Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Al Dotson re VA Key Advisory Board2�,E AUL 15 PM 3: 18 ;11 `( O, E ii Ml July 15, 2016 The Hon. Keon Hardemon, Chairman The Hon. Ken Russell, Vice Chairman The Hon. Wilfredo Gort, Commissioner The Hon. Frank Carollo, Commissioner The Hon. Francis Suarez, Commissioner City of Miami City Commission City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 `° Bilzin Sumberg Albert E. Dotson, Jr., Esquire Tel 305-350-2411 Fax 305-351-2217 adotsona.bilzin.com Re: Virginia Key Advisory Board's Recent Decision Regarding Virginia Key RFP Was Not Based on Facts and Review of Proposed Plan Dear Commissioners: Virginia Key, LLC ("RCI") is the recommended awardee for RFP No. 12-14-077 (the "RFP"), and attended the May 24, 2016 and June 29, 2016 Virginia Key Advisory Board ("Advisory Board") meetings. As the only proposer to respect the Virginia Key Master Plan (the "Master Plan"), we recognize that we have a duty, as a responsible participant in this process, to keep abreast of the Advisory Board's meetings, decisions, and discussions. We were surprised by the Advisory Board's ultimate decision at their June 29th meeting to recommend that the City of Miami City Commission ("City Commission") throw out all bids and re -issue an RFP for the development of a marina at Virginia Key, because this decision was made WITHOUT: 1. Acknowledging that the RFP already requires that any recommended proposer prepare a site plan and development program that is consistent with the Master Plan and requires that the recommended proposer secure all development approvals demonstrating such consistency BEFORE one shovel hits the ground. Further, the RFP already expressly contemplates that, during this public process vetting any proposed development BEFORE one shovel hits the ground, the proposed development WILL be subject to reduction, adjustment and modification. As a result, the City Commission, the Advisory Board, and all interested constituents will have Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk Bilzin Sumber Baena Price & Axelrod LLP 1 1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor, Miami, Florida 33131-3456 elc05.374.; 580 Fax 305.374.7593 1 bilzin.com '�..�(��l`6`6 Sv�� `— ��`��� re \i� �e�r Ar�,,,:ttr,► �1�',nr ' July 15, 2016Bilzin Sumberg Page 2 U' their appropriate input and approval rights. If the Advisory Board's true concern is compliance with the Master Plan, then the RFP and any agreement negotiated are ironclad proof that their articulated concern is a non -issue. Based on the public discussions of the Advisory Board, it is clear that this undisputed fact is either not known or not fully understood. 2. RCI, unlike the other proposers, actually took the Master Plan into account in preparing RCI's response to the RFP. Instead of engaging in a conversation about HOW the recommended proposal actually complies with the Master Plan, the Advisory Board went straight to "throw out all proposals." We surely hope that the City Commission will permit a thorough presentation about the recommended proposal, what a negotiated agreement would require of the selected proposer with respect to the Master Plan, and how the recommended proposer's plan and the obligations already imposed by the City comply with the Master Plan, Miami 21 and other regulatory requirements. In this letter, we have provided the information that the Advisory Board should have, could have, but did not discuss it reaching its decision on June 29 2016. Any decision by the City Commission to follow the Advisory Board's June 29th recommendation would be arbitrary and capricious, because it would not be based on facts or supported by logic. The City Commission is prohibited by law from acting arbitrarily and capriciously in the public bidding process. 1. The Virginia Key Advisory Board made an uninformed decision, and this is what happened. At the May 24th meeting, the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department ("Planning Department") made a presentation to the Advisory Board regarding the creation and adoption of the Master Plan. The Planning Department walked the Advisory Board through the timeline of the various stages of the process that was used to prepare and finalize the Master Plan. The Planning Department explained that the official adopted Master Plan is that which was distributed with the RFP and is posted on the City's website. Some Advisory Board members disputed this fact and sought clarification, believing that the presentation that was given during the adoption of the Master Plan was the final adopted Master Plan itself. Several Advisory Board members described the presentation as the "original Master Plan" expressed concern that the "original Master Plan" is the correct Master Plan and is not the same as the adopted Master Plan that is being used by the City. Several Advisory Board members stated that there were differences regarding the nuances and principles of the presentation and the adopted Master Plan, but NONE OF THE ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS stated differences with specificity and did not point to any particular section or language. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1_ & SP.2 on 07 20 2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 3 Bilzin Sumberg Seeing the Advisory Board's misinformation regarding the Master Plan and its adoption, the Director of the Planning and Zoning Department recommended that the Advisory Board invite the Planning Department back to present a detailed analysis regarding any perceived differences between the presentation and the adopted Master Plan. The Director explained that to his knowledge, and that of his staff, there were no differences between the presentation and the Master Plan. He urged the Advisory Board to bring to their attention, any perceived or identifiable differences. The Advisory Board did not identify any such differences. When prompted by the Director, the Advisory Board agreed that it would permit the Department to make a presentation to the Advisory Board regarding the Master Plan as well as the RFP's compliance with the Master Plan. The Advisory Board also requested that a comparison chart and analysis be prepared so that the Advisory Board can assess the differences, if any, between the adopted Master Plan and the Master Plan presentation. Unable to identify concerns that could not be remedied by removal of the wet slips in the basin or in negotiations between the City and RCI, at the May 24th meeting the Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City remove the wet slips from the basin, rather than vote to recommend that the City reject all proposals and reissue the RFP. When faced with the fact that the only major concerns centered on new development in the basin, the Advisory Board concluded that restricting that development would assuage its concerns and it voted accordingly. On June 29th, the Advisory Board, without the very information it requested, reversed course. Although the Advisory Board made clear that it was lacking pertinent information about the Master Plan and decided it would seek more information from a future presentation and analysis by the Planning Department, it made a recommendation regarding the RFP on June 29th without having received that critical information and analysis. The resolution for the June 29th recommendation called for the City to "issue a new RFP for the Virginia Key Marina that complies with the original Master Plan." The "original Master Plan" is a reference to what the Planning Department explained at the May 24th meeting was merely a presentation document and not the adopted vetted by the City Commission. It is the City Commission, after input from all interested parties, that adopts the official Master Plan. On June 29th, the Advisory Board did not allow or receive the requested detailed comparison of the Master Plan with the presentation given during Master Plan's adoption by the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board did not receive a detailed analysis from the Planning Department regarding the RFP and RCI's compliance with the Master Plan. This might prompt you to ask, on what then was the Advisory Board's June 29th decision based? Misinformation and uninformed opinions. For the June 29th meeting, the Chairman of the Advisory Board, Greg Bush, circulated a draft resolution to the Advisory Board members laden with falsehoods. In that draft resolution, the Chairman claimed, among other things: Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP -1 & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 4 `Z Bilzin Sumberg 1. That the Planning Department redrafted the Master Plan without authorization from the Commission and that the adopted Master Plan is in fact a "`fake' Master Plan". 2. That the current official version of the Master Plan subtly contradicts the will of the Commission, without providing any proof of such contradictions. 3. That the Master Plan was not clearly referenced in the RFP and the RFP deviates from the Master Plan. 4. That the RFP does not incorporate a Maritime Building/Welcome Center. 5. That the RFP calls for slips in the basins that are not depicted in the Master Plan. Despite the Chairman's claims that the Master Plan contradicts the will of the Commission and was not properly adopted, the Planning Department has stated otherwise and the Chairman has not proffered any legitimate proof to substantiate his statements or contradict the Planning Department's firm assertion. Despite the Chairman's claims, the Master Plan was mentioned in the RFP more than twelve times, the RFP's vision is described as being "to help implement major components of the Master Plan" (RFP, pg. 3), and Master Plan compliance was a factor in the RFP's scoring criteria. Despite the Chairman's claims, the RFP site and surveys do not include the Maritime Building/Welcome Center within the footprint of the RFP site. That parcel remains a part of the Marine Stadium site, so proposers could not propose such a building in their plans because they had to stay within the footprint provided by the City. Despite the Chairman's claims, the RFP did not require that wet slips be developed in the basin; the RFP states, "There is no anticipated location for the additional boat slips as this will be determined at the Selected Proposer's discretion, subject to the restrictions set forth in the RFP, the Master Plan (included as Exhibit E), and all other applicable restrictions, rules, and regulations" (RFP Addendum II, pg. 2). The Advisory Board has not specifically stated what the differences are between the presentation made during the adoption of the Master Plan and the adopted Master Plan. The Advisory Board has not questioned RCI about its plan's compliance with the Master Plan and did not identify specific concerns regarding RCI's Master Plan compliance that have not already been addressed. The Board has not detailed what actual deviations exist between RCI's plan and the Master Plan other than the development of wet slips in the basin. In accordance with the Advisory Board's May 24th recommendation that the City Commission remove the wet slips from the basin, RCI and the City Commission made clear at the June 22, 2016 City Commission meeting that they are prepared to negotiate an agreement that would eliminate wet slips in the basin, thus that issue has been rectified. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 5 ,-� Bilzin Sumberg At the May 24th meeting, the Advisory Board could not identify any other major concern that would necessitate issuing a new RFP other than the basin wet slips, which is why even when faced with a vote to recommend rejecting all proposals, at that meeting the Advisory Board voted to simply recommend removing the slips from basin because such a change could be made by the City and RCI and would alleviate the community's concerns regarding use of the basin. What new information would lead the Advisory Board to logically conclude that it needed to reverse its position and vote on June 29th to recommend a rejection of all proposals and reissuance of the RFP? None. Had the Advisory Board sought the counsel of the Planning Department, it would not have been misled by misinformation. A presentation from the Planning Department would have further clarified the adoption of the Master Plan, even though it was clearly explained at the May 24th meeting, and would have provided proof for the Planning Department's assertion that there are no substantive differences between the Master Plan and the presentation that was given at the adoption of the Master Plan. Without a presentation by the Planning Department outlining the RFP's and RCI's compliance with the Master Plan, the environmental prohibitions against developing new wet slips to the west of the current marina as proposed in the Master Plan (not merely the fact that the County owns the submerged land), and the fact that the RFP did not require slips in the basin, the Advisory Board made a decision based on opinions that were not factual, were not verified, and should not have been the basis for recommending that all proposals be rejected. Governmental bodies are not legally permitted to make dispositive decisions that are based on mere conjecture. 2. So, is RCI's plan in compliance with the Master Plan? Yes, it is. The Master Plan enumerated the following goals and objectives for the creation and implementation of the Plan: 1. To design and propose policies for the use of a viable waterfront with complete public access. 2. To efficiently develop and manage the land. 3. To create an accessible place of recreation, heritage, education and research related to the natural world and historical interpretation. 4. To provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural resources (i.e. public beaches, parks and conservation areas) with the necessary infrastructure and traffic flow to serve their future use. 5. To apply sustainable principles such as healthy activity, low carbon footprint, LEED certified building, alternative transportation and energy. Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 .t_f"r -Bilzin Sumberg Page 6 6. To integrate and preserve the historic Virginia Key Beach Park and the Marine Stadium. 7. To provide opportunities for water and land sports and active recreation. RCI's proposal complies with the Master Plan, its stated goals and objectives, as applicable, and in certain instances exceeds them. RCI's proposal was prepared in accordance and conformity with the principles of the Master Plan. RCI's plan facilitates waterfront access, environmental restoration, active and passive recreation, small scale commercial, and convenient parking in an environmentally sensitive manner (RCI's Proposal, Section IV). RCI's plan does not over -emphasize retail or commercial space and all retail will be marine -related (RCI's Proposal, Section I, pg. 2). RCI's Plan Will Restore and Preserve Critical Vegetation RCI's plan calls for preservation and restoration of the existing landscape at the site (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.17). Many existing trees will be preserved and mangroves would be restored. There would be native plantings of plants specific to Virginia Key (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.6; Section IV, pg.17). RCI's plan provides for greening of the marina, and preservation of greenspace (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.6; Section IV, pg.17). RCI's plan will supplement and preserve existing landscape buffers (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.4 and 38). There will be xeriscape planting of both drought and wetland tolerant species (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.18). RCI's Preferred Plan eliminates the need for a parking garage, which allows for maximum green -space (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.8-9). RCI's Plan Maximizes Access to and Utilization of the Waterfront One of RCI's stated goals and objectives is to, "Sustain and revitalize a historic, underutilized waterfront site and maximize its potential" and another stated goal is to "Provide a safe, sustainable, and accessible Baywalk and open areas for the public" (RCI's Proposal, Section II, pg.3). RCI's plan has two levels of continuous path, an elevated flood -proof public and commercial level, and a purely recreational level (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pgs.7 and 11). RCI's plan includes thousands of linear feet of contiguous, uninterrupted Baywalk along the entire waterfront that directly connects to other parts of Virginia Key (RCI's Proposal, Section I, pg. 1). The promenade is accessible via ramps that connect it to the raised commercial and dining spaces with direct access from the garage at grade (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 11). The visitor experience from car to boat is completely convenient using either water -front valet or walking directly from the parking area to the Baywalk. No elevators or stairs are needed. RCI proposed parking underneath its dry storage facility so that the site could be used efficiently and economically while providing added convenience for patrons who will not need to walk a long distances to access the garage (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.8-9). Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 7 : -) Bilzin Sumberg RCI's plan will greatly improve the public's access to this prime City asset and the waterfront by activating currently underutilized areas, facilitating use of the site, and providing the necessary connectivity between different parts of the Island. One of the goals and objectives that RCI listed in its proposal is to "Develop a pedestrian -friendly campus with direct access to extensive bay walk systems and an atmosphere and uses that encourage a vast array of activities during the day and after working hours" (RCI's Proposal, Section II, pg.3). RCI's proposal provides that light will shine "on the path and not into the eyes of pedestrians while meeting all requirements. LED fixtures with low mounting heights will allow pedestrians to feel safe without ruining views" (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.25). Additionally, RCI made a commitment to host fishing tournaments, sailing regattas, and recreational activities, as it has done at the other sites that it has developed and/or operated, thus facilitating public use of the site (RCI's Proposal, Section VI, pg. 15). RCI's plan also incorporates benches, seating areas, passive parks, green spaces and renovation of the public boat ramp that will all be open to the public (RCI's Proposal, Section III, pg. 4; Section IV, pgs. 7, 14, and Plans). RCI's plan proposes extensive overhangs to shade pedestrians and diners to enhance the user experience (RCI's Proposal, Section IV., pg. 19). The state-of-the-art dry storage facility will have a control system that enables electromechanical systems to automatically place and retrieve loads from defined storage locations. A data network to distribute and collect information to and from the control system will complement the electromechanical systems and help to maximize the available storage space in the building. The system can store 46% more boats in the exact same building and increase the linear footage available, thereby increasing efficiency and revenue production of the dry storage facility. The system will be ready to retrieve or launch vessels immediately, unlike traditional forklift systems, thus offering efficient 20-30 boats per hour launch/retrieval time. It will use a unique sorting optimization software that, each night, optimizes where boats are stored, allowing each new boat that is added to be placed with other boats in a row based on a configuration that uses 90% or more of the available linear footage (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 8). RCI's Plan Will Create a Unified and Integrated Campus RCI will convert the site into a unified and integrated campus where the marinas seamlessly interact with the restaurants, retail, office, active public uses, and marine -related uses, as called for by the Master Plan (RCI's Proposal, Section II, pg.3; Section IV, pg.6). RCI's plan has a contiguous, uninterrupted promenade and safe, dedicated bicycle lanes and shared use paths (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.21). RCI's state-of-the-art boat storage system will not interrupt the continuous path and does not create a safety hazard for pedestrians (RCI's Proposal, Section IV., pg. 13). The extra -wide and continuous Baywalk will allow integration with activities taking place at Marine Stadium. As RCI stated in its proposal, "The design of the Project will also complement, and when necessary, accommodate, the restoration and use of the Marine Stadium and is Submitted into the public record for item(s) 5P.1 & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 8 CBilzin Sumberg compatible with the height of the Marine Stadium. The design also allows the Project to be compatible with the Miami International Boat Show" (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.6). RCI's plan incorporates bus, bicycle, and automobile networks and a service and emergency access plan (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pgs.18 and 23). The transit networks maximize connectivity between active and passive areas and promote integration with other parts of Virginia Key. RCI's plan incorporates a valet/drop-off area to facilitate easy access to the waterfront (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.22). RCI's plans detail well-planned sidewalks and pedestrian passageways (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.21). RCI also provides four separate north -south pedestrian connections, which is more than what is provided in the Master Plan (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.21). The canals proposed in the Master Plan and its need for bridges would restrict direct access to the waterfront promenade, so these elements were not incorporated into RCI's plan. RCI's pedestrian paths lead directly to and provide visibility of the water (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.21). RCI's elevated pedestrian paths and steps provide long views without requiring the public to enter a building (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 14). RCI's Plan Has Extensive Sustainability and Green Features RCI's plan proposes to seek Florida clean marina designation (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 18). The sustainability and green features incorporated into RCI's plan will ensure that this project will be able to function and generate revenue for the City for many decades to come and limit the marina's impact on the environment. The commercial spaces are elevated in conformity with FEMA regulations, effectively separating them from the promenade (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 14). This also allows the two -levels of promenade space (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pgs.7 and 11). RCI's plan maximizes conserved greenspace by keeping to the footprint of existing operations and refurbishing rather than replacing some existing buildings (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.17). RCI's plan promotes green building because it does not require the construction of a parking garage, thus reducing the amount of green space that is taken up by structures. RCI's buildings will be constructed in an environmentally sensitive manner, and will include bicycle parking (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.21). The buildings' light-colored roofs will minimize heat island effect and conserve energy (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.19). The plan's extensive exterior circulation minimizes area under air-conditioning (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.19). RCI's proposal provides for "LED site lighting with minimal spill" to minimize light intrusion into the basin (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 18). RCI's electric boat storage system is more green and energy efficient than the diesel forklift - based storage system (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 13). RCI's boat storage facility will have a quiet and green electrical operation (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 13). Further, the boat storage elevators are extremely efficient compared to alternative systems (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 19). Submitted into the public record for item(s) sp.l_& SP.2 on 07 20 2016 City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 9 Bilzin Sumberg RCI's plans integrate storm water management and improvements (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.18). The project will be designed "with perimeter grades and conveyance of runoff with associated paving and grading" (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.10). "Stormwater will be retained for the required treatment in accordance with SFWMD guidelines by swales, exfiltration trenches, or detention boxes as required" (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 10). RCI's plan, "to the extent possible, will include bio swales, rain gardens, and green roofs" (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.6). Cisterns will capture rain -water for re -use in irrigation or boat washing (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 19). RCI's green initiatives will include: installation of solar powered, wireless security cameras; electric car charging station installation throughout parking lots; in -slip sanitary pump out systems will be installed at every in water slip; security guards will ride/patrol their respective properties on foot or bicycle, not golf cart or auto (RCI's Proposal, Section V., pg. 11-12). RCI will also pursue possibility of mounting PV panels in conjunction with FPL (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg. 19). RCI's Plan is Reflective of the Characteristics of Virginia Key and the Environment RCI's dry dock is broken up into three buildings with pedestrian passageways that intersect and connect with the public waterfront promenade, just as is depicted and called for in the Master Plan. RCI's design was "inspired by the streamlined style of contemporary yachts and boats" (Section IV, pg.5). "The design of the Project mirrors that of a boat, allowing it to blend in with the landscape and the water, appearing as if, like a boat, the building is preparing to embark into the ocean itself (Section IV, pg.5). RCI's project does not exceed 65 feet in height (RCI's Proposal, Section IV, pg.6). RCI's plan will fit into the landscape of Virginia Key and will not be a monolithic building that disturbs the character of the site. 3. It would be arbitrary and capricious for the City Comnnission to accept the Advisory Board's uninformed recommendation. The courts support the decision-making authority and business judgment of public bodies. Florida courts and the Department of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") have repeatedly found that "An agency has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids, and its decision, if based on an honest exercise of this discretion, will not be overturned even if reasonable persons may differ with the outcome." AAA -1 Quality Lawn Care Service, v. School Board of Pam Beach County, Florida, Case No. 95-3879BID, 1995 WL 1053216, at ¶ 3 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 23, 1995). Caselaw affords governmental entities broad latitude and courts are hesitant to overturn their use of the discretion in the public bidding process, but such discretion and latitude cannot be employed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because governmental bodies are afforded broad discretion in public bidding, "the standard by which that discretion is judged is that it should not be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, but should be based upon facts reasonably tending to support the conclusions of the public entity." City of Cape Coral v. Water Services of America, Inc., 567 So.2d 510, 513 (1990). An arbitrary decision is one that is not supported by Submitted into the public record for item(s) SPA & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk July 15, 2016 Page 10 Bilzin Sumberg facts or logic, or is despotic. Traveler Elevator, v. Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, Case No. 12-2288BID (Fla. DOAH September 14, 2012). Given the facts presented above and the highlights of RCI's plan, it is clear that the Advisory Board's June 29th recommendation was based on fairness and facts. The Advisory Board made its June 29th recommendation without a full presentation of the facts that were needed to reach a logical conclusion regarding the technical issues of the RFP and RCI's compliance with the Master Plan. At its June 29th meeting, the Advisory Board did not have the facts necessary to reasonably support the conclusion that it reached. The Advisory Board had not been fully briefed on the technical issues, and yet, it reversed its May 24th recommendation which had been made cautiously, and with the understanding that it had limited information and only one primary concern. On June 29th, the Advisory Board threw caution to the wind. This constitutes arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Per se, if the City Commission accepts the Advisory Board's recommendation, it would be making an arbitrary and capricious decision. Such a decision would not pass legal muster and would not be permissible by law. RCI and the City are both willing to agree to remove the wet slips from the basin and such a change is wholly consistent with the RFP. Community groups such as the Miami Rowing Club have expressed support for RCI and its plan given the concessions that RCI is willing to negotiate with the City. There are no other identifiable or legally sufficient concerns that would warrant a rejection of all proposals and reissuance of the RFP. We urge the City Commission to reject the Advisory Board's recommendation to throw out the RFP and instead make a decision that is based on facts. Sincerely, f Albert E. Dotson, Jr. CNM/AED cc: The Honorable Tomas Regalado, Mayor Victoria Mendez, Esquire, City Attorney Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Esquire/Senior Assistant City Attorney Todd Hannon, City Clerk Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager Daniel Rotenberg, Director of Real Estate and Asset Management Francisco Garcia, Director/Planning and Zoning Jacqueline Lorenzo, Project Manager Jason Spalding, CBRE Mr. Robert Christoph, Sr. Mr. Robert Christoph, Jr. 5068581.2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) SP.1 & SP.2 on 07/20/2016, City Clerk