everything. Chair Hardemon: So we can choose historical or architectural importance. So it's not necessary to have historical importance; it can be simply architectural importance that is out -- that outweighs religious importance. Ms. Mendez: Correct. I just wanted to clarify that -- Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair. Ms. Mendez: -- because I know there was a lot of back and forth. Thank you. Mr. Leen: And ifI --Mr. Chair? Chair Hardemon: Mr. Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: And these basic points of architectural and the designer, these weren't brought up at the original hearing? Mr. Garcia: Yes, they were. Vice Chair Russell: So then how are we -- Ms. Mendez: But they were not emphasized. Vice Chair Russell: -- now coming back in a way that answers what the Appeals Court was asking us to do? If we already gave that argument and it was sent back, if we're just giving the same argument -- what additionally are we giving here? Mr. Garcia: Right. So we -- in the material that you have submitted, and part -- which is part of the record, and certainly, the emphasis that was placed today, there was additional information. There was additional research done and additional information provided to you today that further substantiates and further provides competent evidence that those two criteria have abundantly been met. Vice Chair Russell: Understood And you mentioned one thing just now that -- about the Pedro Pan, some of the buildings that -- and which were actually used are no longer there. So does that mean you're sort of withdrawing the Pedro Pan experience as part of the historical -- are you kind of doing the other side's job for them in that sense, I mean, or should you be making more of the argument that if the -- if the site itself, the church itself was the site of the Pedro Pan operation in part, that that makes it significant; whether or not the specific building where someone slept was actually still standing? I mean, are we not to consider that, in your opinion, at all, at this point? City ofMiami Page 124 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Mendez: You can consider it; just note that some of those buildings are no longer there, so that is why you have to look at the architectural first, then historic. Vice Chair Russell: Right. I'd like to consider it, but it hasn't been presented here today as a part of this case, and that's why I'm asking if you're discounting that portion for us to consider. Ms. Mendez: I -- Mr. Garcia: If I may, we're simply respectfully submitting to you that it is not of the essence for this application; therefore, you can, ifyou will, disregard it. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Garcia: It doesn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that merit. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to respond to Commissioner Suarez' question before regarding, you know, how there are churches, for example, in Coral Gables, like St. Augustine, or Little Flower that are very important to the cit) and to the parishioners, because they've gone there for years, and they have marriages there, and they're -- it may be their family church. And that's exactly what I'm saying. Those are important to the parishioners, but they're not important from a cit) -- because of the religious nature, that's not what makes them important from a cio) wide sort of sovereign perspective as to whether to designate the propero) or not. What makes Little Flower, for example, important is because of its historical and architectural significance, and it's tied to the plan of George Merrick. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Leen: And that's what I'm toying to say here regarding this particular church. I think the same sort of considerations apply. And I do want to just point out for the record that on page I and 2, there is some discussion of the comparison between the religious significance and the architectural significance. That is in the record, but ultimately, you will hear that from the church today. They will come and present you that evidence, and then you will have to weigh it and make your determination. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: Just to use those two churches as a little bit of a juxtaposition, I know St. Teresa vett' well, because I was married there. So -- but you're right. Mr. Pastoriza: Me, too. Commissioner Suarez: Architecturally, you're talking about a totally different -- two different structures. You're talking about one that may have -- may vel); well have architectural significance in St. Teresa's Church versus one in St. Augustine that probably does not have much architectural significance, and so I think that would create a large distinction. I guess the second part, though, was more towards our residents and people who are here in this case. And I just sort of -- as we're listening to your presentation, and we're going to be listening to the church's presentation soon, my question was: There's many members of the audience, and I don't -- you know, I certainly -- we can't guide them as to what to say, but our issue is how can they -- whether they're for or against, to be honest with you, because I'm sure there's people here on both sides of the argument, but what is there -- how is their perspective supposed -- if it's an expert, you know, if there -- because again, I'm not an expert. So I'm the trier of fact, if you will, but not an expert. But if I were a member of the audience, I would want to know to what extent City ofMiami Page 125 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 could my testimony -- or to what -- in what way would my testimony be influential over the determination as to whether or not this church had architectural significance ? Am I making myself clear, or am I not? Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Mr. Leen: No, you spoke perfectly clear. Chair Hardemon: You spoke -- okay. The thing about it is that a layman may not have the requisite education, training to determine something that is historically -- architecturally -- I'm sorry -- architecturally significant, because that is a conclusion that an expert comes to after looking at other pieces of evidence, or other cases, and utilizing their education and experience to make that determination; that's the nature of having an expert. The layman can come in and talk about things that they observed and what they've observed is what we can use as information to make our decisions moving forward. So, for instance, to give an example that's outside the context of this, an expert who is giving an opinion -- how can I put it? Mr. Leen: Well, the -- it's based on personal knowledge. So, yes, the residents can come, or the parishioners can come, members of the public. They can speak to you about things within their knowledge, their unique knowledge. They could talk to you about different parts of the church, and what they've observed there, events that have occurred there, but ultimately, in terms of the architectural significance, I think City staff here would be -- you have to rely on experts that can testify to that; staff reports, things like that. Now, if, for some reason, someone comes up -- like, for example, I know in the audience you do have someone who's a historic preservation expert, and they tell you that, and they put that in the record, and they testify, then, yes, you can consider that. That's competent substantial evidence of architectural significance, but those individuals should put that on the record. And then in the -- in response to the other issue, I do think in terms of religious significance, you'll hear from the parishioners, and they can talk to you about the religious significance of the facility, but I would -- I -- at least from our view, I think that would principally come from the church. They can -- they're the ones who are opposing the designation, and they can present the evidence as to why they believe the religious significance outweighs the architectural significance. Ultimately, you determine --you have to weigh those; and ifyou determine that architectural significance or historical significance outweighs, then you should make that finding of historically -- historical designation. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Russell. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Yes, the -- I think it should be noted that amongst the parishioners, there are, as I found in the emails that were sent to me, those on both sides of the argument. Many parishioners are in favor and many parishioners are against the historical designation. From what the City seems to be hanging their hat on this case is the -- simply the architectural side of things, which is very technical, on which experts are needed, but the Appeals Court was all -- said that we have the ability to make our decision based on architectural or historical, and I have a feeling that the residents will bring a lot of that historical color to this, and I definitely want to hear what the residents have to say. Chair Hardemon: Also, I want to be clear for the Vice Chairman. Part B, 'which is page 10 of 17, the first paragraph says -- well, first, The City failed to follow essential requirements of law. The City determined that St. Jude embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics, and sufficiently commemorates the City's histor j� to warrant designation. The City found that many of Miami's significant historical events, persons, ideas or ideals have evolved in and around St. Jude; designation report at 19. In effect, the City claims that St. Jude played essential roles in the historical development of Miami. "I'll skip the second paragraph, and I'll read the third, which is important to understand the Court's position. We do not review these historical or architectural claims for accuracy or significance, as neither of those issues is properly before us City ofMiami Page 126 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 on tertiary review. The issue before us is whether the City applied the primary significance criteria. We find that the City did not, because it failed to address whether these contributions and attributes override St. Jude's religious significance. "So what you have to understand -- and that's why we're going to move on, we're going to end up moving on -- is that what our job is -- when it says the City, 'they don't mean City staff. They mean that the Board, the Board did not state on the record whether or not it actually utilized the test, and how it utilized the test, the competent substantial evidence to show that it made a primary significance criteria decision. If it has, then I could assume if it was there, then the Circuit Court would not have quashed this. And so here we are today where the Cio) `s presented its 15 minutes. I will allow 15 minutes -- see, I'm paying attention --for the other parties. Unidentified Speakers: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Chair Hardemon: No, no, let me finish. There's some decorum, some decorum. Okay. I'm going to allow 15 minutes presentation. The time that we were asking questions is not time that I consider in the presentation. So if there are questions that we have for the other attorneys, we will ask those questions, because it's to clear the minds of the other questions, or answer the questions of this Board, and so we will do that for as long as we need to do it until we're comfortable making a decision and move forward. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leen: Could the Historic Preservation officer make a final statement for 30 seconds, just regarding --? Chair Hardemon: I will allow that after I hear from Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to verify. I understand the 15 minutes and 15 minutes, but I want to make sure that each person here that doesn't have a speaker for them gets their two minutes, and I would think the majoriiy of them will be able to receive their two minutes. So besides the 15 minutes, are we going to have each speaker --? Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we made that very clear. Yes. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. I just want to verify. Thankyou. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Ms. Schmitt: IfI could just make one suggestion. As Commissioners, you're listening to the testimony that's more involved in sort of the historic significance of the site. On page I of my supplementary designation report, I make mention of what the National Register refers to as the basic integrity test. So to quote from one of their bulletins, A basic integrity test for property associated with an important event or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the properly as it exists today. "And so I'm just sharing that with you as a guide in terms of -- because some of the buildings that were associated with some of the historic -- important historic events are gone. Ask yourself, if you were to plop somebody who was there in 1960 in the campus, would they still recognize the campus as it was then? Could they recognize it today? And I think that that's one of the things that I want to suggest that you do as you're listening to the testimony from the public that are speaking about this from a more relevant significance, being that of the historic significance. Would they be able to recognize the site today as it was in 1960? And I think that might be helpful. Mr. Leen: And finally, the City is incorporating all of the record, including the record from the HEP Board and the record before, that was before you when you considered it the first time. All of that is substantial competent evidence you can look to. City ofMiami Page 127 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Thank you vevy much. Ms. Schmitt: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I will allow the time now for the appellant from the HEP Board decision, so if you are the attorney from the appellant -- as the appellant from the HEP Board decision, this is your time to speak now for 15 minutes. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Gilberto Pastoriza, 2525 Ponce de Leon. He's with me. Chair Hardemon: Oh, he's with you. Mr. Pastoriza: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: 2525 Ponce de Leon. I need to actual -- clarify, Commissioner Suarez, that there is another party involved here without the petitioners, and they are also parishioners of this church, so therefore, you're going to hear from the petitioners/parishioners, and you're going to hear substantial competent evidence to support the artistic and the aesthetic value of this building. I think what we're really doing here is that you are designating a building; you are not designating the use within the building, okay? That's the designation in front ofyou. You have to make that primavy -- the test is your -- the primary significance of the building, okay? Is the primary significance of the building architectural, artistic, or historical? And they're firs," they are not 5nds. "So if the primary significance of this building is one of those three items that I mentioned it doesn't really matter that the use is a church, because the -- those -- the primary significance is in the architectural value, or the aesthetic value, or on the historical value. And let me also quote from the opinion, okay? Because the opinion also says that the mere fact that this building is used as a church does not really carve the ball, and I'll quote it to you. It says: Requiring that the structures be void of any and all religious import or function is not a requirement which would render a church immeasurable for historic status, contrary to the diocese's position. "So the church has to establish more than a fact that they use that building as a church. So the mere use of the building as a church really does not trump the architectural or artistic value. So we are -- we have our expert here, and our expert is going to go forward and is going to show you clearly, clearly, the architectural and the aesthetic value. With regards to the historical value --and when you spoke, Commissioner, I had highlighted and I was going to read, you know, in my presentation what you read, which is basically that example cited by the City of the church is deeply historical, knows -- et cetera, et cetera. That -- this Court did not weigh into that, because it didn't get there. And it did not get there because there was not a determination that the primary significance was the artistic value, et cetera. So that is very wide open, okay, the historical context, and you have people here that are going to be speaking about the historical context. Some of them are experts, like Ms. Parks, okay? Other people --you know, and citizens, citizens, if they have a fact -based presentation, that's substantial competent evidence, too. So I'd just like to bring just two quick, very quick points that the church may bring, which one was -- the church made a big issue that they didn't have enough money, or that they did not have money, and that putting a designation on that church was going to tie their hands, because they were not going to be -- everything was going to become more expensive. Okay. They --I was given a 40 -year certificate from --the church actually gave it tome --of the building. They did the 40 -year certification; the Count); did. And if you read it, the church is in pretty; good shape. There's not a lot of money that is going to be needed to spend on the maintenance and repair. But notwithstanding that, their -- your own Code, your own Code allows and mitigates this issue through the transfer of development rights. And those development rights are quite, quite valuable. On apiece of property like this, they -- by the way, City ofMiami Page 128 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 they sell on the open market. They are selling on the open market. On apiece of property like this, the TDRs (Transfer Development Rights) are worth millions of dollars, so that money could also be used to do whatever improvements or repairs needs to be done to this propero) . And then, last, before I turn it over to my expert, is that if this building gets designated, okay, historic, there are Federal grant monies that are available that do not infringe on the establishment clause. And I'd just like to end, you know, it up with this little quote from the opinion. The Oce of the Legal Council concluded that so long as the primary significance criteria for historic designation of religious properties set forth in 36 -CFR -60.4 is followed, government aid to a historic church structure will not run afoul of the establishment clause. "So with that, I turn it over to my expert. He will briefly just give you a very brief synopsis as to who he is, okay? And I would like to qualify him as an expert. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: I have just one -- Chair Hardemon: Go ahead. Mr. Pastoriza: -- procedural issue. Chair Hardemon: Go ahead. Mr. Pastoriza: I have -- you have copies of his designation report. I also would like to bring into this record everything that was discussed at the Cit) Commission meeting where this Cit) Commission unanimously approved the designation of this church. And I thank you very much for your time, and I would like at the end of all of these things one minute; at the end of everything, one minute. Chair Hardemon: Very well. You'll have it. But first, I'll allow you to proffer yourself as an expert, and I just want to be clear. The Cit) staff, Ms. Schmitt presented herself as an expert. I just want to, for the record, just make it clear. Is there any attorney here that would object to her status as being used as an expert? I don't hear any objection. And as a matter of fact, the counsel for the church indicated that she had no objection. So with that being said, I will allow the next expert who is going to present himself an cpportunio) to present himself as an expert, and if there is no objection from any other party, this body will expert him as an expert, and his testimony. But before you go, I want to call -- Vice Chair Russell: I have a question. You had mentioned that the transfer of development right, the TDR system was meant to mitigate the cost of maintaining an historic property, but you said, 1't could be millions. "Do we have a calculation, based on the open market, of TDRs today, what the TDRs for this church -- what would the church earn by selling its transfer development rights once it became historic; do we know that number? Mr. Pastoriza: I do not have a number for you. Vice Chair Russell: Does anyone from our staff know that number? Commissioner Gort: My understanding -- Vice Chair Russell: I've heard an estimate, but I'd just rather hear it from experts. Commissioner Gort: -- about 17 million; about 17 million. Mr. Garcia: It's -- I will tell you that it is certainly a high number, given the fact that the building in place on the site is -- the entireo) of structures on the site are at best one-, two -store City ofMiami Page 129 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 buildings in a site that is designated for very, very tall buildings. So the remnants, the change, if you will, the delta between the amount of development capacio) on the site and the significant structures that you see immediately around it is enough, I think, to capture just how much development value there is on that land, and all of it could be transferred. And what Mr. Pastoriza was alluding to is the fact that within the Transfer of Development Right Ordinance, there is language that is intended to take some of that revenue derived from the sale of development rights that has to be placed back onto the property for purposes of maintenance of the historic resource. I think that's what was being made mention of. Vice Chair Russell: What would be the zoning designation to which that delta would go? What's the height we're talking about or the density we're talking about here? Commissioner Gort: 20 -some stories. Mr. Garcia: Sorry. I'm going to research that very quickly and I'll give you that answer in a moment. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I'm sure we'll have some time, so okay. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: While he's researching that, I'll allow this young man -- Steven Avdakov: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Could you state your name for the record? Mr. Avdakov: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Steven Avdakov. I'm principal of Heritage Architectural Associates. We're located at 4770 Alton Road, in Miami Beach, Florida. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the historic designation of St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church. I'm a preservation architect with over 25 years of professional and historic experience. I'm founder and owner of Heritage Architectural Associates, which, for 18 years, has focused exclusively in the realm of historic preservation. I have a master of science degree in historic preservation from Colombia Universio) . I'm a registered architect, and allowed to take in work in five states. Chair Hardemon: Let me stop you for a second. Is there anyone who is opposing counsel that would object to him being named as an expert witness? Ms. Boulris: No objection. Chair Hardemon: There's -- the counsel for the church indicated that there is no objection to that, so I want the record to properly reflect that. No need to go into your qualifications; just go on to your opinion. Mr. Avdakov: Okay, great. Just one other point I'd like to make. I have a strong local sense of history, as I've been a resident of South Florida for the past 32 years, since I arrived in 1984, when I studied architecture at the Universio) of Miami, so I have a local perspective, as well as a national perspective, as well. So this is what we're here to consider today. The building -- the designation of the church. Because St. Jude's is a religious structure, its primary significance must be analyzed in accordance with provisions of the Cio) `s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The building must derive its primary significance from its architecture, artistic distinction or its historical importance rather than from its religious purpose. "This is taken specifically from the Appellate Court case that brought the hearing back tons here today. So in accordance with this Court's directive, we've reviewed the building accordingly, and we have assessed its significance in this presentation and report. Before I get specifically into the designation of St. Jude, I think it's important to understand that the designation of historic religious structures has occurred City ofMiami Page 130 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 many times in the past, and due to the fact that these are important structures that possess historic and architectural significance. As the Cit) presented earlier today, 10 percent of the first 20 historic structures that were designated were religious. Currently, over 12 percent of the locally designated sites are religious. There are currently seven National Register -listed sites in Miami that are religious structures. Historic designation of religious structures is rather commonplace, and is in other jurisdictions, as well. So what we're going to -- what we're here to do, we're going to review point by point in our opinion items that constitute the basis for determination of primal y significance of the building. And you can see our list that we have over hereon your chart before you. We're going to go point by point down that list. The first item refers to the architect. The architect for St. Jude was Henry Dagit and Sons. They were a prominent firm from Philadelphia. It was founded in 1922 and practiced through 1959. During those 37 years, they designed numerous religious structures, higher education facilities, and other oPes of civic buildings. They practiced in the northeast, including Philadelphia, New Jersey, Baltimore, Washington; and they also took work in the southeast, including Atlanta and Miami. A number of their buildings are either designated locally or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and their buildings are also documented in the Library of Congress. So we're going to look at some significant examples that you can see here. On the left, there's a chapel at Rosemont College near Philadelphia; you have a monastery at Villanova Universio) in Philadelphia; and Christ the King Church in Atlanta. They add solidio) to the civic character, a sense of timelessness. It's a beautiful work. I want to point out Ravenhill Chapel in Philadelphia. Ravenhill was designed by the firm in 1938, and is locally designated with the Philadelphia Register of Restored Places. The structures serve as a Chapel for the Assumption Religious Order. It's the same group that founded the Assumption Academy Chapel here; St. Jude, here at Miami, which you can see here. This significant architectural firm designed this building. It was oPical of them --Miami at that time to bring in an architect --a prominent architect --from outside the area to undertake significant commissions. So a practice which lasted 37 years; many churches and buildings with historic designation; they were, indeed, master architects. Additionally, on the list, you'll see we have identified the builder as a significant component here in the case, defining architectural significance. The builder was McCloskey and Company. They were also based in Philadelphia. They were founded therein 1910, and operated continuously for over 60 years, through the 1970s. McCloskey and Company became one of the biggest contractors in the countv){ and undertook numerous large projects throughout the country, including significant Federal projects, like you see here; the Rayburn Oce Building, in the lower left-hand corner. Due to the stature of their firm, you know, they became very prominent; and, in fact, the founder, Matthew McCloskey, he became appointed ambassador oflreland in this picture here in the lower right-hand corner; that image with President Kennedy in the Oval Office. He was appointed ambassador of Ireland by President Kennedy. Given his heritage of Irishness [sic], I think that's --that shows the stature of that builder and that firm. And that builder -- this business had been in construction for over 60 years -- built this building in 1946 The construction business lasted over 60 years; large-scale civic buildings, federal buildings and churches. They were, indeed, significant builders, and you can see them over here on our list. Architectural significance relates to the design, the items that you see here on the chart. You know, the mid -Century interpretation of Romanesque architecture, its civic scale, its shape, which refects that Romanesque interpretation of the architecture; its fenestration, its windows, its materials, including its limestone veneer, and the ornaments and art glass, they're all significant items here. The shape and form of the building constitute its architectural significance. The -- they convey traditional origins of the design of the building, which are conveyed in a mid -20th Century interpretation. It's not, you know, 12th Century Romanesque church architecture, but it's mid -Century 20th architecture that's been interpreted here in this context of Miami, and remains intact, as you can see from the drawing. As the Cit) mentioned earlier, the forms of the front are clearly articulated, the narthex in the front; the nave in the center of the main part; the transepts, which project from the sides, and the apse. There's clearly integrity there. The narthex, this is an interpreted Romanesque form. It projects forward. The gable entrance, you can see clearly. Look at how closely it resembles the original drawing. Look at the architectural integrity there. City ofMiami Page 131 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 It's like it was drawn like it's built. It's like going back in time. The -- another item of the form is the nave and the transept. This is a view from Brickell. It's an interpreted form which shows the transept, the gabled part that projects from the nave from the main volume, which is expressed by the continuous gable roof. This transept has been interpreted. It doesn't project as far, but it, you know, references that Romanesque ecclesiastical form. Once again, note the comparison between the drawing and the photograph; identical architectural integrity; the craftsmanship. It was built exactly as it was designed Moving around the building at the western end, this is a two -store attachment. The reference is -- it's a rectangular interpretation of the Romanesque element of the apse; architectural integrity again, showing the drawing and the photograph. And similarly to the Brickell fagade, we have the transept projecting from the nave. The fenestration treatment contributes to its form as artistic -- architectural significance. A fenestration is the pattern of window openings in the fagade. The windows are recessed. They convey a sense of solidity of the exterior walls; a sense of timelessness, of permanence. The arrangements provide a strong sense of civic scale with verticality, which is reinforced by the way they're paired, you know? They have the Gothic interpretations, the lancet windows with the oculus at the top, and the bar of the quatrefoil windows, which emphasize the primary fagades, but they have --);on know, look at the drawing and look at the building. Look how that's held up in the integrii); there. Now, one of the most important aspects in terms of architectural significance is the use of the materials. Limestone, Indiana limestone, brought all the way from Indiana here, why? Because it's used for commercial, and civic, and religious structures. It provides a sense of timelessness and permanence. You know, the variations in the colors, and the stone, and the subdivision in the individual units and jointpatterns define one of the primary characteristics of the exterior of the building. You see -- Chair Hardemon: Sir, how much more time do you think you need in your presentation? Mr. Pastoriza: Like three; three to four minutes. Mr. Avdakov: Three minutes, three minutes. Chair Hardemon: Can we --can you put three minutes -- put four minutes on the clock, please? Mr. Avdakov: So you can see the character of the limestone, that material; the ornament, how it's simplified, but also, another -- we've covered architecture so far, but I want to touch upon the artistic significance. These are the elements which provide the extraordinary beauty in the building for this superb artistv)�. The poetic aspects of the building: The limestone ornament at the entrances, as you can see, as is drawn, as it was built, as it remains 60 years later; the intricacy of the detail and the skill of the craftsmanship, the carving. This is beauty, this is art, and this is essential to the character of the building. The art glass is also tremendously significant here. The beaux) is extraordinary. It was created by Willett Stain Glass Company of Philadelphia, which was found in 1898. They're currently in operation. They're the largest stained glass manufacturer in the world. They've done significant work you can see here at West Point, the National Cathedral, the Cathedral of Christ the King, and a chapel at Northwestern. They have national prominence. International prominence, and they did the art glass here. And you can see --you could take a look at the studio design, how they laid things out, how carefully and meticulously the items were considered in harmony throughout the facilio) . Now, we've actually been able to contact Crosby Willett, who's the former president of Willett Studios, who is 87 years old. He was passionate about the importance of the glass. He's the former president. He spoke tons. He talked about how the glass was hand blown, and how it was difficult to install; he had to have specific craftsmen. And the handmade process contributes to the distinctive feature and character of that window. It's so impressive, and it was -- actually, when this building was built, the art glass was in shortage, because of the end of World War IT Beautiful significant art, some of the detail that you can see of individual elements at the bottom. Just a couple things I want to touch upon is the urban context. You know, this building provides valuable historic significance because it's one of the few surviving buildings from mid -Century City ofMiami Page 132 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Miami along the Brickell corridor. You can see an aerial photo on the left in 1952 and on the right in 2016, and how dramatically it's changed. We have St. Jude at the southern end of Brickell Avenue, and we have the First Presbyterian Church, which is a designated religious structure, at the north end. They're like architectural bookends, and you can see them here. And another item of significance is the fact that the building has adaptive use. It's an important component. It's already demonstrated its capacio) for that. It's been converted from a Roman Catholic church to a Melkite church already. And additionally, there are many examples throughout the country and the world of historically designated religious structures that have been repurposed for other uses, like you can see here: The church in Brooklyn, which are now condominiums; the church in the right in Philadelphia, which is now a performing arts center. So I'm going to conclude here right now. It all comes back to this, this chart right here; significance versus use. Clearly, we have credibly expressed and defined that St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church possesses architectural, artistic, and historic significance that outweighs the significance of the religious use. Nine items of significance on the left: The prominent mastery of the architect; the importance of the builder; the design of the building; the shape and form of the Romanesque architecture; the configuration and the detailing of the fenestration; the artistry; the use of the materials; the historic association with post- World War II Miami, and its adaptive use. You can see them quantified therein the chart versus the one item of religious use on the right. So in conclusion, clearly, the numerous items which we've associated with the architectural, artistic, and historic significance, which is clearly depicted constitutes the primary significance, and it cannot be superseded by one item on the right, its use. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Are there any questions from the dais for Mr. Steven? Unidentified Speaker: (INAUDIBLE). Chair Hardemon: Yeah, we will. There are no further questions? Seeing none, can you remove your demonstrative, please? Does anyone have any questions for counsel? Seeing no questions for him, what I'm going to allow at this point is to hear from the attorneys from the church, that represent the church. So in this matter, they're not appellants. They're not appellants. Ms. Mendez: They're the appellees in this matter before you, but it doesn't matter. We'll call them the church, the parishioners, 'the City, 'and we'll keep it clear that way. Chair Hardemon: It's very confusing, but the church. "Ma'am, you can come to the lectern, and can -- Mr. Pastoriza: To expedite matters, we have no objections to your experts. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Chair Hardemon: What experts will you be presenting before us ? Well, can you come here for a second? Ms. Boulris: Chair Hardemon, we're just heading up our PowerPoint to save time. Chair Hardemon: All right. What I'll do is -- Ms. Boulris: I'm sore, Chair. Chair Hardemon: No, no problem. City ofMiami Page 133 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: What experts will you be presenting? How many experts, one, will you be presenting; and who are they? Ms. Boulris: Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Thank you for having us today. Unidentified Speaker: Could you speak a little lourder? Ms. Boulris: I'll speak a little louder for the audience at their request. Thank you, ma'am. Chair, we intend to call five witnesses today, whether -- in our case in chief, which would be our preference. I think things would go quicker and more orderly that way. Some of them could be deferred to the public comment, but we'd like to present them together. I think it would be overall quicker. We've worked hard to have those speaking in support of the church appoint representative spokespersons. We'll be calling two experts on architectural significance to rebut the assertion that the architecture here, while nice and beautiful, like most churches aim to be, we'll rebut that it is so significant that it eclipses the religious significance of the site. We disagree with the Preservation Oce about that. I'll present two witnesses on religious significance. Bishop Samra, who is the national presiding bishop of the Melkite Catholic Church nationally is here; and the local presiding priest, Father Damon Geiger. They're experts in -- qualified by their experience in religious significance; and then three representative spokespeople of the congregation, who could speak during public comment. And the other people that are here with them have donated time, but we will keep all of those very concise. Their comments have been written down to make sure they stay concise. Chair Hardemon: So your two witnesses -- your two expert witnesses will be architectural significance -o pe witnesses. They're not --? Ms. Boulris: One is Dr. John Garner, from the University of Illinois, who also testified previously. And by the way, for the record, just as the City staff has and the appellants have, we expressly reincorporate all the evidence that we put into the developed record at earlier proceedings, we aim to recap today and supplement, but we stand on all of the evidence in the record. Dr. Garner will discuss the reasons why the architecture of this church are not exceptional. Ellen Uguccioni, who worked in Historic Preservation Oce here in the Cit) for over 16 years, will discuss the fact that the integrio) of setting has been lost. That would relate more to the asserted historical importance for any association with the Sisters of Assumption School that's been demolished Integrio) of setting is required for any historic designation, much less one that has to override religious significance. Chair Hardemon: Does the City staff or the attorney for the appellant in this case who just finished their presentation have any objection to their witnesses being deemed expert witnesses ? Mr. Pastoriza: I have no objections to her experts. Chair Hardemon: That is correct. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay? Chair Hardemon: Okay. And the attorney representing City staff? Mr. Leen: We just --we would just ask that they put their credentials on the record under oath. If we have an objection, we'll let you know, butt don't have one at this time. City ofMiami Page 134 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Is this an expert witness that has not yet presented himself? Ms. Boulris: Both Dr. Garner and Ms. Uguccioni were previously qualified as expert in these proceedings; however, we did bring their curriculum vitae and resume with us today to place back in the record, and we're going to be handing out copies to each of you. Chair Hardemon: All right. So, I mean, as you can tell, based off of the staff attorney that we just need that record. I mean, allow them not to just supplement the record, but also express it on the record, so that we can make a determination that the person is an expert. We don't have a unanimous consent to it just yet, so -- Ms. Boulris: Very well. Chair Hardemon: -- when we get there, we'll cross that battle -- Ms. Boulris: Very well. Chair Hardemon: -- cross that line. Additionally, what I'd like to do is, seeing that the two parties that -- who were presented earlier, which were the Cit); staff, and also the attorney for the appellant, they each had 15 minutes, but they were advocating the same position. I will grant you 30 minutes to make your presentation. Use your time wisely. Ms. Boulris: I will try to, sir. Thank you. While I'm giving my opening remarks --and I will be as brief as possible -- I'm asking my assistant, Ms. Fein, to hand out some record materials. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Ms. Boulris: To be efficient, I'm going to list what we're putting in the record today as a supplement. Chair Hardemon: I apologize. Go ahead. Ms. Boulris: It doesn't interrupt the flow of the testimony. We're doing this to be efficient. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Before you go into your case in chief -- Ms. Boulris: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: -- Francisco Garcia, I believe you have an answer to the question that was asked by our Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Garcia: I do, sir. Thank you. And I wanted to simply put it on the record, the question that was asked if I understand it correctly, is for us to quantify to some extent what that available development capacity there is to transfer it. So what I will not do is give a monetary amount that is somewhat speculative, but what I will tell you is that the transferable development capacity on this site is specifically 269,401 square feet, which is rather significant. The zoning designation allows for an as -of -right height of 24 stories. As I mentioned earlier, certainly, the buildings that exist at present don't optimize the amount of lot area that could be covered, and certainly rise at most to two stories of height, approximately, and so that remnant is what could possibly be transferred. I hope that suffices. City ofMiami Page 135 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Could you say the number once again for me? Mr. Garcia: Certainly. 269,401 square feet. Chair Hardemon: Thank you vett' much. Mr. City Clerk, can you restart the amount of time that the church has for their presentation to 30 minutes? Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chair Hardemon. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. I'll get the housekeeping out of the way first, and then I hope I'll be succinct on the legal standards in introducing the testimony you'll hear today. We're putting into the record the signed petitions by members of the church who oppose designation that were signed in 2013. They're already in the record from preceding, but I want the Commission, including new members, to see that that box is full of petitions. Those were already put in the record in 2013. We've also brought with us another set of petitions that were signed this month to show that there's a continuing consensus within the active congregation of this church opposing designation. These are the recent petitions we're putting in the record. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, we would -- I would just make a -- put an objection on the record that, of course, obviously, you're always interested in petitions ofyour residents and citizens, but that, you know, in a quasi judicial proceeding, it needs to be based on the evidence on the record, not just a statement ofyour opinion. Vice Chair Russell: Noted Ms. Boulris: We are also putting into the record --and it'll be more clear why --the available -- the currently available copies of all the designation reports, and the currently available resolutions designating the religious properties listed in the Preservation officer's supplemental report. On page 3 of that report, there's a list of religious properties in Miami that have been designated, and throughout our presentation, we'll be representing and documenting that every one of those -- every one of them was a voluntary designation. Evevy one of them did not involve a dispute over the primavy significance test. And in the designation reports we have -- I think, 10 out of 13 -- primary significance is not even discussed. I'm putting those in the record. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, I would justput an objection on the record that the Code doesn't differentiate between those two, whether it's voluntary or not, either way, it could be designated based on the substantial competent evidence. So I would question the relevance of the materials. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Boulris: The relevance --it's my presentation. I know -- I take that as an objection to relevance, and let me respond to it. Page 3 of the supplemental designation report makes the following assertion, and I quote: The following churches are listed on the local Miami Register of Historic Places and/or the National Register of Historic Places. They have been deemed historic, even though most are currently actively continuously used as houses of worship because their historical and architectural significance exceeds the religious significance. "So there's assertion in the report that the mere designation -- designated status of these properties somehow suggests that the architectural and historic significance of those properties exceeded their religious significance, and we are rebutting that by putting in the actual designation reports and resolutions that make no finding that the religious significance of those sites was overridden by any asserted architectural or historic significance. In fact, those were voluntarily stipulated designations, and we find the attempt of the Historic Preservation Office to point to them as some sort of legal precedent for findings of primar)� significance, which is a legal finding, to be a City ofMiami Page 136 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 bit disingenuous; or at least, we want to make clear what our view of that evidence is, and so we've researched and pulled all the reports. Ms. Uguccioni will also testify that during her tenure, when many of those were designated that to her recollection, all of them were voluntary. Vice Chair Russell: But the voluntary nature is not the -- not what you're finding to be not relevant. What you're saying is that none of those situations considered whether or not the religious significance was greater or less important than the historical, architectural significance. Ms. Boulris: Let me illustrate my point. During the Historic Preservation officer's presentation today, she pointed to the Plymouth Congregational Church and the Jesu, which are also on this list in page 3 of that report. She showed pictures of those, and pointed them to -- as examples of where, alleged(y, the religious significance had been overridden by historical or architectural significance. And we're rebutting that with this evidence. Those were voluntary designations -- Vice Chair Russell: Noted Ms. Boulris: -- and the issue of primar)� significance was not really discussed, even in the designation report, much less debated, and much less decided by a Commission like yours. So to put them up there as precedent, we find to be -- we at least want you to know the facts behind them. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Please continue. Mr. Leen: Just the only point I was making was the -- originally, when they were presented, it was whether it was voluntary or not, and you should be simply looking at the evidence -- whether there's competent and substantial evidence in support. And I -- my understanding is those were just presented to show that there had been churches that are historically designated; and, in fact, your Code recognizes that you can designate a church as long as it's not done for primarily a religious purpose. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: And I just would add, I think -- and I don't mean to be combative in any way -- but the fact that it's voluntary doesn't mean that the church organization didn't agree that its primary significance wasn't architectural, so, I mean, I don't think the fact that it's voluntary or involuntary really matters, and I think that's where the relevancy issue -- Mr. Leen: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: -- really plays here. I think -- I understand what you're saying. You're saying that just because it's designated doesn't automatically mean -- but it wasn't contested but -- so -- Ms. Boulris: What I'm saying, sir, is that the Cit) staff opened the door to this argument when they argued that the designation of those properties proves that their historic or architectural significance exceeded their religious, and it -- the designation in those properties doesn't prove City ofMiami Page 137 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 that. It's inconclusive, and I think that's perhaps what you're saying. It's not relevant to this discussion. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you for clarifying. I believe that the attorney also clarified that what you're saying is correct; that that wasn't the criteria that they were bringing those forth to illustrate. They were just showing that there are other churches that have been designated historical and -- Ms. Boulris: Well, sir, in their report, they say more. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you; thank you for noting. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Well, that'll shorten my opening statement a little more. Thank you for letting me do that. As I've noted before, I'm Amy Boulris. I'm proud to represent the St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church. As you know, the church opposes designation, and its position is that whatever the asserted architectural, historic, or cultural significance there may be in the view of some, none of those things override or outweigh the religious significance of the St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church. We don't deny that the church is beautiful. We don't deny that events like Pedro Pan, however minor a role the chapel may have played -- and that's not even proven historically; it's a rather debatable point -- but whether, in some people's opinion, it played a role, it was a minor one, and that's very noble. Pedro Pan is a very proud moment in Miami's history, but that doesn't eclipse the religious significance of the site; nor does the fact that this church edifice has some Romanesque features. It's not, as Dr. Garner will testify momentarily, it's not an exceptional example of Romanesque architecture. None of these things outweigh the religious significance of the site. They're nice, they're important, they're -- some of them are true, but they don't outweigh the religious significance. The church, therefore, urges the Commission to uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Board, which declined to designate and adopt the draft resolution. And by the way, they declined to designate because they did not have the requisite number of votes. We ask the Commission to adopt the draft resolution in your agenda packet that finds the religious significance of this church outweighs any asserted architectural, historical, or other asserted cultural significance. In support of its position, the church does incorporate all the evidence previously submitted. We point out --since there's been quite a bit of discussion of what the legal standards are, we point out that it's the applicant that has the burden of proof to prove that the asserted cultural or secular significance of the site outweighs the religious. It's not the church's burden to prove otherwise, although the church firmly believes otherwise. Today, we'll be presenting some witnesses I mentioned before. Bishop Nicholas Samra will speak; Father Damon Geiger will speak to the religious significance of the site; three congregants will speak as representatives of the congregation. Dr. Garner, since there's not been a stipulation to his expert status yet, I'll mention that he's a preservation consultant and professor emeritus of architecture at the University; of Illinois, at Urbana -Champaign, where he retired. He's a member --he chaired the Division of Architectural History and Preservation before retiring in 2007. He's a chief investigator and author of several reports on historic buildings and districts in Illinois. And he's the author and editor of several articles, chapters, and books, including the Midwest and American Architecture. He's appeared before several building commissions, planning commissions and cit); councils, and he's appeared previously in this case. He has served as an advisor to the National Parks for Historic American Building Survey, and he has a professional degree in architecture. And I'm tvy;ing to cut it short. He has far more qualifications. Ms. Uguccioni has over 30 years of experience in historic preservation and architectural history. She has a bachelor and master's in art history, and is currently vice president and director of the Historic Preservation Services for JSK Architectural Group. She's an expert in determining eligibility; of designating properties and structures under the national and local historic criteria She worked on over 60 local -- bear with me, I'm sore -- applications to determine whether property structures were eligible for architectural historic designation, including Vizcaya, the Freedom Tower, Coral Gables Congregational Church and the Biltmore Hotel. She worked for the City of Miami from '06 to 2010 as Historical City ofMiami Page 138 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Preservation planner and the Preservation officer. For over 22 years, she's been an Architectural Historian member; vice chair and chair of the Florida National Register Review Board, evaluating properties all over Florida for the National Register designation. So I believe -- I would tender them both as experts. Chair Hardemon: So I think that the Board heard enough of their CV (curriculum vitae) to qualify them as an expert, so if there is no objection -- I heard there was none from the appellant. And there is none from -- shaking of the head from the Cii)v Attorney representing the staff? Mr. Leen: No objection. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Let's move forward. Ms. Boulris: Mr. Chair, I'll mention a couple of things about the legal standard at play. You have quoted appropriately from the Circuit Court's opinion. I think you clearly have noted parts of the opinion that indicate that it is for the Commission to weigh the relative significance of the religious or the secular asserted significances here. It's your decision. I also don't believe the ordinance, which patterned after the Federal law, makes a distinction between expert or lay testimony. You properly can consider all of it. The ordinance does not require the church to prove that it's a uniquely significant religious use; quite to the contrary. There is a presumption that any property even owned by a religious institution -- that's how your Code reads -- that mere ownership of property, even if it were vacant, means it's exempt. There's no requirement to prove it's unique, or incredibly special in the religious world. If it's a religiously -owned property, it's exempt, and the burden is on the applicant to prove there's a different sort of significance that overrides that. So this notion that the church must prove its religious use is unique is actually backwards to the actual legal test. The applicant must prove there's something so unique and special about the architecture or the historical associations with this building that it would override its religious significance, which is fairly presumed in the Code. Also, the availabilii)v of transferable development rights is irrelevant to your decision today, or legally should be irrelevant to your decision today. There's nothing in the primary significance test --which is the only applicable test -- that would allow you to weigh in whether the church would have some mitigating TDRs. And I appreciate the Planning director's concession that the value of those TDRs as we stand here today is nothing but speculation. Lastly, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Pastoriza correctly pointed out that one of the policies underlying your Code is to avoid violating the establishment clause. There have been concerns where some churches, exercising their liberty, wanted designation, because of the benefits, like TDRs or grants that might come with it. It might run afoul of the establishment clause. He's quite correct, that's one of the policies there, but as the Circuit Court recognized here, an equally important policy of the First Amendment that's imbued in this provision is the potential for restricting or burdening the exercise of religion, and that's the concern that St. Jude has. So while he was correct, he was only half correct, so I wanted to just point that out. I think I've said enough, and you probably want to hear more from Dr. Garner. He's way smarter than me, and so I'm going to yield the floor to him, unless there are questions, now or later. Vice Chair Russell: I've got a brief question. Chair Hardemon: Can you pause the time, please? Vice Chair Russell: How would the designation burden the practice of religion? You mentioned that as your last statement, and I would -- I'm curious, because I imagine that's the crux of why the church would not want the designation; that it's burdening -- that it would burden their City ofMiami Page 139 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 ability to practice religious --religion freely. Could you expand on that, please? Ms. Boulris: Yes. And there's really two things at play. There's also a Fifth Amendment property right here. Designation would, as already observed by City staff, severely curtail the potential use of this site, and that's a property rights issue; but the primacy concern, as you've pointed out, is the concern about burdening on religious exercise. I'll give you a couple of examples of how that could happen. The Melkite tradition, as others have already put in this record extensively, does not favor three-dimensional icons. It may go back to idol worship, or concerns about that in their -- it's a tenet of the Melkite tradition that may be a little different than the Roman Catholic tradition, and there are some changes they would want to make to this building when they can fund it at some point that would mean changing the exterior of the building, which has some three-dimensional figures. They've changed the interior, and you see a lot of frescoes and two-dimensional art, but someday, they want to change the exterior of this building that would be designated. They may want to -- also, the Melkite tradition, their architecture has a prevalent use of domes. So someday, if they can afford it, they want to change the roof and turn it into a dome, because that's a tenet of their religion. Those are a couple of examples. As the Circuit Court mentioned -- and, you know, churches that get designated historic can lose their insurance, or pay higher premiums, because there's a risk that if there's some damage, the cost of -- isn't just the cost of repair; it's the cost of restoration to the former historic fagade. It can be much more expensive, so insurance premiums go up. They could -- there's a risk of losing your insurance carrier all together. Depending on what the oversight of bureaucrats could be after a designation, the way the church maintains the building, they may be forced to use more expensive materials than they would otherwise use, and it can burden a church's budget. I don't know many churches today, much less one of this size, that has tons of disposable income, and those kinds of added burdens on the budget can distract or be an at-opportunio) cost to funding ministry, and so those are the -- some of the concerns. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, ifI may? Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: I have several questions on some of the alleged burdens. I guess my -- I'll go backwards/forward, ifyou will. I guess my first question is the Administration has presented evidence that there are several churches that have been historically designated. Do you have any specific evidence that those churches are paying higher premiums today than they were paying before they were historically designated? Ms. Boulris: No, and I don't have to come forward with that evidence -- Commissioner Suarez: I'm just asking ifyou have any. Ms. Boulris: -- but there -- St. Jude -- Commissioner Suarez: Because you made the statement. Ms. Boulris: Yes, I did. St. Jude has been advised by an insurance agent that it should be concerned about this. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Do you have any evidence that those churches are not able to afford insurance, or have not been offered insurance because of their historic designation? Ms. Boulris: No, sir. I'm talking about what St. Jude's been told, because it's near the bay. It's in the windstorm pool and -- City ofMiami Page 140 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: I know. Ms. Boulris: --yeah. Commissioner Suarez: I just asked the specific question. Ms. Boulris: I do have evidence. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So I guess my -- can I ask a couple more questions? My second question is, there's been evidence presented in the record today as to the aesthetic properties of the three-dimensional icons, as you call them; maybe someone else might call them a religious figurine or -- Ms. Boulris: Statue. Commissioner Suarez: -- an aesthetic feature, or whatever you want to call it. If they were -- and I don't mean to be in any way, flippant. I'm asking a very --kind of a serious question -- Ms. Boulris: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: -- which is, if the church were that concerned, and if it was such apart of their fundamental beliefs -- and I'm not -- don't pretend to be an expert on all these different sects of the Catholic Church. If it was such a significant aspect of their belief system, then how come they bought that church to begin with? Or why did they decide to select that church is my --I guess my first question. And my follow-up question is how come they've never in the past tried to change those three-dimensional icons if they're somehow offensive to their belief system? Ms. Boulris: I'll answer those in order. Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Ms. Boulris: They bought this church because of where it sits in the heart of Miami, because they had the vision to see how Brickell was going to grow, and that it's important to have places for spiritual nourishment in the heart of the Cit). Commissioner Suarez: But that sort of contradicts your point, because you're saying it was a good real estate investment versus -- Ms. Boulris: I never said that, sir. Commissioner Suarez: No, but you said they bought it because of its location. Ms. Boulris: In the heart of the Cit). Commissioner Suarez: Right, because of its location, rather than -- Ms. Boulris: Where they are in a position to minister to a population center. Commissioner Suarez: Understood And so it has a very good location vis-a-vis its population, rather than its religious connection in terms of how it wants it to reflect its religious values. Ms. Boulris: Well, they can speak to why they chose this building, but among the reasons were that the Sisters of Assumption School was financially bankrupt, and they came in and saved it from being turned into a condo back then. City ofMiami Page 141 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: That's very -- Ms. Boulris: And they didn't want to build the church new. They perhaps couldn't afford to do new construction; particularly not in the heart of the Cit), where real estate's very expensive, and new construction is very expensive. They might have bought the building in the hope of someday remodeling it to be like their tenets. And what historic preservation may do is handcuff them from being able to do it whenever they're able. Like most property owners, when I buy a house or a business, I might want to remodel it someday -- Commissioner Suarez: How long -- Ms. Boulris: -- when I have the money. Commissioner Suarez: --have they owned the church? Ms. Boulris: Since the 70s. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So 40 plus years? Ms. Boulris: Since the 70s; whatever the math is. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Well, 15 plus 30 is 45. Ms. Boulris: Very good. Commissioner Suarez: I don't know if it was exactly '70, or '71, or '72. And it has been historically designated in that period? Ms. Boulris: No, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Have they made an effort to change the icons as they appear on the fagade of the building because of their religious tie to their faith and ideology ? Ms. Boulris: They can speak to that. What I understand to be the case is they've wanted to all along. They have not yet had the funding to do it. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Just one last question. It seems to me that -- and I don't -- I haven't seen the proposed dome. I know that the first time that we heard this matter, I think there was some discussion also about a dome, and would you -- maybe you will not admit to this, and I'm not --you know, and if you don't, you don't. Would you consent to the fact that a dome might change significantly the aesthetic appearance of the church as we -- as this community has come to accept it, and in terms of its architectural character? Ms. Boulris: I'm not an architect -- Commissioner Suarez: Nor am I. Ms. Boulris: -- but let me answer you this way, as a lawyer: Let's assume it would. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Boulris: They have that right; they own the property. And it's one of the things that the exemption in your Code exists for; so they can adapt the property according to the tenets of their religion. City ofMiami Page 142 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: I understand that, but if the primary significance of the structure is its architectural -- and I know you dispute that -- Ms. Boulris: I do. Commissioner Suarez: --then putting a dome on it would certainly alter the architectural character, would it not? Ms. Boulris: I would agree with that. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Boulris: And I'm an English major, but ifyou put a dome on a roof, I could tell you that much, yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. And then, I guess the last --I don't know if it's a point that I want to make, but you --and the reason why I make this point is because you sort of talked about the TDRs as if they were irrelevant to this discussion, and I struggled myself to find the relevancy to the discussion until you brought in some of the financial burdens that would potentially be created by the designation. So I think the concept of designation is such that to the extent that there might be some financial burdens based on designation, those are mitigated, if not eliminated by the abilio) to sell essentially the development rights that you've, quote/unquote, Post, '!/` you will, to mitigate some of those potential higher costs, like higher insurance; or loss of development value, or capacio) , or growth capacity, et cetera; or maybe to buy another facility for the same religion in another place to service a similar population, so -- Ms. Boulris: Are you suggesting they would have to relocate? Commissioner Suarez: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm suggesting -- Ms. Boulris: Okay. I just wanted to understand you. Commissioner Suarez: No. And I'll be very specific. What I'm suggesting is --I was trying to find the relevancy to the discussion of TDRs, which I think you sort of articulated And so what I Ms. Boulris: Ifyoure saying I've conceded the relevancy, what I've said is the idea that they have great value or any value beyond the paper they're written on, there's no evidence of that. And at this point, your own staff admits that that's a speculative idea, and you shouldn't put weight on it in making your decision. Commissioner Suarez: Well, I think you've talked about the burden of designation, and I think there's relevancy in the value in transfer development rights, and I can tell you that it -- there is ample -- there's an ample trading market, and we've heard that testimony by our Planning director, even though he speculates as to the actual value, but I think the reason why it becomes relevant is when you say that the designation creates a financial hardship and so -- Ms. Boulris: Ask your Development director if the City also sells TDRs over the counter. Commissioner Suarez: I don't --the Cit) doesn't own the TDR. The owner of the property owns the TDR. Ms. Boulris: Right, but if someone wants bonus density in the downtown area, sir, can they not btcy it directly from the City? City ofMiami Page 143 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: They can, and it's not a TDR; it's a public benefit. Ms. Boulris: Right. So I'm talking about the law of supply and demand, and I'm illustrating why no one standing here today can assume that the TDRs the church might get out of a historic designation would adequately compensate it. Commissioner Suarez: Well, I'm not going to debate that, either, because I really don't have any information -- enough information. The only reason why I'm suggesting it is because you brought in the issue of the burden of designation; the financial burden, specifically. And I think that is what creates a relevancy with the transfer of development rights. And I can tell you, this Commission has struggled in the past, because development rights, TDRs, ifyou will, are trading at a much more valuable rate than the public benefits; and therefore, as you articulated, the over-the-counter market from the Cit) has been devoid of any sort of transactional activity simply because the TDRs are trading for a better benefit to the traders than whatever the City's offering, and that's why the City, since the inception of Miami 21, has not had a funded public benefits program, with the exception of, I think, one project, which funded it in West Little Havana. And in fact, we're doing a study on TDRs as we speak, which should be issued at any moment -- Commissioner Carollo: West Brickell. Commissioner Suarez: What's that? Commissioner Carollo: West Brickell. Commissioner Suarez: In West Brickell, right. We're doing a study right now of TDRs, because we're trying to right that wrong, ifyou will, and trying to create a little bit more balance there, but I can assure you that there is a robust TDR market, and that -- I think there was testimony in a prior Commission hearing, which I'll now articulate, which talked about trading of TDRs exceeding $30 million in the aggregate. Mr. Planning Director, can you articulate that for the record? Am I misstating the market, ifyou will, of already -traded TDRs? Mr. Garcia: We can account at present for 20 million. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. My apologies; 20 million -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: -- of actively traded— Ms. Boulris: And my point is it's still speculative what the church's TDRs might actually be worth. And my bigger point is it's not appropriately a consideration for your decision today. The Code doesn't say you may designate ifyou can take comfort that there'll be some TDRs; it doesn't say that. John Garner: Mr. Chair, may I--? Chair Hardemon: Before you -- I want to be clear for the record, so that everyone understands when this is appealed or whatever decision is made that the criteria that we must -- I'll read directly from page 5 of 17 under the writ: This criterion requires a comparison of the site's religious versus "-- Peligious importance versus its historical or architectural importance. "So we have to use the primary significance test to measure whether or not there -- the architectural or historical importance outweighs the religious importance, and so we want to keep that in our consideration; although information such as TDR rights, the cost of them, the -- even arguments City ofMiami Page 144 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 about -- that's been presented by counsel about the cost to change windows, doors, the burden of historical designation, all those things are not relevant to the decision of the religious importance versus the historical or architectural importance. Certainly, there are consequences of historical designation. There can be -- argue that there are some benefits. There can be arguments that there are some detriments to it. You can also talk about TDRs and how much income you can gather from TDRs, which could be a benefit to the church, but for the -- to be clear, what we are considering today is whether or not the religious importance is outweighed by the historical or architectural importance if we were to decide that this is a historical building and it should be deemed as so. So I hope that's clear enough for the -- counsel, is that clear enough for you? Ms. Boulris: I think you've properly stated the test, Chair Hardemon. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, the only thing I would say is -- because I don't want to keep getting up, and I want to give you respect while you do your presentation -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Mr. Leen: -- but we --to the extent you've proffered that you're going to raise the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, and TDRs, and whether we could remove the dome, all of that is something that is not relevant to the specific determination of historic designation. That's something you could consider later if -- Chair Hardemon: That is exactly -- Mr. Leen: -- even if it's designated, you can ask for that. Chair Hardemon: -- what I just said Mr. Leen: I know you did So we would object to any evidence that's presented in support of that argument. Chair Hardemon: My statement is made particularly to clear the record that this Board is considering the primary significance test; that's what we are considering. And any time an opinion is made and it comes from this Board, I will reiterate that it is concerning the primary significance test. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chair Hardemon. So I'd like to -- if we're back on the clock, whenever you say we are -- Chair Hardemon: I'll check, I'll check Ms. Boulris: Okay Chair Hardemon: Are you --you want to continue your presentation? Unless -- do we have any more questions from the dais? Seeing none, I'll continue the presentation. Run the clock, please Ms. Boulris: Thank you. I want to yield the f oor to Dr. Garner, to be followed by Ms. Uguccioni very briefly. And then please let me know if Bishop Samra and Father Damon can speak as part of our main presentation. Chair Hardemon: I would like to complete the case in chief. You have 16 minutes and 30 seconds. Ms. Boulris: All right. Dr. Garner, we need to get everyone in, so -- City ofMiami Page 145 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Garner: Yes. Ms. Boulris: -- try to be more concise than me. Mr. Garner: For the record, John Garner, Urbana, Illinois; speaking on behalf of the Diocese of the Melkite Catholic Church. And what we have is an illustration that shows the context of the site, and you see it in red. And this context has changed dramatically over the last half century, and over the last 40 years in which it's been held by the Melkite Catholic Church. And so, the context here is dramatically, dramatically changed. So we have a diminutive, small ecclesiastical building within the heart of modern high-rise buildings, so that's the setting. Most of the site, of course, that originally associated with the Sisters of the Assumption is gone. So what we're looking at is essentially a one -acre tract. Let's go to the next image, and I guess I'm left to illustrate this; maybe I can. Chair Hardemon: Can you pause the time, please? Can you restart his time, please? Mr. Garner: And so we go to the heart of the matter, which the Chair has already raised, and that is the exception. So under the criteria, under B'bf Section 23-4, religious properties are O pically exempt. And, you know, this language comes directly from the National Register material; the passage of the National Register of Historic Preservation Act, 1966, and all of the subsequent amendments to that. And so we recognize the separation; and certainly, the burden that would be placed by government on religious entities by listing. And so we relieve that burden, partly by the fact that we don't -- we do not tax them. And to the extent that government imposes itself upon religiously -owned properties, it's largely due to life safeo) issues; in other words, building codes. And when you go beyond that, then there are factors to be considered, and there are certainly costs, and I'd be happy to talk about some of the costs involved by listing on the National Register. Well, the issue really here before us, I think is a simple one, and that is on the primary significance, does the liturgical religious function outweigh the secular function of this building? And ifyou were to ask those who visit this church on a daily, weekly, monthly, semi-annual basis, do they go therefor the architecture, or do they go therefor the services that are rendered, I think we know the answer to that. Of course, they go therefor the services rendered. This has been in continuous operation as an Eastern Rite church for the past 40 years. It provides to these people who live in this communio) an important mission, and we don't visit this simply for the architecture. Now, there are certainly those who would find the architecture interesting and of some merit, but the real issue here is, do people come to this church for its architecture or do they come for its religious services? You have to choose between the two. The primary significance in this case, the primary significance is the religious function. The burden of proof is to show -- would be to show that the architecture rises above it. And I'll be happy to go on here in a moment, and I'll go to some of the criteria to indicate that this is not the case. So as I've said here in this suggestion, do we visit Grant's tomb for the person who is buried there, or do we go there to look at the architecture? Do we visit the Lincoln Memorial in Washington for its architecture, or do we go therefor the inspiration we derive from the statue that's there and the inscriptions on its walls? And so I think it's preto) clear. I mean, it's a wonderful neoclassical -style edifice. It was designed by a graduate of my alma mater, the Universio) of Illinois; Henry Bacon, in 1922, but no one knows about the architecture. It's not the architecture that draw people to that site. It was the site where Martin Luther King made his address. It has been the site where Mahalia Jackson sang her wonderful song, God Bless America, '{Uhen she was refused rights to go elsewhere. It has for every Fourth of July been the backdrop for our national celebration; it's not the fact that it's a neoclassical building. So on to the next image, and I will advance that. So here, we have the three criteria, and they are 3, 5, and 6. And despite the revisions to the designation report, these are still the three that are being made reference to. Now, understand, unless the architecture or the history rises above the architecture, then none of this applies; it stops at that point. You don't go forward. So for the sake of argument, let's say that we believe that the architecture rises to this point. Then we have to City ofMiami Page 146 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 discuss these issues, these criteria. So the Criterion 3: Exemplify the historic or cultural trends of the communio) . And here, we can talk about the Pedro Pan event. The truth of the matter is in the Pedro Pan event, we have very little factual information to support the use of the site. And what we do know about the site is the site has undergone dramatic change since that event took place. The historical record is inconclusive. And even if there were some tangential references to the activities of that event back in 1960, the context is no longer there, so it's really not applicable. Even if there was a minor role, the religious significance of this site today as a Melkite Catholic Church supersedes anything associated with the older site that no longer exists in that event. So whatever the significance that the Sisters of the Assumption School had, the integrity of the setting has been lost. 1`ntegrio) of setting, 'these are words that are used in your criteria, and this precludes the application of designation under 23-4, so that leaves us the other two criteria, which is --have to do with the architecture. Criterion 5: To embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, or method of construction. I notice that the language in the report that was just handed to me about 30 minutes ago, which is the most recent revision to the Cii);'s report, tones down some of the language that had been used regarding the jewel of a Romanesque building that this is to -- that the church supposedly represents, and now, it simply suggests that, although it's Romanesque, it is Romanesque in a 20th Century interpretation of the st);le, but the criterion states otherwise. The criterion says it must embocl ;; embod; the distinguishing features of a building type or st);le, or manner of construction. It can't be tangential; it can't be vestigial. You can't simply say, There's a fig leaf here of Romanesque, and that applies to this building, and as a result, it is a wonderful example of the Romanesque revival," it is not. These illustrations, you've already seen these in part. The illustration -- the figure on the right was used from the original designation report I brought out here, and although it wasn't identified in the designation report, it is Saint Ann Toulouse, a Romanesque church, and it has absolutely -- I won't use the word, 5bsolutely "-- it has very little, very little in comparison to the existing church of the Sisters of the Assumption, as it was completed in 1945, 1946 All Christian churches have a entrance, a portico, often referred to as a narthex. All Christian churches have a nave. Most Christian churches have a crossing or sacrist);. This is not something unique to the Romanesque. And so, when we really look at this little church and look at the design of it, it's no more Romanesque than it is anything else. It's an interesting eclectic design, an interesting eclectic design, and it was rendered in a modern material, reinforced concrete. And then, for the costs, it was simply veneered in a thin limestone. And so, when we look at these illustrations -- and I've drawn these out in red. The frontispiece -- that is, the entry into this church -- which has undergone change since the Melkite Order has had it, the doors are not the same. The podium, or the steps going up to it have been replaced, but that entrance, that entrance itself, the surround, the scrolls, the niche above, the cartouche, those are Roman -- those are Renaissance features, not Romanesque. Those are Renaissance. The window above is a Baroque feature. You don't find that before the 17th Century in Italy, and then beyond So the language that was used in the designation report that spell out what is Romanesque -- round arches, groin masonry vault, a dome over the crossing, an apse at the end -- they're absent, absolutely absent in this building; they don't exist. The arches in this building are pointed arches, which are Gothic. And the ceiling and the roof system is a simple picture of a system of reinforced concrete. And you're looking at a historic photo on the left during construction. You see some of the limestone in the left, which, by the way, Indiana limestone is not an indigenous material to Florida. You do have an indigenous limestone in Florida; it's what's referred to as Piedra colina. "It's a very soft, almost vermiculated-type stone, and it's not particularly good for veneer. So the Indiana limestone is a superior material, but not an indigenous material to be applied Why was it used? It was used because this is what the architect was familiar with. And why did the sisters choose this firm to design their building? Because they had the experience back in 1938, in the Ravenhill Academy, so naturally, they used that firm. Does this firm figure prominently, does this firm figure prominently under Criterion 6? Chair Hardemon: Before you go into Criterion 6 -- can you pause his time, please? Vice Chair Russell: I just wanted to know whether or not the limestone was indigenous or not is City ofMiami Page 147 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 relevant to the case. Mr. Garner: Well, I think it is, because, often, in your designation criteria, one of the things in terms of construction -- one of the elements in terms of construction is whether or not indigenous materials were employed. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Garner: I don't know of any indigenous materials that are employed in this church. Typically, indigenous materials would be your local stones, your local wood, and that's not employed here. Vice Chair Russell: I guess I'll wait to ask our historical specialist if that's one of the criterias [sic] we need to consider in terms of -- Mr. Garner: Well, this is the criterion. Vice Chair Russell: -- historical designation. Mr. Garner: But, again, since it's raised -- and it was raised in the designation report -- the only reason we know anything about this firm out of Philadelphia is because the Philadelphia Athenaeum (INAUDIBLE) called -- and this was years ago -- called them to find out information about that. And at that time, they were transferring some of this information they had to the web, and so it got on Wikipedia. It doesn't appear -- knowledge of this firm does not appear in any single monograph among ecclesiastical architects. It does not appear in any textbook on the history ofAmerican modern architecture; it does not appear. So, they were a firm; they were a competent firm. I don't question that, but they're not well known. These were not master builders. The criterion does not apply. Criterions 3, 5, 6 do not apply. The exception, the exclusionary clause, religious purpose as the primary significance does apply to this property. It should not be considered for designation. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Can you restart his time now? Are you complete? Mr. Garner: Do I have more time? Chair Hardemon: Well, your team has less time after you've spoken, but I don't know ifyou have additional things to speak about. I mean, that's between you and counsel. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Garner: I could speak to some other issues but -- Ms. Boulris: I think we'll -- Chair Hardemon: This is your case. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Present the witnesses as you think best put -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Garner: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). City ofMiami Page 148 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Boulris: I think Dr. Garner was able to cover your PowerPoint. I'd like to hear -- I'd like to Chair Hardemon: Wait. He has one -- Vice Chairman has one more question. Ms. Boulris: Well, of course. Sore. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Garner, so you would say that this structure is only tangentially Romanesque -- Mr. Garner: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- is what you said. Mr. Garner: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: And could you tell me what elements it has you would consider Romanesque, and how much? Mr. Garner: Yes. From some distance, as you look at the building, its massing; I would say its massing, that's -- its kind of three-dimensional form. Ifyou get back and look at this from Brickell Avenue and 15th Avenue, or Brickell Avenue and 15th, from far enough away, you would have to say the profile of the building is Romanesque, but then, as you get closer to it, you recognize that it has many other features that are very different from Romanesque. And so the lancet windows, the Gothic windows, the pointed arches, those are not Romanesque features. It does not have a groin vault in it; it does not have a dome; it does not have an apse. At the end of the church, actually, you have a residence for the priest. You'll never find that in a Romanesque church anywhere in the world. That's a 19th Century development that was used by --I want to say Presbyterians -- but it was used in the 19th Century in England first, and then it was brought into Protestant churches and sometimes used, but have never been used in the Romanesque period It does not have the elements that an architectural historian -- afield in which I'm trained -- would recognize as Romanesque. It's eclectic. It chooses and selectively uses elements in design. So, generally, from a distance, its massing -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood Mr. Garner: -- is somewhat Romanesque, but as you get to the building, and you look inside it, and you look at the details of it, it is not; it is not Romanesque. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Garner: It incorporates a varied) of different features. Chair Hardemon: Counselor. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Dr. Garner. I now call Ellen Uguccioni. Some of her presentation's already been covered in the question and answers, so I'm going to ask her to cover only two of her originally -intended points: integrio) of setting, and indigenous materials. Ellen Uguccioni: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Ellen Uguccioni. I live at 1115 Obispo Avenue in Coral Gables, Florida, and I'm here to talk about context of setting. And what do we mean by 5Ietting? Chair Hardemon: Before you move forward -- can you pause her time? Does opposing counsel have any objection to her being deemed an expert witness without going into her specific -- City ofMiami Page 149 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Pastoriza: No, I don't. She was already an expert on the prior hearing. No. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Mr. Leen: Do we have an objection for what? Chair Hardemon: To her being a --designated as an expert witness without going through her credentials today. Mr. Leen: Oh, of course, she's an expert. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much. And please continue forward. Ms. Uguccioni: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why was this building built? One of the things I don't think has been spoken about very much tonight is the church or the School of the Assumption. It was a school for young women. We have a yearbook with them dressed in their very modest baseball outfits. We have pictures of the dormitories, which were wood with balustrades and pitched roofs. And what we mean by lhdigenous 7s that's the kind of architecture that we found -- not always; certainly not in Coral Gables. We saw that --we see stucco and the kind of thing we see at Coral Gables Congregational, which is quite beautiful and based on Spanish proton pes, but the Church of the Assumption was gone by 1947, so that was the reason --the Pazon dethra "-- for the building of a chapel. That was part of their curriculum. I think its size and scale reflects the fact that it's not a church parish, it's not a cathedral. It was for these young women, and I couldn't tell you how many of them there were, but because there is no evidence of the school, I don't think we can say that there is integrio) of setting, and your Code Section 23-4 says that in addition to having integrity, and aesthetic, and architectural heritage, it must have integrio) of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrio) of design and setting. This is preto� ludicrous, but imagine this building if there were no water around it. Would we build the Pan Am Sea Base here? That's why I think in my 35 years of defending historic buildings, I can say to you that l feel comfortable saying that I believe that what the Church of the Assumption -- I'm sore -- St. Jude Melkite was, indeed, rescued by these wonderful people. It was never intended as their church, and is an adaptive use; that method that lasted for a very long time. Thank you very much. Any questions? Chair Hardemon: Any questions for her? Seeing none, thank you very much, ma'am. Ms. Uguccioni: Thankyou, sir. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Counsel, I know that you have two additional witnesses. You have -- you're producing more witnesses than the opposing side. Although I did give you 30 minutes, you took up about 15 minutes with your case in chief, with just what you were saying, which is not necessarily evidence, but I'll give you -- we'll give you 10 minutes -- Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- additionally to what you have right now, so you can present your last two witnesses. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I want you to have significant time to actually present what it is that you want to bring. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chair Hardemon. City ofMiami Page 150 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Boulris: These two witnesses could have used time in the public hearing. We're really just putting them here for comprehension. Chair Hardemon: No, no, no. I think this is the best time for it. Ms. Boulris: Great. Chair Hardemon: But if --I have a question. Are these --and I don't --want to use the term correctly. Can you explain exactly who they are? Are they priests? Ms. Boulris: Yes. They're going to introduce themselves. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Ms. Boulris: The first speaker is Bishop Nicholas Samra. He's the head of this -- I'm a Protestant, so we would say denomination. "He'll say it better, but he's the head of this diocese nationally. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Boulris: And then the local presiding priest is Father Damon Geiger. They're both going to speak. And then during the public comment section, we'll have only three speakers as a representative. All the members of the church here will turn in their sign -in sheet in an effort to respect the time of the Commission. Chair Hardemon: Okay. And one of them, so, is responsible directly for this church. He would be able to -- he is someone who can testify to what happens each worshipping day, if so, at this church? Ms. Boulris: Yes. Chair Hardemon: Okay, thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, I would object, though, to those two witnesses being called experts. Chair Hardemon: No, I don't see them as expert witnesses. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Chair Hardemon: I'm considering them as fact testimony for what we're about to move for ward through. Ms. Boulris: We believe they qualify as either, Your Honor, but -- Chair Hardemon -- by their -- they're qualified by their experience and work, which is a way to qualify an expert about -- they're experts on the religious use of this site. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: So, I mean, ifyou want to attempt to qualify them as experts, you can. City ofMiami Page 151 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Boulris: I am. Chair Hardemon: However, I assume that their testimony is going to be about the religious purposes of this place. Ms. Boulris: Yes, but they will offer opinions, which experts do, about the fact that it's their opinion that it's -- that the primary significance is religious. Chair Hardemon: So then I would suggest that you direct them as an attorney would -- Ms. Boulris: Okay. Chair Hardemon: -- so that we can come to a conclusion whether or not they should be deemed experts. Ms. Boulris: ktery good. Chair Hardemon: That will be the decision of the Board. Mr. Leen: Yes. We would object to them giving the final opinion as to which one is primary. They should -- in our view, they should testify to you regarding the religious significance and you should make that final determination. Ms. Boulris: I believe I heard their witness testify to the ultimate issue of primar)� significance. Chair Hardemon: Counsel, you're correct. Ms. Boulris: Yes. Chair Hardemon: And— Ms. Boulris: And so we can, too. Chair Hardemon: -- counsel, you are correct, and the expert, by him being an expert, has the ability to come to a conclusion, and they are able to weigh the evidence that's been presented. So it is for us, the triers of the fact, though, to determine whether or not we, ifyou will, side with one, ifyou will -- because you don't necessarily have to believe the expert -- or the other. So I'll -- when it comes time for your objection, make it for the record, and we'll move from there. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, just make the objection now and it's -- he's not an expert in architectural significance, though, so that's why it would be difficult for him to weigh the two; ultimately, it's for you to weigh that. Ms. Boulris: Their expert was not an expert in religious significance, and yet, he tried to weigh them, so, you know, it's fair game. Chair Hardemon: All right. Can you call your witness to the stand please? Ms. Boulris: Yes, sir. I call Bishop Nicholas Samra. Bishop Nicholas Samra: Good afternoon; or should I say, flood evening? Chair Hardemon: One second, bishop. City ofMiami Page 152 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Bishop Samra: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: One second. I would suggest that you direct him in determining what his qualifications are to make him a expert. Ms. Boulris: Would you please state your name and address for the record, please, sir? Bishop Samra: Bishop Nicholas Samra, 3 VFW Parkway, Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Boulris: Mr. Samra, how long have you held that -- would you state your professional position, please. Bishop Samra: I've been priest for 46 years; bishop for 27 years; in charge of the diocese for almost five years. Ms. Boulris: How many faith communities do you oversee as the bishop of this diocese? Bishop Samra: I oversee 46 communities in the United States and Mexico. Ms. Boulris: How long have you held the position you currently have with the diocese? Bishop Samra: 27 years as bishop; five being the presiding bishop. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, sir. Are you familiar with the use of the property at 1501 Brickell Avenue known as the St. Jude Melkite Church? Bishop Samra: I am. Ms. Boulris: Do you have supervisory authority over that church? Bishop Samra: I do. Ms. Boulris: And do you frequently confer with the local priest concerning the operations, the ministry and the daily worship at the church? Bishop Samra: Yes, I confer with him, as with any of my priests in my diocese Ms. Boulris: I tender Bishop Samra as an expert about the operations and the religious purposes of this site. Chair Hardemon: Before -- and how many years have you been tendering -- I'm sorry. How many years have you been working with this site, particularly? Bishop Samra: I've been a priest of the diocese since 1970, prior to them purchasing this building. Chair Hardemon: Understood Understood Bishop Samra: I was auxiliary bishop from 1989, and the presiding bishop from 2011. Chair Hardemon: And can you state for us what responsibilities of a bishop there are? Bishop Samra: The bishop is the head of the diocese, and works with all of his clergy and communities to make sure things go smoothly. Technically, in Catholic structure, the bishop is the legal owner of every parish church, every property in the diocese, not personal; City ofMiami Page 153 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 diocesan -owned It's not a -- it's not an incorporation just by me. It's run by a board of consulters and a finance council under my auspices. Chair Hardemon: And is there any objection from any of the counsel? Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. I would like to ask him two questions. Chair Hardemon: Okay, you may. Mr. Pastoriza: Bishop, where do you reside? Bishop Samra: Pardon? Mr. Pastoriza: Where do you reside? Where do you live at? Bishop Samra: I reside in Boston, Massachusetts Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Sir, how often do you come down to this church to look at the church's operations? Bishop Samra: I have been down here in the last five years as the bishop of the diocese about five times. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you, sir. I still object him to be an expert with relations to how this church is run on a daily basis. Chair Hardemon: The Court notes your objection. Do you have an objection, counsel? No? If -- at this point, Board Members, what we must decide is whether or not we believe that this expert who is being tendered tons is considered -- I mean this witness would -- is being -- we're considering is an expert witness from the information that he's presented before us. And so the question to you all would be: Do you all have any objection to him being named a expert witness to present testimony in this case? If I don't hear any objection -- Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: So are we taking a straw vote whether we believe he's an expert witness? Because he -- we -- I may not want to opine whether I believe he's an expert witness or not, but I may still want to listen to what he says. Chair Hardemon: Right. So ifyou may not want to opine, if there is no objection, then I'll move forward and I'll consider -- we can consider him as an expert witness, and hear his testimony as an expert witness. Typically, the only time that a Court wouldn't want to opine would be in front of, say, a jure, because you don't want the jure to believe that that witness' testimonies are of some significant importance that the Court believes that he is an expert witness; but in this case, there is no jure. So just hearing him as an expert witness allows him a bit more flexibility than a typical witness would You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: I guess --I mean, I don't think that he's being proffered as an expert witness on the architectural value of the -- or significance of the church, so I think we're clear on that. I think the only -- I want to say Lroncern'that I have is he is the owner of the church. And so I would think that an expert on the religious significance would be someone other than -- in other words -- do you understand what I'm saying? In other words -- City ofMiami Page 154 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Yeah, I understand But what I would say is this -- Ms. Mendez: What is he being proffered as an expert for? Uould be the question. Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Mendez: If it has to do with the religion -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Ms. Mendez: --fine. If it has to do with the daily -- I guess that's what we need to flush out. Chair Hardemon: Right. As I understood it, counsel presented him as an expert on the religious factors of this church, because we have to weigh religious -- the religious purpose or significance versus the architectural or the historical significance. Ms. Boulris: He is effectively the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of this diocese. He visits regularly. He's in daily communication with the local priest, as he's testified He's functionally the CEO, and he's entitled to talk about -- he's an expert by virtue of his work experience, and as an owner. Under the case law, owners are experts on their own properi)�. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Boulris: And he's entitled to give an opinion as much as anyone has already given an opinion about what he believes the primary significance of this building to be. Chair Hardemon: Moreover, Board Members, I want us to remember that because we have to weigh the religious importance, he may be able to give us information as to the importance religiously of some other testimony that you may hear from some of the parishioners. So, for instance, if a parishioner says, Psee 100 people every single day, 'die can give an opinion about were there 100 people ever) single day; it's not just some fly-by-night church, but whether or not that is historically -- whether that is religiously significant enough for it to be considered -- Mr. Leen: Sure. Chair Hardemon: -- X T, 7 " Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, the only concern I have is he's the bishop, so we fully understand that he would-- in many ways, he's really the ultimate fact witness as to his church; we understand that. He can talk about the importance of this to his church. I just -- it just seems strange to call it an expert witness -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Leen: -- because it's all based on his factual experience at his church. Chair Hardemon: But it's -- not necessarily, because most of his experience, as was put on the record, has not been at this particular site; it has been outside of this site. And he can speak specifically to the religious -- well, let me finish -- significance of the practices that occur at that church; moreover, him being the CEO, him being intimately involved in this church are things that the trier of the fact can consider if we want to weigh his testimony. So if he's presenting information to us, I can --we can look at his testimony and say, Well, that part is significantly important, I agree with this, but maybe because he has some motivation to have this remain not a historically designated church, then I can discount his testimony. "We have that right to do just that; just the same as we have a right to look at the City staff and someone who presents City ofMiami Page 155 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 themselves as a preservationist, and assume that they have a goal of preserving historically significant churches. And so, you know, we have an opportuniov to hear his evidence and all the -- well it's not -- I don't want to say 511, 'because I don't want to say that it's not important, but him being deemed an expert -- Commissioner Suarez: Right, that's the issue. Chair Hardemon: -- is of importance, because he will be allowed to give an opinion about the religious importance, the religious purpose, and if that religious purpose is of primacy significance. Commissioner Suarez: And I think that's where we're sort of having a little bit -- I don't want to say 5 disagreement, 'but I think he is the ultimate fact expert. I mean, I can't imagine there's anyone that knows -- you know, despite the fact that -- Mr. Pastoriza highlighted the fact that he's only been to the -- physically been to the church five times in the last five years. I'm sure he's on top of the finances, and on top of the everyday operational aspects of it, and probably in constant communication with the -- I don't know if it's a pastor, but -- is that the right word? -- the pastor of the church. So I think from -- I don't have a problem with either one; either the pastor or the bishop being adequate fact witnesses. I think, you know, I would expect, just like -- I would expect someone who would be determined to be an expert in religious significance to be someone separate from the actual person fighting the designation, because, obviously, the person fighting the designation is someone who would feel in their opinion that the religious significance outweighs the architectural significance. I mean, that's -- Chair Hardemon: No, and I could -- but in the same token, the expert witness that the City presented is an expert witness that is representing the -- well, who continuously is an advocate when -- or is an advocate when there is historically significant -- historical -- when we're trying to determine whether or not a site is historically significant. That's what -- that's her role. So all I'm saying is this, and I don't want to belabor the issue: It is up to the Board by a vote on whether or not we want to consider him as an expert to give his opinion on the religious significance. The fact that he is also an owner, if you will, of the church is something you can consider in your vote. If you want to consider him -- if you want -- if that, for you, amounts to him not being deemed an expert, then you can voice your vote in that way, and we move forward and hear his testimony if that is the majoriov vote. I'm sure counsel will object to that, and that will be a subject of an appeal because it is -- it becomes part of -- it hindered their abiliov to state whether or not that there was some religious -- a primary significance in religious -- in its religious purpose. Or you can have him -- we can agree that he's an expert, we can hear his testimony. He can put those things on the record, and you can discount his testimony based on the fact that he is an owner. It's really up to you all, and the procedural aspects happening after that will be up to counsel. Ms. Boulris: Chair Hardemon, we, for the record, concur that his being an owner of the property, very familiar, does not disqualify him as an expert capable of rendering an opinion. It, however, could go to the weight given it by the Commission, and I need to -- I don't mean to be combative; I just have to do this. We believe it would be a due process violation. If the City were allowed to tender architectural experts who gave an ultimate opinion about primary significance when they're not an expert in religion, and their further objection to our expert on religious significance of the site giving an opinion about primary significance because he's not an expert in architectural is not only a little bit hypocritical, but it would violate our due process rights, because we wouldn't be given equal opportuniov to tender expert testimony. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez, then Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and I would say -- City ofMiami Page 156 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Suarez: -- I agree with what -- the last part of what you just said I don't think we're expecting the bishop to give testimony on the architectural value or lack thereof of the church or its -- whether that's the primary significance of the church; clearly, that wouldn't be appropriate. And I think you're right that he obviously has a tremendous amount of knowledge of the faith. You know, you cited case law. I'm sure that there is a specific case that you are referring to; I have no reason to believe there isn't. And I'm perfectly fine with a determination if we say that he can be considered an expert, because he ultimately -- or intimately knows the faith that he is giving testimony upon, and we can weigh, you know, the sort of value that we give to it based on the fact that he obviously has an interest because he is the applicant and -- or because he's fighting the designation, and so we can weigh his testimony based on that, as well. I think that -- Ms. Boulris: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the weight you choose to give any witness, but he's entitled to express an opinion about whether or not he believes the religious significance of this site outweighs the asserted architectural significance. He's entitled to give that opinion; as entitled as the Cio) 's been able to give similar opinions. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, all that I'm trying to say -- ChairHardemon: One moment, please. Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just don't think that one is mutually exclusive of the other. I think, for instance, I believe he is a religious expert, but I also believe he probably has some bias, you know, so I don't think one is mutually exclusive of the other. Now when you weigh it all, do I think we should hear from him and do I think we -- you know, we should value his religious experience? Commissioner Suarez: Sure. Commissioner Carollo: Yes; even though I would presume that he does have some bias, but I still would like to listen to his religious expertise and what he has to say with regards to that. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with it, too. Mr. Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman, just -- Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Mr. Pastoriza: -- not to belabor a point, but what I'm trying to say is that you have parishioners here -- okay? -- that visit and are people who go there every week, they're involved in church activities that probably know more -- Chair Hardemon: But counsel -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- on the day-to-day activities that go on in that church than the bishop -- Chair Hardemon: -- but counsel -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- who's never here. City ofMiami Page 157 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: And they will present -- decorum, please. Counselor, you will have witnesses that will present testimony tons, and we are to consider their testimony, also. His testimony is no more valuable than their testimony. It is up to the triers of the fact to determine the weight of the evidence that is presented before them. However, as an expert witness, what it allows them to do is provide a conclusion, an opinion, and that is something that a normal fact -giver cannot present to the fact triers. So what we're going to do -- and if there is no -- I don't see a majorio) objection to him being deemed an expert witness, and so with that being considered, I will allow him to be deemed an expert witness and present before this body. Can you put 10 minutes on the clock for him, please? Bishop Samra: Thank you, gentlemen. I traveled here today from California, where I had been visiting my 11 West Coast communities; and from here, going back to Boston, the seat of my diocese. I'm honored to be herein order to personally relay the sincere conviction of the Melkite Catholic Church, including both its leadership, my college of consulters, and my finance council that deals with all church properties, as well as the local congregation leadership that the historic designation of St. Jude Melkite Church here in Miami would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. As unnecessary: As Father Damon will explain --he's the pastor of the church -- in greater detail, our communio) and diocese takes excellent care of our house of worship. Respectfully, we simply do not need the oversight of the City through extra regulation to continue in our good stewardship of this place. It was the Melkite Catholic Church --us --that purchased it when the former school was in financial duress to prevent it from being torn down and redeveloped into something else, as the rest of the property was. It has been the Melkite Catholic Church that has maintained it as a sanctuary for worship, for prayer, for ministry in this great City of Miami ever since. We humbly say that we do not need to be told how to do this. A vocal minority, for reasons we believe to be dubious, has either started or fallen prey to a false rumor that the Melkite Catholic Church has intentions to sell St. Jude Church site to a developer. I am here, again, speaking under oath, to again state that the Melkite Catholic Church, my diocese, has no such intention; nor have we ever spoken to realtors or developers for the sale of this property. As an aside, the publicio) that was generated by the Cio) 's hearings before the Historic Preservation Board, the Commission and the court appeals precipitated phone calls to my Boston office from would-be developers, expressing interest in purchase. Without question, and emphatically, I told them, The property is not for sale. "This unfortunate rumor has caused some dissension within our church community, though the most adamant of the claimed parishioners advocating for historic designation no longer regularly attend St. Jude, and frankly, have not for a long time. We continue to care about them as brothers and sisters in the faith, but sincerely, sincerely, very sincerely believe their concerns and allegations are misguided and misplaced. Respectfully, the Cit) should not wield its power to side with one side or the other of the debate about whether I have been truthful in my representations that there is no intention to sell the church site on Brickell. You, sitting as elected leaders of this Cit), should look only objectively at the relevant facts and the applicable law. It is a fact that the church has no intention to sell. It is a fact that the church has been well maintained. Ifyou instead cater to special interests who do not fairly represent our local congregation, nor speak for the Melkite Catholic Church, it will be the City that bears the consequence; not them. So, respectfully, I urge you to objectively weigh the evidence presented to you today and faithfully apply the law as the courts have reminded you to do. About the inappropriate aspect of this designation, as we all know, the applicable legal standard is that you may not designate our church over our objection unless you decide on competent evidence that the primary significance of our church is no longer religious. I have struggled not to harbor righteous indignation at the assertion, which has been now reiterated by the City's Historic Preservation Oce that the significance of our religious practice, past, and present, and ongoing at St. Jude Church is eclipsed by assertions of architectural or other cultural importance. By definition, the ministry of any church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship is its primary significance, both to its membership, and in terms of what it offers the communio) . I humbly appeal to you to not be blinded by the allure of worldly secularism; or worse, the undercurrent of greed by those who covet our air rights which would City ofMiami Page 158 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 put such little weight on spiritual values. Ifyou are not able to discern the spiritual significance Of our minishy, past and ongoing, then I also appeal to you as Americans, and remind you of how the founders of this remarkable country understood and secured religious freedom. As reflected in your own Code, religious properties are generally exempt from designation, and the added intrusion of government regulations that comes with it, unless the religious significance of a site is no longer primacy. I trust you know in your heart that this cannot be truthfully said of St. Jude Melkite Church, which exists to and aspires to minister faithfully here in the heart of this beautiful cit), which, like all cities, has real spiritual needs to be met. I thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: May I--? Chair Hardemon: You have cross-examination ifyou want to follow. Mr. Pastoriza: Yes. Bishop, I believe you made a statement during your presentation that the parishioners who were actively pursuing the designation ofyourproperty no longer attend the church. Bishop Samra: I said lhany of them. " Mr. Pastoriza: Many of them. Do you know Raffoul Asami? Do you know who he is? Bishop Samra: Yes, I do. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Is he the cantor ofyour church? Bishop Samra: He is. Mr. Pastoriza: Doesn't he attend services every -- Bishop Samra: He does. Mr. Pastoriza: -- Sunday? Do you know that he's a petitioner, one of the petitioners here? Bishop Samra: I do. Mr. Pastoriza: Do you know Wasim Shomar? Bishop Samra: I met him today for the first time -- Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Do you know that -- Bishop Samra: -- personally. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay, okay. Chair Hardemon: Counselor -- Mr. Pastoriza: No, no. Chair Hardemon: -- it seems like you're trying to impeach the witness, but his testimony seems to be consistent with the points that you're making right now. He said lhany. "You stated two that are still at the church. Is there another point that you're trying to get to? Mr. Pastoriza: What I'm toying to tell you is that the petitioners that came forward -- okay? --on this petition -- City ofMiami Page 159 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Speak into the mike, please. Mr. Pastoriza: -- that all the petitioners that came forward under this petition, they all attend this church regularly, ever)Sunday, and they do not -- and they have not -- Chair Hardemon: Decorum, please. Mr. Pastoriza: -- stopped from being parishioners there. Chair Hardemon: Thank you vett' much. I appreciate your cross-examination. Mr. Leen: I have one question. Chair Hardemon: You have one cross-examination that you -- Mr. Leen: Just one question. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Leen: Sorty. Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record, sir? Mr. Leen: Craig Leen, City Attorney, Coral Gables; representing the Cit) staff. Based on your testimony, is there any active church where the architectural significance of the building would outweigh the religious significance? Bishop Samra: I don't think so; not in my churches right now. Mr. Leen: Thank you. Bishop Samra: We had one former church that -- in New York City that was sold, which was our first community in the United States; which, well after we sold it, was declared a historic, only because it was in Lower Manhattan, where all of the Syrian families were coming into Little Syria, and the owner who purchased it made it into a restaurant; had nothing to do with the church, whatsoever. Mr. Leen: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I would ask you a few questions. Bishop Samra: Sure. Chair Hardemon: Do you know how many people regularly attend that church? Bishop Samra: I don't know the exact number of families. I think there's about 400 families. I don't know how many come on a regular basis. When --the times that I've been here, the three different services that I participated in were fairly, fairly good size. The church was full at least twice. Chair Hardemon: And full'{vould represent about how many people? Bishop Samra: 250 to 300 people in the building. City ofMiami Page 160 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: And in your faith, how many times would a -- would the congregation, 7 believe, or parishioners? -- how many times would they meet during a week at the church? Bishop Samra: There's a daily service ever)day at the church at 9 o'clock in the morning. The church is open ever)day. Because of its spiritual content, people come and go and pray. It's considered as a shrine church for St. Jude in the greater area; people are in and out. The Wednesday service is full house. On the Feast Day weekend, several days for the Feast of St. Jude. On his Feast Day, we have maybe five, six, seven services; full house; people lined up down to the bay waiting to get in. For the various Feast Days -- Christmas, Easter, Holy Week -- we have sometimes double services to provide English and Arabic, and English and Spanish for the various peoples that do come to the church. So there's a vevy, vevy active community going on. Chair Hardemon: Is the church used for anything other than religious services ? Does it -- is it used as a store, a restaurant? Bishop Samra: There's a little bookstore, you want to call it a gift shop at the entrance in the little tiny narthex. Chair Hardemon: And what type of -- Bishop Samra: They sell religious articles: rosaries, statues, icons; you know, what people like. Chair Hardemon: Is that used to be the primavy source of income for the church, or is it something that -- Bishop Samra: I don't believe it is, but -- I would hope that the primacy income is the gifts of the people. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other purpose that the church is used for besides a small gift shop? Bishop Samra: No. There's weddings, baptisms; the usual church services. Chair Hardemon: So all of the uses of the church are related to -- Bishop Samra: All the uses of the church are religious. Chair Hardemon: And the gift shop, does it sell any -- as you put it -- other secular items, such as -- Bishop Samra: No. The gift shop is all religious items; all religious items. Chair Hardemon: Does anyone else have any questions for him? Vice Chair Russell: I do. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Bishop. I would like to know if, in your opinion, the -- any active church -- it seems -- I'm taking from your opinion that any active church maintains that its primavy significance is religious; is that your opinion? Bishop Samra: Yes. City ofMiami Page 161 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: So, really, you're saying any active church anywhere, regardless of denomination, if they're actively participating in church activities, they're having services, that is their primary significance -- Bishop Samra: The -- Vice Chair Russell: --and so architecture could not -- so you're saying there is no case in which architectural significance could outweigh the religious as long as they're a practicing church. Bishop Samra: When built, the church was built as a chapel for the nuns and the girls at the school, and for its religious purposes. It wasn't built as an architectural beauty. It had some nice lines to it and different things, but it wasn't built for architecture. It was built to house worship for the girls that went to the boarding school, and for the nuns who lived there to teach them, and that was their place of worship. Vice Chair Russell: But, sir -- Bishop Samra: That would have disappeared when the sisters went practically into bankruptcy and had to sell the five acres from Brickell to the bay, and the complex that you see behind it was part of that initial property, and the buildings were torn down. We saved the church. We had difficult) saving it because the Archdiocese of Miami did not want it; they didn't want it as a parish church. We came into the store. We were looking fora church. We had a communio) here without a church, so we -- when we heard about it, we approached the sisters to btry it. We had even some difficulties at that time because the archbishop of Miami at that time was not very open to the fact that the Melkites would have a church in the Cit) of Miami, whatever, and we had to go to Rome, over his head, to btry the building. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Bishop Samra: Sad Vice Chair Russell: The -- there was a radio campaign. I don't know if the church was involved in it or not, but the radio campaign was, you know, advocating against historical designation, and a lot of the correspondence that I received was fueled by that, I think, and basically, the idea was that the church, if it were historically designated, would go out of business for the additional costs. Is that something that you agree with or maintain? Bishop Samra: No, no, no, no. We didn't -- we never said that. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Bishop Samra: We never said that. We said that the church's religious purposes, the -- a lot of the campaign was that the church is being sold. Never; never was even considered. Vice Chair Russell: But your attorney did mention very clearly that the property rights, the loss ofproperty rights is a considerable factor in not wanting the historical designation; is that correct? Bishop Samra: We don't like the idea of the designation initially, and even till now, because of the insurance issues. We've already been alerted by our insurance companies that our numbers are going to go up much higher because it's historically designated, and that this will create another burden on the parish. It took along time for this parish to develop because it was a very small communio) at the time when they purchased this church. It was a blessing that we were able to get it, because we would never have been able to build a church in the Cit) at that time with the small community that we had in the '70s. And there is a little interesting side view, if you -- to know about it. When we were having so much dificulo) with the community buying a City ofMiami Page 162 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 piece of land, and arguing, and fighting, whatever, the priest that was -- came down here after the priest died that was here said, We're going to name this St. Jude, because he's that patron saint of impossible causes. "And it was to our benefit, because it came up on Brickell Avenue, and all of the area below that all went into high-rise, and many, many Hispanics came into the neighborhood, loving our church, and coming into the church, because they consider it a shrine for St. Jude, and the archdiocese has accepted that and allows weddings for the people from the Roman Catholic Church to take place in the shrine church. Chair Hardemon: May I interrupt with one question? Bishop Samra: Of course, sure. Chair Hardemon: You just stated --I want to clarify your statement. You said that the people come and they consider it as a shrine to St. Jude. Is St. Jude the image or the three-dimensional image that is at the -- I think that's the front of the church that we've seen pictures Or Bishop Samra: No. St. Jude -- in the church, to the right-hand side of the alter area is a large mosaic icon of St. Jude. The original name of our communio) was St. Jude, so when we bought it, we just renamed the church. Chair Hardemon: So that's not in -- that's not on the exterior of the church. Bishop Samra: No. The exterior -- we put up the -- we put up an icon outside on the grass area; on the grass area. When the church was built for Assumption, honoring the Mother of God, the statue of the Mother of God was above the door. Chair Hardemon: Okay. You want to finish? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, thank you. Your attorney also mentioned the architectural changes that the church might want to make could possibly be precluded with historical designation. Is that one ofyour concerns regarding the dome? Bishop Samra: Yes, it is. Vice Chair Russell: And -- Bishop Samra: It is. We --you know, we don't know exactly what we're doing. We've been growing and everything has been doing vevy well, and we might want to make a few changes. Certainly, we're not going to sell the church, that's all. We love where we are, and we're very happy to be here. Vice Chair Russell: So if I could kind of boil it down into -- Bishop Samra: We want to change above the door to remove the statute of the Mother of God -- nothing against her, per se -- and put a beautiful icon of St Jude. She was the patroness of the church before we purchased it. When we bought it, it was no longer Assumption Church; it was now St. Jude. Vice Chair Russell: Understood And, of course, it was also brought up, the additional costs of upkeep, insurance, and things like that. Bishop Samra: Yes, true. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sore to bring up the transfer development rights again, but you did mention it, as well, and I noticed a negative tone about it. Is it that you feel that this is a City ofMiami Page 163 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 transaction that you would not want to take part in because it has -- I mean, this is a -- this -- it seems to be a mechanism that the Code allows to mitigate the costs associated with historical designation. I just wanted to know if there's an issue with the transfer of development rights that Ms. Boulris: I'm sore. For the record, I need to interpose an objection, because I hope to avoid these issues this time around. I would urge the council to avoid pressing questions about what the church would and wouldn't accept as a condition of designation, just in case you're going there. Again, for the record, TDRs is completely irrelevant to the decision before you tonight, and I think questions along that line of this witness are extremely inappropriate, because you're asking what transaction he'd be willing to do -- Vice Chair Russell: No, I'm not. Ms. Boulris: -- and I'm registering an objection to that. Vice Chair Russell: I'm absolutely not asking that. Chair Hardemon: Before we move forward counselor, typically, an objection is -- I mean you -- well, certainly, you have an objection to what the Court is doing at this time, and I completely understand that objection. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: I'm going to overrule you, just so that he can hear it. And I'm sure, you know the process you can go from there, but your objection is duly noted. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Go on. Vice Chair Russell: The reason -- I would only bring it up in the sense that your attorney has brought up the items that she's saying we shouldn't bring up: the additional costs, the architectural changes, and the TDR issues, and that's --You know, I'm not negotiating with you on what they're worth, or what you could gain, or whether you're willing to accept that, but you brought it up in a tone that I just wanted to explore a little more to understand your feelings about that, that's all. Bishop Samra: We just want to emphasize our belief, religious purposes, at this point. We haven't discussed anything else. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I have a couple of questions, father. One is you testified recently --or a few seconds ago --that the church is doing well; those were your words. You said the church was doing well, and therefore, you wanted to make some changes. You specifically talked about one on the fagade, which was the three-dimensional icon of the Virgin Mary, and I guess my concern is or my -- what I don't understand is if you're doing well and you wanted to remove that, you're not historically designated, why haven't you done it? Bishop Samra: Because once this began, we couldn't touch anything until this was all decided. Commissioner Suarez: And why didn't you do it before? I mean, you've owned the church for City ofMiami Page 164 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 many years. Bishop Samra: The -- because there was -- it wasn't the time, it wasn't the time. Commissioner Suarez: Your attorney previously testified that it was because of financial issues. Bishop Samra: Yeah, there were financial issues, and the financial issues of the church have not really been of -- solidified until the last five or six years. Commissioner Suarez: But again, this has not been a five- or six-year process. Why didn't you do it five years ago? Bishop Samra: Because this has been going on now for four years. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Bishop Samra: We couldn't touch the building -- Commissioner Suarez: Understood Bishop Samra: -- while this was being discussed Commissioner Suarez: My next question is you said that there was an icon of St. Jude next to the church. Bishop Samra: In the church -- oh, outside on the -- Commissioner Suarez: Right, outside. Bishop Samra: -- property, yes. Commissioner Suarez: Is that a two-dimensional icon or a three dimensional? Bishop Samra: It's a flat icon. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. It's on -- Bishop Samra: They put up a -- Commissioner Suarez: Right, a block Bishop Samra: -- the nave in the church and --yeah, a flat painted icon. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. My next question is -- and I want to say this in a sensitive manner, because I'm not saying that this is your intention at all -- but wouldn't you agree that if the church were demolished -- and I'm not saying that that's what you want to do -- but let's say the church were demolished, and a modern mega -church that could handle twice the capacity, three times the capacity were built in its place, wouldn't that be a tragic loss of an architectural icon in the City of Miami? Bishop Samra: We have no intention of destroying the church. Commissioner Suarez: Okay, but my question is -- I understand, and my question is don't you think that a -- that if the church were significantly altered, that would be the loss of an architectural icon in the Cit) of Miami? City ofMiami Page 165 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Bishop Samra: We're not significantly altering it. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I mean, that's fair. That's fair. Bishop Samra: We don't see it as the most architectural perfect building. Commissioner Suarez: Understood And I guess my last question is, if I may, Mr. Chair, is -- and I think the -- I think it's appropriate to have this discussion, and I'll let your counsel interject or object if she thinks it's not appropriate. I guess my question is just sort of abroad question as to why you're opposing historical designation. And I remember there being testimony at the last hearing where -- and I'm going to put a little context to this, because I think we were going to have this hearing a few weeks ago, or a month ago, or something, and the district Commissioner had urged that there be a mediation. And I think part of the reason why there was an urging on the part of the district Commissioner -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth, Mr. Vice Chair -- is because sometimes, what happens is we talkpast each other. And for example, things that you think are not doable under a historic designation -- I don't mean you, specifically -- may be doable. And so, the harm or the fear of historical designation may be unjustified, and I'm not saying that it is or it isn't; I'm saying it may. So I guess -- a two-part question. One is I'm not sure why you refused to mediate if -- that's my understanding, and maybe I'm incorrect in what I was told,- that you -- that the church refused to mediate, so that's one question. And my second question is more open-ended which is why are you opposing historic designation? Bishop Samra: Let me just state that no private property owner in this country, much less a religious propero) , should be asked to give a permanent, uncompensated covenant or an agreement about what we're going to do in the future that would remove all future discussions in the use of their private property and the church; and certainly, not to do so under duress. Commissioner Suarez: But that happens all the time. You got to understand, there's set -back rules, there's zoning regulations. I mean, every property has a set of laws that they have to abide by. I can't, for example, build my house to the property line. I mean, those are things that, even though I have private property rights, and technically, I own my property to the boundary, I don't have the right to build my house to the boundary, I mean. So there are reasonable restrictions that are placed on all properties that I think you would accept are wise and in good form, correct? Ms. Boulris: Excuse me. I'm going to again object for the record to this line of questioning about why the church allegedly would not negotiate, which is factually inaccurate, anyway, but it's an area that's inappropriate for this forum. Commissioner Suarez: And that's not what I said, by the way. I didn't say that the church would not negotiate. What I said was -- Ms. Boulris: Why they wouldn't mediate. Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And that's a totally different -- Ms. Boulris: I object to this line of questioning. Commissioner Suarez: Well, let me -- Ms. Boulris: It's inappropriate for this forum. Commissioner Suarez: -- explain to you why it's not. City ofMiami Page 166 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Your objection is duly noted. Over -- it's overruled, but -- Commissioner Suarez: Let me explain to you why I don't think it is. And we've had many disputes here, and sometimes, and oftentimes, the parties talk past each other. There's obviously a lot of passion on this issue. There's people that care very deeply on both sides of this issue, and sometimes, when they're in a room and they're talking towards each other, and not at each other, past each other, they're often able to connect, and I've seen it happen. I've seen it happen on religious -related issues, on historical issues in the past. And so -- go ahead. Ms. Boulris: No, I'm letting you finish the question. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. No, it's not a question. I'm just -- I'm talking about why -- what I'm -- what I was -- the question that I was asking didn't have to do with a negotiation; it had to do with a mediation. Ms. Boulris: This is a quasi-judicial hearing. Commissioner Suarez: Understood Ms. Boulris: This functions as a courtroom. Commissioner Suarez: I understand. Ms. Boulris: It's not the appropriate time to ask people to come to the table and bargain. Commissioner Suarez: Are you saying that a judge can never ask the parties to mediate? Ms. Boulris: No, but they don't do it at the trial. Commissioner Suarez: I've seen judges do it all the time; pretrial and trial, all the time; seen Federal judges do it, actually. Ms. Boulris: Yes. For the record I'm objecting to any regulatory authority under threat of imposing any kind of regulatory burden, attempting to even subtly -- and I don't know that's what's going on here. I just want to keep the record as clean as a whistle. Commissioner Suarez: Of course, right. Ms. Mendez: All right, just to keep the record clean as a whistle -- Ms. Mendez: Please. Ms. Mendez: -- mediation -- if they wanted right now to send you to mediation -- I hate to break it to you -- they can, okay? With that said -- Ms. Boulris: And they send us; they don't do it here. Ms. Mendez: -- they've asked questions that are related to the application in order to by and find a solution. I object to you saying that anything that they have done is inappropriate, because they are really trying to resolve an issue. They requested at some point for you to also go to mediation before. You chose not to want to even address that situation. With that said, your objection has been overruled and noted, but I just don't like the tone, so thank you. Ms. Mendez: Madam Mendez and Sir Chair, the suggestion we were invited to a mediation, let me clarify. We were asked to come meet with a Commissioner. As counsel for the church, I City ofMiami Page 167 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 declined that, because I was concerned about the Jennings Rule. Your Code does not exempt historic preservation decisions from the Jennings Rule. Commissioner Russell's staff called me, asked me to meet. I explained to them cordially why we felt it was unwise. His staffer did write an email characterizing that conversation that's been put in the record by Commissioner Russell; no problem, butt think need to put in the record my response to the staffers where we did put out our position of why we declined to come meet with the Commissioner. As much as we appreciated his interest, and as much as we appreciate, perhaps, his intentions, it wasn't the time, prior to a quasi-judicial hearing, when your Code does not exempt these 0,pes of hearings from the Jennings Rule, and I cited that in my email, and only for legal purposes; not to poke anyone in the eye. I'm going to now put that on the record because of what Commissioner Russell put in the record, and because of what's going on here. I appreciate -- I actually think agree with the City Attorney that you could send us to mediation. My objection is to any discussion of what they would agree to or mediate to in this forum. I don't think it's appropriate. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with that. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with that, madam counselor. Chair Hardemon: I want to just note for the record -- Ms. Mendez: I also wanted to clarify, though, for the record that -- Chair Hardemon: --that counsel passed to the Cii)v Clerk the document that she just spoke of. Ms. Mendez: Thank you, Chairman. I also wanted to clarify for the record that the request was made for counsels on both sides to meet and mediate. That is separate and apart from any request to speak to you. I just wanted that to be clear for the record. Ms. Boulris: Yes. And I invited the Cii)v Attorney's Office to come have a conversation, and they did, but this is stuff that shouldn't be admissible at a hearing. It related to confidential conversations, but here we are at a hearing, and a decision needs to be legally made. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair, I would just like to say for Cii)v staff that our designation report doesn't get into any of these issues. A lot of this came about because the issue was raised originally about TDRs, and about the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment by the church. I mean, you did raise those issues, but we haven't raised those issues. And ultimately, when you make the determination, it should be based on the evidence that relates to the historic designation. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Ms. Boulris: For the record, the church did not raise TDRs today; we did not. Mr. Leen: You raised the issue, though, of the expense to the church and the financial hardship. Ms. Boulris: Correct, those recognized by the Circuit Court in this case. Chair Hardemon: But I -- I'm going to clarify again for the record. We are utilizing in this case the primary significance test, so the criteria for that is comparison of the site's religious importance versus its historical or architectural importance. That is what's for consideration; not the costs. We all -- I know, specif tally, having some of the most -- I have the highest number of -- what do you call? -- historic neighborhoods in my district. Historic neighborhoods in the district cause financial burdens on many homeowners because of the cost to replace certain items, and the specificity that you have to replace them with; however, that is not my concern City ofMiami Page 168 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 today, because today, what I'm considering is the religious importance versus the historical or architectural importance. Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: No, and I think -- look, I -- thank you for your patience, Mr. Bishop [sic], and I appreciate you, you know, answering these questions. I guess my question was simply, since you're also a witness, testifying as a fact witness, and I wanted to make sure that the reason why you're applying -- you're resisting historic -- I wanted to sort of get --flush out a little bit of your reasoning why you were opposing historic designation. That's where I was -- that's the question I was asking. And the reason why I asked that question is because in the prior hearing, there was testimony, and we've incorporated all that testimony by reference in this matter. There were reasons articulated as to why you were opposing historic designation, and I just wanted to discuss that issue, because sometimes, there's a feeling on the part of the person who is being designated that they can't do X "T, 'br 7. "And when they articulate, 7 can't do 'X, ' 'Y,' or 7.' I don't want this to happen to my property, because I can't do 'X, ' 'Y, ' or 7.. "'And that could be correct or that could be incorrect, and sometimes, that's incorrect, and that's sort of what I want to flush out there. So I just wanted to know from you, as a witness, as a fact witness, why you're opposing historic designation. Bishop Samra: And I stated it very clearly that I believe it's religious purposes and not architectural. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Is there anything that historical designation --that you feel historical designation will prevent you from doing that you would not otherwise be able to do? Bishop Samra: Yes. Historical designation is going to subject us to a historic board who's going to tell us what to do, and what we can't do, and how we can do it, and it's a very long process. Commissioner Suarez: Understood Thank you. That's all I wanted to find out. Bishop Samra: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Counsel, I know you have another witness. Ms. Boulris: I call Father Damon Geiger. I'll go to the other podium so he can stand here. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. My -- I raise the same objection as -- that the priest being an expert. Chair Hardemon: She's going to attempt to proffer him as an expert, and what -- are you attempting to proffer him as an expert? Ms. Boulris: We proffered Ms. Mendez: Chairman, excuse me. Just for -- since there's so many parties -- Todd, do we have the microphone, the portable? So that Mr. Pastoriza could have it over here if he needs it. Thankyou. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Father Damon, please state your full name and address for the record. Father Damon Geiger: My name is Damon Geiger. I live at St. Jude Church, 126 Southeast 15th Road here in Milwaukee. I'm the pastor of the church. Ms. Boulris: Did you mean Miami; not Milwaukee? City ofMiami Page 169 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Father Geiger: Yes. Ms. Boulris: Yes. Thank you, for the record. Father Geiger: Did I say lfliami? Chair Hardemon: You said, Milwaukee. " Ms. Boulris: Yeah. Father Geiger: Well, Miami. Ms. Boulris: Father Damon, in a moment, I'm going to ask you about your professional experience, but I first want to ask you about your educational experience, both receiving education and giving education. Father Geiger: Okay. I've been a priest for about 47 years. I have degrees in theology from the Pontifical University of Salamanca; the Gregorian University in Rome; the Pontifical Dahlman in Banaglore, India; and St. Maty's Pontifical University in Baltimore. I was rector of the Melkite Seminaty for many years. I've been on the staff teaching theology in three different seminaries. Ms. Boulris: And Father Damon, could you tell me your current position, professionally? Father Geiger: Professionally, right now, I'm -- my bishop has sentenced me to be pastor of St. Jude's since the -- 2012. Ms. Boulris: Were you being facetious there? Father Geiger: Yes. Ms. Boulris: Yes. Okay. Just -- because the record reads the -- black and white. Father Geiger: Oh, excuse me. Yes. I've been blessed to be able to minister in this parish since 2012. Ms. Boulris: Prior to that, what was your position? Father Geiger: Prior to that, I was pastor in Akron, Ohio at our Melkite Church there; and teaching at St. Cyril and Methodius Seminaty in Pittsburgh. Ms. Boulris: Father Damon, are you vey familiar with the nuances of the Melkite religious tradition? Father Geiger: I sincerely hope so, yes, because I've been teaching it. Ms. Boulris: Are you familiar with the significance of the saint known as St. Jude? Father Geiger: Yes. Ms. Boulris: Are you familiar with the daily operations of the St. Jude Melkite Church, located at 1501 Brickell Avenue? Father Geiger: Yes, ma'am, I am. City ofMiami Page 170 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Boulris: I tender Father Damon as a -- Damon Geiger -- as an expert on the religious significance of this site, qualified to render an opinion aboutprimary significance in this matter. Chair Hardemon: Thank you vett' much. Is there any objection from any of the opposing counsel? Mr. Pastoriza: My objection remains that he's just the priest there. You know, he knows about the church, just like many other parishioners, and therefore, he has a vested -- he's got a vested interest in this response. I mean, you need to consider that. He will only give you one response. Chair Hardemon: We can -- we will consider that in his testimony, of course, that he has some interest in the properi)�, because he's the pastor -- priest there; however, the significance in his education; significance in his experience as a priest and the activities which happens at that church, it seems to me, personally, that he would be deemed an expert. Do you have any objection? Mr. Leen: I have no objection; we have no objection to his expertise as -- for his church, but we once again would note that there's no expertise as to the architectural significance; just want to note that for the record. I would object to the extent he testifies on that. Chair Hardemon: And your objection -- you've made your objection known. Is there any objection to -- from the board of him being deemed an expert? Seeing none, we'll recognize him as an expert and allow him to present his testimony. Can you please put eight minutes on the timer? You're recognized, sir. Father Geiger: First of all, I echo the remarks of my bishop, Nicholas Samra, and would repeat them, but we don't have time for that. Please know that I stand in complete solidario) with the convictions he just expressed. I want to make one comment to clarify something as a pastor there. When we were historically designated for a few months that last time, before it was overturned, we attempted to get protective windows to protect our stained glass windows. Our contractor took a permit from the Cit). We paid the contractor $25, 000 to begin the project, and somebody called the Cit) and said, You can't give them the permit because it's a historic monument. You have to go through the board. "So the Cit) pulled the permit, and we're out $25,000. The first time that we went through the designation process, it cost our parish $200, 000. We just f niched paying it off about f ve months ago, and we're running up bills on this. So there are some problems. I'll confine my marks to elaborate on the good caretaking we've done of the St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church. Bishop Samra spoke to our purchase of the site in the 1970s for the vett' purpose of conserving it as a place within the Cit) to be a sanctuary for worship, prayer, meditation and spiritual support for everybody in the area. And time doesn't allow me, nor does the confidential nature of much of my work as a priest to recount the number of people that have been nourished spiritually on our Brickell church campus. I mention this before any further discussion of bricks and sticks because I join our congregation and the bishop in urging you not to discount the religious significance of our church site. The building did not exist and the church took it up. It was built for a religious purpose, and from the time it was built, that has been the only reason it's there. Its significance brought it into existence, and the significance hasn't changed, it's religious. Respectfully, any vote to designate today, which legally can only be cast upon a finding that our religious practice is less significant than the opinion of a vocal minority about architecture or cultural events would, in fact, discount the religious significance of our church and our ministry. The First Amendment policy underlying your Code provision about designation of religious properties reflects the sage insight of America's founding fathers to avoid governmental burden upon the exercise of religious practice, and that is why you may only designate ifyou adopt the misguided view that our religious practice is no longer of primar)� importance; what brought the church into existence to begin with. We don't disagree that our church is a serene and beautiful place, as most houses of worship tend to be. We don't disagree that the education of women is laudable. We don't City ofMiami Page 171 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 disagree that Operation Pedro Pan was a very noble undertaking by the Cuban diaspora in Miami. We simply disagree that any of these noble things are more noble than the significance of our religious practice, which has been continuous on the site. Regarding the bricks and sticks, which is what the Cii)v Preservation Office now primarily relies upon for its recommendation to designate, as the local caretaker of the f ock under this house of worship, I take humble and sincere exception to any suggestion that we've not adequately maintained our facility. In fact, in connection with the periodic structural certification required by the Coumty, the chapel was recently inspected by a qualified professional engineer, who found everything in good order, in good condition. Our counsel has put that report, dated February 22, 2016, into the record of today's hearing, and a copy has been provided to each ofyou as Commissioners on the dais for ease of reference. I would like the objective -- well, you've heard the objective historic experts, Dr. John Garner and Ellen Uguccioni, who served with distinction for many years -- Mr. Pastoriza: Sir, isn't he supposed to be limited in the testimony that he gave? And now, he's getting into the --you know -- his experts in architectural, his expert in the other matter. I thought he was limited. Chair Hardemon: You're overruled. Continue on. Father Geiger: Well, again, you heard what they said. The -- I can comment on that? Chair Hardemon: Continue. Father Geiger: Okay. So you've heard the experts speak to the rather unremarkable architectural aspects of the chapel; the lack of any integrii)v of setting. For whatever was the cultural significance of the Sisters of Assumption School, they had a virtually nonexistent role in Operation Pedro Pan. In fact, Monsignor Walsh, who led that effort, joked in his writings that it was a good thing he did not need to rely on the Sisters of the Assumption for support, because they were unable to accommodate. I will say that it is our fervent desire to continue operating our ministry at the site and to grow with the vibrant community that is now the Brickell area communii)v. We will continue to be a sanctuary of spiritual pursuit and refreshment in this area; and that we're very insistent on. We have adult education programs, children's education programs, prayer services, classes in prayer. So those that press for historical designation because they're really interested in the permanent bay views, or less traffic, or in blocking the possibility of another condo building, the -- many of the Brickell area association members clamoring for the designation already have theirs. They've lost sight of the real issue and the only issue properly before this Commission this evening: Whether the religious significance of our church campus outweighs other values and concerns. And it does. The primary significance of the St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church is self-evident to those that properly value religious freedom and spiritualii)v, as did our founding fathers. So we ask you, please, leavens in peace to do what we do very well. Don't capitulate to special interests. Please vote against designation. I thank you for your time, and regardless of however you'll vote, we pray God's blessing upon all ofyou. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Bishop, before you move on, can you -- can you hear me? Father Geiger: I'm not a bishop. Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry. Commissioner Suarez: Pastor. Father Geiger: I wouldn't want that. I'm the pastor. Chair Hardemon: You're the pastor, okay. Before you move on, I think your testimony could be City ofMiami Page 172 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 extremely important. I need you to tell us -- well, with the bishop who spoke earlier -- Father Geiger: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- I had some questions about the activity that occurs at the church; the religious activities that occur at the church. Father Geiger: Sure. Chair Hardemon: So can you describe for the record what religious activities occur at that church? Father Geiger: Okay. Sundays, we have three liturgies, and there's never less than 500 people in total that are at the actual liturgies on Sunday. We have a Sunday School program for the children. We have a young adults group that doesn't meet every Sunday, but the Sunday School does. Five days a week, we have a AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) program for problems -- people dealing with addictions. Twice a week, we have adult education. Chair Hardemon: Before you move on, the AA program, is that for your parishioners? Father Geiger: No; it's for anybody in the area. We don't run it; we provide the facilities for it. Chair Hardemon: Okay. So they rent space? Father Geiger: No, they don't rent. They use it -- we provide it for them. Chair Hardemon: For free? Father Geiger: Free. They occasionally make donations, but there's no rent for it. Chair Hardemon: And is that something that is different or special than any other church ? Father Geiger: No, because the Lutheran church up the road has the AA meeting there. It's something spiritual. We've got to help people dealing with addictions. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Father Geiger: Once a week, our parishioners make 300 sandwiches for the poor at the Mother Teresa Shelter; it's every Wednesday morning. Twice a week, there are adult education classes. Every day, there is a service in the church; the biggest one would be Wednesdays when we get up --from 200 to 300 people at noon for that service. And the church is open from 7 in the morning till 6 in the evening every day, and it's never empo) , because it's a shrine, Church of St. Jude, so there are people praying any time you walk by. Other activities: We have --we participate in charitable activities through our diocese; at Christmas, you know, collecting for the kids in the shelters in the area of Miami. I think that's about -- plus we provide -- well, if people come and want spiritual counseling, that's given to them. Michael Faas: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. My name is Michael Faas. I have a question for Father Geiger. Chair Hardemon: And who are you, sir? Mr. Faas: My name is Michael Faas. Chair Hardemon: No, but who are you? City ofMiami Page 173 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Faas: I'm a parishioner. I'm the petitioner. I'm the signed petitioner. I have a question for him. Chair Hardemon: You -- ifyou have a questioning -- Mr. Faas: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: -- through your counsel you can cross-examine this witness; but you, yourself, cannot cross-examine this witness. Mr. Faas: I'm sorry. Mr. Pastoriza: Why did you cancel -- Chair Hardemon: I haven't allowed any cross-examination. Mr. Pastoriza: -- Saturday evening mass? Father Geiger: Okay. When I first came to the community, there was an evening -- Saturday evening liturgy. Our -- what year was that? -- 2012. Mr. Pastoriza: It was for 30 years they had it. Father Geiger: Okay, let me explain, if I may, honorable counsel. One of the deals that we had to do was to make our church accommodate to our things. That's why, for instance, on the inside, the whole church has been setup to reflect our Melkite traditions. We started taking the images out of the inside and we're working our way out. The liturgy was being recited. Our liturgy is not recited as Melkites; it's always sung. So we made the books up for the sung liturgy, and for several weeks, I continued with the 30 or so people coming for that liturgy, and I ended up singing to myself for an hour. So I told the people, 1f you don't at least open the books and by to chant the responses, we can't do the liturgy. "That's why it was stopped. Mr. Pastoriza: Basically, because there weren't people showing up. Father Geiger: The ones that showed up wanted a quickie recited mass, and that's not our tradition. Chair Hardemon: May I ask a clarifying question? Father Geiger: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir. The -- what you were just describing was the Saturday liturgy; is that how you pronounce it? Father Geiger: Saturday evening -- Chair Hardemon: Saturday evening. Father Geiger: -- one that would be valid for Sunday. Chair Hardemon: Okay. And I know that you testified just earlier that you have three liturgies on Sunday. Father Geiger: On Sunday, right. City ofMiami Page 174 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Okay. So is it your testimony that you still have liturgies at the church; you're just not having Saturday evening liturgies ? Father Geiger: No. Saturday evening, we don't have the Divine Liturgy, because, again, the group of people coming that we provided books for them and tried to get them to sing -- in our tradition, you can't have a recited liturgy; it must be chanted Chair Hardemon: It must be chanted. Father Geiger: Yeah. Chair Hardemon: Okay. But you still do have liturgies at the church? Father Geiger: Oh, yeah; ever)Sunday, there's three: First in -- held in English; 11 o'clock, English and Arabic; the biggest one is 6 o'clock on Sunday evening in Spanish. Chair Hardemon: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Is there any other cross-examination? Commissioner, you want to ask -- Vice Chair Russell: I just wanted to understand why that was relevant, actually, to Saturday. Chair Hardemon: It appears to me that the relevance came from the fact that he was toying to show that there was not any attendance to the church, so the religious activity there is not to the level in which the pastor was claiming it to be; is that correct, counsel? Mr. Pastoriza: We were (INAUDIBLE) point out that they -- Chair Hardemon: Can you speak directly into the mike? Commissioner Gort: Speak in the mike. Mr. Pastoriza: They will switch things around to please and satisfy whatever whims it is that they have. Father Geiger: No; they follow the norms of the church. Mr. Pastoriza: No, the way you want it. There were parishioners who really wanted to have that service. Vice Chair Russell: How is that relevant to the case, though; that's all I'm toying to understand, because I don't want us to get off track. Mr. Pastoriza: One less function that they had on that church. Vice Chair Russell: Understood Chair Hardemon: Counsel, you have some questions? Mr. Leen: I did have some questions. Chair Hardemon: And for the record -- City ofMiami Page 175 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Leen: I have two questions. Chair Hardemon: -- state your -- Mr. Leen: Yes, sir. My name is -- thank you, pastor. My name is Craig Leen. I'm the City Attorney for Coral Gables, but appearing as conflict counsel for Cit) staff. Are you aware of Plymouth Congregational Church -- Father Geiger: No. Mr. Leen: --in Miami? No? Father Geiger: No. Mr. Leen: Are you aware of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City? Father Geiger: Yes. Mr. Leen: Okay. For St. Patrick's Cathedral, do you believe that that has a religious significance? Father Geiger: Of course. Mr. Leen: Okay. So let me ask you, do you believe that St. Patrick's religious significance exceeds its architectural and historical significance? Father Geiger: Yes. Mr. Leen: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: I have a question. Chair Hardemon: Question for him? Vice Chair Russell: For the pastor. Father Geiger: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: I understood from the bishop in his opinion that there is no such thing as an active church where anything is greater than the religious significance. Do you agree with that? Father Geiger: May I clarify that with my response? I believe that a church can ask to be historically designated, yes; they have every right to ask that. Even if they do, as long as it's a functioning church, as far as I'm concerned the primary significance is religious; that's why the church was built. Now, if they decide that they want to get historical designation for whatever reason, God bless them; that's up to them. Vice Chair Russell: No, I wasn't referring to anything about whether someone would voluntarily ask for it. Father Geiger: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: We were tasked with finding --from the Court ofAppeals --whether or not City ofMiami Page 176 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the religious significance was outweighed by the architectural significance. Father Geiger: There -- Vice Chair Russell: So what I'm hearing from the two expert witnesses on the religious side of things, there really is no such thing as an active church where anything precedes the -- is greater than the religious significance. Father Geiger: No. I would make an exception. For instance, the North Church in Boston is still a functioning church -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Father Geiger: -- but it certainly has a very important factor in American histovy and American Revolution. Vice Chair Russell: Would you say in that case, the historical significance is greater than the religious significance of that particular historical church ? Father Geiger: Okay. I'm -- remember, my expertise is religious, not architectural or historical, so from a religious viewpoint, of course, if God is being worshipped, there is nothing greater than that. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. (Applause) Chair Hardemon: That means atop. "Thank you vett' much. Counsel, I believe you've presented all ofyour witnesses? Ms. Boulris: We --yes, all of our expert witness. There may be two or three representative speakers in the public comment, but we've had evetyone else donate their time, and they'll be brief. We rest but for -- I'd like to reserve a minute of rebuttal at the end, as well. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: At this time -- Commissioner Suarez: I want to thank you for that, by the way. I want to thank you. Chair Hardemon: --I would like for counselors in your rebuttal to present -- Mr. Pastoriza: I do have Arva Parks, who would like to come in as an expert on behalf of the parishioners, petitioners, on the issue of historical context of this church. I believe everybody here knows Arva Parks, and she's a world renowned local historian, and I would like to bring her in. Just like opposing counsel brought in the two priests for the religious significance, I would like to bring in Ms. Parks for her historical context on this issue. Chair Hardemon: I know it's been a long day, so I'm ttying to remember. Did you present witnesses? Mr. Pastoriza: I presented the architect; Werner, the architect. City ofMiami Page 177 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Right. And at that time, you didn't indicate whether or not you had any other Mr. Pastoriza: I did not. Chair Hardemon: And has this witness ever presented before? Mr. Pastoriza: She was here before on the last hearing that we had in front ofyou. Chair Hardemon: When you say, the last hearing, jou mean back in -- Mr. Pastoriza: Back in July of -- I think it was July of -- two years ago. Chair Hardemon: Counsel, is this your first time hearing about this witness appearing? Ms. Boulris: Yes, it is, Your Honor -- Mr. Chair. With all due respect to Ms. Parks, you know, their case was -- they rested and we put on our case. I'd want the right to reopen our case and rebut her if we're going to do this all night, so their -- Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Boulris: --you know, it's a little too late, and, you know, her testimony is already in the record, they've reincorporated it, so I do object, with all due respect to Ms. Parks. Chair Hardemon: I mean, counselor, that's the -- Mr. Pastoriza: Well, listen -- Chair Hardemon: -- precisely the reason that -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- she can always testify here as a citizen. Chair Hardemon: Right. Mr. Pastoriza: And then you're going to put the value on her evidence that you so wish, but everybody, I think, knows who she is, and everybody knows of her expert qualifications. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Pastoriza: I thank you. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, counselor. At this time, I would like to -- these two minutes, use as your closing rebuttal, so each counselor will have this cpportunio) to present its two -minute closing rebuttal. And considering the fact that the City Attorney who's representing the City staff, and the appellant attorney is on the same side, and they have two minutes each, I will grant each of them two minutes, and since that two minutes equates to four, I'll allow opposing counsel to speak for four minutes on the issue. At the end of those -- and then once we're done with that, we'll allow the community; to speak for two minutes each. Mr. Leen: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Mr. Leen: I -- two minutes will be fine for me. The Historic Preservation officer, is she allowed City ofMiami Page 178 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 to present any rebuttal evidence? Because O pically, she'd respond to some of the -- Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to hear her. Mr. Leen: -- and you might have questions for her, too. Vice Chair Russell: I do. Chair Hardemon: You all have four minutes. You can use your time -- Mr. Leen: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: -- as you wish. Mr. Leen: Okay. You'd like me to speak now? Chair Hardemon: Sure. Mr. Leen: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's clear from the evidence today that this is a very important building in Miami. It reminds me of -- in law school, a case about Penn Station in New York, when it was lost and people -- and that's why a lot of the historic preservation properties came into being --pardon me --historic preservation laws. Can you imagine driving down Brickell Avenue and not seeing that building? It's architecturally significant. It's historically significant. It's an important building. It would be a tremendous loss to the City not to have it. So for that reason, I think it's clear, it needs to be historically designated. Now, I want to make one point -- two legal points --and then I'll conclude. Your Historic Preservation Officer has a duo; by law to present to you on the ultimate question; that's why she did. She has to recommend to you; that's the competent substantial evidence in the record. But ultimately, that's her duty. She has to make that recommendation. She's looked at this issue. She's looked at the church decision -- I mean the court's decision -- and she's come back to you with her opinion that this is -- this should be historically designated. It's ultimately your decision, though, and in weighing that decision, in the end, I think you have to remember that the evidence that you heard from the church -- and I say this with great respect for the church, and we should not really get into matters of church governance, but the one point you need to remember is even with St. Patrick's Cathedral, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, if that was in Florida, their position would be that should not be historically designated In fact, their testimony was that no active church, except perhaps the North Church in Boston should be historically designated, and even that one, maybe not. That can't be the rule; otherwise, you wouldn't have these beautiful, iconic, architectural historic structures in the United States. Ifyou go to France, if you go to England, they're all over the place, and they're protected, and they're beautiful, and we should have that here, too. And this is one in Miami, and it would be a tremendous shame for that to be lost. I would turn it over to the Historic Preservation officer. Ms. Schmitt: Thank you, Mr. Leen. Just very quickly, I'm going to point -- hit on some points that were spoken about this evening. Just as a reminder, integrio) of design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association is what we're looking at. So setting is one of six that needs to be addressed. In terms of what's cladded in limestone and what is not, I just want to point out the fact that the First Church of Christ Scientist is also clad in Indiana limestone. That's a designated property, a designated former church. The Dade County Courthouse is clad in Stone Mountain granite. I believe that is from Georgia. So these are materials that are not indigenous to Miami, and they've been -- they're associated with properties that are designated. St.John's Baptist is a masonry structure, sheets in buff -colored brick So I'm just trying to give you guys some context in terms of materials and how the integrity of materials relates to other currently -designated properties. As a note, the national bulletin for how to apply the National Register criteria was published in 1990. That's the -- where we get the language about how we City ofMiami Page 179 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 look and designate religious structures. And so six of the properties that were designated here locally that I mentioned before are churches were designated prior to that date. I just wanted to also remind everyone that the building that we're currently in was not actually built to be our City Hall, and it -- here it is, and we're using it; the former Pan Am terminal. And I just wanted to also reiterate that insurance costs don't necessarily have to increase; in fact, I'm not aware that they do, and I'm happy to have a conversation with church representatives if they want to discuss that further. Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Do you have a question? Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The opinion of the Circuit Court is very clear. It says, And when contrary to the contentions of the church, 'it says -- Chair Hardemon: Whatever it is, I need you to come to a conclusion about your statement. Come to a conclusion. Your four minutes are up. Mr. Pastoriza: Well, I get two minutes, no? Chair Hardemon: No, no. You had four minutes. Mr. Pastoriza: Oh, okay. Chair Hardemon: Two minutes each. Mr. Pastoriza: Okay. Oh, two minutes is all I got? Chair Hardemon: No, no, let me (INAUDIBLE). Mr. Pastoriza: Requiring that the structure be void of any and all religious import or function is not a requirement which would render a church ineligible in "-- for historical designation. "Okay? That's one issue. And the other issue is basically that you -- the overwhelming evidence presented to you goes to the architectural, artistic and historic nature of this building. And therefore, I think we have met that criteria And I'd just like to end it on something that is really not exactly on point as to what it is that you are -- the court asked you to decide on, because we --you already have all that evidence. But during my formative years, I had the experience and the benefit of being -- when I was in very difficult situations to have a very wise man; a very wise man give me some support and give me some advice. And he always told me that whenever you're confronted with a difficult situation, you should analyze itproperly. And once you analyze it properly, you should move forward and take the high road, okay? Take the road of less regret. That wise man was my father. You, as City Commissioners today, are faced with a very difficult situation. It is a very controversial item. I think you have analyzed it and continue to analyze it properly, but what I would ask you is for you to go ahead take the high road; take the road of less regret. I think that when you look into the future -- Chair Hardemon: Counselor. Mr. Pastoriza: I'll finish in one minute. When you look into the future -- Chair Hardemon: I need you to finish in less than -- Mr. Pastoriza: -- don't look back. Don't look back and say, You know what? I should have preserved that building, and I didn't. " Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. City ofMiami Page 180 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you, sir. Thank you, all ofyou. Chair Hardemon: Before you move on to opposing counsel, I believe that Vice Chairman has questions. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I just wanted to know ifyour side was looking to rebut the testimony of John Garner, who said that the church, in fact, is only tangentially Romanesque -- Mr. Pastoriza: Well -- Vice Chair Russell: -- and only Romanesque ifyou look at it from the distance. Mr. Pastoriza: -- we do have our architect that can come back and rebut that -- okay? -- and if you allow me to. Vice Chair Russell: For me, that seems to be the crux of our decision; is whether or not that the architectural significance -- Mr. Pastoriza: And, you know, the architect is dying to come back and rebut those statements. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, ifI may? Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: I agree with the Vice Chair. I think the key question here is whether there is substantial and competent evidence, and whether there's expert testimony that is based on that evidence -- Chair Hardemon: That's perfectly fine. We can call back that witness to --we can call back that witness. I want you to direct the witness that he is to speak limitedly on the issue at hand that was raised by the Vice Chairman so that he can come to some conclusion about that. So if, please, the witness, can you come on this side, or -- it doesn't matter; whichever one. Butplease direct him regarding the issues that the Vice Chairman will reiterate to you right now. Mr. Vice Chairman. Mr. Pastoriza: You have heard the statement from the opposing expert to regards -- or with regards to the little Romanesque influence that the St. Jude Church -- the St. Jude Building has. Can you please say why you think that that opinion is not correct? Mr. Avdakov: In my professional opinion, I think that's incorrect, because this is a Romanesque interpretation from mid -Century 1940s Miami. If we look at all of architecture in Florida, in Miami from that era, everything is an interpretation. You have to go out to the Everglades or some of the vernacular buildings to see indigenous architecture. The architecture of Coral Gables is an interpretation of Mediterranean so4e, or Tuscan style; everything's interpretive. This building here has clear features, which we've articulated. The narthex, the transepts, the nave, the rectangular portion of the back of the building, they're all expressive of this form, but they've been interpreted to this specific place here in Miami, and that's what's significant about this building; represents this place, this time, this era; that architecture being transformed by that time and place, and the construction. And the use of the Indiana limestone is important. It doesn't have to be an indigenous material. And as the City pointed out -- the Preservation Oce -- that was used on another church, and it was used to convey the special status on a building. It's more refined than the indigenous material. There was an aspiration by the architect who understood this. He dealt with lots of churches, lots of civic and lots of institutional buildings. That was the goal that he sought. So he had interpreted those so4es to suit this time and place, and the aspirations of the time as Miami was translating from a smaller communio) into a more City ofMiami Page 181 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 modern metropolis at the end of the world. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you, sir. Does that answer the question? Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a specific -- Chair Hardemon: Of course. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask the expert? Sir, in your expert opinion and based on the testimony you've given here today, is it your expert opinion that this structure derives its primary significance from its architectural value to the Cit) ofMiami and this community? Mr. Avdakov: As I demonstrated with my board, with nine points in the architecture, the artistic, and the historic significance, it's absolutely my opinion, my professional expert opinion, based upon my years of experience in historic preservation that that is the case, and that it is significant to the City ofMiami. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Is there a re -cross to this witness that would like to happen by any opposing counsel? Ms. Boulris: Good evening, sir. Mr. Avdakov: Good evening. Ms. Boulris: Would you agree with me that the word lWerpret'is different than the word gmbod�? Mr. Avdakov: I think lhterpreted'ineans referencing and incorporating into in a different form. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Mr. Avdakov: Embody'fneans inherent. Ms. Boulris: No further questions. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Before we move on, is there a -- counselor, would you like to redirect any ofyour witnesses, your expert witnesses? Ms. Boulris: No. We stand on our prior testimony as sufficient. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. At this time, I'll allow you to have four minutes in which you can present your rebuttal and your closing argument. Ms. Boulris: Thank you, Chairman Hardemon. I'm going to kind of go in reverse order from the detail -- Chair Hardemon: Oh, you know -- Ms. Boulris: Yes, sir. City ofMiami Page 182 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: I'm sore. Before we begin, counselors on the side of the Cit) staff and also the appellants, do you know of any case law that states -- that either states or does not state -- no, let's -- Do you know any case law that states that any usage of a church as a religious purpose; any usage is one that outweighs its historical significance; or for that matter, do you know of a case that would cite the intensity of the usage for religious purposes as a way of outweighing the historical significance? Mr. Pastoriza: I do not, but I would guide you again to the opinion of the Circuit Court where it says that, Just the mere use of the building as a church and for church functions is not enough to prevent a designation of the propero) based on architectural, historical "-- Chair Hardemon: And for the record, what page is that on? Mr. Pastoriza: It is on page 10 of 17, on the first paragraph. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. And counselor, you're -- Mr. Leen: Can I have -- I'm not aware of any case. There are many cases on religion in RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act), and the First Amendment. I would be surprised if there was a case specifically on this point. I have not seen one. I don't know ifyour City Attorneys know of one. Because it's unique to your Code, this particular test, it doesn't mean there aren't similar tests in other cities. And the Circuit Court is interpreting your Code, specifically, with instructions. So based on law of the case, I think our view is we should just follow that Circuit Court decision. Honestly, it does not give much guidance on the issue of how much religious intensio) you would need and how you would evaluate that. That's ultimately left to your sound discretion. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ms. Mendez: Chairman. Chair Hardemon: Yes. Ms. Mendez: This is partly, I think, what you're asking, but basically, there are cases that state that just because you designate a church historic, it doesn't impinge on any of its religious uses. Is that more or less what you're asking or --? Chair Hardemon: No. I was thinking about the step just before designation of historical preservation. So before you -- when you're in this test, when you're choosing between whether or not it should be deemed historic or not, if the intensity of the use for religious purposes is -- Ms. Mendez: Is a factor. Oh. Chair Hardemon: -- there a level in which -- right. And so, I know here, we're looking at whether or not the historical or architectural significance outweighs the religious use; but certainly, it becomes a question of -- We have -- we've heard testimony today that there -- sometimes, they have 500 members in the church. We've heard testimony that sometimes there are 100 members in the church. And so my question was as to any case law that would indicate ifyou only have 20 people at the church throughout the week that that's not enough religious importance or significantly religiously important to outweigh the historical or architectural -- Ms. Mendez: Right. I mean, basically, at least just so that this Board knows, you can designate a church historic even though it's used a lot -- Chair Hardemon: Right. City ofMiami Page 183 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Mendez: -- or not. I mean, it's just --you can just do it Chair Hardemon: Right. I mean, there's no guidance, as I've heard from counsel; there's no guidance to that. So it's up to the triers of the fact to determine whether or not the architectural significance outweighs the religious purpose. Mr. Leen: In fact, I think that's what they're saying, is they're not giving you a legal -- there -- it's not a legal issue -- it's not an issue of law; it's an issue of fact. Chair Hardemon: Right Mr. Leen: Or at most, a mixed question of fact and law, and you are going to evaluate it and make the determination. Chair Hardemon: Right. I just want -- Mr. Leen: You're going to weigh them. Chair Hardemon: -- to be clear if there was -- if there is any -- if there was any case law that touched upon it, this would be the time to say it; but if not, then we can move on. Ma'am, you can present your closing argument and your rebuttal; four minutes, please. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. I'm going to start with the architectural redirect of the appellant's witness just now, while it's fresh in your minds. The Historic Preservation Oce says this is Romanesque, it's Romanesque. And Dr. Garner, we believe, established that it's really not truly Romanesque; it's a mix of things. It doesn't really embody Romanesque architecture, and his testimony was clear about that. In redirect, now the new sting from the appellants is, Well, it interprets Romanesque. "It interprets Romanesque, but I -- the reason I asked the witness what I did, A 'interpreting' different than 'embodying? "'And he agreed that it's different. And what your Code requires is that it embody those distinguishing characteristics; not interpret them, you know, vaguely, or three steps removed. And the testimony, perhaps desperate, that this interprets Romanesque, because it really doesn't embody it only proves our case. And the Code does not allow you to find that these historic architectural designation criteria are met if it interprets something. It has to embody it, and in the architectural industry, those are very different words. That's why Dr. Garner talked about this does not -- he opined that this does not embody Romanesque style. So on that point, I'll move on. Your questions about, What really is the decision that the counsel has to make? "I want to go back to something that esteemed Counsel Pastoriza has referred to several times. It's one sentence in the 17 page opinion, and it's the only one he keeps reading. And it says, Therefore, requiring the structure to be void of any and all religious import or function is not a requirement which would render a church ineligible for historic status. "I believe what that meant was the Cit) would not have to meet the burden so high as proving this church is void of any religious import in order for you to designate it, and that is the law of the case. However, we don't have to prove anything other than that the religious significance of this church exceeds what has been asserted; that there is some architectural significance that exceeds the religious significance of this church. I know there were a lot of rhetorical questions asked of two of our experts; the experts on religious significance, both the bishop and Father Damon -- really it's Father Geiger, but I call him Father Damon. "Both the pastor and the bishop testified that in their perspective, if there's ministry going on there, there could never be anything more important. And that was in response to rhetorical questions about, Could you ever imagine any church being designated as long as there is religious activio) going on? "And they said iio. "That's interesting, but that wasn't their response to the legal test before you, which they also opined on. The legal test before you is whether the primary significance of this church at 1501 Brickell Avenue is religious or something else. And on that, they also opined. So the hypothetical question they were asked, Could you ever imagine a church that wouldn't be City ofMiami Page 184 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 primarily religiously significant if it was a practicing church ?That was really irrelevant. The relevant test is about this church, and they opined clearly that the religious significance of this church, past, present, and ongoing, by far exceeds. What is also true of this church? That it's architecturally beautiful; that it might have played a wonderful role in this community. Those are also true things, but the decision you have to make is, What is the most important thing about this church? "And I'll close with quoting from the law of the case about that. Page 8 of the Circuit Court's opinion, armed by the Third DCA: The Cit) of Miami's ordinance recognizes that a religious structure being considered for designation may have historical and architectural significance in addition to religious. "It's going to have all of those things. I'm quoting again now: The very point of Section 4B is to prevent the designation of a religious site whose religious significance exceeds its secular significance. "Respectfully and humbly, we submit that the evidence before you is that there is secular significance. The architecture is significant. The role this church has played in Miami is significant. It's just that those do not exceed its religious significance and therefore, this should not be designated over the objection of this church. Thank you for your time. Chair Hardemon: Thank you, counselor. Counsel for the Cit) staff, I'm reading from page 9 of 17 of the opinion from our --from the court, and it reads that, The National Park Service which oversees the Federal Historic Preservation Program has developed guidelines and examples to be used as an analytical framework by local authorities. "The National Park Service, how to apply the National Register criteria for evaluation of the National Register Bulletin, last -- this, it was cited -- last page says August 29, 2014. 1't lists several examples of religious structures deemed to possess significant historical legacies to warrant Federal preservation grants. "This is about grants; not necessarily -- well, I'll say grants. Boston's Old North Church is renowned for the start of the American Revolutionary War. Lanterns were hung from its steeple, signaling to Paul Revere whether the British were approaching by land or by sea. Two: The Mount Bethel Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. (District of Columbia) was in 1875 the site of the first congregation of former slaves. That church is also linked to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s civil rights movement. Three: The Baltimore Cathedral, built in 1802, is the first cathedral constructed in America, and deemed to the world as an example of 19th Century monumental architecture. See Sprow, Federal funding for the Preservation of Religious Historic Places, old Federal funding for the Preservation of Religious Historic Places, Old North Church and the new establishment clause. These examples of extraordinary historical events are significant in American history. " And this is the part that I want to highlight: These examples of extraordinary historical events are significant in American history, and the religious properties' historical significance overshadow and eclipse the religious aspects of these churches today. As a result, the Federal authorities have upheld the validity of historical designations of these churches, even though they are currently actively and continuously used as houses of worship. The Oce of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice has endorsed the use of Federal Historic Preservation grants for active houses of worship, rejecting the suggestion that the mere use of a church as its planned function "-- 5s its planned function constitutes its primary significance. "So I need you to explain to me. This church, as the church has presented through the testimony of the pastor and through the testimony of the bishop, utilizes its -- this house of worship to worship and -- amongst other things; liturgy services, Sunday School and among some other things; prayer, et cetera However, so there is -- you know that there is a religious use there. The question that I have for you is the architectural importance of this, how does that -- how do you align that, what this just said, the historical importance of these churches that are named here? I know you've been arguing mostly architectural, but there was some fact that was put on the record about its historical importance. And so of the building that stands today -- Mr. Leen: Yes. Chair Hardemon: -- that we're talking about today; not the site, but the building we're talking about today, can you name a historical significance that is as important, or is as relevant, or as grand as the -- Boston's Old North Church, the Mount Bethel Baptist Church in Washington, City ofMiami Page 185 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 D. C. and the Baltimore Cathedral? Mr. Leen: No, no, not for historical -- it's not as historically significant as these churches in terms of its historic aspect. These are three of the most historic churches in the history of the United States ofAmerica. That doesn't mean, though, that the Court is saying that this is -- I think what the Court's saying is it doesn't want to take away your discretion. So they've picked three that are clearly, far and away ones that you would-- that eclipse the religious significance to make a point that religious significance is not just determined by --pardon me. The fact that there's religious -- a religious practice going on there does not mean that that ends the question, and they show three examples where it clearly would not. There's two points to make here, though. First, this doesn't address at all architectural significance. And you do have competent substantial evidence in the record that this is an important architectural -- architecturally significant building. And then second, looking at both the historical value and the architectural significance -- Chair Hardemon: Number 3 does, Number 3 does. Mr. Leen: Yes. Chair Hardemon: It does -- an example of 19th Century monumental -- Mr. Leen: Oh, you're right, I'm sorry; because it's a world famous example of a 19th Century -- you're absolutely right. I'm sorry. This, though, for Miami, in that one part of the sentence I think could be similar. But it --the point I want to make is when you combine the architectural and the historical significance to Miami -- and we're applying this to Miami -- I do think that this is both historically significant and architecturally significant. It would be a shame to not preserve this building, and I think it satisfies the test. You certainly have competent substantial evidence that it satisfies the test. You could make that finding. But I don't think you have to find that this is the Old North Church -- Chair Hardemon: No, I'm -- Mr. Leen: -- in order to make that finding. Chair Hardemon: -- not saying that you do. Mr. Leen: Okay. I understand. Chair Hardemon: What that for -- now, Commissioner Suarez. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I guess for me, the way I look at it is -- I'll give you three examples of three churches that are on the bay in the Brickell/South Miami corridor. You got St. Jude; St. Kieran's, which is in LaSalle High School grounds; and Hermita de la Caridad At least two of those three, you could say architecturally are significant, and probably derive their primary significance from their architectural values. For -- the St. Kieran's one is a clear example of one that does not; and yet, it is no less religiously significant than Hermita or St. Jude, but if it were demolished -- and I went to school there, and I know the church intimately. It doesn't have architectural value, you know, the building itself. I think the other two -- ifyou were to drive down that corridor and those buildings were gone, you would think that an architectural icon was lost in the Cit), and I think that's why the value is separate and apart, and significant, and primarily significant than its -- merely its religious value, which I agree; I mean, the religious value of any church has infinite value, and I think that's what the bishop and the pastor would argue; that the religious significance has infinite value, but we're looking at the architectural value and whether that's the primary significance of the building as it relates to the landscape, and I think it does. I mean, I --you know, there's three examples, the --you know, St. Kieran's City ofMiami Page 186 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 being, you know as significant; certainly personally significant to me, you know. I went to high school there, I went to church there all the time, but architecturally, it's not a significant building. Ms. Boulris: May I respond briefly? Vice Chair Russell: You may respond. Ms. Boulris: The --your Code does not -- in the area of architectural significance does not say iconic to Miami, 'br iinportant relative to Miami. "It says it must embody a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style, or a period or method of construction. And the architectural experts that testified, at least on behalf of the church today, went through the criteria in your Code, and they talk about architectural style. This really doesn't have an identifiable so4e; a period -- well, the assertion was it was Romanesque, but it really isn't, or a method of construction. There's nothing particularly novel, or unique, or significant about the way this church was built. So we're talking about some different things now. Something that's iconic in Miami is not the standard in your Code. Vice Chair Russell: Is iiovel'and -- what did you say? -- iiovel'and %pique,° are they part of the criteria? Ms. Boulris: The cri -- no. Vice Chair Russell: You said that the construction was not novel or unique. Ms. Boulris: I said there's nothing remarkable about the method of construction here. It wasn't like the first time steel was used That would be something interesting about the method of construction. This is a preto) basic building. There's nothing groundbreaking or historically interesting about the method of construction. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, ifI may? Chair Hardemon: Sure. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I --look, I think there's ample evidence in the record that was -- and then there's, of course, conflicting evidence, because I would argue that your expert obviously disagrees vehemently with the characterization that the church embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style. I don't think it has to be one specific so4e, but I think there's ample evidence on one hand of substantial and competent evidence of that. The reason why I use the word icon'br i'conic'is because I'm trying to put sort of a premium on the value of the architectural style relative to the building, and so I think it has to be its primary significance, and so I think it --for it to be the primary significance, there has to be a significance that's more than just normal significance. For me, an iconic building is one that is abnormally significant in its architectural style, and that's why I used the word, Iconic. " Mr. Avdakov: I'd like to respond also, regarding the term, interpretation. " Ms. Boulris: I thought we were in closing arguments, Chair. The witness is coming back to the podium. Mr. Avdakov: I'd just like to respond very quickly, stating that Vizcaya -- Chair Hardemon: No. Mr. Avdakov: -- is an interpretation -- City ofMiami Page 187 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: No, no, no. Thank you very much. No, this is not the time for it. Are there any further questions from the dais? If there aren't any further questions from the dais, I appreciate all ofyou counselors' time presenting your arguments -- wait a minute before everyone starts moving around. This is the time for public hearing. You did want to speak for your two minutes, right? Ms. Boulris: Thank you; appreciate that. Chair Hardemon: So I'll open the floor for public hearing at this time. Mr. Cit) Clerk, he will read names of those individuals who have two minutes to speak on this issue. After we've concluded the public hearing, then I'm sure we'll have a motion from the dais to go one way or the other, and then we'll have some discussion and make our decision on this. So you will be named,- listen for your name from the Clerk. And as you hear your name, approach one of the lecterns. Wasim Shomar: Mr. Chair, may I make a suggestion? Because we would like -- in respect to the time of the Commission, we have about 12 people that agreed to donate their time. So maybe we can do some kind of a bulk deal to kind of move quicker in reciprocation to also what the church did. So I'd like to, you know, with your permission -- Chair Hardemon: When you said, Honate the time, 'typically, when I say Honate my time, '7 give my two minutes to someone else, and that person has four minutes; is that what you mean? Mr. Shomar: We could do it that way, or we can simply have a group standup, and then allow maybe five or six people to come forward and speak, and go a little bit overtime, and that might be a little bit more efficient. Chair Hardemon: In your group -- Mr. Shomar: So it's up to your discretion. Chair Hardemon: -- if in your group you want to choose one representative to speak for us for -- Mr. Shomar: So we'll do it -- then, ifyou -- what you're suggesting is we'll have everyone donate their time piecemeal as opposed to doing it group ? Chair Hardemon: Listen, what I'm telling you is this: If I allow one person to speak for, say, eight minutes, that person will represent all ofyou, okay? Mr. Shomar: We actually did the arithmetic. I know that it's kind of late to do the arithmetic, but we have 14 people that agreed to give away their two minutes. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Shomar: Rather than using 28 overtime minutes -- Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. Shomar: -- we'd like to use 20 minutes in return for that. Chair Hardemon: How many? Mr. Shomar: 20 minutes instead of the 28 -- Chair Hardemon: You mean eight minutes. City ofMiami Page 188 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Shomar: -- they give up. So we're saving eight minutes. Chair Hardemon: I might want to hear more than one person's opinion -- Mr. Shomar: Right. What -- Chair Hardemon: -- because OPically -- Mr. Shomar: -- we're bringing about six or seven more, including Ms. Arva Parks, so we just wanted to kind of -- Chair Hardemon: It's up to the district Commissioner; however he wants to -- Mr. Shomar: So you're the boss. You're the Chair, so I'm just suggesting it. Chair Hardemon: Well, not right now; not right now, I'm not. Vice Chair Russell: I just got promoted. Mr. Shomar: We'll abide to your wisdom, whether it's Commissioner Russell or Hardemon. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Could those who are going to speak and take two minutes each that are looking to donate their time, please stand. So each ofyou could have spoken for two minutes, but you are giving up your time so that one person can speak on your behalf for the equivalent amount of time; is that correct? Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair. Mr. Shomar: And there are 14 pro -historic ones standing up, just for the record. Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I -- Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment. Commissioner Carollo: -- think a lot of people stood up, and I don't think they're part of this group. I think you have different groups that just stood up from the back, so I just want to make sure we're clear. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. I --these are people speaking in favor of historical designation -- Commissioner Carollo: Exactly. Vice Chair Russell: -- that are standing right now, who could take two minutes apiece to speak tons, but are donating their time for one representative -- Unidentified Speaker: No; more than one. Vice Chair Russell: Okay, how many? Mr. Shomar: What we're suggesting is that we're going to have six people that OPically will have 12 minutes, and the 14 that are standing, the other 28 minutes. Rather than being here 40 minutes, we're asking for a block of 30 minutes for those six speakers. City ofMiami Page 189 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: 30 minutes for six speakers? Mr. Shomar: Correct. Obviously, if there are others that did not donate their time and they come about -- Vice Chair Russell: And they could still speak, of course. Mr. Shomar: -- we -- they can still speak. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I -- yes. Your six speakers will not speak for anyone who is currently sitting who would like to speak, but it should be noted --and I should take a picture right now -- Ms. Mendez: Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: --that those standing are giving up their time, and I do respect that. So we will put 30 minutes on the clock I will not keep track of how many each one ofyourpeople would like to speak, but the total aggregate will be 30, so I trust that you all will monitor your time together. Mr. Shomar: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your flexibilio) , and we're as tired as you are, so we'll stick to the 30 minutes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Shomar: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: What are we doing; taking a break or --plowing through? Vice Chair Russell: Is the opposition interested in entertaining the same idea, or are we all planning to speak independently? Commissioner Suarez: So what's the deal? Ms. Boulris: We're going to keep our promise that we are going to have only two or three speakers on behalf of St. Jude, but we have a sign -in sheet, and I'd ask everyone here with St. Jude to stand so they can get a little head count, at least a ballpark, anyone with a green lapel. Vice Chair Russell: Green ribbons versus green shirts. Ms. Boulris: Right. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Ms. Boulris: So all these folks would donate their time to two or three, and I believe we'd stay under 15 minutes. Vice Chair Russell: Similar -- okay, thank you very much. Ms. Boulris: Yes, thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Shomar: And to clarify, the lime shirts are pro -historic, just in case somebody missed it; and obviously, the green ribbons are the non --you know, against historic designation. City ofMiami Page 190 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Thank you. And would each person remember to please state your name and your address before speaking. Thank you. Mr. Shomar: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair -- I should say Chair, 7 guess, at this point, and Commissioners. My name is Wasim Shomar; address, 45 Almeria Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. Again, thank you so much for your time and for your deliberate approach to making this important decision. I want to say on behalf of our historical designation, our lime shirts here that we come before you with deep and sincere respect to our bishop and to our church. We simply have a disagreement in opinion, but we all have the same objective, which is our love of our church, and that's, I think, evident on both sides. So we promise you we're going to be civil no matter how much we -- how passionate we are about our cause, and no matter how much disagreement we have. The -- it was mentioned and I think Commissioner Suarez pointed out that this church has been owned by the Melkites for about 40 years or so. And I personally am an active parishioner of the Melkite Church. I married my beautiful bride 20 years ago in that church. We baptized both of our children, and we buried many important people in that church; or at least, we did the ceremony for the burial. And for me to find out suddenly that this church somehow is insufficient, or in appropriate, or -- I'm not sure what the right adjective is --for it to be fit for us to practice our religion as Melkites makes me wonder, does that make my marriage, the baptism of my children, the burial of many of my dear ones, does that make it insufficient? The church, we go to it on regular basis. We pray on weekly basis, and we hear often from our own pastor that the church is made up of parishioners, of the members of the church; that the edifice, itself, the structure is not as important as three people getting together in the name of Jesus Christ and practicing under whichever rite and tradition -- in this case, Melkite -- makes it a church; that the building is not important. As a matter of fact, the Melkite rite has been in Miami a lot longer, before the church -- this specific building was bought. I simply want to point out the motives on this side are extremely pure. We love and understand Miami, first and foremost. I've been here since 1983. As you noticed, I haven't managed to completely lose my accent, but Miami has been my home for -- what? -- 32 years. I've served as a former president for Miami Dade College when it used to be Communio) College, over at the Kendall campus, the Wolfson campus; I've serve on the International Council Board of our Mayor here; I serve in History Miami, on the board, I chair the development committee for Make a Wish, and so on and so forth. I've dedicated my life for this City. This building, specifically -- so keep in mind that we're talking about people here have deep understanding of what's important for the City of Miami, and that's part of why we're fighting so hard for it. This building is a symbol of everything that means anything to me, and to many of us, including my wife, including my children. I met her there. We had -- I wouldn't have these children if it wasn't for this building. This building is a symbol of so many things that are important to us. I'd like to refer to you to the letter to the editor of the Miami Herald that was written by Pastor Geiger, and many ofyou may have seen it. I'm not -- I'm going to spare you the details of all the letter, but I want to point you to this sentence here written by Pastor Geiger. It says, A historic designation might function as a height restriction "-- A historic designation might function as a height restriction that could potentially prevent the church from ever modernizing its campus, 'okay? Let's put it in nice, simple English language. Does that say that, Let's put a high-rise instead of keeping the building? I'm not sure; just think about it. The word, 1odernizing the campus, 'and that we don't want height restrictions, does that mean remove the historic component and put something more modern and something taller? Now, I'm not questioning the integrio) of our bishop when he stands up and says that he really has no intention to demolish or sell the building. I want to remind you, our bishop will not be our bishop in four and a half years; he has a tenure of four and a half more years. The bishop, I respect him that he thinks he's met me for the first time today when this has been our fifth encounter; plus an email exchange that we had in the past. I know TDRs may not be as relevant from what I learned listening today, but there was no mention of TDRs in that letter to the Miami Herald. I simply want to point out -- by the way, the TDRs, I just should mention, the project acre right next door to our church bought for $1.44 million a year ago; bought 100, 000 square feet of height from another church. So clearly, there's been transactions going on. So finally, I simply want to appeal to you. We elected you to do the right City ofMiami Page 191 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 thing, and I'm asking you to do the right thing. Please do not allow transient outsiders such as the bishop, who comes from Boston; such as our pastor, who just moved to Miami only recently, about three years ago; please do not allow transient outsiders to cause our Cit) to lose one of its last architectural and historical jewels. And thank you so much for your time. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. The next speaker. Raffool Ajami: Good evening. My name is Raffool Ajami. I live at 7133 Northwest]]] th Avenue. I'm a parishioner since 1968. Our mission started 1966 They were praying in a room on 15th Avenue and 8th Street. When I came in, we were praying in the Syrian -Lebanese -American Club, a banquet hall that used to hold party at night, people dancing,- the following day, we would pray; then we borrowed the hall from the nuns at 12th Avenue. We celebrated mass at the Sunday School; then we borrowed an orthodox church; then we moved on to the Ukrainian on Flagler and 7 -- 57th Avenue; then went back and forth. In '74, we were blessed and we purchased our own home on Sunset, 82nd Avenue, and we made plans, which I still have with me, to house 384 people. All this long, we could not do it, because the City of Miami did not allow us to change the zoning. And then, we heard about this church being sold Every one of our parishioners was multi -millionaire, the Sael (phonetic); the Sayout (phonetic); the Korde (phonetic); the Zadan (phonetic). They could have bought any church of Miami. We decided to build our church. When we found this church and we went and visited, we fell in love with the architectural of the church, with the building. We never bothered about not having a dome, or not being Byzantine. That question did not even came to our mind. We purchased the church in 1978. The first mass we celebrated there was borrowed by the nuns who told us, You can use our church. "It was December 15, Saturday afternoon; which was just cancelled. For all this long, every Saturday, we had a mass until it was cancelled. And that's the first mass we celebrated in that church. Now, we been therefor 37 years celebrating. We are prominent. Nobody stopped us from practicing our religion freedom. Nobody stopped us from practicing Byzantine liturgy, procession or anything. How come --we went through four bishops: Bishop Tawill (phonetic), who dedicated the church; Bishop Lataz (phonetic); Aden Elia (phonetic); four bishops went through and five priests. Nobody ever bothered or worried about increasing and incrementing, and about not having the money. I was the chairman of the parish council 1997198. When I rendered my tender to the next person, which is Mr. Mazeria (phonetic), we had $353, 000 in CDs (certificates of deposit) in the bank We could have moved the Virgin if the priest didn't want it or the bishop didn't want it. We could have created anything we want. We had it in the bank. That's --not having the money, that's --so now, I'm asking, how come now, after 39 years, suddenly, this church is not fit for us? And then, we grew -- I just heard today -- 500 people. I came in front ofyou in 2013, and I rendered you a report from the bulletin. 9:30 mass, 112 people have it; 11 o'clock mass, 159 people; 6 o'clock mass, the biggest, 235. I want -- Vice Chair Russell: Just so you know, you've spoken over five minutes, which is the average. Mr. Ajami: Yeah, I'm going to make it -- Vice Chair Russell: You may continue, but just so you know, you're taking from the others' time. Mr. Ajami: 2014: 112, 146, 230; going down. 2015 until now: 112, 159, 235. So we are going down in numbers. I don't see the reason why this church now suddenly doesn't work for us, and I don't see why we have to change things, and suddenly, this is imposing onus. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Ajami: That's all I have to say. Thank you. (Applause) City ofMiami Page 192 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Please hold your applause. Thank you. Arva Moore -Parks: Thank you all for being very patient, for letting this very lengthy discussion today. I'm Arva Moore -Parks. I live at 1601 South Miami Avenue. I was --been involved in writing Miami history and historic preservation for more than 40 years; in fact, I was involved in getting the ordinance passed by the Cit) in the first place, and was the Vice Chair ofyourfirst board. So I've been involved in historic preservation, finishing up as a presidential appointment to the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. I care deeply about St. Jude, and as in so many other cases, they came to me, and I've been trying to help them on this designation process in any way that I can, but I'm equally concerned about the misinformation that has been promoted about our ordinance, and that's what I'm counting on you all, besides, hopefully, designating the church to let people know that our ordinance is not what has been put on the internet. It does not require owner consent. It is very interesting, because we have 12 churches designated, and I have helped a good portion of those in the designation process, and there was dissension within the congregations in just about every one. Most recently, I think, Trinio) , there were both sides, and that is designated. And I think my favorite stove is Bryon Methodist Church, which is now an orthodox synagogue, but what matters is the building is still there. And this church is a perfect example. It's already been more than one denomination, but the building is still there. There's no -- no one is going to walk to the church and say, Okay, you have to do this; you have to do that; you have to do this. "It's when the church wants to make a change, it goes through our Preservation Board. Preservation Board does allow change to fagades of buildings frequently. And then, the church has the right to appeal to you in the decision, as you're doing now. So it's really important that people understand this. No interior is involved in this at all, but there are real benefits to historic preservation. The TDRs area benefit. And other churches have gotten grants for restoration. I think Trinio) was one of the ones recently that got a grant; I know Central Baptist did and I can name them, on and on and on. The real issue -- but that all said the real issue and the only issue --and this is what I know you will look to, too, is does it meet the criteria of our ordinance? That's the issue today; it's not whether somebody wants it or doesn't want it. Does it meet the criteria? Ido have to say it meets the criteria on the three things listed. The word 5daption'came up. We are mostly a 20th Century cit) . It's really been hard in the past to convince people that we even had a history, much less that we must preserve it. We are a concrete block and stucco place; that is what we're built of, but this building, the Romanesque style, yes; but in a very wonderful way, it was adapted to South Florida. It's got a limestone fagade; coral rock as we like to call it. So they took this historic so4e, and they paid attention to their environment, and they built it here. Another one of the things about -- in our ordinance, which is so important are our cultural memories. The Church of the Assump -- that is a really big piece -- the academy -- of Miami history. The Cubans who came to Miami transformed Miami. It is very common to save the best structure in a complex of buildings. People who went to that school walk to that site and they see that chapel; it doesn't matter that it's no longer the -- their memories are stored there. I like to think of it as almost like a safeo) deposit box for Miami memories, the layers. And the context --You know, we -- in your good judgment, the City of Miami saved the two historic homes right across the street from St. Jude, so you have that wonderful kind of entry feature reminding people of the history of that part of town. So in conclusion, I want, and I count on, and I know that you will follow our ordinance, because you know that it meets the three criteria. All of the other 12 churches that are designated continue as religious institutions. Some of them are booming, some of them need more members, but they're all continuing in that role. There's been no complaints that I've heard that anybody's telling them they can't worship as they choose. So I hope you will acknowledge the fact that -- I don't think you have to be an architectural expert for everyone here to say, Yes, it is a very special building, 'and, Yes, it is a landmark in Miami. "Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Arva. You have 13 minutes left. Wjm Bradley: My name is Wjm Bradley, and I am a principal at the Architecture Collective, City ofMiami Page 193 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 which is 25 Southeast 2nd Avenue; also known as the Ingraham Building, which is a historically significant building to our City. I also am a professor of architecture at the Universii)v of Miami; and more importantly, I also sit on the Historic Preservation Board of Miami Beach, which is a governing body, just as this is. I hear historic preservation issues every month, and I am a little bit bewildered as to why this is coming back. This should not --this is not a building that should be in question. But I want to speak specifically to use, and that is to -- Miami is a young cii)v in the global terms, and it's gone through multiple identities, and the buildings that we have around us form us and shape who we are as individuals, as a population, as a cii)v, and the buildings live far beyond us as individuals. The building itself is greater than its use, and I will speak specifically to that. There area number of examples --I'll give you several --that are on the world scale. One is the Pantheon. We all know the Pantheon. It was originally a pagan worship site; it then became a church; and now, it is an international treasure, a destination for people from allover the world to go and visit. The other is the Hagia Sophia. The -- it started as a Greek orthodox; it transformed into a Roman Catholic; it then became an imperial mosque; and now, it is a treasured museum; again, another international treasure that people travel all over the world to go and see. Locally -- let's bring it local, let's bring it back to Miami. You can -- I'm just going to rattle off a few: The Coral Gables Eire Station; it was, obviously afire station. It is now a museum and government offices. The Miami Brickell Fire Station is now a restaurant. The Miami Post Oce downtown is the site for the AIA, the American Institute of Architects office; it is also an event space. The larger post office that is built downtown is now a courthouse. The Vizcaya or the Deering Estate, these are private residences that are now -- the Alfred DuPont, it was a bank space; it's now an event space. The Freedom Tower, it was a newspaper office; it is now a cultural center and a Center for the Arts. All these places we know and love, and importantly, we cannot imagine Miami without any of them. If we don't have historical designation, ifyou don't designate this building, we'll lose our history as a built city. I want to speak also specifically to a couple key points that were brought up that I heard and questioned from you all on the Board here. The change of site. So they were --what was being asked is that there is a school that was apart of this site, a girls'school. Ifyou can think now of the Church of the Little Flower, there is also a school attached to that. Ifyou can imagine that school gone, does the Church of the Little Flower lose significance? No. It is still, on its own, a historically significant building. So I think sites and the context of site becomes moot, it is about the building. Now, about so4e, the Romanesque: All architecture -- all -- I cannot think of one that is historically designated in our Coumty -- be it Coral Gables, be it Miami Beach, be the City of Miami -- they --none of them are in a pure architectural so4e. They all embody several styles, and that's part of who we are as a city, and they are all designated, I'm speaking of all historic -designated. When looking at materials -- I think we spoke to this -- the materials also speak to -- the material of the limestone, it does not need to be an -- lithic rock, which is what we have as our local limestone. It can be a transient stone that becomes historically significant because it also tells the store of who we are, and how we got here, and how our build -- world creates our cii)v. I will say this: When I sit in your seat on the other side and I get applications from people who are already designated as historic, we can never look at the use. We look at purely the built form. So if a CVS (Consumer Value Store) wants to go into a church; if a beauty salon wants to go into a hotel, we simply have to look at the building and not the use. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. We have about seven and a half minutes left. Andrew Korge: I'll be very quick Andrew Korge, 6950 Southwest 77th Avenue. First off, I want to -- my family has been -- and my parents, my 98 wear -old mother, who was here earlier -- have been active members of this church as the founders of St. Jude Melkite Church when it was purchased back in 1978. And I heard some words from the bishop, and Pastor Damon as it relates to certain facts that I want to clarify for you. First off, I served in this church for ten years as a parish council, a vice chairman or chairman of the parish council, and in no time during those years or no time growing up in that church -- myself,- my brother, Chris; Tom; my sister, Kathy -- did I ever hear of -- and I think Commissioner Suarez sort of gathered this -- City ofMiami Page 194 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 never heard of a 3D icon or any sort of thing like that being a transgression to our faith; nor a dome. There was -- there's never been talk of doming the church. Now, all of a sudden, when historical designation comes up, these are things that they bring to the table as negatives, things that we can't allow, that won't be allowed to happen if the church were to become historic. It's just not true. Purposes for the church? We --for two years, we housed classical concerts in that church. Do you think we housed it for religious purposes ? Of course not. We housed it because of the aesthetics of the church, the architectural beauty, seraphic fire. The Florida Chamber Orchestra conducted concerts in that church because of the acoustics and the beaux) of the church; nothing to do with the religious significance of the church. And stewards of the church, these people are the worst. This is the single reason why you have to make this historic. That church is falling apart in front of our own eyes. I challenge you to go by there and take a look at it. There's cracks in the limestone; there's water intrusion allover the building. I was there a month ago, and swore I would never set foot in that church again. It makes me sick to my stomach to see that. My family has been actively involved in that church, as I said, since its inception in 1978. We love the church; we pray there; we worship there, but we realize that its real beauty is the aesthetics; is the architectural significance and the historical significance of that church. We're all stakeholders here. You know, a bishop from Massachusetts; an architect from Illinois -- they couldn't get an architect from Miami to come in here and tell you what that grty told you. Why is that? Because everyone with two eyes can walk by that church and knows damn well that it's a icon in our community; it's got architectural significance and historical reference, and I hope you pass it as historically designated. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Please hold your applause. Thank you. Souraya Faas: Ifyou can stop the clock for a second I have material for you for the record, if I can pass it out real quick? Chair Hardemon: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. We have about four minutes to go through what looks like a good bit of documentation. Ms. Faas: Actually, I had two people that left early, but they were diabetic, and they had put on the paper to see -- they were going to ask you guys since they left if they can offer the time, but that's up to you. Vice Chair Russell: Let's see where we get here. Ms. Faas: Okay. First off, we have -- Vice Chair Russell: Please state your name and address. Ms. Faas: Oh, sorry. Souraya Faas, 8916 Southwest 150 Court Circle North, Miami, Florida, 33196. Sorry, I have a long address. You have some articles from the Miami Daily News. As you can see, they refer to the church as being historic twice, on two occasions. You can take a look at it. Even -- I mean, it's not even designated historic, and they called it, Historic church's pending sale leaves buy to be in waiting, in May 10; and then they call it, Catholic order seeking to buy historic Miami church property;. "If we take a look at the Miami Daily News of 1946, it speaks of the chapel, which is Romanesque Gothic in style, was designed the architect firm -- which we got a letter from the museum in Philadelphia. You also have the letter there in front of you. I'm not going to waste the time reading it; if one of you guys would like to read it to the public. And it speaks of the reason why they feel it should be designated. It talks about the limestone, the Indiana limestone, the history of it, the purpose and the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) buildings which contained it. You can take a look at the historical information, as well. There are pictures of what they were talking about. The first masses that were held in the church, this City ofMiami Page 195 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 is the -- shows you the Academy of the Assumption, the name it was before. And now, I'm going to talk to you about the problems and the reasons why we want it to be historic. First off, the name came about, St. Jude, has to do with -- it was inspired by Danny Thomas' international recognized St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee in 1978. To begin, in 1910, it was called Bay Haven. Bay Haven was owned initially by Dr. James Jackson, one of the earliest physicians, whom Jackson Memorial Hospital is named out of. In the mid -'30s, Arthur Brisbane, a famous American journalist, worked at Bay Haven for several years. Let me go through it real quick. Mother Teresa of Calcutta visited the chapel. This is in addition to the Pedro Pan that you guys are all well aware of, and it's been in the record previously. The chapel became a temporary home for St. Kieran's, as well. And Madonna baptized her daughter there. Jeb Bush, Jr. got married there; Mike Piazza and his Playboy mate got married there. And let me tell you, they didn't do it because they were Melkite. They did it because they admired the architectural behind the church. Now, let's talk about -- real quick. Vice Chair Russell: You have a minute left. Ms. Faas: Okay. They're talking about the church going back. Not a nail has been touched in the church. They took down -- the crucifix from the church disappeared, nobody knows where it is. The crown of the Virgin Mare, they chipped it off, threw it in the garbage; never mind that it's been blessed all these years or that piece of -- that people would want to have it, you know, as a memory of recognition of the church. There's other churches --and I have a picture ifyoud like to see it of a Melkite Church that still has a three-dimensional. It's the Virgin Mare in New York. And when I went there and told them what they did to our crucifix, they said Let the bishop try in our parish, and we'll crucify him, 'okay? Vice Chair Russell: Thank you Ms. Faas: And there's a lot of problems that have been happening. Actually, the bishop was kicked out of the church in 1989, this bishop, by our priest. So all the things that they're doing right now is on purpose, despite what he could have done before. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Ms. Faas: It's -- this new administration is the one that's causing trouble, and I would love for you guys to designate it to protect it; not just for myself, but for the architectural significance. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you; understood. Your time -- Ms. Faas: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Are there any other who would like to speak in favor of historical designation? You have two minutes apiece. Carmen More: Hi, everyone. I'm Carmen More. I live on Brickell Avenue, a few blocks from the church. I also went to Academy of the Assumption since Montessori, so it's very dear to my heart. But besides all of that on the emotional side, I wanted to bring up the fact because right directly across the street from the church, there's the Petite Chateau that has historical designation. Now, the architectural significance is so much less, and the historical significance is so much less than the church that I just wanted to bring that up, because there's some kind of -- I don't know if there's some kind of precedent or what; I'm not an attorney. But besides having the religious use, which, for whatever reason, is kind of discriminated against in this hearing or the courts or whatever rulings that they make, the historical significance is there. I know some of you weren't here the last time when we were here till 2 in the morning, but she mentioned Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She not only was there at the church several times; she used to write, and we have an affidavit that's on the record from the nuns there that used to watch her write and City ofMiami Page 196 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 inspire, and who knows if that led to, you know, her peace prize, etcetera, etcetera. So besides Madonna, there's Oprah; the Spanish Oprah, who went to school there, who used to worship there, et cetera. So -- but besides all of that, some things in life are sacred, and they should be protected. So my appeal to you is to please give it historical designation. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Lisa Rodriguez: Mine is going to be very brief. I have a couple of things that I wanted to say. Vice Chair Russell: Your name and address, please. Ms. Rodriguez: Oh, my name is Lisa Rodriguez, and Ilive at 504 Southwest 88th Court, Miami, Florida. The two things that I want to talk about are -- one thing has to do with I believe that the Melkites, themselves, also recognize the multidimensional religious impact that St. Jude has. St. Jude is an icon for Catholicism, both Eastern Rite and Western Rite, and when they talk about the huge numbers of people that go on the Feast of St. Jude, I can tell you that a lot of them are Roman Catholics, because my mother and my family happen to go because of that. And they also recognize that in that -- although they say that their icons are all two-dimensional, they -- I had a statue, and the bishop talked about in their gift shop, they have statues which are three-dimensional, which they sell, because -- and statues of St. Jude, because they recognize that not everyone that goes to St. Jude is a Melkite, and not necessarily a parishioner. I, too, am a -- I am a former student, I'm an alumni of Academy of the Assumption. And then the other thing that I wanted to just talk about -- and I know it's not part of the criteria that you are going to be speak -- that you are going to be evaluating, but a number of times, the issue of insurance and the cost of insurance has been brought up with respect to what the designation would do. And I can tell you, I'm a senior vice president, Arthur J. Gallagher, which is the third largest broker in the world, and we place a lot of historical insurance, and we place a lot of insurance in Dade Count), and I can tell you that supply and demand is what drives pricing. Vice Chair Russell: That's your time. Thank you very much. Ms. Rodriguez: Thank you. Mr. Faas: My name is Michael Faas. I'm one of the petitioners over here. Vice Chair Russell: Your address, please. Mr. Faas: I been on the parish -- I'm sorry? Vice Chair Russell: Your address, please. Mr. Faas: 8916 Southwest 158 Court. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Faas: I been on the parish council for 20 years until I resigned two years ago. The reason I resigned, my last parish council meeting, at the end of the meeting, Father Geiger would announce that, f canceled Saturday evening mass, because, instead, I would perform a Latin wedding that bring us $2, 000, 'okay? That was the reason; it wasn't the reason that he gave; that's number one. Number two, President Bush and former Governor of New York, they came and perform a wedding in our church, not because they are Catholic or they are Melkites; because the beaux) of our church, okay? And I won't like to see one day they would pass by and they say to their grandchildren, You see this high-rise? It used to be a church, 'okay? I -- we the people who bought this church; not the bishop, okay? But in our tradition, the bishop is the caretaker. He is the one that would be in charge. Therefore, the bishop, he has stated that he City ofMiami Page 197 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 only been in the Cit) of Miami for five times in five years. And the priest that we have, which I love -- and I respect both of them, okay? -- he thinks he lives in Milwaukee; that's how much they know about Miami; that's how much they understand what Miami is all about. Thankyou very much. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Alicia Ortiz: Alicia Ortiz, 7250 Southwest 99th Street. I'm not here to talk about what the bishop said, didn't say, or what -- I'm here because I've lived in Miami all my life. I value the City, I love the City. My husband was CEO of History Miami, and I cannot imagine driving through Brickell, like a lot ofyou have said, and not seeing St. Jude; it is such a part of our communio) . And the last time I was here at the hearing, I was very emotional, and we were all like going crazy, but I will tell you, now, I am not, I am looking at the facts. I'm looking at everything that was said. And I want to support the bishop in the sense that they're talking about religion. I am a personal friend of Father Eddy from St. Jude. They practice the religion. They have no problems practicing religion there. So if anybody knows Jesu Catholic Church, it's historic, they practice religion, no problem. The other church that's right by Brickell, you know, when you crossover the bridge, historic; they can still practice religion. So I think the Melkites will still be able to practice their religion. We all have one thing in common in this room, whether we're for it or we're against it, and that's that we love the church. Bishop says he's not going to sell it. We say, We don't want you to sell it. "The only way to preserve it is by giving it a historical designation. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Anyone else who would like two minutes to speak on behalf of historic designation? All right. So we are going to hear from the other side now. Residents, ifyou would like to prepare yourselves, I believe we negotiated approximately 15 minutes for how many people to speak? Three people. Fadi Abraham Chamoun: Good evening. My name is Fadi Chamoun. I'm a parishioner for the last 25 years. I've gotten married at the church. I baptized my kids -- Vice Chair Russell: Your address, please. Mr. Chamoun: Oh, sore. 3009 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables. Ilive in a historic home that was built and owned by George Merrick. I love the church. This is my second home. I'm there -- I wrote a letter and send it to the Miami Herald, but I rather speak from the heart. I'm there three times a month. Every Sunday I'm there. My wife teaches Sunday school. My kids go to Sunday school. I'm a member of the parish council. This, what's going on here is really not about the church being destroyed or the church is going to go away. This is my second home, and the church is not going to get destroyed or sold; it's a rumor. What's going on is just control and power between two different group of our church. Madonna, who cares about Madonna? She came and baptized her kid one time, and she left. I'm there every Sunday. I donate my time and my money. The church is not going to get destroyed or sold; it's just a rumor. Ilove the building. I live in a historic building, in a historic house. It's a beautiful building. I don't want it to go away. I've lived in Miami for 32 years, butt don't want the Cit) or you guys to tell us how and when to do repairs to the church. I did renovation to my house; it was a very expensive process. I had to go in front of the board every time for everything I had to do to the house. I know we're going to have to do the same thing when we working on -- or repairing the church. We want the Cit) to stay away from what we can do to our church. We want no influence from outside as far as doing repairs. Yes, the cost of insurance is going to go up. I don't think that's going to be the biggest issue, but we don't want any of the City officers to come in and tell us how to run the finance of the church, because it will happen when we -- when it becomes historical. We want the church to stay. We don't want the church to be demolished, obviously; but at the same time, we don't want it to be historic. Thank you. City ofMiami Page 198 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. (Applause) Vice Chair Russell: Please hold your applause. Thank you. Gabriella Becagli: Good evening. My name is Gabriella Becagli. I live on Brickell Avenue, 848 Brickell Key Drive, Unit 1602, Miami, Florida, 33131. St. Jude Melkite Catholic Church, which ministers to the Brickell community from its campus is once again embroiled in a fight against regulatory burdens on its religious exercise. Today, you, the City Commission will once again consider the urging of historic preservationists to designate the church historic, and subject it to bureaucratic controls. As the faithful caretaker of the church for decades, the Melkite Church neither wants nor should bear the intrusive government management that comes with such designation. In responding to small but very well organized and vocal self-interest groups, the City previously imposed a designation, but it was overturned by two Courts. The Cit) Commission should be the wiser now. St. Jude is an evangelizing church, called to reach out to all those who come with faith and gratitude to venerate a saint that has worked so many miracles for so many people in all states of life, in all places and times. The value of the church for all those who visit daily or frequently for prayer and reflection is immeasurable and there's a lot. The historical site designation could prevent the church from continuing with its faith -based refurbishments and from any other expansion to absorb its growing membership, even as the population densio) increases all around it. It is ironic that a church that simply wants to serve its parishioners has to fight off those who would impose their own views of the church. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Thank you for the silent applause. Do we have one more speaking for the 15 minutes? Sharon Koenig: Good afternoon. My name is Sharon Ann Koenig, and I live in 1425 Brickell. And I'm a regular parishioner of St. Jude, and I must go every day, every morning, and I mean, I been to the St. Jude for the last two years. I came as a writer. I was investigating the purest Christian rites, and I have to say that l found God in there, and it changed my life forever. I found that St. Jude is much more than a building. Yesterday, while I was sitting there, there was -- it was a full house. And ifyou ask anyone there why -- what is the most important in that -- in the church, they will all tell you what is most important is the worship to God. I have videos of the lines and evevything that goes on. There is a lot of fights about --and now I find out -- about the inner struggles. I -- inside of the church, but that doesn't have anything to do with the important part of the church. The Melkites have a Byzantine Rite, which is very special to them. Nobody has the right to say what can and cannot be done inside of that church. It's not only seeing the word, iklesia. "In Greek comes the word, Ecclesia, Uhich means church. "If there a question of significance for Christians, the word, ehurch'ineans 5 body of souls who have been called to congregate in the name of Christ, "That's why in this case, the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) church. They have the right to make any changes they want to, even if that is -- it will be, but between faith and State. They are not going to do it. They have protected it for 40 years, so I ask you humbly -- I wanted to tell you that the reason that my priest doesn't know -- couldn't know that word is because this has affected his health. He's very sick, more than anybod can even think, and he's in painkillers. And the crucifix is in another place in a Catholic church. And besides, our struggles, that should not even come here, because it's the right of the church to make changes if they want to make the dome, if not. You will never do that to a synagogue, a Mestite. You never do that. So, please, you have done already your due diligence for three years. It had cost hundred thousands of dollars of these people that have taken care of the church. Please, allow us to worship in peace. Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Boulris: One minute. City ofMiami Page 199 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: We're holding your time while you prepare. Ms. Boulris: Commissioner, there are two other people that approached me, citizens who want to speak opposing designation. This lady is one of them, and there's one other. I didn't know about them when I represented three, so I'll leave this to you, but they've expressed their desire to speak. Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to ask, beyond the three and the two you're mentioning, are there any other representative -- citizens from the public who would like to speak against the designation ? I'll allow it, absolutely. Ms. Boulris: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Do we still have a quorum; one foot on? While you're working on that, I'd just like to say thank you to ever)�one for your patience today; it's been many, many hours; but more importantly, thank you for coming out today to speak, and let us know. As you know, this is a quasi judicial proceeding, and it's the most judicial of the quasi-judicial I've been involved in, in my long three months here on the Commission, but Ilove it. And the judicial part, of which Chair Hardemon was carvying the proceedings, I'm incredibly impressed with the legal nature of our body, because we're weighing our decision on something ver)important with legal ramifications, but then the quasi part that I attribute to the voice of the public, where else can you actually come and just speak your mind? You don't have to be a specialist, or an expert, or even really have a point. You're just ver)welcome to express yourselves as citizens, and have your time, so I thank you for all of that, and thank you for your patience tonight. Commissioner Suarez: I think it's up on the screen. I don't know why it's not -- but it's up on our screen; it's just not -- Christopher Arias (Technician II, Information Technolog)): It's on your screen? Commissioner Suarez: It's on that --yeah, it's on that screen. Her desktop is on our screen right now. Mr. Arias: Okay. Commissioner Gort: We have it. Mr. Arias: Let me check with communications -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Arias: --and see what the problem is. Vice Chair Russell: You want to tr�v the other podium? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine with us. Ms. Boulris: Maybe just --I -- Commissioner Suarez: Well, now it's off. Commissioner Carollo: Can we do a five-minute recess? Ms. Boulris: Yes, let me bring it back. City ofMiami Page 200 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Now it's -- Ms. Boulris: Would you like another speaker to go while they work this out? Vice Chair Russell: Do you have one? Ms. Boulris: There's one other -- Vice Chair Russell: Why don't you work on that while the other speaker -- Ms. Boulris: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Boulris: These are the two members of the public that expressed their desire to speak. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. You're still within your time. Commissioner Suarez: Ma'am, you can go to the other one ifyou want so she can work -- Vice Chair Russell: No, he's working on this one, so she -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: -- can speak on that one. Margaret Osman: You want me to speak? Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Please. Ms. Osman: Hi. Vice Chair Russell: Name and address. Ms. Osman: Hello. My name is Margaret Osman, and I am here as a resident. I've lived and worked next to St. Jude for over 35 plus years. My late husband the Honorable Michael J. Osman and I -- okay? -- own an apartment next to St. Jude, which is -- was part of the original church, but anyway, we've been there many, many years, and he will be remembered for his integrity and fidelio) to the laws and the Constitution. I want to say on our behalf-- okay? -- and the people here to please keep your minds open and objective as to what I am about to say, okay? I will say something that is ver)American and quite controversial. Presently, religious liberties are disappearing; not just in the Middle East and the world, but in the United States. We can agree, religious or not that it is vevy -- Vice Chair Russell: Please speak into the microphone. Ms. Osman: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sovr)� to interrupt you. Please. Ms. Osman: Yeah. Can I come in here? Because I -- Vice Chair Russell: Ifyoujustpull the microphone over a little, it will get you. Thanks. Ms. Osman: Okay. I'm -- Igo to church maybe -- I participate my time, I donate my time at St. City ofMiami Page 201 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Jude's maybe three -- two to three times a week. I am there on Wednesdays when homeless people, poor people are being fed. You know again, I help in the --giving, you know, my time to the poor. There are services every single day of the week, including Sundays, okay? And I want to look at some facts. He's just taking a little bit of my time. Sorry. That's -- go on? Vice Chair Russell: Please continue. Ms. Osman: Continue? Philosophy and theology, okay, go back over 2, 000 years ago, and that's when it started. When you --I was standing here and I was looking at the ceiling hereof this building, and I saw --and I'm seeing the origins of why we're here, what this is about. I am seeing Galileo; I'm seeing astrology, which predicted through a star the most famously known man in history that would change how we measure time -- A.D. (anno Domini), B. C. (Before Christ). Okay. The very oath we took here today is based on that; over 2, 000 years of an understanding of a belief system, of a way of life that we live today. Okay, the very word Icon" comes from that origin. We use it freely as to mention architects and to mention celebrities. You know, the word Mix, 7neaning Dross," the cross, okay? You know, the vevy -- the language spoken in medicine and in law in its origins is Greek. You know, we've come thousands qfyears, and that's where it started. And now, today, modernio) is dictating what is important. It's the other way around. We've taken something original that worked, structural, you know, that was founded that is used today in our courtrooms, in the Capitol of these Great United States, you know; not because of its beauty, but for what it stands for; for its truth, for what it truly is. And we have adapted that because of what it is; not because of a building, a material. Always value humanio) more than a tangible thing, you know, like a structure, like a building. You know, I really, as a widow, owe my wellness -- even my sanio) a little bit, really -- through this great church St. Jude has given me, and I really wouldn't be here if it would not be because of them. And I am one person, and I just hope that you take into consideration the importance of a person over things. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Osman: And may God bless you; all of us here. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. We have one last speaker. And how much time do you need to give this PowerPoint presentation? Aya Chacar: Seven minutes. Vice Chair Russell: Seven minutes? Ms. Chacar: And I have five people sign up for me; gave me their time. Vice Chair Russell: Can you do it in five? Ms. Chacar: So -- but 171 be under ten minutes, definitely; six or seven minutes. Vice Chair Russell: Six I like. Thank you. Ms. Chacar: I'll try that, Vice Chair Russell. So hello. My name is Aya Chacar. I'm a professor Of management and international business at Florida International University, and I'm guessing I'm the last one to speak, which is exactly what happened at your last hearing; I was the last one to speak, too. And I wanted to start today by first thanking Chairman Hardemon, who is not here, because he kept reminding us throughout the -- Commissioner Suarez: He's right there. City ofMiami Page 202 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Chacar: Oh, hello. Vice Chair Russell: Miss, could you give your address? Ms. Chacar: Because you kept reminding us throughout the evening of the mandate for tonight, which is what the Third of Appellate gave us, which is -- Vice Chair Russell: Did you give your address, Miss? I'm sorry, I should have asked you that; your name and address, please. Ms. Chacar: Okay, yes. My address is 717 Navarre Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Chacar: So -- and he kept reminding us of the mandate for tonight, you know, what we need to do, which is assess whether the primary significance of the Chapel of St. Jude is religious or architectural. And I really enjoyed the fact that you kept repeating this question, because, obviously, we're human, and as human, we get distracted You're tired. You all come here after a long day of work, so it's hard to stay focused on the issue, and we heard a lot of peripheral things that are really not relevant. So if we actually focus on this question, so how would we go about answering this question? I'm neither a religious expert or an architectural expert, but I'm an expert on strategic decision-making. So then I asked myself, Flow do you approach the question? "And if Commissioner Suarez, who graduated from FIU (Florida International Universit)) had been in my class, he would have been the first to raise his hand and say, Professor Chacar, what a silly question. There's an obvious answer, which is let's collect the data. " Commissioner Suarez: I did graduate from FIU. Ms. Chacar: And if the data is overwhelmingly in support of the religious significance, then, voila, we've got an answer. We say no historical designation. And if the data is in favor of architectural significance, then again, we have a easy answer. Now, the question is, you know, you had a decision last time, and why are we even trying to come back here, since you're more or less the same people -- actually the same people? And if I actually look back at when this decision was made in this Commission, and ifI look at the data that was presented, the only data that was ever discussed at the prior hearing was on the architectural significance. There was never any piece of data presented in the last hearing --and I've read the notes --on religious significance. So as, you know, a normal human being, you get data on just one side of the balance. It was -- there was a reason why you made that decision, also. Many people faulted you for it. So today, I think we have more data on both sides, and if I just kind of summarize the data I saw -- and obviously, I have my own (UNINTELLIGIBLE), so I may have missed some of it -- but the data I saw was kind of like this. So we heard on the religious side that there's weekly service attendees of 500 to over 1, 500. We heard that there is a Shrine of St. Jude, which gets hundreds ofpeople to visit every week, and these are often people who come there when it's, you know, their last hope for --you know, for curing a sick child, or a parent dying, and they come to pray for that. We also heard in today's hearing that there's a gift shop that sells --and not Primarily," actually, §olely'Peligious items. We also heard that there are many weddings and baptisms. Sothis is kind of the data we got on the religious side. And ifyou look at the architectural side, you know, we had one -- or actually maybe two experts; one was local, from the Historical Board, and the second one, who said, you know, there's architectural significance; two that said, no, there's no architectural significance; one that says it's Romanesque; one that says it's really tangentially Romanesque. And ifyou actually look again at the data we got, the Historical Designation Board's initial decision, which are really the most local expert on the topic, voted against the historical designation. And ifyou think of it again, the Third Court of Appeal, they again overturned the prior decision by this Commission. So again, ifyou look at City ofMiami Page 203 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the data we saw today, and in the prior -- I was here on the prior hearing. I was on the court, you know, when they made the decision -- to me, the way I see the data is that there is solid evidence on religious importance; there is limited evidence on architectural importance. So again, if I look at how the balance weighs, it's more towards religious significance. So then the question goes, you know, is there maybe some other data that we didn't present that would support architectural significance that we need to consider? And I know you lived in Paris and New York, and -- sorry -- and Japan, so I don't know if you visited, say, the temples in the Asakusa District; or, I'm sure, probably many of you went into France and visited Notre Dame; or, you know, locally here, visited the George Merrick House. So, and you know, I was trying to think, you know, what kind of -- to me, what's -- in my non -expert mina what's the architectural significance? The first thing I thought in mind was they're postcards. I bring back postcards from these places. You know, when I visited the Louvre, I brought back postcard. When I visited the Louvre, I brought back a magnet; same thing, you know. There's guided tours, so, you know, you can take a guided tour of the George Merrick House in Coral Gables. You can take a bike tour of Coral Gables, and it will stop at the George Merrick House. You know, there are architectural tour. In Miami, there are several architectural tours by several entities. There are architectural tours by the Center for Design on Architecture; by the Design and Preservation League; by the Historic Museum of Southern Florida, that's, you know, guided by Dr. George, who is a local expert on the Miami history. And if you look at all these tours, none of them stops at the St. Jude Church. So at least by these experts who do architectural tour of the area, none of them stops at St. Jude. And again, if you think of the typical architectural building and historical building, the gift store sells architectural representation of that building, so you can buy a dome of the Louvre to remind you of your visit. Again, if you think of St. Jude, as far as I know, there are no postcards of St. Jude; there are no guided tours of St. Jude; there are no stops on the city tours of St. Jude; there are no gifts, no architectural representation of the church that are sold anywhere, and the gift store only sells religious items. So, again, if you think of -- you know, theoretically, things I could think of during the hearing of additional data, I cannot find any additional data that would suggest that the church has significant architectural significance. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Chacar: In fact, there is no data of the sort. So basically, again, you know, if you think of the religious evidence we talked about, you know, what other evidence didn't get presented that I know or I also know there are religious education classes; there are lectures that are held at the church and in the hall. You know, every meal opens with the prayers; there's formation of youth; there's formation of clergy. Seminary come and visit, and they get trained on how to run a parish. There are meet -- religious meetings that happen on the site. So, to me, again, there is significant evidence -- Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Chacar: -- of religious. Vice Chair Russell: That is your time; if you could summarize. Thank you. Ms. Chacar: So, again, you know, to conclude, if you see the graph, I think the overwhelming evidence shows that there is religious significance, but there is little to no evidence of architectural evidence. And if you are to vote, you know, with your mandate, which is focusing solely on the relative importance of religious versus architectural significance, clearly, in my mind, there is no doubt that the religious significance of the building overwhelmingly outweighs the -- Vice Chair Russell: Understood City ofMiami Page 204 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Ms. Chacar: -- architectural. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you vett' much. (Applause) Vice Chair Russell: That was well prepared. (Applause) Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And I would applaud the presentation. It looks like you put that together while we were here tonight. That's vett' impressive. Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak against the historical designation of the church? In that case, we are closing public hearing. Thank you again, and I would like to pass the gavel so that I might make a motion and we can go toward discussion. Commissioner Suarez: What's the motion? Commissioner Carollo: What's the motion? Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Well, and I prepared my statement to be vevy careful with my motion, and I want you to know I prepared two statements, because I did truly come here undecided, but in this case, I find that the property has architectural significance, because it is the only example of Romanesque architecture in the Cit) ; has features that embody the architectural so4es of the period,- and was designed by Henry D. Dagit, Jr., a renowned architect, who designed several other buildings listed in the National Register. Considering the evidence presented, including the written reports of Historic Officer Megan Schmitt and of Steven Avdakov, dated 2124116, it indicates that St. Jude does today possess a basic integrity of excellent historic fabric. Although the property also has religious significance as the site of celebration of many religious traditions, the architectural significance and historical importance outweighs and exceeds the religious significance of the property. Since the primary significance of the property is derived from its architectural importance, I find that the property meets the criteria for historic designation set forth in City Code Section 23-4. Therefore, I would like to move to grant the appeal and declare the property historic. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Vice Chair Russell: For discussion. Commissioner Gort: Been moved and second. Discussion. Commissioner Carollo, you're recognized. Commissioner Carollo: I believe there's architectural significance that exceeds the religious significance, and I truly believe that this will probably go to court again, and it will be appealed so I'm going to limit my comments. Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Commissioner Gort: Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized. Commissioner Suarez: You know, again, the criteria for designation says that a property may be designated as historic research if it has significant -- and it lists a variety of different things -- architectural heritage of the Cit) , or -- they're firs "-- or architectural heritage. So I find based City ofMiami Page 205 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 on the testimony before us that the propero) has significant architectural heritage in this Cit) , which is why it is important that it is an iconic structure in this Cit). Furthermore, it meets one of the following criteria: I find based on the testimony that has been given by multiple experts and by the information packet that has been proffered that the structure embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, or period or method of construction. Or" is the operative word in that sentence, 15r," and also has -- I've also heard substantial and competent evidence that it was the outstanding work of a prominent designer or builder, as evidenced by the information packet that was provided to us. Designating a religious institution is not the norm; it is the exception. And it's clear to me, for example, that had we been talking about the banquet hall where the church started on 15th Avenue and 8th Street that we would not be designating that a historic structure. The exceptions for the --the exception to the exception where religious institutions used for religious purposes are usually exempt from designation is if they fall into one of the following categories. And so I find that, based on the evidence that's been presented to us in the packet that the --there is substantial and competent evidence that the religious propero) derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction in particular. I'll note as an aside that it was apparent to me that this was an unfortunate battle that was waged at two levels. You had a legal battle as to whether or not this criteria was met, and whether there was evidence that it is significant enough to designate it historic. And then, I felt that there was this undercurrent of unfortunate disagreement and dissension, which is why I think the Vice Chair wisely, several weeks ago, asked that the two parties mediate. I find unpersuasive that the simple reasons for resisting a designation were that they wanted to -- that the church wanted to change a statue that it had not yet changed in 40 years or so, when they later testified that they've spent $200, 000 in cost defending the historical designation. So, I mean, really? It's -- you know, this is something that, in my humble opinion, could have been and should have been mediated between the parties. I wish the opportunio) would have been taken, because we've had recent examples; in particular, with a Indian burial ground that was not too far away from where the church is, and there was a development on the site, and our very capable Planning director mediated both sides for a compromised settlement, and both sides presented us with a compromised solution. And so, you know, it's unfortunate that it has to come to this. And you know, obviously, at the end of the day, some people are going to leave here upset and some people are going to leave here satisfied with our decision, and that weighs heavy on all our consciences, I'm sure. So I -- that's why I seconded the motion now -- or joined my colleague in seconding the motion, and those are my findings. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Vice Chair Russell: Historic designation is one of the very important things that this Cit) takes upon us as a job. You know, with the City developing as fast as it is, and things disappearing and changing so quickly, we have to take action to really protect the sites that we find worthy of protection, that we find important, and we have the criteria set before us by which we have to make that decision. In this case, it's not a very easy decision, because we have a couple things going on; one being the issues of religion, of church and State, which is hitting together quite hard here tonight. The other is that of property rights, which was brought up by the church's attorney, and that's not something to be taken lightly. Whether it's a church or not, when you historically designate a property against the will of the owner of that propero) , you're basically doing something against their will that changes their ability to sell that property. In this case, I'm very glad to hear that both parties don't want to see the church disappear; in that, all ofyou are united,- in that, the bishop has promised that there is no intention to sell. Now, that is not a permanent covenant or guarantee, and we have to weigh very carefully whether we have the criteria on which to make the decision to go above and beyond that intention, and say, We will make sure that this building is here forever, 'and I think that's what's prompting me here right now. The issue of property rights is so important that I think we have to take into account -- I'm sorry, I got off track for a moment. City ofMiami Page 206 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Happens to the best of us. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. It's been a long day, guys. Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at this time. Commissioner Carollo: It's not over, either. Vice Chair Russell: It's not. I'm sorry. Where I was going with this then, I spoke about the property rights. I wanted to speak about the religious issue and the abiliiy of the State to make decisions that will affect religion, because I certainly do not want to make any decision that will keep any religious body from practicing freely. And for that reason, after this vote, if it goes toward historical designation, I'll be making a motion for us to possibly direct the Ciiy to really study Chapter 23 and look at how certificates of appropriateness are evaluated by the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board, because while I do not want to see the building gone, I also do not want to preclude the church from practicing freely as they want. And in my opinion, if that does mean that their religion needs a dome on their church in order to practice freely, I would not be against that, and I want us to be able to consider those things. I don't know that answer. I don't know whether that is a tenet of the religion, but I do know that I do not want to preclude those sorts of things from happening, and so that's where I'm coming from on this, in that perspective. Now, the criteria by which I'm making the decision has to do with the artistic -- I mean with the architectural significance versus the religious significance. And we had two witnesses for the church, expert testimony with regard to the religious significance. And there was a bit of back and forth on whether or not we accepted them as expert witnesses. Of course, there is bias, and that's what -- they weren't rhetorical questions. They were actually questions I wanted to ask them to see if there were any criteria by which they could deem otherwise that any active church could be considered to have more architectural significance than its religious significance. And their answer, true to their hearts, is iio,° that if any church is active that its religious significance is of most importance. I did not hear -- although there is no need to --the burden is not on the church to prove that their religious significance is greater -- I did not hear any specific unique religious significance to this church that outweighed the architectural; however, I did feel the architectural significance, based on the testimony of both expert witnesses on both sides, was significant enough that this church absolutely needs to be preserved and declared historic. That's where I am. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: I'm going to be short. I think the designation of this as historic site would not be -- preclude the church from continuing to do the religious activities. I think they can continue to do it, and whatever changes they want to make within the church to comply with their religion, they can come to the Historic, they can get a permit, and I think it would be a benefit for them in realio) . So looking at the -- at your balance, I think this is where we're at right now. That's it. Chair Hardemon: This is a hard issue. This is a hard issue because I'm looking at the testimony that was presented to me today, and all the facts that were presented before me, and I saw the religious significance -- the testimony put on about the religious significance was there, and it wasn't refuted There was one attempt to refute the religious significance or the level in which religion is being practiced there, and it was about removing -- or the pastor's removal of liturgy -- I hope I pronounced it correctly -- liturgy. Unidentified Speaker: Liturgy. Chair Hardemon: Liturgy. Okay, thank you. I was right. Okay; liturgy on Sunday -- I'm sore City ofMiami Page 207 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 -- on Saturday evenings, but other than that, I heard testimony from two pastors -- expert or not -- about what happens at that church, who comes to the church, how often they come to the church, what services they use the church for. The testimony that I heard when I asked about whether or not that was completely different -- when I asked questions about, The services that are being provided there, is that different from any other church?'the answer was in the pos -- was in the negative, IVo, there's no difference. This is what we do. We believe in these things, and this is what the church does. "I asked questions about other uses of the church, because, say, for instance, if the church is being used as a restaurant or something of that nature, whether it was doing something other than religious services. Then it would make me believe that maybe the religious use of it is not that great. On the other hand I heard testimony about the historical or architectural significance of the structure. And experts on both sides disagree. One expert described it as Romanesque, and the other experts said that it borrows from these styles. And then, I heard further testimony that said that no cit); -- well, the City of Miami borrows from everyone. And so it made me wonder, Well, what is historically significant in architecture here?" And someone actually stated on the record that you would have to travel to the Everglades. And I'm assuming that means when you look at civilizations that were here, such as the Indians, and maybe that is architecturally significant here. And we've certainly had those battles. And I think if you remember my last vote on historic preservation of the Indian burial -- I think it was an Indian site in downtown Brickell --);on remember how I went on that. I believe in preserving the history of people that were here before us. This church wasn't built 100 years ago; that doesn't make it not historical, but it also begs the question that if this church borrowed soles, architecture from other places and it's not 100 percent what the appellants said that the architecture is, what happens if today I build a church that looks exactly like it? If we're talking pure architectural significance and this significance was borrowed, I question, Board Members, what happens if I build a church just like it? Does that automatically make this church architecturally significant? There was testimony that said that there was no building material -- I believe they said there was no building material that was indigenous to this area; it came from other places. Okay, so I build a church or a structure that looks just like it, and then tomorrow, someone wants to declare it historically -- or architecturally significant. And all I did was borrow the ideas of the church that's existing today. Does that make that structure architecturally significant? Because that's -- the testimony that I heard was all about architectural significance, and it seemed as if the historical significance argument was not being presented. So I find myself weighing the architectural significance versus the religious use. And hearing competing evidence -- or conflicting evidence about its architectural significance, and unrefuted evidence about its religious use; notwithstanding any argument about would the church be there, would it not be there; I mean, that wasn't for me to consider. It was not for me to consider whether or not the church was going to be torn down, sold, built, whatever it may be. The church was sold before this entity; had it. And there was even testimony that was put on the record about the new leadership of this entity; and the -- it almost seemed as if there was a fight between the new leadership and who was there -- well, not who was there before, but maybe the old leadership, but nonetheless, this church has definitely changed hands. And when it changed hands, I wasn't here, but I don't -- you know, there was nothing put on the record about there being some architectural significance about it then, that made -- that someone made an argument about that this church should be preserved; it should not be sold,- it should not be torn down. There are unintended consequences like the DCA said about historical --naming properties to be historical. This property is different from any other property; that is near that site. Near it --I think they --as the testimony was put on the record that they sold a parcel of land that was near it, and they built a condo development. If you build a new condo development next to a structure that appears to be some rendition of an old sole of architecture, I mean, it looks significantly different, but whether or not that difference outweighs its use today is the big question. I think it's the big question because of the importance that our documents give to churches when you want to declare them historic. Certainly, you're taking away property; rights; and certainly, you're taking away property rights from people who are worshipping in this place, and that First Amendment argument I guess is like inexplicably intertwined within that. So when I consider all of that, and I consider the conflicting evidence that I heard on --from the City ofMiami Page 208 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 experts, and I consider the un -conflicted evidence, I just can't decide for myself --just me personally -- whether or not it has been outweighed, whether or not the architectural significance that is a rendition of some structure has been outweighed by the religious use. And so that's just how I feel about it, but evetyone has made their opinion to be on the record. Mr. Clerk, will this be a roll call vote or --? Mr. Hannon: Chair, it's a resolution, so you can vote it up or down. Chair Hardemon: So all in favor, indicate so by saying 5)ye. " Commissioner Gort: Aye. Vice Chair Russell: Aye. Commissioner Carollo: Aye. Commissioner Suarez: Aye. Chair Hardemon: Report me as a iio. " Commissioner Gort: Can we take five? Chair Hardemon: We can -- Ms. Mendez: Mr. Clerk, since there were two versions, I believe, can you read the resolution that Mr. Hannon: Sure. So the motion was to grant -- and it passed 4-1, with Commissioner Hardemon voting ho. "And the resolution will state: A resolution of the Miami Cit) Commission granting the appeal filed by Michael Faas "-- sorry if I don't get the names correct -- Raffoul Asami, Wasim Shomar and Shadi Shomar, appellants; and reversing a decision of the Historic & Environmental Board, which did not approve the historic designation of the propero) located at approximately 1501 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, as a historic site due to a failure to have the required five concurring votes for designations, pursuant to Section 62-29(d) of the City Code of the Cit) of Miami, Florida, as amended, entitled 'Proceedings. "' Chair Hardemon: All right, five-minute recess. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I'm sovr)�. I just wanted to see if I could make this quick motion while the people are here for this issue before we move on. Chair Hardemon: No problem. Okay. Vice Chair Russell: I would like to make a motion that the Commission direct the Cit) Administration to study Chapter 23 and look at how certificates of appropriateness are evaluated by the Historic & Environmental Preservation Board for places of religious worship. Commissioner Suarez: Second. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say 5)ye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. City ofMiami Page 209 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you; and thank you, evetyone. Chair Hardemon: Five-minute recess. PZ.8 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00967lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 0.185±ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2149 SOUTHWEST 30TH COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "LOW DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL", AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHEDAND INCORPORATED; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00967lu 02-25-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00967lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00967lu Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00967lu Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00967lu Exhibit.pdf 15-00967lu-Submittal-Mara Gonzalez -Petitions in favor of Rezoning.pdf 15-00967lu-Submittal-Mara Gonzalez -Miami 21 Zoning Map Proposed.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 2149 SW 30th Court [Commissioner Francis Suarez - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Mara Gonzalez and Benjamin Stigler, on behalf ofAzeta International, LLC FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. See companion File ID 15-00967zc. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on January 6, 2016, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will change the Land Use Designation for the above property from "Duplex Residential" to "Low Density Restricted Commercial". Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be DENIED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Chair Hardemon: There's only two other things on the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda, and I know they belong to Commissioner Suarez, so how do you want to move forward, Commissioner Suarez? Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir, I'll read them into the record quickly. Items PZ 8 and PZ 9, they are companion items for the land use change and rezoning of a City ofMiami Page 210 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 property at 2149 Southwest 30th Court. It is before you -- or they are, I should say, before you on first reading. The changes proposed areas pertains to the land use change from duplex residential to low densio) restricted commercial; and the zoning side, the zoning change proposed is from T3-0, which is the present zoning designation, to T4 -L. The recommendation of the Department is for denial, as was the recommendation from the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, by a vote of 11-0. In the interest of time, I will yield to the applicant, and I'll be available to answer any questions you may have. Chair Hardemon: And also, when the public is being opened, please note that it'll be opened for PZ 8 and PZ 9. Public hearing will be for PZ 8 and PZ 9. You're recognized. Yes. Silvia Franco: At the Planning & Zoning Board hearing, I don't think he was registered -- Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record, please. Ms. Franco: Oh, Sylvia Franco, 3040 Southwest 21 st Street. Chair Hardemon: And who do you represent? Ms. Franco: I am a homeowner in the neighborhood. Chair Hardemon: Okay. Ms. Franco: I don't know if he registered as a lobbyist, so I just wanted to clear that up, because he does represent -- Chair Hardemon: The lobbyists have a disclosure requirement, and -- Ms. Franco: Right. Chair Hardemon: -- I'm sure he understands what his disclosure requirement is; and if he has to make any disclosures upon this record, he will do so. Ms. Franco: There's no record in the City ofMiami of his filing as a lobbyist. Chair Hardemon: I'm not the police. Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Cit) Clerk. Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Certainly. And your name, sir? Mark Lynn: Mark Lynn. Mr. Hannon: And I see that you did fill out a speaker sheet and that you checked the ho'box for lobbyist. Are you being compensated, representing anyone tonight? Mr. Lynn: Yes. Mr. Hannon: You are being compensated? Then, according to the City Code, you would be classified as a lobbyist. You would need to fill out the appropriate forms and also take an ethics course to be considered a registered lobbyists with the Cit) ofMiami. Mr. Lynn: I'll proffer to waive my fee for this matter. I'll state in front of my client that I will -- I've not been compensated. City ofMiami Page 211 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Can you speak into the mike, please? Mr. Lynn: I've not been compensated to this point for this --to this hearing, and I will waive my fee. I will not be compensated for this hearing. Chair Hardemon: Is that the test? Is the test compensation? Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): It is a factor, but at the end of the day, the ultimate responsibilio) lies with the individual, and it's his responsibilio) if he fails to comply with the Code. So, if the Commission has the desire to proceed, you may allow him to proceed, but he's proceeding at his own risk concerning the consequences of doing so. Ms. Franco: Commissioner, he also appeared before the Planning & Zoning Board agenda on January 6, and he was not registered either. Mr. Lynn: Mr. Chairman, I am an attorney, and we're appearing in a public forum. There was no -- there have been no private meetings with any Commissioners at any time; no discussions this morning. Chair Hardemon: Mr. Lynn, I understand I think, at this point, though, you have to register, as I remember, as a lobbyist, ifyoure trying to influence the vote of the Commissioners; and so, I would assume you're here not only to assert a position, but to influence the vote of the Commissioners. And so, if there's no objection to any of the Commissioners hearing him, despite the fact that he has not registered, then we'll move forward. Is there any objection? Seeing none, we'll move forward. Mr. Lynn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. Mr. Lynn: I'm -- Chair Hardemon: Take your time. Mara Gonzklez: I'm a registered lobbyist, and I'm the applicant, if that helps. Chair Hardemon: It doesn't matter; we're moving forward, but thank you for your consideration. He's assisting you. Mr. Lynn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies. I have appeared at many, many different hearings in different municipalities, and I apologize that I was not aware of this -- the particular stringent requirements of this municipality. It's --I apologize for that. Chair Hardemon: Yeah, I think there's a registration fee. Is there a fee per client, like a hundred dollars, something like that? Mr. Hannon: No. There's an annual registration fee, and there's a per principal issue fee as well, and it -- Chair Hardemon: Could we require him to supplant the -- his -- after he gives his testimony, to later follow -- Mr. Hannon: He could make that statement on the record that he'll take the appropriate ethics class with the Miami -Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, in addition to paying the appropriate fees, and we can basically hunt him down afterwards. City ofMiami Page 212 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: Would you agree to that? Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. This is the first hearing, right? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: So you have time to get things done; we'll be looking forward to it, because we have to do the ethics requirements; and ifI have to sit through it, you're going to sit through it. Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir. Chair Hardemon: So, there it is. Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Chair Hardemon: But go ahead, you move forward. Mr. Lynn: Good evening. I'm -- I actually wanted to know if this was actually the latest time that a Planning & Zoning matter has ever been heard in the City of Miami? Commissioner Suarez: It's not, unfortunately. Commissioner Carollo: No. Mr. Lynn: No? Vice Chair Russell: Yes, for me. Mr. Lynn: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, many name is Mark Lynn. My address is 200 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I'm here for the requested rezoning and amendment to the land use plan for 2149 Southwest 30th Court. We are asking for the zoning to be changed from T3-0 suburban to T4 -L general urban, and to change the land use map to be amended from duplex residential to low density restricted commercial. You can see the propero) from an overhead view here, and if I may just explain briefly. I am here on behalf ofAzeta International, LLC (Limited Liability Compan)), whose principal is Arnaldo Zuccaro, who is here with us this evening. I'm also here with Mara Gonzalez, who is the architectural consultant. They'll both be speaking briefly on this matter. Mr. Zuccaro is a successful businessman in the area. He is a native of the area; lives in the neighborhood in question -- or near the neighborhood in question. And Mr. Zuccaro across the way on 3130 and Coral Way owns a paint store, which not only offers paint, but also provides amenities to high-end customers to not only provide paint, but to provide accents and flooring, and additional amenities that are pertinent to a resident. And this business has become very successful to the point that the store that is operating right now is not sufficient to accommodate the kind of customer that he's trying to attract. And so, what we have proposed for this propero) is to allow the propero) to be converted into a showroom, where these customers can, outside of the regular retail setting, be in a very comfortable environment which is more sophisticated; they can have an espresso and discuss the -- discuss improvements that these customers will be making to their home. This will be a free service. The customers may buy paints, flooring, what have you, but the service provided is free. It is a benefit basically to the communii)�, and improve -- and as well as being City ofMiami Page 213 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 in appurtenance to the business. I had provided a zoning of the land --the zoning map so you can see that it's north of Coral Way. You can see there's a heavy commercial area, and you can see that there's a T4 -L north of Coral Way in two different locations. Our property -- it may be a little bit difficult to see -- is outlined in blue on the right side, so there is clearly a precedent for this property to be zoned T4 -L. It is consistent with the Miami 21 requirements. It is a step up from the T3-0 designation, and it is a -- it would be abutting right up against another T4 -L designation. Similarly, ifyou look at the future land use map, there are higher uses along Coral Way and abutting along Coral Way, and commercial uses just to the east of the subject propero) . We wanted to provide even more -- a little bit more detail about this particular property, because the important thing to bear in mind is that there will be no impact on the surrounding communio) arising from the improvements that are contemplated here. Nearly all of the improvements contemplated will be on the interior of an existing home. From the exterior, it will look like a home in the communio) . It will not look like anything different from the surrounding houses, except, as Mr. Zuccaro likes to say, it'll be the most beautiful home in the neighborhood. You'll see the existing site plan here, the existing floor plan, and you see the proposed site plan, which is almost identical. It is a -- and the only thing that's really different is that the garage in the rear is going to be removed in order to provide a good driveway and parking spaces for the one employee and the customers that meet with the designer. And you seethe proposed floor plan. Again, the dimensions of the residence are going to be nearly identical, except for some interior improvements. Importantly, our client has proffered to file a declaration of covenants, which he has executed, and the lender on the property has executed, which would limit the densio) to a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre, which is the same as the T3-0 designation; limiting the height to two stories, and restricting the uses to general commercial, office, and residential uses. It is an extremely narrow use that would not permit almost any kind of intrusive use of the property. It cannot be a hotel. It cannot be a restaurant. It certainly cannot be a bar or a nightclub. It really is restricted to what we're proposing to do here. We're just --I'm showing quickly just some renderings of what the property; will look like. It's going to be a very --again, it'll be a very attractive property. It will look like the residences in the neighborhood. We took some pictures on the street so you can see that there's very little traffic along the street in the morning,- quickly, in the afternoon. That is the end of my part of the presentation. But, again, the intensity of this use will be very minor. It will be a --it will enhance the neighborhood. It will improve the neighborhood. It is a service that will benefit the neighborhood. And with that, I'm going to let Ms. Gonzalez say a few words. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Gonzalez: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I wanted to first thank you for staying so late. I know it's been a very, very long day for all of us. I am a registered lobbyist. I'm a graduate architect. I work at JCD Architects. We began this particular case about a year and a half ago, and we've had some nitpicking and opposition, kind of what just happened I never really had a problem coming in front of the board, but I felt a little harassed, to be honest. So I spoke to my friend Mark, he's an attorney in Broward. And I said you know what? I need you to come and help me, because it was always something. You know, it's -- a couple of the neighbors, one or two, you know, looking through things that were not there, making up stories, speaking poorly of our client that is a law-abiding, you know, citizen. He's brought money from, you know, Venezuela; he's invested here. He's doing everything that the Cit) of Miami Planning & Zoning Board has required. We have gone time and time again. We've done the covenant. We designed the parking; provided the handicap. I mean, you name it. Everything that was requested of him, he has done, so that's why he came onboard. So he's -- you know, he's responsible; I'm equally responsible. Chair Hardemon: Right. Ms. Gonzalez: I really didn't know that he had to be a lobbyist, so I apologize. City ofMiami Page 214 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Let's try not to make it personal between the other side, because I can't speak to what your experience in the past has been, but to -- Ms. Gonzklez: It's been horrible. Vice Chair Russell: -- make note and request that all lobbyists register with the City before speaking before us, I don't find that to be nitpicky or harassing; I think that's quite appropriate, so I didn't feel animosio) there in that moment, but I guess you're coming from a long history that you're speaking to. Ms. Gonzklez: It's a long history, yeah. Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to try to leave that behind so we can stick to the facts. Ms. Gonzklez: Okay, butt do have -- and I do have my ethics course here. I mean, I --you know, I can pass it around so you can see it. Commissioner Suarez: It's okay, it's okay. I believe you. Ms. Gonzklez: But, basically, based on what Mr. Lynn said -- I can just reiterate -- when we went originally in front of the Planning & Zoning Board, we were misguided They told us that we could stretch the boundary zoning, which was adjacent, from T5; and later on, they told us that was not possible, because we were skipping a boundary change, so that -- I believe we got tabled You know, there has been a lot that has happened, and, you know, it was very confusing at first. Later on, they suggested that we go from a T3-0 -- and, again, I'm nervous and tired, so I apologize -- to a T4 -L. The way that we understand it is it's basically staying as a duplex. We're not increasing the densio) . The only thing that this gentleman wants is to be able to operate his little small showroom. He's proffering a covenant for 30 years; and, you know, he can't really do anything. It's a family-owned business; they're not going to sell it; they're not going to go anywhere. Vice Chair Russell: Was the covenant in place when it went before the Planning & Zoning Department and the Appeals Board? Ms. Gonzklez: Yes, sir. Yeah. The only situation we had were -- it was the opposition. Everything else was in line. Vice Chair Russell: And the covenant, does that revert if the propero) were to be sold? Ms. Gonzklez: Yes, yes. Vice Chair Russell: And so, then it would go back to T3-0? Ms. Gonzklez: Yes, sir. Everything that the Planning & Zoning suggested, we placed on the covenant. Vice Chair Russell: So --and then I guess I'll ask my Planning & Zoning Department -- Mr. Lynn: I want to make sure we're clear on the -- Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Mr. Lynn: -- nature of the covenant. The covenant --the restrictions would remain and would run with the land. City ofMiami Page 215 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Lynn: The property would not revert back -- Commissioner Suarez: Right. Mr. Lynn: -- unless there was a mechanism for doing so. I don't know that we're opposed to that necessarily, but that has not been -- I just want to make sure we're clear. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Then that is different than what you said, and that's good to know, because what I think anyone in opposition or anyone who would be not opposing to it is maybe accepting ofyour intended use, but ifyou were to sell it, it may be a complete different use, and that commercial use could be abused to the dismay of the neighbors surrounding, but please continue. Is that it? Mr. Lynn: I'm sorry; I didn't hear the last part of -- Vice Chair Russell: My reason for asking about whether or not it would revert or not is that if the property were to be sold, we can't even begin to guess at what the next use would be within that commercial -- even though it's limited in the -- because of the covenant, what that commercial use would be could have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Lynn: There is very little that could be done with the properi)�, other than what's being proffered here. Again -- Barnaby Min (Depuo) City Attorne)): Mr. Chair, the proffered covenant that has been submitted by the applicant ties it to a proposed site plan. The language says that anything -- assuming the rezoning occurs, any development would have to comply with that site plan that's already been submitted. If the covenant is going to be modified, or if the site plan's going to be modified, if there's a change in ownership, the only way that that site plan that -- development cannot occur pursuant to that site plan is if the covenant's modified which require further public hearings. Vice Chair Russell: But the site plan doesn't speak to what that commercial use would be, specifically. The site plan simply has to do with what they're building there. The next business that could buy it, we would have no say-so in whatsoever. We're -- so we shouldn't actually be making this decision based on what his business is, because that's -- part of the factor, I guess, that we're thinking about whether or not this is -- Mr. L)mn: IfI may? Vice Chair Russell: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it goes into. Yes, please. Mr. L)mn: I'm sorry. Again, the covenant proffered would limit the height to two stories -- Vice Chair Russell: The height and -- Mr. L)mn: -- and the densio) would be limited to the same as what's on the T3-0 designation, so the use could not be -- could really not be a more intensive use than what's being -- Vice Chair Russell: Not intensive. What is the business again? Could you refresh my memory? Mr. L)mn: It'll be a showroom for customers to meet with home -- like an interior designer to pick out flooring, and to do -- kind of like a step up from what you would see in, you know, the retail store: flooring, accents, paint, wallpaper; what have you. City ofMiami Page 216 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Min: Mr. Chair, if the concern is potential uses in the future, if the applicant wishes to proffer to also modify the current proposal -- the proposed covenant to limit uses, that's something that the applicant could propose today, if the Commission's in -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chairman, ifI may? Vice Chair Russell: Please. Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I don't --I mean, I'd like for them to put their presentation on. I'd like for you guys to put your pres --then I'd like to hear from the resident and/or residents who are here. I just don't -- I don't want to get involved in a huge, long negotiation of a covenant if I haven't heard yet what everyone has to say, so -- if it's okay? Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Commissioner Suarez: Is there anyone else from your side that wants to say anything? Andreina Zuccaro: Hello. Good evening. Vice Chair Russell: Good evening. Ms. Zuccaro: My name is Andreina Zuccaro, 2025 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33129. So, I currently work -- I am a part-owner, and I work at the business. It's called Sunny South Design Studio, and it's located, I mean, directly across from the property in question. What we do there is we sell -- as he stated we sell paint, Benjamin Moore paints. We also offer window treatments, flooring, wall covering, and other design options; soft and hard flooring, and so on. So, I really just wanted to express the need for that showroom. So, we have a challenge, on a daily basis, as we run the business to -- in other words, display or service our clients in the way that they're asking us to. It's taken us sometime and effort to achieve the kind of clientele that we now have, finally, and our customers are requesting to -- the look and feel of what we're proposing in our designs and the products that we carry. So, this is the perfect way, really, to have a showroom which we cannot have in our current propero) where we operate, so this would be a place where, finally, the designers can meet with the clients and select, you know, their colors and their fabrics and their window treatment options; touch, feel, and understand the products in a different manner. Vice Chair Russell: Excuse me. Which property is the existing business? You say it's across the street or --? Chair Gort: No, no. Ms. Zuccaro: It's hard to explain. It's 3031 Coral Way. That's the address. Vice Chair Russell: South of the one on Coral Way. Ms. Zuccaro: So -- Vice Chair Russell: So directly south? Ms. Zuccaro: Where you park -- the back door, I guess. It's like across from this propero) , where the showroom would be. Mr. Garcia: To be clear, I think the description would be diagonally across the street -- City ofMiami Page 217 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: To the southwest? Mr. Garcia: Yes. Ms. Zuccaro: Uh-huh, diagonally. Vice Chair Russell: So down one and over one, but across -- Ms. Zuccaro: Exactly. Vice Chair Russell: -- 30th Court? Ms. Zuccaro: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: Right. Ms. Zuccaro: Yes. And there's a business next to this showroom, as well, an existing business there. And it's a service, so, you know, we feel like, if anything, it's a model home for a design, and even for -- obviously, for the neighbors around us, as well. So that's the need that we have there. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Zuccaro: Okay. Vice Chair Russell: Anyone else like to speak in --? Sergio Guerrero: My name is Sergio Guerrero. I live in 2025 Brickell Avenue, and I just wanted to voice my support for the proposed zoning change. Vice Chair Russell: Are you a mem -- are you with them, or you're a member of the public? Mr. Zuccaro: I am with them. I'm Andreina's husband Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Guerrero: So, I really just wanted to quickly say that I think it's important to support small business owners, especially when they're trying to expand and thrive in the current environment, and especially when the proposed changes that they're trying to make are really going to have no adverse effect on the communion, and should, in fact, enhance the neighborhood where they serve. So, I just think it's important to support the local business owners. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Guerrero: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Shall I hear from the other side? Oh, I'm sorry; we have another member of your team. Bernardo Gomez: Buenos noches. "My name is Bernardo Gomez. (Comments in Spanish not translated) Southwest. Ms. Zuccaro: Well, I need to translate, right? Okay, does that part --? City ofMiami Page 218 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: We don't -- Vice Chair Russell: We got that part. Commissioner Suarez: The translator left for the day, I think, right? Ms. Zuccaro: Do we need to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or --? I mean, I don't know how -- Vice Chair Russell: For the record, do we need to translate? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, we do, right? Do you want me to translate for him? Ms. Zuccaro: Okay. Mr. Hannon: Ifyou would prefer to have her do it or -- Commissioner Suarez: Oh, can you do it? Ms. Zuccaro: Yes, by all means. Mr. Hannon: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no, please. Vice Chair Russell: Does the Clerk need translation in English for the record -- Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Don't -- Vice Chair Russell: -- or Spanish (UNINTELLIGIBLE) follow us up here? Mr. Hannon: We don't -- it would help, I think, to make sure that -- like Commissioner Hardemon or -- Mr. Min: The record needs to be in English. Mr. Hannon: Yes. Commissioner Suarez: You want to give her a mike so she can -- Chair Hardemon: Are you all picking on me because I'm the only non -Spanish-speaking Commissioner here? Commissioner Suarez: I think you got it, man. I think you got it. Go ahead. Vice Chair Russell: It is 2:30 in the morning. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Mr. Gomez: My name is Bernardo Gomez (Comments in Spanish not translated) -- Commissioner Suarez: You can start translating now, ifyou want. Mr. Gomez (as translated by Andreina Zuccaro): Okay. I work at Sunny South. And the reason I'm here is because our clients require like a higher level of service, and kind of like a different higher -end service than what we can offer currently at our location, where we can offer to show in our catalogs of products, and spend, I guess, a better time with the client, and offer them what City ofMiami Page 219 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 we have in a different ambience or environment, and a better service. The business been open for over six years, and we've never had an issue with any of the neighbors around the communio) . If anything, we've been therefor them and offered our services to the communio) in our current location. Okay, goodnight. Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: Anyone else? Commissioner Gort: Hear from the opposition. Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Are you done presenting? Because we'll move for the opposition. Mr. Lynn: I'll just reference that we have six letters and -- we received six letters in support from local residents. Commissioner Suarez: Can I see them, please? Vice Chair Russell: From where? Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir. Commissioner Suarez: Can I see them? Thanks. And I guess I have one question. You can go back to the podium. Have you closed on this property? Do you --or is this a pending sale? Mr. Lynn: No, sir. This property is owned by Azeta International -- Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Mr. Lynn: -- which is -- Commissioner Suarez: I'll explain why I'm asking the question later. Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Russell: My question, will there be client parking on this propero) , or would all the client parking be on the original --? Mr. Lynn: No, the client parking would be on the property, on the -- Vice Chair Russell: On the property. Mr. Lynn: -- 2149 premises. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Ms. Franco: Good evening, and I'm sorry if my voice is shaking; it's really cold in here. I don't know -- Commissioner Suarez: It's vett' good. Ms. Franco: I think you're trying to like chill us out or something. My name is Silvia Franco, 3040 Southwest 21st Street. We have never ever -- I personally and the neighbors that are against the zoning change and the land use change have ever been anything but cordial to the applicant. In fact, I shop at the store. I like the store. My window treatments come from the store. However, the problem is that they're encroaching in a residential neighborhood. They're not going horizontally; they're going in vertically. I proffered at the Planning & Zoning Board City ofMiami Page 220 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 the signatures of all the homeowners that immediately surround the propero) . I don't know what -- who -- where those properties are located, I never got copies of that. The elderly lady that abuts the property came in. She testified -- Vice Chair Russell: To the north. Ms. Franco: Yeah, right, right, to the north, exactly. She testified to the Planning & Zoning Board, as well. We had about seven neighbors here, and we had gotten like about 15 signatures. I just think it sets a bad precedent. It's like if -- at Coral Gate, you took that first house in your Coral Gate neighborhood and decided, "Oh, my God, you know, Walgreens needs a little bit more parking. Let's just start taking down the rest of the neighborhood and just moving the boundary." That's the only --I mean, that's the biggest issue. We've all been therefor like 40 years. I was born in that house. We had another property owner that had eight houses there, Mr. Zolo (phonetic), Ron Zolo, who you know. It's a neighborhood that's very small. It's a cul-de-sac. It's a dead end. I'm afraid the parking's going to be affected. You know, we have a lot of uses. It's a great neighborhood area. We walk. We go to the restaurants. Like I said I go to his store. I buy all my paint at his store. I bought my Plantation shutters at his store. I mean, I love having him there, but I have an issue with taking a residential lot that's within the residential area and turning it into a business use. Vice Chair Russell: Which is your property? Which is your address? Ms. Franco: 3040 Southwest 21st Street. Vice Chair Russell: Okay. So about one block to -- Ms. Franco: One block in, but we all -- like we all walk -- everybody walks in that neighborhood, and there's a lot of kids. There's a Burger King there. There's a Karate. So everybody goes to Karate and goes to the Burger King, and so -- kind of everybody in that area is affected Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair, if I could get the speaker's name, for the record. Vice Chair Russell: Oh, I'm sorry. Did you say your name for the record? Commissioner Gort: Yes, she did Ms. Franco: Silvia Franco. Commissioner Carollo: Franco. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. We'd like to open for public hearing, if there's anyone here that'd like to speak on the issue. No. I'm sorry, would you -- did you want to rebut? So we're closing the public hearing. Mr. Lynn: Introduce Mr. Zuccaro; would like to say a few words. Vice Chair Russell: Yes. Arnaldo Zuccaro: Good evening. My name is Arnaldo Zuccaro, 701 Brickell Key, Miami. I started doing business in this neighborhood back in 1993. At the present time, I have two stores in the same area on Coral Way, and I have chosen this area because I believe in this location very much. I respect the privacy of the neighbors and everything. What I am trying to do is to City ofMiami Page 221 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 supplement the existing business with a higher -end experience for our customers, who are really demanding for a different kind of environment when they go and select the products, and deal with the designer and all those things. During this process, I found the cpportunio) to buy this property. It's been close to two years now. The property in the back of my properi); is commercial, the next door is commercial; and across the street, which I also own, is also commercial. Vice Chair Russell: Directly across the street? Mr. Zuccaro: Directly across the street, where you will see the parking area of my other -- my commercial property. Now, I try to be very careful not impacting the neighborhood. I was listening to the neighbors mentioning things like parking. Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. Just to clarify the address ofyour other property, I'd understood before that it's the one -- Mr. Zuccaro: 30 Vice Chair Russell: -- below and across the street. Directly across the street is a residential home that you don't own; am I correct? Mr. L)mn: Yes, you're correct. Mr. Zuccaro: Well, I have across the street from the propero) in question, I believe is partially -- no, you're totally correct; it's a residence. Vice Chair Russell: Right. And just -- Mr. Zuccaro: I am -- Vice Chair Russell: -- below that is your parking lot -- Mr. Zuccaro: You are totally right. Vice Chair Russell: --and then your business, just to -- Mr. Zuccaro: I'm so sorry. Vice Chair Russell: -- no, that's okay. I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Zuccaro: Well, I try to be careful not impacting so I wouldn't be opposed from the neighbors. The first thing was parking issues. We hired the architects, and we found that removing the existing garage and making some small modifications, we will be able to park all the -- needed, by the ordinances, parking spaces. I also heard about the traffic. We're not planning to have in this location a high -traffic business, because it's strictly a design studio. I also heard about other things -- I don't recall exactly the impact. So we hire a -- the same architect to design the landscaping, you can see in the pictures. So, I believe that, at this point, we did our best with the covenant. I'm proposing to restrict the densio) and other things, so I don't see what else I can do. Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Mr. Zuccaro: I think it's kind of personal. Commissioner Suarez: Okay. City ofMiami Page 222 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Mr. Zuccaro: Thank you. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Commissioner Suarez: So, first of all, I really want to thank you for locating your business in District 4 and for being in Coral Way for 22 years. I think it's obviously a testament that even the people who are -- neighbors who are in opposition are your customers, so that certainly means that you're doing something right. The problem is that I really wish you would have come tome before you bought the propero) . That's why I asked you ifyou had closed on the property. Because I could have given you my perspective on what I thought would be possible or may not be possible, given my experience with the neighborhood, given my experience with, you know, these kinds of situations, and I could have been helpful for you, because I would not have recommended this to you. I would have told you find someplace else. Don't make this investment on this basis, because I think there's a vett' good possibilio) that you're going to have a significant amount of opposition from the neighbors. It's vett' hard to win a rezoning when the Planning Department recommends denial, the Planning & Zoning Department recommends denial unan -- I think it was unanimously -- Vice Chair Russell: Eleven to zero. Commissioner Suarez: -- ifI'm not mistaken. Eleven -zero. And then you have neighbors that are coming in in opposition. It's vett' --that's very difficult to, somehow, undo that. I mean, I'm being very frank with you. Obviously, it's 1:39 in the morning, and you know, this is the first time that I've seen this, and you have proffered some letters here in support. I can tell you that the commercial property that is on the back side of this home that was rezoned a T4, that was very, vevy contentious. And the only reason why that was done, it was done with a tremendous amount of input from the neighbors, because there's a business that's operating there that -- some of the neighbors were complaining about the activio) of the business. Vice Chair Russell: Isn't it an empo) lot? Commissioner Suarez: No. Well, it --yes, it is an empo) lot, but it was being used for overflow parking for that business, and some of the neighbors were complaining about the business itself. And so, part of the compromise with particularly the neighbors that are in the cul -de -sac-like section that's slightly to the east was that they would shield essentially, their activities from the neighborhood, and that was a very hard, sort of, thought compromise. It took -- it's kind of a lot of blood sweat, and tears. So, what you're try -- I understand what you're trying to do, but you're kind of trying to fit a square -- we've been using this a lot -- you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and let me explain why. You're in a T3 area, right? And you can have a home business in a home. The problem is that it's only confined to one quarter of the home. You can't have the full home be a business. And the reason why is because that's basically a home business. And what you can't anticipate, despite your best efforts -- and I think you are sincere in terms ofyour efforts not to make this be harmful for the neighborhood, but the fact of the matter is, the reason why they either make homes or they make businesses, but they don't really make both, unless it's a very limited amount, is because you can't anticipate whether that one particular day you're going to have five people who want to see the showroom with five cars that are going to want to park in that area, or in one day you might have 10 clients that want to go see it. So, it does have -- it could have an adverse effect on the neighbors, and I think that's why -- if it didn't have an adverse effect on the neighbors, I don't think she would be here in opposition, and I don't think any of the neighbors would have come to oppose it, and Planning & Zoning. Commissioner Carollo: At 1:30 in the morning. City ofMiami Page 223 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: Right. So it's a tough one for me, I got to tell you. Mr. Lynn: If I may? If there is a mechanism to -- upon the sale of the property revert from -- Commissioner Suarez: I hear you. I appreciate that. I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is T3s have a very limited commercial component to them, which is basically a 25 percent -- you could do a home business. So someone can dedicate a room in their home, and have an Office out of that room. But changing the character of a home to a business and then -- because what you're doing is you're creating a T3 -- you're creating a home that -- the home is the same, but it's a business, and that's -- go ahead. You want to -- Vice Chair Russell: So, it's more about the traffic that would be created rather than the appearance of the home. Commissioner Suarez: It's just -- I mean, it's either a home, or it's a business. You know what I mean? And I think --you know, trying to make a home that's a business -- Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Commissioner Suarez: -- fully a business in a neighborhood, it's problematic on a multitude of different levels, which is why I think the Planning & Zoning Board denied it; I think the Planning Board denied it. And like I said I really wish you guys would have come to me before you bought the property, because I would have -- particularly, given your history with the area, I would have, you know, gone out of my way to help you in every way that I could because I would have been able to give you -- you know, foresee this. Certainly. Mr. Lynn: I'd like to add that we had done a -- there had been a parking study that we had done internally on the property, and there would be sufficient parking that wouldn't require on -street parking. In the event that there was actually overflow parking issues, the property across the street could accommodate any parking issues. Commissioner Suarez: Have you discussed any of this stuff with the neighbors? Obviously, you haven't been able to satisfy the neighbors that this is not going to be a problem. Mr. Lynn: Yes, sir, we did -- there was every effort made to canvass the neighborhood. Unfortunately, it appears that there was -- that the information conveyed was -- it was not conveyed -- the information was not conveyed well, and it appeared that there was more of a threat to, I think, the coherence of the communio) than I think that this propero) actually represents. Vice Chair Russell: I -- you know, I sympathize with you. I'm a small business owner, and I would love to do everything I canto encourage small businesses, 100 percent. And I see that you're doing everything you can to comply and make this fit, and to be as amenable to the neighbors, and the appearance of the house, and such. But from what I understand from --and I would like to hear from our Planning & Zoning director with his opinion on this. It -- you know, the neighborhood opposition seems to be paramount, or the rights of the neighborhood, and the intention of the existing zoning. I do know --I recognize --and there's T4 -L to the east of you. I don't necessarily consider that apart leading into, because that's only accessible from the other cul-de-sac, which is way around. So -- Commissioner Suarez: It is. Vice Chair Russell: -- I would be making into consideration the T5-0 that you do connect to, which, you know -- but Id like -- City ofMiami Page 224 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Suarez: And just to be clear, I'm preto) sure that they proffered a covenant when we approved that that would not even be accessible from the neighborhood. That would only be -- because it adjoins a property that's connected to Coral Way, so it, in essence, expands the -- it doesn't expand a T5 because it's not T5. We left it at a lower -- they asked for T5, actually, initially; and so we reduced it to T4, and we said that it had to be closed off to the neighborhood. It was just an expansion of the footprint of the Coral Way business, so it would only have access from Coral Way. Whether they've actually done that or not, it's a whole 'pother stove, which is why I think some people are very skeptical of covenants, to begin with, because that one was done as a downzoning with a covenant; and, yet, you can see from the aerial that it's in the same condition that it was when we approved it, and that was a couple years ago. If I can't -- if my memory serves me right. How many years was that ago, Francisco? Mr. Garcia: Upward of a year, certainly closer to two. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. So -- yeah. Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Director, could you speak to the recommendation for denial from the Planning & Zoning Department? What was your opinion? Mr. Garcia: Yes, certainly, and happy to do so, and I believe Commissioner Suarez has captured most of it. It is correct that the T4 -L zoning designation exists immediately to the east, and they are abutting, so this would be an extension of that existing designation. The salient difference, as has been described is that in this -- in the instance of a T4 -L that is already present, access to that parcel by covenant is also limited to the commercial street, which happens to be Coral Way in this case, right? So, in essence, it's a reduction of an existing commercial use to buffer it against a well-established residential area. The condition proposed here is a different one altogether. The access would be from a residential street in this commercial propero) with --or this commercial use, as proposed, would be fronting a residential property, which is fairly well-established That, in this particular case, makes all the difference. In this particular case -- and again, this is case -based, but I think it's important to bring up that the two conditions are disparate. One is a buffer condition to mitigate commercial impact; the other one would introduce a commercial impact in a neighborhood that is already well established as a residential area. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. And I would add that we did recently take up a situation similar to this actually in Coral Gate, where on 37th Avenue, right off Alhambra, the Alhambra entrance, and it was an architect who owned the adjacent commercial building on 37th Avenue, and they bought, I think, two -- one or two residential lots and wanted to build a similar structure. In that case, they did come to see me before they applied, and I did tell them, `I don't think it's going to happen. " You know, if the neighbors are somehow --you somehow are able to convince the neighbors of the wisdom of this. I think it's a very -- you have a very tall order. They did it anyways; and unfortunately for them, the neighbors were very vehemently in opposition to it, and I moved to deny that application, and it was denied And so, that's why I think it's always good to come and talk before, because it's -- I mean, it's terrible. I mean, you guys have been here all day. It really -- and you guys are a thriving business in my district. It's -- I don't want to do anything -- I wouldn't want to do anything to hurt your business or to hurt, you know, your livelihood but at the same time, you know, I have to serve the residents of the district; that's my job, you know, and so it's a tough one. Sure. Ms. Gonzalez: And this is something that the owner wants me to reiterate. He's saying that the entrance to the Optical is the -- the entrance is the same as to the business. Right? Vice Chair Russell: I think I can understand what you're saying. So to -- yes. Ms. Gonzalez: The street. City ofMiami Page 225 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Vice Chair Russell: To even get into Sunny South, you need to go up 30th Court anyway, and you would turn left into your existing parking lot. In this case, you're just going a little further north and turning right into the new parking lot; and to your defense, the house across the street doesn't face that. Ms. Gonzalez: Correct. Vice Chair Russell: There's actually a hedge across the street. So, I see where your thought process was, and I can see why you'd look at this and go --and say, "This would be perfect for our business to expand. " Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Vice Chair Russell: It does make sense from what you're trying to do; and ifI were in your shoes, I might be trying to do the same thing. Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a resident a question? Because you're here sort of on behalf of all the residents, so ifyou don't mind. Would you -- and ifyou object, I understand. I just want to know ifyou would object to a deferral of this for 30 days, because I haven't been to the site, I haven't seen it, I have --? Ifyou object, it's okay. I understand. Ifyou object to it, and you're not okay with that, then I'll make my recommendation, and we'll move forward. I'm prepared to do that, okay? I just haven't seen it. I haven't had a chance to talk to them. They never came to talk to me; I wish they would have. I would have never recommended this to them. Mr. Hannon: I'm sorry. Vice Chair, I need the comments on the record. Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ifyou don't mina comment in the microphone. Ms. Gonzalez: This is the street that we've called several times -- Mr. Min: You need to speak into the microphone, please. Ms. Gonzalez: I'm sore. This is the street that we've called several times that they use to cut out from Coral Way, now that Coral Way traffic has become so intense -- Commissioner Suarez: Worse. Commissioner Carollo: To 32nd Avenue. Ms. Franco: So they -- right. So they turn right to go in, so -- and it's constant, because now traffic on Coral Way is continuous. Commissioner Carollo: Yep. Ms. Franco: Okay. I mean, Igo to school from my house to UM (Universio) of Miami), and what I used to be able to do in seven minutes now takes me a good 25 minutes, so -- and that's just getting from 30th to Ponce to turn left. Vice Chair Russell: So it's already a cut -through street, is what you're --? Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. Ms. Franco: So it's already congested. City ofMiami Page 226 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Ms. Franco: And it's that street where evetybody cuts in anyway. We don't --you know, we don't Commissioner Suarez: I get it Ms. Franco: -- need an increase in -- and then what happens is people then cut -- go into the residential streets; kids are playing in the street, you know, and that's a problem. Commissioner Suarez: Listen, trust me, there's been no greater advocate for trying to create the conditions by which people cannot cut through our neighborhoods, so I will move to deny the application. Commissioner Carollo: Second Vice Chair Russell: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Suarez: I apologize, guys. Sorty. Vice Chair Russell: Is there any further discussion amongst the board? Commissioner Suarez: No. Vice Chair Russell: Hearing none, is this just up or down? We need a -- Mr. Hannon: Up or down. Vice Chair Russell: All in favor? The Commission (Collectivel)): "Aye. " Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Motion passes. Mr. Min: Because PZ. 8s been denied we do not have to address PZ. 9. PZ.9 ORDINANCE First Reading 15-00967zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T3-0 "SUB -URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" TO T4 -L "GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2149 SOUTHWEST 30TH COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-00967zc 02-25-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-00967zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 15-00967zc Supporting Docs.pdf 15-00967zc Legislation (v2).pdf 15-00967zc Exhibit.pdf 15-00967zc-Submittal-Mara Gonzalez -Miami 21 Zoning Map Proposed.pdf 15-00967zc-Submittal-Mara Gonzalez -Petitions in favor of Rezoning.pdf City ofMiami Page 227 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 LOCATION: Approximately 2149 SW 30th Court [Commissioner Francis Suarez - District 4] APPLICANT(S): Mara Gonzalez and Benjamin Stigler, on behalf ofAzeta International, LLC. FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial. See companion File ID 15-009671u. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on January 6, 2016, by a vote of 11-0. PURPOSE: This will change the Zoning Classification from T3-0 Sub -Urban Transect Zone, Open, to T4 -L General Urban Transect Zone, Limited, for the above property. NO ACTION TAKEN Note for the Record: Item PZ9 was dicussed but no action was taken because companion item PZ 8 was denied. Please note that the minutes for PZ9 can be found under PZ 8 since they were both discussed at the same time. PZ.10 ORDINANCE First Reading 14-00655zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO. 13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T6 -8-R "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - RESTRICTED" TO T6 -48a-0 "URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN", FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ATAPPROXIMATELY 240 SOUTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING ASEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 14-00655zc 03-24-16 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf 14-00655zcAnalysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf 14-00655zc Supporting Docs.pdf 14-00655zc Legislation (v2).pdf 14-00655zc Exhibit.pdf LOCATION: Approximately 240 SE 14th Street [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami and A. Vicky Garcia -Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Babylon International, Inc., Owner FINDING(S): PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial on January 6, 2016, by a vote of 7-4. PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification for the above property City ofMiami Page 228 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 from T6 -8-R "Urban Core Transect Zone - Restricted" to T6 -48a-0 "Urban Core Transect Zone -Open". Item includes a covenant. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon Note for the Record: Item PZ 10 was continued to the March 24, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. PZ.11 ORDINANCE Second Reading 15-01496zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AMENDING ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.3.6(g), ENTITLED "SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE"; AMENDING SUBSECTION 3.3.6(g)1; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FORAN EFFECTIVE DATE. 15-01496zt 02-25-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf 15-01496zt PZAB Resolution.pdf 15-01496zt Legislation (v2).pdf LOCATION: North Side of South Bayshore Drive from McFarlane Road to Aviation Avenue [Commissioner Ken Russell - District 2] APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami FINDINGS: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval. PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on November 18, 2015, by a vote of 9-0. PURPOSE: This will amend Article 3, adding Section 3.3.6 (g) 1 to the Zoning Ordinance, in order to modify an existing Established Setback Area to include an established Side Setback for the entire Height of a building. Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon 13596 Chair Hardemon: Now -- Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, can we do PZ 11? That was uncontested first (UNINTELLIGIBLE) second. Chair Hardemon: PZ 11. Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Vice Chair Russell: Wait. Let me catchup. City ofMiami Page 229 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 Chair Hardemon: PZ 11. Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we acceptor pass item PZ. 11. I'm not sure about the public hearing. I'll open the floor for public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that wants to speak on PZ. 11? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing at this time. Is there any discussion on PZ.11 ? Any discussion? Hearing no further discussion -- The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Depuo) City Attorney Barnby Min. Todd B. Hannon (Cit) Clerk): Roll call on item PZ 11. A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above. Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0. END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS CITYWIDE HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT END OF DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL END OF DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO END OF DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ END OF DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 City ofMiami Page 230 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 NAA RESOLUTION 16-00277 CHAIR KEON HARDEMON END OF DISTRICT 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING CONGRESS TO ALLOCATE FUNDING FOR FIREFIGHTER CANCER RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SYLVESTER COMPREHENSIVE CENTER; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS STATED HEREIN. Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-16-0081 Vice Chair Russell: Calling back to order. Thank you all for your patience. We were in executive session. I'm sovr)� that that delayed the time certain issue that you all -- many ofyou are here for. We have a pocket item we'd like to address from Mayor Regalado. Mayor Tomas Regalado: Thank you vett' much, Mr. Vice Chairman. The reason that I'm here -- and I also apologize for the delay -- is because, in Congress, the Appropriations Committee is meeting this week and the next week about the budget; and I have a resolution for your consideration, urging our congressional Delegation to allocate funding for Firefighter Cancer Research at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Center. The reason for this is because the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center of UM (Universio) ofMiami), located in the City of Miami, has just partnered with several fire departments in South Florida, and they have begun a research about chemicals, firefighters, and cancer, and they have just received a million dollars from the State of Florida for this research. And what all the municipalities in Miami -Dade Count), the Count) itself, is doing is asking the Delegation to put some money so they can do a ver)comprehensive study about chemicals, cancer, and firefighter. This is only a research for firefighters. So this is the resolution -- Commissioner Gort: Move it. Mayor Regalado: -- that I bring to you. Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved. Is there a second? Commissioner Carollo: Second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to accept the Mayor's pocket item. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye. " The Commission (Collectivel)): Aye. Mayor Regalado: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mayor. City ofMiami Page 237 Printed on 41712016 City Commission Meeting Minutes February 25, 2016 NA.2 RESOLUTION 16-00077 ADJOURNMENT A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, TO STUDY HOW CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, OR USED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, ARE EVALUATED UNDER CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE I, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION/HISTORIC PRESERVATION", AND REPORT ITS FINDINGS TO THE CITY COMMISSION, INCLUDING ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE 1 OF THE CITY CODE THAT WILL IMPROVE THE PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING AND EVALUATING CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR LOCALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OWNED BY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OR USED FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES. Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon R-16-0084 The meeting adjourned at 1:56 a.m. on Friday, Fehruary 26, 2016 City ofMiami Page 232 Printed on 41712016