HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Greg Bush-Virginia Key RFP PresentationVirginia Key RFP:
A Flawed Process
and
7/20/2016
Far From the Real 2010 Master
Plan
Some historical facts
• February 2007- UEL held a meeting at the Rosnestiel School — attended by
City Manager and Comm Sarnoff to push the city and its consultants- EDSA-
into providing public input into the Master Plan process. No EDSA official
was present.
• October 2009- broad public revolt against the EDSA plan resulted in the city
commission deferring the highly commercialized EDSA plan at the request
of a Virginia Key Public Coalition- which was given until the spring 2010 to
come up with an alternative plan.
• July 22, 2010- After many meetings and compromises by hundreds of
participants, a Consensus Master Plan was passed unanimously by the City
Commission.
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016, City Clerk
I6-0�`6SI0, \\ \I \ \
1
2010 Master Plan on Planning Dept Website
• July 2010 -Final Report
• July 22, 2010 -ADOPTED Consensus Master Plan
• July 22, 2010 -Presentation to the City Commission
• Proiect Chronology
• October 8, 2009 -Presentation to the City Commission (deferral of the plan)
• June 17. 2009 -Presentation to the Planning Advisory Board
• March 29, 2007 -Presentation of Site Inventory & Analysis at Rosenstiel
• School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (First Public Meeting)
Which one is the real one passed by the
commission?
• July 22, 2010 "ADOPTED CONSENSUS MASTER PLAN ???
• Wrong Master Plan was passed out to the newly established Virginia Key Advisory
Board at its first meeting in May 2016 — years after such a board was called for in
July 2010. Its chronology was incomplete and biased against the public effort
behind the real Master Plan passed by the commission.
• Which Master Plan was cited in the Marina RFP? Guess.
• What are the legal ramifications of presenting an invented or rewritten Master
Plan to bidders? What will the Commission do to rectify this flawed process?
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016. City Clerk
7/20/2016
N
Rewritten Master Plan
Done Without Virginia Key Masten Plan
Commission Approval
July 2030
Put the name of allied ` -k
organizations on this
rewritten plan without
any consultation.
�f P
f ':. Tc4
(SNI
Rewritten Master Plan
• Section: "Miami Marine Park Proposal'
• "The design process has been guided by the following basic concepts:
• Maximize public access to the waterfront
• Provide flexible open space on the eastern side for public recreational use-
• Build new revenue generating boating facilities
• Propose a site for a marine exhibition center [?????????]
• Restore and vigorously use the Historic Miami Marine Stadium
• Limit structures height not to exceed the height of the Marine Stadium
• Provide green alternatives for parking
• Promote varied public use of site from passive to active and island
Integration
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016. City Clerk
7/20/2016
3
Rewritten Master Plan
• The implementation strategies assume that all publicly -owned lands on
Virginia Key will not be sold to private development and that the goal is
to leverage private investment to reduce public costs and provide public
amenities. [Does this largely benefit large wealthy boat owner needs?]
• The public costs and revenues vary depending upon which development
option is taken. Generally, the lower the public investment, the lower the
net public revenues and the lower the required public cost over time.
Development requiring greater private investment will require longer
ground lease terms.
Rewritten Master Plan
• 7. Community Recommendations ??? Vs. Commission Action
• At the conclusion of the planning process and in an effort to assure compliance with
the approved consensus Master Plan, the following recommendations were made
• Set up Multijurisdictional Virginia Key Oversight Board
• Continue regular meetings with public input or progress
• (website presence; quarterly reports to City Commission)
• Protect environmental and cultural heritage of the island
• Promote uses that serve a public purpose (and abide by existing deed restrictions)
• Promote public access and expand educational opportunities
• Promote a follow up comprehensive transportation plan
• Sustainability should guide all planning for the island's future
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016, City Clerk
7/20/2016
4
7/20/2016
Why it matters?
• Integrity of the planning process: manipulation of basic documents
passed by the Commission.
• What drives this process? Dept of Real Estate/Asset Management ?
• Erosion of Public Space by wealthy boat owner interests
• Where is the planning effort behind the Marine Stadium, Island
Welcome/Maritime Center, Green Flex Park, island wide integration
and a transportation plan?
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SP.1 & SP.2
on 07 20 2016, City Clerk
5
Actions of the Virginia Key Advisory Board
• May 24, 2016: respect the Master Plan, remove the wet slips.
• June 28, 2016: rewrite the RFP; respect the original Master Plan
Marina - RFP
• Oct 2009: (EDSA Plan) Wet slips 215; 40 moorings; Drystack- 750
• 30 amendments?
• 300 slips in Basin- impeding Marine Stadium/recreational boating
• Now taken off the table? What legal assurances? That's not enough.
• But its more than that: issues of massing, scope of operation.
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016, City Clerk
7/20/2016
[.1
Integrity of the Overall Planning Process
• Ignores the Marine Stadium? Where is the plan for that?
• Where is the Maritime Center- Welcome Center?
• Island Wide transportation?
• What or who has been driving this process?
Conclusion: Integrity,
Public Space Matters
Cultural Memory and
• Please send a message to City administrators that:
• 1. public process matters
• 2. start with rewriting the Marina RFP
Submitted into the public
record for item(s) SPA & SP.2
on 07/20/2016, City Clerk
7/20/2016
7