Meeting Minutes

Document Sample
Meeting Minutes Powered By Docstoc
					          City of Miami
             City Hall
      3500 Pan American Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
        www.miamigov.com




          Meeting Minutes

    Thursday, January 25, 2007

                  9:00 AM
      PLANNING AND ZONING


City Hall Commission Chambers




        City Commission

              Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor
            Angel González, Chairman
           Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman
 Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two
  Tomas Regalado, Commissioner District Four
Michelle Spence-Jones, Commissioner District Five
        Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager
         Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney
         Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                                               CONTENTS

PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

MV - MAYORAL VETOES

M - MAYOR'S ITEMS

D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS

D2 - DISTRICT 2 ITEMS

D3 - DISTRICT 3 ITEMS

D4 - DISTRICT 4 ITEMS

D5 - DISTRICT 5 ITEMS

PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS

FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES

DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS

                                                 PART B
PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
                    Minutes are transcribed verbatim. Periodically, agenda items are revisited during a meeting.
                    "[Later...]" refers to discussions that were interrupted and later continued.




City of Miami                                       Page 2                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


9:00 A.M.            INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
                     Present: Chairman González, Commissioner Sarnoff, Vice-Chairman Sanchez, Commissioner
                     Regalado and Commissioner Spence-Jones
                     On the 25th day of January 2007, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its
                     regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular
                     session. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Angel González at 9:30 a.m., recessed at
                     12:03 p.m., reconvened at 2:32 p.m., recessed at 4:45 p.m., reconvened at 5:10 p.m., and
                     adjourned at 11:09 p.m.

                     Note for the Record: Commissioner Regalado entered the meeting at 2:37 p.m.

                     Note for the Record: Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones and Vice Chairman Sanchez entered
                     the meeting at 5:13 p.m.

                     ALSO PRESENT:

                     Jorge L. Fernández, City Attorney
                     Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager
                     Pamela Burns, Assistant City Clerk

                     Chairman González: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the January 25, 2007
                     meeting of the City of Miami City Commission in this historic chambers. The members of the
                     City Commission are Joe Sanchez, Vice Chairman, Tomas Regalado, Michelle Spence-Jones,
                     Marc Sarnoff, and myself, Angel González, your Chairman. Also on the dais are Pedro
                     Hernandez, the City Manager, Jorge Fernández, the City Attorney, and Pamela Burns, Assistant
                     City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer by Commissioner Sanchez -- Vice
                     Chairman Sanchez and the pledge of allegiance by Commissioner Sarnoff. Please rise for the
                     invocation.

                     Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.

PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

PR.1      07-00104   CEREMONIAL ITEM
                     Honoree                           Presenter                   Protocol Item



                     Lillies of the Valley             Commissioner Spence-Jones   Certificate of Appreciation

                     The Longshoreman                  Commissioner Spence-Jones   Certificate of Appreciation

                     Contractor's Resource Center      Commissioner Spence-Jones   Certificate of Appreciation

                     07-00104 Cover Page.pdf
                     07-00104 Protocol List.pdf
                     PRESENTED

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones presented Certificates of Appreciation to the Lilies of the Valley,
                     particularly Nifretta Thomas, Nicole Wild, Julie Grimes, Cirabel Olson, Brenda Riggins, Erica
                     Wright, Rosario Kennedy, Linda Petterson, and Aletha Player, for their unselfish commitment to
                     raising the quality of life in Miami by contributing their support to the homeless women of Miami
                     during their transitional period to a better life; further recognizing Constance Collins, the
                     founder and director of Lotus House.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of the
City of Miami                                            Page 3                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  International Longshoremen's Association 1416 for their involvement as valuable community
                  partners in addressing the needs of the citizens of Miami by providing resources to feed the
                  homeless and others during the holiday seasons.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones recognized the student volunteers of the National Social Service
                  Organization, Huntsville, Alabama, who will assist in helping to improve the lives of the students
                  in District 5.

                  Jessica Odio-Duran, District Director of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, presented
                  Captain Raul Fernandez, City of Miami Fire-Rescue Department, with an Outstanding
                  Achievement Award.

                  Note for the Record: Recognition of the Contractors Resource Center was deferred.

                  Chairman González: Now we're going to go to presentations and proclamation. Commissioner
                  Spence-Jones, you have a couple (TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY).

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                  Presentations made.

                                           Order of the Day
                  Chairman González: All right. We will now begin the regular meeting, and the City Attorney
                  will state the procedure to be followed during this meeting. Mr. City Attorney.

                  Jorge L. Fernández (City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, members of the audience.
                  Any person who is a lobbyist must register with the City Clerk before appearing in front of the
                  City Commission. The material in connection with each item appearing on the agenda is
                  available for inspection during business hours at the City Clerk's office and online at
                  wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this
                  agenda. All decisions of the City Commission are final, except that the Mayor may veto certain
                  items approved by the City Commission within ten calendar days of the Commission's action.
                  The Commission may override such veto by a four-fifth vote. 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 on which the appeal is based. Absolutely no cell phones, beepers, or
                  other audible sound or ringing devices are permitted in the Commission chambers. Please
                  silence those now. Any person making impertinent or slanderous remarks or who becomes
                  unruly while addressing the Commission shall be barred from further attending Commission
                  meetings, unless permission to continue or again address the Commission is granted by a vote of
                  the Commission. No clapping, applauding, heckling, or verbal outbursts in support or
                  opposition to a speaker or Commissioner are allowed. No signs or placards are allowed in the
                  chambers. Person exiting the Commission chamber shall do so quietly. Persons may address
                  the City Commission on items appearing on the “public hearings” portion of the agenda and on
                  items where public input is solicited. Persons wishing to speak should inform the City Clerk as
                  soon as possible of the desire to speak, giving the City Clerk their names. At the time the item is
                  heard, persons who will speak should approach the microphones and wait to be recognized. Any
                  person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City
                  Clerk, and they will be provided. 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
                  deliberation of the agenda item being considered at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly
                  scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. The items will be heard in the numbered sequence on
                  the agenda, except for PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, which will begin after 10 a.m. Mr.
                  Chairman, Madam Clerk, please take note. The following items are being deferred to future
                  meetings: PH.2 and DI.1.


City of Miami                                      Page 4                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: PH.2.

                     Mr. Fernández: Those two items are being deferred to a future meeting.

                     Chairman González: You said PH.2.

                     Mr. Fernández: PH.2 --

                     Chairman González: OK.

                     Mr. Fernández: -- and DI.1 are being deferred to a future meeting. PH.1 and PH.3 will be
                     heard after 10:30. They're specially scheduled to be heard after 10:30, PH.1 and PH.3. Then,
                     at 10 o'clock, when you begin, or soon thereafter when you begin the P&Z (Planning & Zoning)
                     agenda, I will notify you of those items that have been continued, but I will do so at that time, not
                     now. Please also note that there are substituted documents for D2.3 -- these are blue pages
                     items belonging to Commissioner Sarnoff. There are -- we have substituted; they've been
                     distributed to you this morning, D2.3 and D2.4. Mr. Chairman, those are the changes on the
                     agenda.

                     Chairman González: Thank you.

MAYORAL VETOES
                     NO MAYORAL VETOES

                     Chairman González: All right. We don't have any vetoes from the Mayor's Office, according to
                     the memo that I have received --

                     Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): That's correct --

                     Chairman González: -- is that correct?

                     Ms. Burns: -- no vetoes.

                     Chairman González: Thank you. Is there anyone here from the Mayor's Office? The Mayor has
                     an item on the agenda. No, he doesn't. All right. I don't have any items.

                               MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS

                                                CITYWIDE
                              HONORABLE MAYOR MANUEL A. DIAZ

                                                DISTRICT 1
                                    CHAIRMAN ANGEL GONZÁLEZ

                                                DISTRICT 2
                             COMMISSIONER MARC DAVID SARNOFF

D2.1      07-00061   RESOLUTION
                     A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                     ATTACHMENT(S), REQUESTING THAT THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY BOARD
                     OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE
City of Miami                                          Page 5                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE AD VALOREM TAX ASSESSMENT
                  ON REAL PROPERTY TO BE ONE (1%) PER CENT OF THE PROPERTY'S
                  ASSESSED VALUE ,TO CAP ANNUAL INCREASES IN ASSESSED
                  VALUATION TO NO MORE THAT TWO (2%) PER CENT FROM THE PRIOR
                  YEAR'S VALUATION, AND TO REQUIRE THAT ANY INCREASE IN ANY
                  OTHER STATE TAX, FEE OR ASSESSMENT BE APPROVED BY NO LESS
                  THAN A TWO-THIRDS (2/3) VOTE OF EACH CHAMBER OF THE
                  LEGISLATURE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF
                  THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED AS STATED
                  HEREIN.
                  07-00061 Legislation.pdf
                  07-00061 Exhibit .pdf
                  07-00061 Exhibit 2 .pdf
                  07-00061 Exhibit 3 .pdf
                  07-00061 Exhibit 4 .pdf
                  CONTINUED

                  A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was
                  passed unanimously, to continue item D2.1 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for
                  February 8, 2007; further directing the Administration to conduct a fiscal impact study on the
                  impact of this legislation on the City and to provide the results of said study at the Commission
                  meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                  Direction by Commissioner Spence-Jones to the City Manager for the City's state lobbyists to
                  brief the Commissioners on bills related to ad valorem tax assessment on real property at the
                  Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                  Chairman González: Commissioner Sarnoff, you have a couple of items, and let me tell you, it
                  has been my practice all along, since I've been sitting here, that when I receive something five
                  minutes before the meeting, I respectfully request that the item be deferred or continued to the
                  next meeting until I have time to, you know, read it, because this -- there is a lot of
                  documentation here, and I was looking over it, and there's a lot of numbers, and the statistics,
                  and you know -- and to be honest with you, I wouldn't be able to vote on these items until I'm
                  familiarize with, you know, what's -- what this is all about, so I don't know if you have an
                  objection to defer it; if you want to go ahead and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well --

                  Chairman González: -- go over it, you know.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- it would be first reading, Mr. Chairman, and any discrepancies could
                  be cleared up on second reading.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I think -- if I described it to you, I think -- if you're not satisfied, and you
                  still have that same feeling, I would certainly then consider bringing it up again.

                  Chairman González: All right. Then go ahead.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: The first item that I have is the portability of tax relief. When I was
                  walking for my campaign, it seemed like there were two issues that really mattered to the voters
                  the most, and that was their wind insurance, which was skyrocketing, and their taxes. What I'm
                  asking this Commission to do is pass a resolution which looks into and accepts, in part,
                  California Proposition 13, Massachusetts State Law 22, which has over 35 years of experience
City of Miami                                        Page 6                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  in statistical data in which to look at. What essentially it does, it allows for portability, and in
                  gross terms, it allows a person who sells his home in Dade County and remains in Dade County
                  to hold onto his tax bill or her tax bill when they move to another home in Dade County. It has a
                  component of inheritability. What's happening is many of us who are inheriting from our
                  parents or grandparents, once we put that title in our name, that property gets reassessed. As
                  you could very well have a property that's been in the family for 50, 60 years that has a 2 or
                  $3,000 tax base to suddenly have a $14,000 tax basis, and inevitably, what's going to happen is
                  that person is forced to sell. It equally has a renovation component to it. It allows a person to
                  renovate their house and not incur a reassessment on the renovation. What I found was many of
                  us are becoming prisoners in our own homes, and that is, people are staying in their homes as
                  opposed to either upsizing or downsizing. You hear a lot about downsizing. You hear about 55
                  years old, and they want to close up shop with a four-bedroom house or the three-bedroom
                  house and move to a one- or two-bedroom house, or even condominium, but they can't do so
                  because they'll be incurring a higher tax bill upon the closing of that house, so after I was visited
                  by the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas
                  Future, our CFO ( Chief Financial Officer), one of the things I am going to ask the City Attorney
                  to take out is the one percent tax increase and allow it to remain upon our resolution
                  recommendation, as it is in the State of Florida now three percent for a person who's
                  homesteaded, so I think that would satisfy the financial accountants so that they can continue to
                  allow the City's growth and the County's growth with regard to homestead of property
                  continuing to escalate at a slow pace, and it actually does nothing to people who are coming in
                  from out of state or moving here from even out of the county, and they would have to incur a full
                  tax bill for whatever the millage rate and their sell price would be, but this is something that I
                  think is important to the citizens. I -- obviously, as I put it, it's above my pay grade. It's got to
                  go to the County, and then the County; I believe has to go to the State, and if anybody read the
                  paper this morning, our now governor is very interested in something like this. I think
                  portability is something everyone's interested; inheritability is something for the old-timers in
                  Florida, and renovability [sic], as I like to call it, allows us to stay in our homes and improve
                  them without having to go to the tax man and reassess ourselves, so I hope to have a motion to at
                  least resolve to put this in front of the County and, as well, our lobbying agencies -- or our
                  lobbyists for Tallahassee.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would second it for the purpose of discussion, as long as the
                  amendment has been put on the floor from one percent to three percent.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I will second it for the purpose of discussion.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: -- and we have a second. Discussion. Let me recognize Vice Chairman
                  Sanchez.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, no, I would yield, but I'll be --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Thank --

                  Chairman González: Commissioner Regalado.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- you very much, Mr. Chairman. I -- this is an issue that is very dear
                  to me. I think it's important that the City Commission, although we don't have the legislative
                  power to do what we want to do. We'll make a political statement, and we'll declare that, as the

City of Miami                                       Page 7                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  governor has said, the two priorities of the residents in the state of Florida is, number one, the
                  windstorm insurance, and number two, the property taxes, and as Commissioner Sarnoff have
                  said, there are two or three bills moving in the Legislature that may result in an amendment to
                  the state Constitution by vote of the people or by legislation of the next session of the state
                  Legislature in March. I think it's important that we come up with this because we have here a
                  dual personality. We are supposed to look for the City as an entity, but we represent the people,
                  and those two interests collide in this issue. Governments need all the money that they can get
                  because they need to spend all the money that they get, and that is why the property appraisal
                  [sic] in Miami-Dade County is so much love by local governments and the County, because we
                  have gotten, as government, dozens of dozens of millions of dollars in excess of what the real
                  property should be because of the high appraisal of the property. I think that we need to deal
                  with this, because in California, with Proposition 13, people said that the world was going to
                  end -- as a matter of fact, California is the fifth largest economy in the world, so nobody die, and
                  people are living very happily in the state of California. I will just tell you that it is unfortunate
                  that we are the only county in the state of Florida where we don't have an elected property
                  appraisal [sic], and that is important because this property appraisal [sic] serve at the pleasure
                  of the Administration; in Miami-Dade County now, the pleasure of the Mayor, and is not
                  accountable to anyone, and you know, we, the legislatures [sic], reduce the taxes, but what is it
                  to you if we reduce the taxes a little and the property appraisal [sic] comes and decides that
                  your property value is bigger than the years before and the years before? So you end up paying
                  more, and this is what is happening in the City of Miami, and this is what is happening in
                  Miami-Dade County. When I brought the issue that the voters of Miami voted on, the need for a
                  property appraisal [sic], we were sued. Last November the City of Hialeah placed the same item
                  on the ballot, and they were sue by the same law firm in Broward, and no one knows how the
                  people voted, and this is sad because we need to get a solution, and hopefully, the state
                  Legislature will get, but I will tell you something to finish, because I think it's a -- this is an
                  important issue. We are told that there's nothing we can do in the City of Miami or Miami-Dade
                  County about high property values. We were told that the state Legislature has to fix it and that
                  we don't -- we cannot change the rules. Well, I have here a ruling of the State Supreme Court,
                  dating back 1979, Florida Statutes, which specifically orders the property appraiser to consider
                  the income generated by a given piece of property when arriving at its just valuation. Any
                  contention to the contrary will be frivolous. That's a ruling of the State Supreme Court. The
                  fact of the matter is that this County property appraisal [sic] is using a loophole in the statutes
                  to do whatever they want, and judging for future use, not by income, the appraisal of the
                  property, and the results is that many people are being evicted out of their apartment buildings
                  because they just cannot pay the rent, and many business are suffering because they cannot
                  afford the rent because the owner have to pay more taxes, so I thank you, Commissioner Sarnoff,
                  but I would go further, and maybe we can examine this on the next Commission meeting. We
                  should, as a City, in behalf of the resident, sue the property appraisal [sic] of Miami-Dade
                  County in order to get the real state statutes being apply in Miami-Dade County, according to
                  the Supreme Court. There is no other county in the state of Florida -- and I have done a lot of
                  research -- that values its property by future land use; commercial property should be appraised
                  by income, and if we do that, we won't have any problem, and yes, governments would have a
                  little less money to function, but I'll tell you, we have such a brilliant mind in Larry Springs [sic]
                  that I'm sure that he will be able to live when we have less taxes to pay. Government just have to
                  do more with less, and I would hope that the state Legislature will place this on the ballot or by
                  legislation that will apply, because I'm willing to support any effort to help with this crisis, which
                  is a crisis, so thank you, Commissioner Sarnoff.

                  Chairman González: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman Sanchez.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion because I think it's a worthy
                  resolution. It is a resolution, not an ordinance, so once we pass this, it becomes law. Now I
                  think what we -- we have a fiduciary responsibility. I think that we need to make sure that there
                  are no hidden consequences in our actions on this item. We also need to let the public know that

City of Miami                                       Page 8                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  we just don't simply react; we think on this proposition, which is -- basically, it'll be the Miami
                  version of California Proposition 13. I think we need to ask certain questions before we do that.
                  I think we need to ask that -- what impact would this have on our budget. What impact would it
                  have on our services? What impact would it have on local businesses? What local -- what
                  impact would it have on our school districts? And then again, a very important issue is what
                  impact would it have on social services? I think that before we vote on this, we need to make
                  sure that someone clearly puts forth a recommendation based on other cities -- because when
                  you talk about California, they pay the highest taxes in the United States, if you look at their
                  taxes, but we need to make sure that those -- this resolution does not have a negative impact on
                  all of the things that I stated before, so --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Can I just --?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- does anybody -- has anybody from the Administration looked at
                  that? Can somebody tell me that it's not going to affect our budget; that it's not going to affect
                  our services; that it's not going to affect our school district?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: That was actually going to be my question, too.

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Commissioners, if I may. I know that we had a very
                  serious concern with the reduction of the cap to the one percent. We discussed that with
                  Commissioner Sarnoff, and we agreed to leave that at three percent. With reference to the other
                  items, the inheritability, the portability, and the feasibility, we agree with the concepts, but we
                  have not, let's say, done any fiscal impact as to potential affects. I was just talking to Mr. Spring
                  --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And are --

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- on it now.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we required by law to have a physical [sic] impact study before we
                  approve something like this, Mr. City Attorney?

                  Mr. Fernández: Well, what you're doing is you're recommending to the County to, and
                  Tallahassee, exercise its muscle so that this can become a constitutional question or an
                  amendment to the Constitution, and so to do that, you do not have to have a fiscal impact
                  because you need fiscal impact to your own ordinances. When you pass ordinances that are
                  under your control that would have fiscal impact, that's when you need it, but this is statewide
                  impact. Is it prudent for you to request a fiscal impact? Yes. But it is required? No, not for the
                  passage of this item.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I think it's important that the Administration needs to provide to
                  this legislative body a physical [sic] impact study of how would it affect us if this is approved.
                  Larry.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I --?

                  Commissioner Regalado: Can I say something? Can I say some --? Excuse me.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Go ahead.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Regardless of your studies, regardless of your analysis, if this goes to
                  a ballot, it will be approved throughout the state of Florida, and municipalities and county will
                  just have to live with it. Regardless of your studies and our concerns, if the state Legislature on
                  March passes the bill that they want to do in terms of reduction of property taxes and it's signed

City of Miami                                       Page 9                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  by the governor, you know, we just have to approve it, so to me it's an exercise in futility because
                  the thing is that we know that when the voters of the state of Florida approve the additional
                  $25,000 for seniors four years ago, the budget took a hit, and it had to be approved because it
                  was the state law, an amendment to the Constitution. Last November, when the voters approved
                  another additional $25,000 for 65 older [sic] and low-income resident, it has to be implemented.
                  We have, in Miami, 8,511 property owners that qualify for the $75,000 homestead exemption,
                  and we just have to live with that. I haven't heard you cry about it, Larry, and I know that you'll
                  figure out, because this is being driven by the state Legislature. This is being driven by a
                  grassroots group that has collected enough signatures to put it on the ballot, either on a special
                  election or the Presidential Election of 208 [sic], so you know, this is symbolical to me. It
                  doesn't have any impact now, nor it would change anything later, but it's good that people
                  understand, in the Legislature, that we have a crisis in terms of taxes in the City of Miami, and
                  the City want just to voice their report to what we feel. Yes, it would have an impact, which is
                  nothing we can do about it. It's like taxes and death. I mean, the people will approve this. Polls
                  --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- show 80 percent of the people in the state of Florida will vote for
                  sort of a Proposition 13 amendment, so I don't understand the problem here.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Let --

                  Chairman González: Commissioner Spence-Jones.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you want to add to that
                  before I make my comment. I think I might want to hear what you have to say first before I make
                  a comment.

                  Chairman González: Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry.

                  Larry Spring (Acting Chief Financial Officer): Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Mr. Spring: Larry Spring, acting CFO (Chief Financial Officer), City of Miami. Basically what
                  I just wanted to put on the record is -- What Commissioner Regalado is saying, yeah, it may be
                  true. If the State implements this statewide, yeah, the cities are going to have to suck it up.
                  However, I think it would be prudent for us to do a couple of things. We need to talk about the
                  parameters of portability. You know, there has to be some assumptions made on how we would
                  port. Is it only within the municipality? Is it within the County? Is it within a region, the entire
                  state? All of that would have different impacts on city government, and our -- locally, our tax
                  base. If you're talking about somebody that ports from city to city -- you know, you move from
                  this block to that block -- in essence, I'm still collecting the same amount of money, so there's a
                  lot of parameters there. I would appreciate the opportunity to at least do some impact because I
                  think it would be prudent for the State to consider our -- the impact to the local government, and
                  I assure you, all of the Budget directors and CFOs of all of these municipalities will be
                  clamoring to the governor and the legislative body on this item, because you know, a small city
                  like Lake Mary, or something probably heavily depends on their property tax revenue, and to
                  have it capped, or you know -- and I won't say artificially capped, but to have it capped in any
                  way would have perilous impacts on those cities, yes. Commissioner, yeah, would we figure out
                  what we'd have to do? Yes, we would, but you know, I think we need to give the state Legislature
                  the benefit of our feedback and say, this is the number, you know, so please consider that when

City of Miami                                      Page 10                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  you're looking at some legislation like this.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I support it. I just want to know how much it's going to cost us,
                  because --

                  Mr. Spring: Right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- look, they approve the Bullet Train, and we didn't have funding for
                  it. The reduction of class sizes, the State didn't have money for it. I want to make sure, if we
                  approve it that we have the money for it.

                  Mr. Spring: Sure.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman -- you finished, Larry?

                  Mr. Spring: I'm done.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I'm glad that you did explain it a lot -- I understand it better now,
                  Commissioner Sarnoff, because I was very confused in reading it in the very beginning, because
                  at the end of the day, I was really concerned about a couple of issues. The one thing that I did
                  like about it and -- about what you were proposing was the issue of the tax burden regarding
                  many of the families that move away and their seniors or their family members are left in -- leave
                  them these homes, and then they'll have the burdens of handling their taxes, and quite frankly,
                  I'm dealing with that on a -- almost a daily basis, you know, with Liberty City, Overtown, and
                  other areas throughout my district, so from that perspective, I thought that it was really -- I like
                  what you put together regarding it. My only concern or question -- and I don't know if this is
                  from -- for the Manager or for the Attorney -- City Attorney was the fact that there was no
                  economic analysis in reference to what would happen if we decided to vote or support it, and
                  even though my wonderful Commissioner Regalado down on the end said that, you know, if it
                  happens, then we just try to figure out a way to make things happen for -- through the City; we
                  always do, but that's the reason why we can't get garbage trucks when we need them, or we can't
                  support the social service programs when we need them because of the lack of funding that, at
                  least what we're being told from a City standpoint, we have so we can only operate from what
                  the feds are giving us, so you know, on one note, I understand it, but I don't want to also have my
                  district be affected because we decided to vote on something and then I'm later on fighting for
                  more garbage trucks for the workers that are struggling, you know, jumping in and out of trucks,
                  you know, to making sure that my streets and -- stay clean in my district, because now we have to
                  cut off the employees that have to work for whatever reason, or we can't play -- pay decent
                  wages to our Litter Busters that work day in and day out, you know, trying to make sure that they
                  take care of their families, so I don't want to hear that, you know, OK, if we lose money on this
                  end, then we'll find -- figure out a way to have it happen, especially when I'm being told later on
                  by the Administration that we couldn't do this because what we passed a year ago affects that, so
                  that is like, you know -- that's a tough pill to swallow, so for me, I would honestly like to have,
                  from either Larry or from the City Manager, some sort of analysis on what type of impact this
                  would have on us, because eventually, it will affect the residents of my district; that's one point,
                  not that I won't support the other portions of what you're proposing. I think, on one end, it
                  definitely does help my district, too, and last but not least, you know, I think it's also very
                  important for us to look at the current legislation that's being proposed on this issue. I
                  understand that there's seven or eight things being proposed in the State at this present time, and
                  I'd like to know what those things are. Are those things that we can piggyback off of? Are there
                  things that, you know, maybe we can, you know, utilize that are already out there, Mr. City
                  Attorney? I'm just trying to understand, you know, if I'm being told that on one end that we have
                  seven or eight things floating from a state perspective -- and I'm assuming that we're hearing this
                  from our state lobbyists -- which, by the way, who's directing the state lobbyists on the issues
                  that, you know, we want to have addressed in Tallahassee regarding this issue?

City of Miami                                       Page 11                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Spring: I can answer that question. It's our legislative liaison. Ignacio is the person who
                  interfaces with the lobbyists --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Spring: -- so --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Now has Ignacio briefed either one of the Commissioners on
                  where we are regarding this particular issue?

                  Mr. Spring: I would say not specifically to that issue, but what I was going to tell you is I do
                  have some information that I can share with all the Commissioners regarding the draft report
                  that the Property Tax Reform Committee that the previous governor convened, they have a draft
                  report that talks about all of these issues, and what will become -- you know, what was planned
                  to come forth, and I think it will address those items that are going to be considered, so I will -- I
                  have a draft copy of it, so I will make sure I get it distributed to all the Commissioners.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. City Manager, I just want to --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I want to say something.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- put on the record, though, because I think it's important,
                  because when items like this come up that we want to, you know, have addressed from a state
                  perspective, I think it's really important that if we do have lobbyists working for us in
                  Tallahassee, perhaps, if Commissioner Sarnoff would have been briefed on what is already else -
                  - what else is already out there, then maybe we wouldn't be addressing this right now, but I think
                  that's part of the problem. He's trying to address an issue that is clearly not just in his district,
                  but I guess I'm assuming all of us -- you know, and all of the Commissioners are having to deal
                  with it from the standpoints of our constituents, but I just think it's important that before we
                  decide to vote on it -- we've already voted on it, so that's fine. I just want to make sure that at
                  least I put on the record how important it is for us to at least understand the economic impact of
                  what it will have on us, one way or the other, and to say that it won't, or we'll find a way to make
                  it happen, and then when budget time comes around, they start telling you, "Oh, no,
                  Commissioner, that can't happen," you know, I have a concern with that.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, if I may. From the legislative perspective, I think it's important
                  that this Commission provides direction to us as to the items that you want to have supported in
                  Tallahassee at the State Legislative Session. I think it's important that we bring this up to you.
                  For example, there's another item under Commissioner Sanchez's blue pages that deals with
                  items that he's requesting that we support. I think that's important. With respect to these items
                  themselves, there is several items on, for example, portability at the state level that we don't
                  know exactly the potential impact. I mean, we will have to analyze several scenarios, and I
                  agree that working with Mr. Spring, we have to bring back to you the best, let's say, guesswork,
                  educated guesswork that we can do so you're apprised of potential impacts, but many of them
                  may be, in essence, totally out of our control and at the state level, but I think that it's -- we owe
                  it to you to, in essence, provide the best available information as to impact.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: If I can say just a word. In 2001 Time Magazine rated the City of Miami
                  as the most affordable large city to live in. In November 2006 they called it the most
                  unaffordable city in the United States. If you all don't smell -- wake up and smell the roses,
                  they'll be coming out of your graves. People cannot afford to live here. People cannot afford to
                  move here, and people who want to remain here are captured in their homes, and if you don't
                  realize it, go out and check. I mean, I live in the district that gives 64 percent of the revenue to
                  this City, and the people are stuck in the homes that they're in, and you call it what you want, but

City of Miami                                       Page 12                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                          January 25, 2007

                  if you don't put a portability component into a tax relief plan, people are simply going to move to
                  North and South Carolina. They may as well create the Bullet Train that they didn't fund so they
                  can bullet the people right up there, right into the next suburb in North and South Carolina. If
                  you don't put inheritability as a component, which nobody is discussing in Tallahassee, then you
                  are going to lose your ethnic heritage in many of these neighborhoods, and finally, if you don't
                  allow people to fix their homes and not be reassessed, they have no reason whatsoever to stay in
                  the great City of Miami, so you could debate this, and you can obscure it, it's coming right at
                  you. It's happening as we speak. Do whatever statistical analysis you want. You can get in
                  front of a wave, or you could be behind the wave. This is something this City needs to address,
                  and it needs to get behind it, so this will happen some time in March. If you don't put portability
                  in here, you're going to lose your best tax base in the City of Miami.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if I may. This is an important issue, and this is a
                  philosophical discussion, because what we're approving here is not a law, so it has no power,
                  but it is important to send the message. It's impossible to have an analysis because we don't
                  know the final product. There are three or four bills navigating through different committees in
                  the state Legislature, but one thing is for sure. The state Legislature is under tremendous
                  pressure to address the property taxes in the state of Florida because the migration from South
                  Florida to North Carolina, it is one that has called the attention of the people in Tallahassee.
                  Last week Commissioner Sanchez was there when the governor told us, a group of people that
                  were in a meeting place in the state capital, that in March, the state Legislature and himself will
                  be addressing the property taxes issue. Because the people that rode with us in the buses, three
                  of them from Miami, to ask for help in the insurance crisis, when the governor stood there, and
                  the Speaker of the House, Marco Rubio, stood there, and we had senators and representatives,
                  the governor said, "Tell me," and then, you know, people had these signs about insurance, and
                  then everybody start saying, "Taxes, taxes, taxes, property taxes," and the governor of this great
                  state of Florida made a commitment, not in front of us, but in front of more than 10 to 15 TV
                  (Television) cameras that were there from all the state of Florida, "We will deal with the
                  property taxes issue," and we can expect maybe some release. We can expect the League of
                  Cities to lobby against this item or some of them, but at the end of the day, this is a governor that
                  has a commitment from the people. Sometimes some people will say, "Well, you know, give us a
                  solution,” and I will tell you what we can do, because we do not control the state Legislature,
                  nor the state vote, the statewide vote, but there is something that we should be looking at it now
                  in advance.

                  "[Later...]"

                  Chairman González: All right. Can we --? You know, we have had half an hour of discussion
                  on this item.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just wanted to --

                  Chairman González: I think it's --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- make a recommendation, Mr. Chair, if you would allow me, and it'll
                  be very --

                  Chairman González: Not even discussions; arguments.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no dis -- We all want to lower property taxes, OK. We all want to
                  protect the homeowners. I think that your resolution that's put forward is -- I second it because I
                  think it has valid [sic], but the concern here that I have, Marc, is that, first of all, being that it's a
                  resolution on your blue pages, we have not had an opportunity from the Administration to give
                  us a well thought-out brief, and the concerns here are that what are the consequences? How is it
                  going to affect us? And that's -- if it -- if they come back and they say, "Look, it's not going to

City of Miami                                        Page 13                                             Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  affect our city. It's going to affect us in this way, or this amount," and I say it's worth doing it, I
                  could support it. My recommendation is I think we discussed it enough. Let's bring it back
                  under a city -- under the City agenda; that way the Administration could give us the reports that
                  I think some of the Commissioners have asked, and then we'll come out and vote for it. We either
                  vote up or vote it down, but my concern is the way it was brought and presented to the
                  Commission, just like the Chair stated. You know, you have substitute items coming up at the
                  last minute, I don't think that's the proper way to do it. I command [sic] you for taking the
                  leadership on this, and I'm willing to support it, but I can't make an intelligent decision when I
                  have not been able to have all the information that have been given to me because I --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah. Let me --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- have not been briefed.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- withdraw it. I apologize for being a neophyte and not --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Nah, but --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- really understanding the process that well --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You don't need to apologize.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- but -- no, I agree. Let's put it back in the hopper. Let's let the
                  Administration do their due diligence. Out of respect for the Chairman, I will withdraw D2.3, 4 -
                  - I think it's 2, 3, and 4, so he can read them, and I'll bring them back on my next blue pages. I
                  just think --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no. Marc, if you could -- no, no. Mr. City Manager, we could
                  direct you to have this item be put on the regular agenda --

                  Chairman González: On the regular agenda.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- where it's properly advertised, where -- well, which it is properly
                  advertised, it is, but people could come, because this is a very important issue. You're talking
                  about reducing taxes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, you're not -- let me just correct you --

                  Commissioner Regalado: You're not reducing taxes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- one more -- you're not talking about reducing taxes. You're talking
                  about rebudgeting. You're talking about port -- no one's saying to reduce one penny of taxes.
                  This hasn't changed -- you know --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But Marc, it --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- this City -- wait, wait. Let me just say this.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- hasn't been (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: This City plays millage rate games, you know. We lower our mill rate,
                  and then we tell we've given tax relief to the citizens. You've given them nothing. You've given
                  them ice in the winter. This gives them portability, the ability of people to move around in Dade
                  County. I've given you an entire law here. You're right, Commissioner, based on how I know
                  offices operate now, this needs to go to the Administration. I'm more than agreeing with you, but

City of Miami                                       Page 14                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  don't call it tax -- it is not a tax reduction. Nobody's getting their taxes reduced. People are
                  maintaining their taxability, or tax ability, where they are. People who inherit, people that move
                  within Dade County, and I stress within Dade County, and just so you know, this is a 35-year-old
                  statute. This has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States innumerable times. This is the
                  law in Massachusetts. This will be the law or some components of it in Florida, because trust
                  me, the citizens will not put up with us, so we either get in front of it, or we stay behind it, but I
                  intend on getting in front of it.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, so --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: So do I, if we have all the proper studies and the -- and
                  recommendations from the Administration. All right. What's the will --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the Commission?

                  Chairman González: We have --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So what are we doing with the item?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I withdraw it and give it to the Administration, and ask them to bring it
                  up as soon as the Ghost of Christmas Present, Past, and Future gives us a report on it, hopefully,
                  within 30 or 40 days --

                  Mr. Spring: I --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- so that --

                  Mr. Spring: -- will commit to that time frame. What I would like to do, though, is meet with you
                  to discuss some of the assumptions that I should use in developing my analysis.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But wait a minute. The Commissioner can request 60 days, 30 days, to
                  have it --

                  Mr. Spring: Of course.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in the City Commission agenda, and if he's willing to make that
                  motion, I'm willing to second that motion.

                  Mr. Spring: I don't have a problem with that. I was just saying from the time -- I need to know
                  what --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I understand.

                  Mr. Spring: -- the assumptions are in building the analysis.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well --

                  Mr. Spring: That's it.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- the beauty of it, it's -- this is law, and we can read what the law says,
                  and then, fortunately, this is what you do for a living. Thank God, you do it versus me. You
                  actually try to figure out -- and some of it -- Commissioner Regalado's absolutely right; you
                  cannot statistically determine who's going --

City of Miami                                       Page 15                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Spring: What all --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- to port their tax bill.

                  Mr. Spring: Exactly, exactly, so --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so that --

                  Mr. Spring: -- I can --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Marc, you made the motion?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll --

                  Chairman González: All right. We had --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second it.

                  Chairman González: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. We had a motion, and we had a second.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: You have to finish the motion. I can withdraw the motion.

                  Chairman González: You're going to withdraw --?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll withdraw the motion.

                  Chairman González: All right, so then we have another motion, right --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So somebody has to --

                  Chairman González: -- to bring it back in 30 days?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll make a motion that we bring back, what is it, D2 --?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: D2.1 and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- D2.1 as part of the City's agenda, and hopefully, with a report within
                  30 days.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And can I just add, if you don't mind? Because I would like to,
                  personally, being a neophyte on this issue, if there's any way that I could at least get the
                  Administration to have, I guess, Ignacio, whoever's responsible for whatever's happening in
                  Tallahassee, for us to be briefed on what is actually out there already because I think it's
                  important for us to know it? I don't know if the -- my other colleagues are interested in knowing,
                  but I definitely would like to know it.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, on the issue of portability, I'm quite sure that, at the State level,
                  there are several options being introduced as bills, and I think it would be wise for us to take a
                  look at them, and maybe report back on the one that we feel would be best to support.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I just want to know what's already out there.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Yes.



City of Miami                                      Page 16                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I would like to know that.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I agree. I agree.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: The only thing I know of that none -- no bill has these three components
                  in it --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, and I'm --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and these are three --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- just saying I'd like to confirm that.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- components -- right. These are three components that everybody at
                  this dais should have an interest in.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, and I think all of us have agreed -- I think I -- my opening
                  comment on -- with that was saying that we definitely support that. At least on my end, I support
                  that. There's no way in the world that I could not, but I also want to be responsible, and I'd also
                  like to know what else is out there, so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah, and then --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I'm asking for the Administration to at least make sure that
                  whoever the lobbyist is, or our staff person that's dealing with the lobbyist, for them to let us
                  know what else is out there.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Definitely.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Let's see. We are on the 20 -- today is the 24th, right? The 20 --

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): 25th.

                  Commissioner Regalado: 25th, 25th, so in 30 days will be February -- the last meeting in
                  February?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Well, actually, I'm hoping it's going to be before then because
                  March is when the session begins.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Exactly, of course.

                  Commissioner Regalado: That's what I'm saying. Forget it. Just don't do it anyway because it
                  isn't worth it.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Because you need to --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Larry, can you --

City of Miami                                       Page 17                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Regalado: -- do it --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- bring this back --

                  Mr. Hernandez: Well --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- for the next Commission meeting?

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- to the committees.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Are you prepared to -- can you do -- can you look at this over the
                  next --?

                  Mr. Hernandez: I think that, in essence, if we have a determination by February 22, which I
                  believe is the second meeting in February, that will define the City's position, and we'll go
                  forward --

                  Mr. Spring: Well, I'll do --

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) timely.

                  Mr. Spring: -- everything in my ability to have it done, you know, in a week or two's time, and
                  we'll see what happens.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, but meanwhile, the lobbying team has no direction.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: They cannot meet with committees --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Can we amend it for the second meeting -- I mean, the first
                  meeting in February, please? Can you -- Larry --

                  Mr. Spring: I will do --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- is this something that --?

                  Mr. Spring: -- my best to get it done for the first meeting. I mean, that's all I can commit to --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK --

                  Mr. Spring: -- right now. I have --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so if my colleagues, can we move past this, and by the second
                  meeting -- I mean, by the first meeting in February --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fine.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- can we just -- if Larry's saying that he can get it done by then,
                  can we just accept that and get that from him at that particular time?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, yeah.

                  Chairman González: Fine.

City of Miami                                        Page 18                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK --

                     Chairman González: That's fine with me.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- fine, so Larry has said he can do it, so --

                     Mr. Hernandez: Commissioners, we'll brief you on the briefings for the 8th agenda as to where
                     we are, and if we're ready enough, we'll have it on the 8th.

                     Chairman González: All right.

                     Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I have a mover, but I don't
                     have a second on that motion.

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: Second.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: I second it.

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, I moved it.

                     Chairman González: OK. We have a motion and we have a --

                     Ms. Burns: The mover.

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: I (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

                     Chairman González: -- second. All in favor, say "aye."

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: I second it.

                     The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                     Chairman González: Motion carries.

D2.2      07-00100   ORDINANCE                                                                   In Commission
                     AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER 62,
                     ARTICLE X, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
                     AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING AND PLANNING/TREE TRUST FUND, " BY
                     PROVIDING FOR DEPOSITS OF FINES COLLECTED FOR ILLEGAL TREE
                     REMOVAL, FOR THE USE OF THE TRUST FUNDS TO RELOCATE TREES
                     TO PUBLIC LANDS WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), AND FOR
                     PERIODIC DISTRIBUTION OF SAPLINGS TO THE PUBLIC TO ENHANCE
                     TREE CANOPY COVERAGE IN THE CITY; CONTAINING A REPEALER
                     PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                     EFFECTIVE DATE.
                     07-00100 Legislation.pdf
                     DEFERRED

                     Item D2.2 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. What other items?

                     Chairman González: D2.2.

City of Miami                                        Page 19                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                     Commissioner Sarnoff: No, I'll withdraw those for -- so that you and the Commissioners can
                     look at the recently handed out papers.

                     Chairman González: All right --

                     Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): And on what --

                     Chairman González: -- so --

                     Ms. Chiaro: -- agenda do you wish them to be placed?

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Do you want them on the regular agenda?

                     Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): On the 8th.

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: D2 -- what was it? D2 -- I think it's D2 --

                     Chairman González: D2.2, D2.3 --

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: -- 3 --

                     Chairman González: -- and D2.4.

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and D2.4.

                     Commissioner Regalado: On the 8th of February.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: On the regular agenda.

                     Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry.

                     Commissioner Regalado: The first meeting in February.

                     Ms. Chiaro: I didn't --

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Commissioner Sarnoff, she needs you to --

                     Ms. Chiaro: Commissioner Sarnoff --

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- give her direction.

                     Ms. Chiaro: -- for those items to be placed on the next Commission meeting agenda?

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: Correct.

                     Chairman González: D2.2, D2 --

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: D2 --

                     Chairman González: -- 3, and D2.4.

                     Ms. Chiaro: Thank you.

D2.3      07-00115   ORDINANCE                                                                    First Reading

City of Miami                                        Page 20                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                     AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING ARTICLE
                     NO. 8.1 ENTITLED, "TREE PROTECTION" OF ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
                     AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA;
                     CONTAINING ADDED DEFINITIONS AND APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
                     TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW,
                     FEES, AND CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL; PROVIDING FOR TREE
                     REPLACEMENT AND PROTECTION, APPEAL CRITERIA AND FINES,
                     CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT, PENALTIES AND REMEDIES; CONTAINING
                     A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
                     FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                     07-00115 Legislation.pdf


                     APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                     Miami

                     FINDINGS:
                     PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                     PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommend approval to City Commission
                     on July 19, 2006 by a vote of 9-0.

                     PURPOSE: This will add and amend certain criteria in Article 8.1 of the
                     Zoning Ordinance entitled, "Tree Protection."
                     DEFERRED

                     Item D2.3 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                     Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item D2.3, please see item D2.2.

D2.4      05-00335   ORDINANCE                                                                       First Reading
                     (REQUIRES 4/5THS VOTE)
                     AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
                     2/ARTICLE X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
                     AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/CODE
                     ENFORCEMENT," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTIONS
                     2-811, 2-814 AND 2-817 OF SAID CITY CODE, TO AMEND THE
                     DEFINITIONS SECTION AND TO CLARIFY THE MAXIMUM DAILY FINES;
                     CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
                     PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION
                     IN THE CITY CODE.
                     05-00335 Legislation.pdf
                     DEFERRED

                     Item D2.3 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                     Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item D2.4, please see item D2.2.




City of Miami                                       Page 21                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                                               DISTRICT 3
                                   VICE CHAIRMAN JOE SANCHEZ

D3.1      07-00046   RESOLUTION
                     A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, URGING GOVERNOR
                     CHARLIE CRIST AND THE MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO
                     SUPPORT THE ISSUES AS STATED HEREIN, DURING THE 2007
                     LEGISLATIVE SESSION; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A
                     COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
                     07-00046 Legislation.pdf
                     MOTION

                     A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, and
                     was passed unanimously, directing the City Manager to schedule a workshop to discuss a
                     resolution proposing that Governor Charlie Crist and the Florida Legislature support
                     City-related issues referencing municipal home rule, a fair and equitable tax structure, dedicated
                     documentary stamp fees as a funding source for the State and Local Government Housing Trust
                     Fund, and other related issues; further discussing limiting ad valorem tax assessment on real
                     property, in an effort to reach a mutual consensus.

                     Chairman González: All right. D3.1.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah.

                     Chairman González: Vice Chairman Sanchez.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah. All the information is provided for you in the package, and
                     that's the Florida League of Cities, and what they do is, the Florida League of Cities focus on the
                     issues that are important to the cities, and basically, they're presented to the Administration, and
                     then the Commissioners get to review them, and all this is is a resolution of the City of Miami
                     Commission, urging Governor Charlie Crist and the members of the Florida Legislature to
                     support the issues as stated herein, during the 207 [sic] legislative session; directing the City
                     Clerk to transmit a copy of the resolution to the official designee [sic] herein, and I would make
                     a motion.

                     Chairman González: All right. There is -- we have a motion on D3.1. Is there a second?

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. It dies --

                     Chairman González: Is there a second?

                     Commissioner Regalado: Well, I have here -- I have a question. We're asking the Legislature to
                     supports a tax structure that is fair and equitable and is completely neutral and allows
                     municipality the flexibility to provide adequate services in their community. Is that a decrease or
                     a raise in taxes? Can you --?

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is it an increase or a decrease?

                     Commissioner Regalado: Yes, is it a increase or decrease in taxes?

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: You know what, let me -- let's defer the item till the afternoon, and I
                     will come back and give you a complete briefing on that --

City of Miami                                         Page 22                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Regalado: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and as a matter of fact, I'm willing to make another
                  recommendation, because I could see where the Commission is heading. Let me make
                  recommendations, and maybe we could start working out some of the issues that we have here. I
                  would recommend workshops so when issues come up, you have -- because at least my items had
                  all the backing in the Commission agenda, so therefore, you could have read all the documents
                  that are there, but I'll bring it back this afternoon. If not, what I'll prepare is a workshop which
                  all the Commissioners will be invited, it'll be properly advertised through the City, under the
                  sunshine, and there in those meetings we'll explain all the items that are in front of you on this
                  Commission meeting, so --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And Commissioner Sanchez, I'm assuming that we're going to try
                  to do this before March, right?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, we're going to try to -- well, I'm going to try to bring it back this
                  afternoon and answer the Commissioners' questions.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Now, if there are problems, I would try to do it as quickly as possible.
                  I'm just hoping that all the Commissioners could make it to the workshop because, you know,
                  there's a lot of bills here that really benefit the City, but if the -- you know, if the Commission
                  doesn't want to vote on them, that's perfectly fine. All right, so Mr. Chairman, we'll move on.

                  "[Later...]"

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'd like to bring back my item, D3.1, and I would be glad to answer the
                  concerns that Commissioner Regalado had pertaining to the resolution, both on taxes. The
                  resolution states two points on taxes. One is the property tax system, which the resolution reads
                  as follow: "Various proposed revisions to the property tax system would have substantial
                  adverse impact of all municipalities in Florida should they be adopted," so therefore, this
                  ordinance protects the property taxes from any increase or any adverse that might have a
                  negative effect on the property owners. The other issue pertaining to tax is the resolution clearly
                  supports a tax structure that is fair and equitable and is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) neutral and allows
                  municipalities the flexibility to provide adequate service in their community, so therefore, that
                  one also clearly protects the taxpayers, and this resolution does not mention anything about
                  increasing taxes. However, I would like, before we vote on the issue, to have the City Attorney
                  read the entire resolution, which clearly touches on infrastructure, it touches on housing, and we
                  believe that this resolution -- the resolution clearly protects the City, the taxpayers, and is a
                  resolution worthy of supporting -- supported by the legislative body. Mr. City Attorney, would
                  you read --?

                  Commissioner Regalado: Before you do that, I'm -- I have a problem with this because this item
                  that the League of Cities is presenting to the Legislature is precisely the opposite of what we all
                  said that we support here a few minutes ago; tax-neutral services. What the City -- what the
                  League of City [sic] is proposing to the state Legislature don't do portability, don't do decreases
                  in taxes, don't reduce the taxes; it's very clear, and this is why I said I am sure that the League of
                  Cities is opposed to this because the League of Cities represents the governments, and it's very
                  understandable. The governments are scare of this kind of tactic, but we cannot direct the
                  lobbying team to lobby for a tax-neutral legislature, and then decide that we want to lobby to
                  reduce property taxes, because we're doing the opposite here, and I don't know. I understand
                  that the League has very good proposals, but I am really trouble by this proposal of the League
                  of City [sic], which is not your proposal; it's just a League of City [sic]. It is wrong. It is wrong

City of Miami                                       Page 23                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  because we should be lobbying to reduce property taxes, not to have taxes neutral, which mean
                  business as usual, and that is why, Mr. Vice Chairman, I had this question, and I'm sorry I'm
                  delaying the process, but I think you represent the City on the League of City [sic], and I don't --
                  I understand that there are many issues that you want to bring to the state Legislature through
                  the League of Cities, but I cannot support this --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- because it would be denying our will to ask the Legislature for
                  property tax relief, and that's all I wanted to --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but this res --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- show.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- this resolution does not only focus on taxes. That's why --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Exactly.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: If you would allow me. Just a minute. I think that's why it's important
                  to have the City Attorney read the entire resolution because it focuses everything from
                  infrastructure to schooling, and like they say, the sugar's [sic] in the pudding here, so that's why
                  it's important -- let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here now. I'm also open to
                  setting up a workshop where we could implement all these things because I think we're all
                  heading in the right direction. I mean, we all want to lower our taxes. We all want to protect
                  our citizens based on relief of all kind, not only property taxes, but I want you to allow me the
                  opportunity to have the City Attorney read the entire ordinance [sic] so you could listen to it and
                  the people that are here today, the taxpayers that are here, and the ones that are watching on
                  NET-77 [sic] understand the entire concept of this resolution.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Vice Chairman, can I say something?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I have read this, and it has wonderful platitudes in it, but I question
                  would it be better spent and better served to have this come up right around the time we have
                  Larry Spring come back to us with some numbers as to what tax relief or tax stasis would do in
                  the -- for us? Isn't this better put as part of our package?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, this has nothing to do with numbers.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, you're right. It -- they're nice, platitude statements, but I don't
                  know what it does. I mean, this does -- this -- if you read this, it just -- actually, why don't you let
                  him read it --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- because --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, listen. With all due respect, you want to defer the item, we'll defer
                  it. You want to vote --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'm just suggest --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- no -- I'll tell you what. I'm going to make a motion to support it. If I

City of Miami                                        Page 24                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  don't have a second, it dies. If it has a second, we'll vote on it, and if it doesn't pass, it doesn't
                  pass. Then I'm going to make a motion, if it doesn't pass, that we create a workshop where we
                  implement not only this concept, but your concept, and then bring it back fully digested to this
                  Commission to get something done in this Commission so we can do what we're here to do,
                  which is to lower our taxes and improve the quality of life, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so
                  there's a motion. If I don't get a second, it's perfectly fine.

                  Chairman González: All right. There is a motion. Is there a second?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes. I just -- yes, I do want to second it, but I want to ask one
                  quick question real fast. Is there any way that --? Because I stepped out -- off the dais, and I
                  apologize. When -- I'm assuming that I was the next one coming up for my item.

                  Chairman González: Yeah.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Would you do me a favor?

                  Chairman González: You're still --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: Still you are.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Would you --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I had no idea that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- allow me -- if you would yield to have the City Attorney read the
                  entire ordinance [sic] in the record, please?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Sure, Commissioner Sanchez, but I want to have clarity, because
                  I'm trying to get caught up on -- I stepped out for a second. I just want to ask this quick
                  question. Have we decided not to have the workshop?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, we'll all see. It all depends on this.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I'm asking --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

                  Chairman González: We haven't --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It all depends.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- what happened to the workshop?

                  Chairman González: We talk about the possibility of having a workshop, but it wasn't -- it hasn't
                  been proposed officially, a date haven't been set --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let him read it.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: What happened --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What I suggest --



City of Miami                                        Page 25                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- to the workshop?

                  Chairman González: -- now we're pending the City Attorney to finally read the resolution and
                  then take action on the item, and --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. City Attorney, read the resolution, please.

                  The Resolution was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Tell you what I'm going to do. For the sake of harmony, for the sake
                  of a workshop, because I think that both resolutions have a lot of things in common, and we're
                  both heading in the right direction, and the last thing that I want to do is have one side of the
                  dais roll one way, and the other side of the dais roll the other way. I would respectfully request
                  that the Administration set up a workshop addressing these items, both on Commissioner
                  Sarnoff's blue page and my blue page, to come together on a mutual, agreeable resolution so we
                  could bring it back to this Commission and approve it 5/0, so therefore, that's the motion that I
                  make. I will withdraw my item for the sake of --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- harmony to have everyone come to the table, with the
                  Administration. All the Commissioners are invited. It'll be posted, so if one Commissioner
                  doesn't show up, he was invited.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion and we have a --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Chairman González: -- second. All in favor, say "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: All opposed?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So we're going back to a -- I'm sorry. We're going back to what
                  was originally proposed, correct?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Workshop, and the City Manager will schedule that workshop; it'll be
                  properly advertised, and we should be able to resolve some of our differences.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, if you allow me, I would like to be able to,
                  during the break, look at the calendar, and then come back to you after the break, sometime in
                  the afternoon, with the potential dates, so it will be said on the record as to when that meeting
                  will take place.




City of Miami                                      Page 26                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                                               DISTRICT 4
                                COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO

D4.1      07-00075   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION ABOUT SOLID WASTE VEHICLES, MAINTENANCE
                     ISSUES, AND WHISTLE BLOWER CASE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
                     SUBJECT MATTER.
                     07-00075 Cover Memo.pdf
                     DISCUSSED

                     Direction by Chairman González to the City Manager to initiate a City promotional campaign
                     that would advise its residents of trash pick-up days and the consequences of violating the City's
                     Code as it relates to trash pick-up and illegal dumping.

                     Chairman González: All right. D4.1.

                     Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope that this will be brief.
                     There was a comment the other day here about another fire in a garbage truck, and also last
                     Commission meeting, we approve some funds to buy 12 new garbage trucks. There was a
                     problem that another truck had -- that one of the wheels came off the axle completely and had an
                     accident, and I just wanted to get a report from the Solid Waste director, maybe the GSA
                     (General Services Administration) director, and the Manager, not on the litigation of the
                     garbage trucks that caught fire, but on what are we doing in order to maintain the same level of
                     services that we know is one of the priorities in the City and that has been the best service that
                     the residents are getting daily, which is the garbage, and the trash, and the recycle pick-up, so
                     that would be my question.

                     Mario Soldevilla: Thank you, Commissioner. Mario Soldevilla, director of Solid Waste. Let me
                     update you in terms of the -- our fleet, the program, and we do continue to upgrade our fleet.
                     During last year's budget -- this year's budget process, you appropriated $1.5 million for
                     equipment, and just recently, last Commission meeting, you appropriated an additional $2
                     million for equipment, so with that three and a half million dollars, what we're doing is that we
                     are pretty much replacing the Lodal fleet. We had anticipated in buying 16 new garbage trucks.
                     As a matter of fact, that purchase order is already in place. We believe that the first six trucks,
                     we'll probably be getting in March. The remaining ten trucks will be throughout the year. As
                     you know, these things, they have to be manufactured, and it's a two-step process. One is the
                     chassis that need to be built, and second is the body that goes along, which actually does the
                     automated collection work. In addition to those 16 trucks, we're also purchasing four of the
                     more -- of the traditional railroaders, and there's where we're at. That gives me a total of 20
                     trucks that will be replaced this year.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: I'm sorry. I just so have a -- I just -- I'm glad -- again, I think the
                     last couple of meetings we've discussed the additional trucks, and I appreciate Joe's also input
                     on a lot of that to make sure that -- and yours, Mario -- you know, those garbage trucks -- we got
                     the additional trucks that's needed. I mean, I'm -- personally -- and I would also want to
                     recommend for the Commissioners that have not, I think it's important for you to ride with some
                     of these workers to see the conditions that they're working in. I got a chance to at least ride with
                     some of the guys four or five months ago to kind of see what's happening with them over there,
                     and I think it's important for us to gain a greater appreciation of how hard they work. I just
                     want to make sure or stress that the City continue to work hard towards getting the new fleet to
                     ensure that these workers are safe, and I know we -- earlier we were talking about funds being
                     utilized, or you know, perhaps not being made available for whatever reason or the fear of that

City of Miami                                         Page 27                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  happening. I mean, I got a chance to ride with a guy that had been in a -- had been in two fires
                  in a truck, and I happen to ride in that same truck --

                  Mr. Soldevilla: OK.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so I just want to make sure that this is not bottom -- put bottom
                  on the list of things that are important. You know, the things that are not so pretty always seem
                  to be the last things that we want to focus our energies on, but I'm glad to see that at least the
                  Administration is moving towards that, but I want to also add on top of that, Commissioner
                  Regalado, is that we also need to figure out a way to provide maintenance -- more maintenance
                  support so that when these trucks go down or any truck goes down in our great City, that we do
                  have enough workers available that are not overworked, overtired, and not able to at least make
                  sure that the equipment is working 100 percent, and I think that that's what's happening with a
                  lot of the workers, so I'm going to ask that we please -- you know, as we begin to look at, you
                  know, things that are really, really important, that we consider the people that keep -- just
                  imagine, if we didn't have the garbage workers out for a week.

                  Mr. Soldevilla: Right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Imagine what this great, wonderful city that we call “Magic City”
                  would look like, so I just would like to encourage that not only that we begin to continue to find
                  support for the garbage trucks, but we also continue to provide the much-needed maintenance
                  support to make sure that once we do get equipment in, that it's maintained properly.

                  Mr. Soldevilla: Yeah, and Commissioner, I appreciate what you're doing -- what you're saying,
                  but you know, we have had a very aggressive fleet replacement program over the past several
                  years, OK.

                  Chairman González: I have -- and I spoke to you, Mr. Manager, about the issue of solid waste.
                  I believe that we have the best department or the best solid waste service probably throughout
                  the entire state, but we have a serious problem, and the problem is that we have a lot of -- we
                  have people out there that are putting out trash every single day of the week, every single day of
                  the week. My office staff is out in my neighborhoods writing reports and send the report to you
                  of illegal dumpings, and I call it illegal dumping, not only the people that come from outside the
                  City of Miami and dump in the City of Miami, but I call it illegal dumping even the resident that
                  needs to put the trash out on Wednesday, and they put it out on Sunday, and throughout the
                  entire week you have trash all over the City. I don't know how many inspectors you have. I don't
                  know how they are divided. I believe that we need to do one thing. I believe that we need to put
                  out there an informational blitz, send flyers, go through the media on public announcements,
                  Channel 9, the whole nine yards, and once we have inform -- once we're confident that we have
                  inform the residents of the day of their pick-ups, garbage and trash, then after that, we need to
                  be out there enforcing the Code and issuing citations. We have to start doing enforcement,
                  because it's ridiculous. I'm telling you, it's ridiculous, OK. When I go out there on a Sunday,
                  that we don't have pick-up on Monday, Tuesday, until Wednesday, and I see garbage all over the
                  place, it's really disgusting, it's really disgusting, OK, and we have a lot of people in this City
                  that come from other places or from other countries where they don't have rules, where they
                  don't have -- they just put the garbage out there any day of the week, at any time; night, morning,
                  afternoon; they don't care, but that's not what we're used to. I mean, we have rules. We provide
                  services and good service because Solid Waste, it's -- we provide good -- the best services that
                  there could be, and then on top of that, you know -- and let me tell you. Going out there and
                  picking up is great, but if we have a person that is violating the law --

                  Mr. Soldevilla: Right.

                  Chairman González: -- putting garbage out there every single day, and we go every single day

City of Miami                                      Page 28                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  and pick it up -- Call the County. If you live in the County, call the County and ask them to go
                  and pick up your garbage; they charge you for it. You have to ask for a special pick-up and pay
                  for the service. We don't charge you in the City, but if we go out there in any day of the week
                  that is not the regular pick-up day and we pick up, we should issue a citation before we pick up
                  or at the time that we're picking up, and we need to enforce the Code. We need to enforce this
                  issue because it's -- I mean, it's totally out of control. I have seen it in my district, and I have
                  seen it on other -- on my colleagues' districts. I have seen it in my colleagues' districts, OK. It's
                  really a shame what is happening out there, so I don't know, Mr. Manager, how -- what you're
                  going to do, how you're going to do it, but I'm going to take this opportunity to instruct you to
                  please start a promotion campaign notifying the residents of the City of Miami what are their
                  days of pick ups, and advising them that if they violate the law, they will pay a fine for doing so,
                  OK.

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, I totally agree, but in essence, from my
                  experience --

                  Chairman González: I mean, it's like -- you know, it's not fair that I have staff in my office that I
                  -- I'm using my staff to answer residents' complaints on potholes, on broken sidewalks, on a
                  thousand issues, and I have to have them spend the time to search for garbage and for trash,
                  write reports, send them to my office, have my office send them to you. You know, I mean, we're
                  duplicating services, so we need to get to the end of it. I mean, we need to stop it. One way or
                  the other, we need to stop that.

                  Mr. Hernandez: There's no question that we have a very good service in trash collection, and
                  from my experience in the County, I always felt that the City should be much cleaner, and I found
                  out that we have a serious illegal dumping problem. We have the service. We have been
                  stepping up the educational aspect, and we'll follow it up with serious enforcement, because then
                  once we've done our due diligence and advise the public, then we need to ensure that we have
                  the enforcement, and we do so.

                  Chairman González: Let me tell you. Years ago, I live in Hialeah. Hialeah does your trash
                  pick-up the first Monday of every month. I'll take -- any time you want, we'll get in my car and
                  go to Hialeah, and I'm willing to give you $20 for each pile of trash that you see on the
                  neighborhoods. The city is clean. It's clean. One pick-up a month, and the city is clean. Why
                  can't we do the same thing in the City of Miami, having the service that we have?

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, that --

                  Chairman González: I can't understand.

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- is something that we have to consider because the City of Miami, many years
                  ago, had the same service that the City had once a week --

                  Mr. Soldevilla: Exactly.

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- many years ago, and they went to a once a month, and in essence, the
                  feedback that I receive is that it's working well, and it's just as clean as when they were doing it
                  or better than once a week, so it's something that we may have to consider.

                  Chairman González: And let me tell you. The reason that I'm telling you that we have to go with
                  enforcement and citation is that people -- my staff, for years now, not month, weeks, or day,
                  years had been visiting these homes and telling these people, "Please, don't put the trash out
                  there today because the today is not the pick-up day. The pick-up day's next Thursday. You're
                  supposed to put it out on Wednesday night,” over and over and over, and guess what? They
                  keep doing it. They just keep doing it, so you know, the only way they're going to learn is

City of Miami                                       Page 29                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  enforcement.

                  Mr. Hernandez: I agree.

                  Chairman González: It's the only way, OK. Thank you.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, the second part is brief also of this item. It's about
                  maintenance, actually, because of maintenance -- an employee of the City maintenance
                  department contacted me and gave me information about what he thought was lack of
                  maintenance, and it became a process, and it ended up with a employee talking to the media and
                  all that, and the employee was told that he cannot communicate with me and tell me what is
                  going on on the City's maintenance garage, so yesterday we had a meeting, and the GSA
                  (General Services Administration) director told me that he hasn't directed, but another
                  department of the City did told the employee that he cannot communicate with me, so I just want
                  to put it on the record, so the Manager, who is very transparent and open, had a response for me
                  in private, and that's all I wanted to do; for the people to know that there was a department in
                  the City of Miami that tell an employee that he cannot talk to me about some maintenance issue,
                  but I just want the Manager to say something about it.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, I'll put it on the record. Basically, we discussed the item at your
                  office, and I wanted to be very clear that when an employee discovers a problem, let's say in his
                  routine workday, his first responsibility is to report to his supervisor through a chain of
                  command. Once that's done, he has the right and the freedom of expression to talk to anyone,
                  and of course, to Commissioners. There is no prohibition of any sort, as long as he advises his
                  supervisor first.

                  Commissioner Regalado: And that's fine, and it's fair enough. Thank you very much. Thank
                  you, Mr. Chairman.




City of Miami                                     Page 30                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                                                DISTRICT 5
                           COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES

D5.1      07-00102   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE LITTLE HAITI
                     CULTURAL CENTER.
                     07-00102 Cover Email.pdf
                     DISCUSSED

                     Direction by Commissioner Spence-Jones to the City Attorney to meet with staff of the District 5
                     office to create a Little Haiti Community Oversight Board and to bring this matter back for
                     approval at the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 8, 2007.

                     Chairman González: All right. D5.1.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Spence-Jones just stepped out.

                     "[Later...]"

                     Chairman González: All right. D5.1.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: All right. Yeah. D5.1. Actually, it's a discussion item regarding
                     the progress of Little Haiti Cultural Center, and actually, it should be Park. I'd like to at least
                     address the City Manager and, I guess, Gary, regarding the issues of the parks -- park that's
                     happening in Little Haiti, and my concern with it at this particular time. First of all, I'd like to at
                     least get an official update of what's hap -- what is actually happening with the park.

                     Gary Fabrikant (Assistant Director, Capital Improvement & Transportation): All right.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                     Mr. Fabrikant: On the Little Haiti Cultural campus, construction actually started on January 8,
                     2007, and is projected to be complete in May of 2008. The Little Haiti Soccer Park, construction
                     work started today, and will be completed in March 2008.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. All right. Let me just say this, and the only -- there was a
                     question that was proposed to me by the Administration as to, you know, why would I even have
                     this, you know, on the agenda; that we should -- that I could just get briefed on it, and the reason
                     for me putting it on the agenda is because I'm very, very concerned -- it's gone over 90 days
                     since I've seen any dirt at all moving in Little Haiti Park, and I'm going to tell you, the folks in
                     my community in Little Haiti and the surrounding area are very upset because they're not seeing
                     anything happening with Little Haiti Park, and I know it was communicated to me that, "Well,
                     you know, there's other parks that are now moving," like Grapeland, and that's great, but the
                     people in Little Haiti have been waiting for this park for God knows how long, and there's
                     nothing happening in the park at all. I mean, I do understand that the cultural complex is, at
                     least, that part of it's moving, but I'm just really, really concerned -- I was given some dates in
                     May, which is Haitian Flag Day, which was supposed to be a soft-type opening that we were
                     going to have for the community in honor of Toussaint 'Ouverture [sic], and I'm very afraid that
                     we're not going to even be able to meet that marker because I keep -- I'm hearing one thing, but
                     I'm seeing something totally different, and I do have some folks from Little Haiti today that I'd at
                     least like to have them at least come to the mike to address their concerns, because I'm getting
                     the phone calls. I'm getting constant e-mails (electronic mail) on why, you know, this park is not

City of Miami                                          Page 31                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  moving. It is the one big, you know, thing that's happening in the Little Haiti area that is, quite
                  frankly, nothing's going on with it right now, and I'm very, very concerned about it, so I -- first, I
                  want to know why I haven't seen anybody in 90 days on grounds there, because you gave me the
                  dates that you said that it would be completed, which is March, I'm hearing now, 2008. Can you
                  please tell me why there's been no one --? You know, the City Manager, the Parks director, all
                  of us came out and did this big hoopla in Little Haiti, at Notre Dame, and we did these big
                  presentations, and we told the people they were going to get jobs, and we did this whole big dog
                  and pony show, and then 90 days later, no dirt, so I want to know why there's no dirt being
                  moved.

                  Mary Conway (Department of Capital Improvement & Transportation): Commissioner, Mary
                  Conway, chief of Operations. If I could respond. We did have construction underway, Little
                  Haiti recreation, last year that dealt with removing all the underground materials, doing some of
                  the initial site work; the light towers were installed for the soccer field, and we had proceeded as
                  far as we could up to a point. We did encounter a difficulty associated with the elevation of the
                  buildings that were going to be placed on the site. That's why, over the last 90 days, you have
                  not seen a continuation of the activities that had started last year. That issue has now been
                  resolved, and we have spoken with RDC (Recreation Design and Construction), the contractor,
                  who, in fact, is the same contractor working on Grapeland Park, and they have remobilized out
                  on the site, and you should see and the community should see significantly more activities.
                  Regarding the overall project completion because of that delay, it has slipped, but we are
                  confident that we will have the playing field and the practice field not open for public use, but
                  substantially complete, so -- in support of the May date for the celebration that we had discussed
                  with you previously. There will be a lot of other construction activities continuing around that,
                  so it won't be open for public use, but the community will see significant progress happening
                  over the last sev -- over the next several months.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I'm just going to say this, Mr. Manager. My concern in all of it is
                  -- it's almost as if you put it on your blue pages or put it on the agenda, then you get some
                  results, you know. To hear now that, you know, it's on my agenda and they showed up yesterday,
                  you know, and they're working, so I mean -- you know, I don't really feel that this should be the
                  method in order to get --

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): No.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- things done and moving within --

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, I --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- my -- excuse me -- district, so I'm just -- I'm very, very
                  concerned. I would like to at least, at this particular time, allow for at least one or two of the
                  representatives from Little Haiti -- and the purpose for me putting -- making sure that I bring this
                  out is those that are watching it at home, those that are here today because of their concerns, so
                  they can hear it from the Administration, because I want them to understand that I am
                  supporting, 100 percent, this park happening in Little Haiti, and unfortunately, things have not
                  been moving like you'd like for them to move, so I think that we have Sant La here, if Gepsie
                  doesn't mind, at least addressing the Commission for a minute or so, I would greatly appreciate
                  us giving them the respect we due -- that's due regarding that park.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Commissioner, just 30 seconds. This is a very important project for me, as any
                  other project in the CIP (Capital Improvement Programs) for any other Commissioner. I,
                  myself, get involved in minor issues whenever they become a concern; because I tell them let me
                  know. The tapping for the water service for that park, I, myself, the Manager, called Water and
                  Sewer to expedite the process. On the issue of the elevation, I became aware that there was an
                  issue with DERM (Department of Environmental Resources Management) and the elevation of

City of Miami                                       Page 32                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  the building, reference the street; I got involved personally, so I'm tracking those projects. They
                  come to me whenever there's an issue, because I want to make sure that they move forward.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I -- now that we've discovered this thing that's taking place
                  within the park, you know, the elevation issue and DERM, does this now mean more money?

                  Mr. Hernandez: No.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I just want to make sure. OK, do you mind -- can she --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- just take up one second, one second? I'd like to have Ms.
                  Gepsie Metellus --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Please, step forward --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- state your name and address for the record.

                  Gepsie Metellus: Thank you. Good morning. Gepsie Metellus, 5000 Biscayne Boulevard, with
                  the Haitian Neighborhood Center Sant La. Thank you, Commissioner Spence-Jones. Thank you,
                  members of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Manager. It's a wonderful opportunity to address
                  you, and of course, this issue is timely, timely in the sense that of course there's wonderful
                  development going on in the City of Miami, and I think that the frustrations that you are hearing,
                  Commissioner, stem from the fact that significant segments of our community feel left out of this
                  progress in development, and so with two, I think, flagship projects, one cultural project, one
                  park complex, you know, we had hoped to see something move a little bit faster because this has
                  been happening now -- if my memory serves me right, it's been on the plans now for almost ten
                  years, all right, and of course, it's moved forward, and we thought that we'd reach a point where
                  we'd see some significant movement, and of course, you know, in our community, people often
                  say that when you're not at the table, you're on the menu, so I just want to remind you all that we
                  also, in the Haitian community in the City of Miami, want to be part of this wonderful progress
                  and want to urge you to keep this in mind as you decide on what projects move forward, what
                  projects need to be expedited, what projects will be built, and think of what needs to happen so
                  that the development seems equitable so that the progress seems to be beneficial to -- well, not
                  “seems to be” -- is beneficial and is equitable, and it's shared by all members of the community,
                  and so I appreciate your concern about this. I appreciate all of your concerns about this, and I
                  really do hope that we see some progress so that, in six months, we don't hear that well, DERM
                  discovered something else that will set us back another three months, and of course,
                  unfortunately, it will just appear to be many more excuses after excuses.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you, Gepsie.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Ms. Metellus: Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Are we -- we're still on D5.1, right?



City of Miami                                      Page 33                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes. Thank you so much, Gepsie. I just want to just add that I'm
                     going to ask and request that the City Attorney please -- thank you so much for coming, Gepsie --
                     I want to ask that the City Attorney please get with, hopefully, somebody from our office. At one
                     time this was Commissioner Teele's baby, this whole Little Haiti Park, and he had created an
                     advisory board to assist with the development of the park, but I'd like to at least direct the City
                     Attorney to work along with our office to bring back, for the first meeting in February, a Little
                     Haiti oversight board, community oversight board, to make sure key projects that are happening
                     in Little Haiti move and they happen, and that the people of -- that work for the City are
                     accountable to the residents that we made promises to, so I just wanted to make sure I put that
                     on the record.

D5.2      07-00103   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR THE
                     REHAB OF SIX UNITS TO MEET THE HOUSING CRISIS IN THE CITY.
                     07-00103 Cover Email.pdf
                     DISCUSSED

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: And the next one is D5.2, which is -- again, I thank the
                     Commissioners for their support. We did have a wonderful press conference last week that
                     pulled together several different organizations, PULSE (People United to Lead the Struggle for
                     Equality), NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and Homeless
                     Trust, regarding the issue of, of course, you know, what we call "Shantytown," and other iss --
                     homeless issues that are going on within my district. This discussion is really regarding the
                     transfer of property for the rehab of the six units to meet the housing crises in the City. You
                     know, last time we did the four units, and we're well on our way with those, and hopefully, the
                     item coming up later will -- we will discuss that. This is six other units that, again, are
                     City-owned units that are boarded up, that are one/ones, that can definitely be used that are not
                     being utilized at all. I believe Commissioner Regalado toured this site with me also. This is
                     something that can be made available. I think the Manager and Barbara Rodriguez [sic] -- I
                     had asked in this particular meeting for Commissioner Gomez -- I mean Barbara Gomez to
                     direct -- Gomez -- to come back and give me an update at least on the six units, and where we
                     are with those.

                     Barbara Gomez: Barbara Gomez, director of Community Development. Basically, we are doing
                     an assessment, not only of these six vacant units in the City of Miami, but we have obtained from
                     the Liberty City Trust all of the properties that are being transferred to the City, and we are
                     doing an assessment, how much they're going to cost, and we will be back to this City
                     Commission with the proper funding and the proper estimate to get all of these housing units
                     back on the rent rolls.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: So for the six units, do we have an idea of what we're --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: No. The --

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- have you sent the inspector out to --?

                     Ms. Gomez: -- inspectors are currently doing an assessment of the building. We should have it
                     completed, hopefully, by the February 8 Commission, but definitely by February -- by the second
                     Commission in February.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                     Chairman González: All right.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you. I'm sorry, Chairman. I'm almost done. I just want to
City of Miami                                         Page 34                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                   Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                      make sure the four units that we have promised -- and, again, at the press conference, it was
                      stated that they would be completed in 90 days. Are we still on target with those?

                      Ms. Gomez: We are on schedule. Today we are doing the request for proposal for a general
                      contractor. As we speak, the inspectors are out there requesting general contractors to bid on
                      the property. We are working with Better Way, and we do have an item today at the City
                      Commission making the transfer of the property.

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. Thank you. I'm just going to --

                      Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): And Commissioner, we'll need --

                      Chairman González: All right.

                      Mr. Hernandez: -- your support on the item, on PH.3, when we get to it.

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: No problem, and I just want to add, I am -- on my blue pages,
                      tonight before we leave, I'm going to also instruct that we put together a task force that is called
                      Neighborhood -- Neighbors Uniting for Housing Task Force that will be head up -- headed up by
                      the -- by PULSE and several other organizations to come back with recommendations on what
                      we need to do regarding the homeless issue and the housing issue that's happening within my
                      district. Thank you.

                      "[Later...]"

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I know you did -- I
                      just wanted to just at least be able to -- I remember I mentioned earlier -- I just want to give you
                      -- it's not really a -- it's just for the resolution for this housing taskforce for the Umoja Village
                      issue, the shantytown issue. It's just a taskforce that we're putting in place to address it.

                      Chairman González: You want to pass this now?

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                      Chairman González: All right. We have -- OK, go ahead before --

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: This is a resolution of the City of Miami Commission authorizing
                      the City Manager to create the Neighbors United for Housing Taskforce to address the crises
                      surrounding the need for affordable housing and the rise in homelessness in District 5. So move.
                      Can I get a second, please?

                      Chairman González: Motion. We need a second.

                      Commissioner Regalado: Second.

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                      Chairman González: All right. All in favor, say “aye.”

                      The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                      Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right. Pardon me? Motion carries.

          07-00103a   RESOLUTION
                      A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE

City of Miami                                           Page 35                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                              January 25, 2007

                        CITY MANAGER TO CREATE THE "NEIGHBORS UNITED FOR HOUSING
                        TASK FORCE," AS STATED HEREIN, TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS
                        SURROUNDING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE RISE
                        IN HOMELESSNESS IN DISTRICT 5.
                        Motion by Commissioner Spence-Jones, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this
                        matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Spence-Jones
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Regalado

                        R-07-0058




City of Miami                                          Page 36                                Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                                                PUBLIC HEARINGS

10:30 A.M.

PH.1      07-00089       RESOLUTION
   Department of         A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESERVING FUNDS, IN
   Community             THE AMOUNT OF $1 MILLION, FROM THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY'S")
   Development           AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, FOR USE ON THE MIXED-USE,
                         MIXED-INCOME BUILDING TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE VACANT CITY
                         PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400-430 SOUTHWEST 8TH AVENUE, MIAMI,
                         FLORIDA.
                          07-00089 Legislation.pdf
                          07-00089 Summary Form.pdf

                         Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, that this
                         matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                   Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                         R-07-0052
                         Chairman González: All right. PH.1

                         Barbara Gomez (Director, Community Development): PH.1, we're requesting approval of -- The
                         Little Havana Advisory Board has requested from this City Commission to put aside $1 million
                         from the Affordable Housing Trust. As you know, there is an RFP (Request for Proposals) going
                         on right now for a property that was owned by the City, known as Teatro Marti, located at 400
                         Southwest 8th Avenue. We're in the process of getting proposal to determine what are we going
                         to build there, so right now all they're asking is to set aside those dollars so when we do get the
                         RFP, and we see the project, that if there is a need for those dollars, we would have access to
                         those dollars, and we feel that it's appropriate, and we would like to get your approval on this
                         recommendation.

                         Chairman González: All right. Is there --

                         Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move.

                         Chairman González: -- a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second?

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                         Chairman González: And there is a second.

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: I do just have a little -- have a comment.

                         Chairman González: Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner --

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                         Chairman González: -- Spence --

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: Again, you know, I understand that District 5 again, before I got
                         here, has sucked up a lot of the resources and has -- unfortunately, has not been -- has not come
                         -- has not produced any real products, but hopefully, you'll begin to see the difference now with

City of Miami                                             Page 37                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  new leadership, but I do want to say, I know that it is time for Little Havana and the other areas
                  to begin getting the support, and I know that since most of the affordable housing projects or the
                  tax credits really that have been won -- I believe, if I'm not mistaken, Barbara, we have had at
                  least how many this year I've won?

                  Ms. Gomez: This year alone, all of them were in your district, except one in District 1 --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- so --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- all tax credit deals that were awarded in 2006 are in District 5.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Which means it's about how many units will be coming to District
                  --?

                  Ms. Gomez: Eight hundred units.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Eight hundred new units, correct?

                  Ms. Gomez: Eight hundred new units, which there is an RFP right now to help those developer
                  with the gap of financing that they have in those projects.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, and then -- the whole idea is that these are all going to be
                  low-income rentals, too, correct?

                  Ms. Gomez: They're all very low.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Ms. Gomez: Some go as low as 30 percent of medium income.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, so I support you 100 percent, Commissioner Sanchez, and I
                  do understand what your concern is, and probably some of the other Commissioners' concerns
                  would be, you know, at the end of the day -- as you know, a lot of those tax credit projects that
                  we have been winning from a state perspective -- again, we don't make that decision; the State
                  makes the determination as to which projects are funded, but the reality is I do understand how
                  important it is to make sure we try to spread it round as much as possible. I am thankful and
                  blessed, though, because as you know, my community's also been very wroth with not having
                  enough housing, and all the vacant lots that I have in my district, so at least we're well on our
                  way with seeing some progress being made, so I just want to let you know that I do support you
                  on what you're trying to do, and just know that you can count on me when you're trying to build
                  housing in your district.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion and we have a second. All in --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I know we're running a little behind on the
                  schedule here on the agenda, but let me just say that Little Havana -- and you're about to start
                  your homeowner association -- your affordable housing trust, or your board, or whatever you
                  may.

                  Chairman González: Right.



City of Miami                                      Page 38                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I decided to do a board because I didn't -- I felt that every money
                  should have gone to the people that want to accomplish the American Dream. In other words,
                  these are volunteer people, professional people in our community that give up their time and
                  effort away from their family and their business to make sure that every dollar goes out there.
                  The people that are working, making $8 an hour, saving every penny they can working odd jobs
                  to qualify to be able, through the assistance that they get, to accomplish the American Dream,
                  and this -- the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory Board, I just want to state for the record
                  that we had more than five dozen families that have been able to accomplish the American
                  Dream. I believe we have like three other dozens that are waiting for their projects to continue,
                  but here's the biggest problem that I have, and I think that we need to learn from our experiences
                  -- because we can't discuss this unless we're out in the public. I can't sit down with you and give
                  you advice based on what you're going to be going through. Property today is too expensive,
                  and therefore, the window of opportunity is very hard for us to create affordable housing.

                  Ms. Gomez: Yeah.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is my number one priority. It is our number one crisis in our City,
                  but you can't unless you own the property, and then you have to be very creative to try to
                  maximize your dollars. In other words, you do that by partnering up with the private sector to
                  try to maximize your dollar. In other words, this item that's in front of you today -- You all know
                  the property. It's Teatro Marti. It is City property. I think tomorrow the RFLI (Request for
                  Letters of Interest) goes out.

                  Ms. Gomez: Correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It went out a long time ago. For whatever reason, nobody picked it up,
                  and now we have a golden opportunity for us to create possibly 60 units affordable and
                  workforce housing with this money, so I want to thank the Commission for supporting us on this
                  issue. I know that my window will soon fade out, and you will have an opportunity,
                  Commissioner González, in your district, to accomplish affordable housing, but once again, I
                  just wanted to state for the record that, you know, the success is to partner up with the private
                  sector and maximize your dollars. You just can't take your money and put it in a place, because
                  at the end of the day, you're only going to be getting maybe 80 families when, if you maximize,
                  you might be able to get 240, if you're lucky, so I just wanted to state that, and want to thank the
                  Commission for their support on this resolution for the Little Havana Homeownership Advisory
                  Board.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And Ms. Gomez, can I just also -- if you can just put on the
                  record. I know one of the biggest concerns that has come up, especially with projects that I've
                  had to even bring in front of the Commission regarding the Affordable Housing Trust itself -- I
                  just want to at least get some sort of time frames from you --

                  Ms. Gomez: February --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- because --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- 8.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, so just let them -- so they know --

                  Ms. Gomez: February 8 we'll bring up the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Trust.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Chairman González: All right. All in favor, say "aye."

City of Miami                                      Page 39                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                         The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                         Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right. I see no opposition.

PH.2      07-00091       RESOLUTION
   Department of         A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
   Community             ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONVEY, WITH
   Development           PARCEL REVERTER PROVISIONS, ONE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OWNED
                         VACANT PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1614 NORTHWEST 1 COURT,
                         MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," ATTACHED
                         AND INCORPORATED, TO OVERTOWN CONDOMINIUM, LLC, FOR THE
                         DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
                         MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT(S), FOR SAID
                         PURPOSE.
                          07-00091 Legislation.pdf
                          07-00091 Exhibit.pdf
                          07-00091 Summary Form.pdf
                         DEFERRED


PH.3      07-00116       RESOLUTION
   Department of         A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
   Community             ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO: (A) CONVEY,
   Development           WITH PARCEL REVERTER PROVISIONS, EIGHT (8) CITY OF MIAMI
                         OWNED PARCELS OF LAND DIRECTLY TO THE DEVELOPERS, AS
                         DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A," ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE
                         CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ELIGIBLE LOW AND
                         MODERATE INCOME PERSONS, AND (B) AUTHORIZE THE TRANSFER OF
                         FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000, FROM THE AFFORDABLE
                         HOUSING TRUST FUND; ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, IN THE FORM OF A
                         TWENTY (20) YEAR FORGIVABLE LOAN, TO BETTER WAY OF MIAMI,
                         INC., FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING; FURTHER
                         AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
                         DOCUMENTS, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
                          07-00116 Legislation .pdf
                          07-00116 Exhibit .pdf
                          07-00116 Summary Form.pdf

                         Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, that this
                         matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
                   Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones
                         Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sarnoff

                         R-07-0053
                         Chairman González: PH.2.

                         Jorge L. Fernández (City Attorney): PH.2 --

                         Barbara Gomez (Director, Community Development): PH.2, we're withdrawing that item.

                         Chairman González: PH.3.

City of Miami                                           Page 40                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Gomez: PH.3. As I said earlier, we've been in negotiations with the Liberty City Trust in
                  order to assess all of their properties and to determine what can we do with them to get them into
                  construction right away. We are requesting the conveyance of eight parcels of land, three of
                  which -- 290 Northwest 61 Street, 280 Northwest 61 Street, and 1272 Northwest 61 Street to
                  Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami; 1405 Northwest 60 Street to Better Way of Miami; 1461
                  Northwest 60 Street and 6005 Northwest 15th Avenue to Palmetto Homes of Miami,
                  Incorporated; 5852 Northwest 13th Avenue and 5858 Northwest 13th Avenue to Foster
                  Construction of South Florida. They will all have restricted covenant, which means that they
                  have to start construction within 6 months from the date of conveyance. We're also requesting
                  that on the one of Better Way, they be awarded $150,000 from the Affordable Housing Trust in
                  the form of a 20-year forgivable loan, which basically, if the property continue to be affordable,
                  the loan will be forgiven after 20 years, and again, I will answer any question. There are
                  representative here --

                  Chairman González: Let me --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- from --

                  Chairman González: -- tell you. I'll be in full support of this, but the six month, unless they're
                  going to build cookie-cutters --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: -- I believe it's unrealistic.

                  Ms. Gomez: The only one --

                  Chairman González: There will --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- that will take more -- that will take around that will be Habitat because it's the
                  only time that Habitat will be doing a building. Palmetto Homes, as you know, they have built
                  20 houses for the City.

                  Chairman González: Are they going to --

                  Ms. Gomez: They have cookie-cutters --

                  Chairman González: It's going to be cookie-cutters?

                  Ms. Gomez: -- and Foster Construction have cookie-cutters --

                  Chairman González: OK. Then I have no --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- and Better Way, that's the one we made a commitment to --

                  Chairman González: Then I --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- have it --

                  Chairman González: -- have no problem --

                  Ms. Gomez: Right.

                  Chairman González: -- but my problem is, you know, if you have to do drawings and you have

City of Miami                                       Page 41                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  to submit them for permitting --

                  Ms. Gomez: No.

                  Chairman González: -- and you have to --

                  Ms. Gomez: Right.

                  Chairman González: -- there's no way that you can do that in six months.

                  Ms. Gomez: The only one that we're working on, because this is the first time that they will be
                  doing a building, is Habitat. The others, they have cookie-cutters, and Better Way, we have a
                  construction --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- completion in 90 days.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- Mr. Chairman, did -- would you suggest that we give them,
                  what, a year?

                  Chairman González: I suggest --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Because you -- I mean, you've done this a lot longer than I have.

                  Chairman González: -- that you give them one year, and then, you know, you revise it after a
                  year; that will give --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Chairman González: -- them plenty of time because they have to go through the process of
                  having drawings, architectural, engineering, and then submit for permit; they're going to have
                  revision on their plans, you know, so --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Ms. Gomez: OK, so you -- we --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chair --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- say six months for everybody, except --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I --

                  Ms. Gomez: -- Habitat, a year.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No, no, no.

                  Chairman González: Yeah.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: He's saying all of them.

                  Chairman González: The --

                  Ms. Gomez: OK.

City of Miami                                        Page 42                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: -- it's up to the district Commissioner, but if the others are going to build
                  cookie-cutters, they --

                  Ms. Gomez: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: -- have save --

                  Ms. Gomez: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: -- half of the time, but you know, if you want --

                  Ms. Gomez: OK.

                  Chairman González: -- to give them a year -- I believe it should be -- you should give them up to
                  a year.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I will --

                  Ms. Gomez: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- make the motion, with the amendment for one year.

                  Ms. Gomez: One year, OK.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion. Is there a second?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Chairman González: And we have a second. All in favor, say "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: Motion carries.

                  Ms. Gomez: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you so much, Barbara.

                  [Later…]

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I -- if you -- just two seconds. Ms. Beth Lang from Better Way.
                  She just wanted to say one thing real fast, if you don't mind?

                  Chairman González: Sure.

                  Beth Lang: Hi. Beth Lang, executive director of Better Way, at 800 Northwest 28th Street. I

City of Miami                                      Page 43                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  want to thank this Commission, and particularly, Commissioner Spence-Jones, for your
                  long-time support and your trust, and I'm proud to say that Better Way has not only made good
                  use of the property, but kept it in excellent, shape, and has renovated and done a great job with
                  everything that you have given to us. You are all most forward-looking, and I am truly
                  appreciative because this is truly a partnership. Thank you so much. Thank you --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you, Ms. Lang.

                  Ms. Lang: -- Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am.

                  Chairman González: All right. DI.1 has been deferred.

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): That was deferred.

                  Chairman González: It was deferred.




City of Miami                                      Page 44                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                                        ORDINANCE - FIRST READING

FR.1      07-00069       ORDINANCE                                                                      First Reading
   Department of         AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION REPEALING CHAPTER
   Public Works          54, "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS," ARTICLE III, "BUS BENCHES," SECTION
                         54-86 THROUGH SECTION 54-94 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
                         FLORIDA; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY
                         CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

                          07-00069 Legislation SR/FR .pdf
                          07-00069 Summary Form SR/FR.pdf
                          07-00069 2006 Florida Statutes SR/FR.pdf

                         Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter
                         be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
                   Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones

                         Chairman González: FR.1.

                         Stephanie Grindell: Stephanie Grindell, director of Public Works. FR.1 is an ordinance
                         repealing City Code Chapter 54, entitled "Bus Benches." This --

                         Chairman González: All right. Is there a motion on --

                         Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move.

                         Chairman González: -- FR.1?

                         Commissioner Regalado: Second.

                         Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye."

                         The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                         Jorge L. Fernández (City Attorney): Has to be read.

                         Chairman González: Motion --

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. --

                         Mr. Fernández: Has to be read.

                         Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                         Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's an ordinance on first reading.

                         Chairman González: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's an ordinance. Go ahead, Mr. City Attorney.

                         The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.

                         Chairman González: All right. Madam City Clerk, we had a motion, and we had a second, and
                         we need to do the roll call, please.

                         Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.
City of Miami                                             Page 45                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                   January 25, 2007


                  A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                  Ms. Burns: The ordinance is passed on first reading, 5/0.




City of Miami                                       Page 46                     Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes         January 25, 2007


                                          DISCUSSION ITEM

DI.1      07-00070       DISCUSSION ITEM
   Office of Strategic   DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL ISSUES
   Planning,             WITH MIAMI DADE COUNTY.
   Budgeting, and
   Performance
                         07-00070 Summary Form.pdf
                         DEFERRED




City of Miami                                    Page 47              Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                                                PART B
                  Chairman González: All right. It's almost 12 o'clock. I think that we should break, right --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Take it to 12:30.

                  Chairman González: -- or you want to take a couple of items?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, why don't we do something? I think there's some --

                  Jorge L. Fernández (City Attorney): Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- there're some PZ (Planning & Zoning) items that are going to be
                  deferred.

                  Mr. Fernández: Yes. I need to announce those that are going to be deferred by the
                  Administration --

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Fernández: -- some that, it's my understanding, are being asked to be deferred by
                  Commissioner Sarnoff, and then also there are members -- applicants in the audience who would
                  like to request the City Commission continuance on some of their items, and if you can dispose of
                  all of those administrative matters before you break for lunch, then when you come back from
                  lunch, you can get into the meat and substance of it.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Fernández: Mr. Chairman, Madam Clerk, PZ.4, 14, 21 --

                  Chairman González: Slowly, slowly, slowly. Slow, slow.

                  Mr. Fernández: I'm sorry.

                  Commissioner Regalado: PZ --

                  Mr. Fernández: 4 --

                  Chairman González: PZ.4.

                  Mr. Fernández: -- 14 --

                  Chairman González: 14.

                  Mr. Fernández: -- 21.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Wait, wait, wait.

                  Chairman González: 21.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

                  Mr. Fernández: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: 14 is --

City of Miami                                      Page 48                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: What about -- is PZ.18 not being deferred now? OK.

                  Commissioner Regalado: PZ.14.

                  Mr. Fernández: PZ --

                  Chairman González: 4 --

                  Mr. Fernández: -- 14.

                  Chairman González: -- 14, and 21.

                  Mr. Fernández: 4, 14, 21 --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Wait, wait, wait, wait.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: 18 is not being pulled?

                  Mr. Fernández: Well, just -- let me do my -- we'll come back to those in a minute. -- and 36,
                  those are being deferred to your February meeting. My understanding is that PZ.14 is being
                  deferred to your March 22 meeting, so 4, 21, and 36, the Administration is moving those to your
                  February meeting.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Fernández: PZ.14 is to the March 22 meeting. Furthermore, items 5 and 29, it is my
                  understanding that Commissioner Sarnoff, because he has not yet received all the information
                  that he needs to duly deliberate on these items, that he is requesting, -- and we've contacted the
                  applicants and the applicants have no problem with items 5 and 29, likewise, being continued to
                  the February --

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Fernández: Well, it's up to Commissioner Sarnoff. My --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah. I'm not --

                  Mr. Fernández: -- understanding from his staff is that 5 and 29 were going to be requested by
                  him to be continued.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Let's go through with 29. I don't believe we're pulling 29.

                  Mr. Fernández: OK.

                  Lucia Dougherty: You believe what?

                  Mr. Fernández: Just 29?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah. I think the other one --

                  Mr. Fernández: Well --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: 5. You're going to pull 29 and keep 5?



City of Miami                                      Page 49                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'm sorry. I was wrong. We're going to keep 5 and pull 29.

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Keep 5 and --

                  Mr. Fernández: Oh, all right, so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: As soon as I find the documents for 29, we'll have it.

                  Mr. Fernández: Fine, so --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner Sarnoff --

                  Mr. Fernández: -- then 5 is --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- can I just ask a question?

                  Mr. Fernández: Let -- allow me to conclude --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Sure.

                  Mr. Fernández: -- please. All right, so 29 is being then continued to the February meeting of
                  P&Z.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Mr. Fernández: Any other item is subject to a request by the applicant for a continuance, or if
                  any Commissioner would like to have any other item deferred for --

                  Chairman González: All right. Any --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Requests?

                  Chairman González: Mr. Manager --

                  Ms. Dougherty: I have a question for Commissioner Sarnoff.

                  Chairman González: -- that's it?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Commissioner Sarnoff?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yes.

                  Ms. Dougherty: On the -- item number 29, which is the Omni, we don't have any problem with
                  continuing it, but would you like to see a presentation of it because the architect is here today.
                  These are people from out of town, and if, at that point, you want to continue, we don't have a
                  problem with that, but this is an opportunity for you to see the project and see --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah, if somebody traveled from out of town, I don't mind seeing it --

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- but I probably would not base a decision --

                  Ms. Dougherty: That's fine --



City of Miami                                      Page 50                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- OK.

                  Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me. I need your name --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- but -- so we don't need to continue that right now until you decide?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's fine.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK.

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you.

                  Ms. Burns: I need your name for the record, please.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman --

                  Chairman González: Yes.

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- 22 is also off. That's a companion to 21.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: 22.

                  Chairman González: That's also continue -- defer?

                  Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Director): Yes.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Yes, to February 22.

                  Chairman González: All right. Did you want to continue any items or defer?

                  Vicky Garcia-Toledo: Vicky Garcia-Toledo, with the law firm of Bilzin Sumberg. Yes, I would
                  like to continue item 33 and 34, Palomo Holdings. We have conferred with the opposition. Mr.
                  Luis Herrera is here today representing the opposition, and they have agreed to support this
                  request for a continuance.

                  Ms. Slazyk: To a date certain.

                  Commissioner Regalado: What is that --

                  Ms. Garcia-Toledo: To a date certain.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- 33?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: 33 and 34.

                  Chairman González: 33 and 34.

                  Ms. Garcia-Toledo: 33 and 34 to a date certain of February 22. Thank you.



City of Miami                                      Page 51                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir. Good morning.

                  Ricardo Ruiz: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Ricardo Ruiz,
                  3150 Southwest 15th Street. I'm here representing item PZ.25 and 26, and we wish to request a
                  continuance. We've sent in a covenant to the departments. They haven't been able to review the
                  covenant, so we would like a deferral so they could do that.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Date certain.

                  Chairman González: 25 and 26.

                  Mr. Ruiz: Whenever you --

                  Chairman González: That will --

                  Ms. Slazyk: February.

                  Mr. Ruiz: February is fine.

                  Chairman González: February 22. All right. Any other items? All right. Let me -- for the
                  people that are here for the Planning and Zoning agenda, as you see, we -- they put 20 -- 38
                  items on this agenda, something that is unrealistic, something that we will never be able to go
                  through, so -- and we have an item that is time certain at 5 o'clock that is going to take, to my
                  best guess, at least four or five hours, so what we're going to do is when we come back from
                  lunch, we're going to start taking Planning and Zoning items until 4:45. At 4:45 I'm going to
                  call a recess of 15 minutes to get set up for the Mercy Hospital project, which is time certain at 5
                  o'clock. Any items that have not been heard at 4:45 will be continued, and it will be continued
                  for the February 22 date, and Mr. City Manager, you should take into consideration, and
                  Lourdes and I don't know where Teresita Fernandez is, that so far we have one, two, three, four,
                  five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve items for February 22, so we almost have an
                  agenda from today from [sic] February 22, and let me tell you, I mean, we can play all kind of
                  games here, but if you keep loading these agendas with 30 items, 38 items, 42 items, what is
                  going to happen is that eventually some of the items, like we're doing today, 14, 15, 16, 17 items
                  are going to be deferred for the next agenda, so we need to be realistic on what we're doing. I
                  mean, you know, it's your job. You need to be -- I'm going to be doing my job.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: My job is to run this City Commission, to try to get rid of this agenda at
                  every meeting, but I'm not going to let this drive my blood pressure up.

                  Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Chairman.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, can we do --?

                  Chairman González: I'm just going to handle it the best I can --

                  Mr. Hernandez: We --

                  Chairman González: -- within my power.

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- as we discussed with you, Mr. Chairman --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Can I --?



City of Miami                                       Page 52                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Hernandez: -- I think it would be important if we -- we're working on setting up alternate
                  dates for additional meetings to be able to catch up on Zoning, and we'll be forwarding that to
                  your office for your review and approval.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: I mean, I don't --

                  Chairman González: You know --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- mind if you call for a special meeting of Zoning --

                  Chairman González: Yeah --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- some time in the afternoon.

                  Chairman González: -- but you know, what really -- what's --

                  Commissioner Regalado: We can catch up with some of the items. I mean --

                  Chairman González: What is really --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- two or three hours.

                  Chairman González: -- upsetting is that, you know, you schedule these 38 items for today, and
                  also the Mercy Hospital item, which we know is controversial. You know, we're now going to
                  have 200 people here for that item, and if you would have consulted me -- because after all, I am
                  the Chairman. I'm running the meeting. If I would've been consulted, I would've had said let's
                  set up a special meeting for the Mercy Hospital one day, at 2 o'clock. We have an entire
                  afternoon and part of the night to run a smooth meeting, you know, and then we would have had
                  taken this agenda today, and then the Mercy at another date, but you know what? You know,
                  you just put it in there without consulting with anybody, and let me tell you. As soon as the
                  Mayor is back, I'm going to talk to the Mayor, because either I run the show, or I don't run the
                  show. If I'm not going to run the show, listen, no problem, you know; let somebody else run it,
                  but I have -- I believe that I have a responsibility to get this agenda done. I have the
                  responsibility to make sure that I afford time to the citizens to speak on the items, and I have to
                  afford enough time to the attorneys to do their presentations, so you know, you need to cooperate
                  with me, but I can tell you. While I'm the Chairman, I'm going to exercise my powers as the
                  Chairman to control the agenda and to control the meeting, all right, so --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: -- thank you very much.

                  "[Later...]"

                  Chairman González: All right. I'm going to be taking the last two items before taking the Mercy
                  Hospital project, or the Mercy property, or whatever you want to call it, so for those that are
                  here for any other items, the rest of the agenda will be continued until February 22, and then the
                  Manager and I will have to sit down and work through this agenda because we're deferring a
                  complete agenda today.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, that's why you're my Chair. You make --

                  Chairman González: OK --

City of Miami                                      Page 53                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- sure you take care of that.

                  Chairman González: -- so --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Do you want to do a special meeting before the --?

                  Chairman González: I guess we'll have to decide that afterwards, and then they will have to
                  announce, you know, everything. I mean --

                  Commissioner Regalado: No, but if you decided now --

                  Chairman González: -- but I can't decide it now.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- we can -- oh, you can't. OK.

                  Chairman González: I don't want to decide it now.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait. No, no, not --

                  Chairman González: You know, I need to sit down with the Manager and show him, you know,
                  what they've been doing --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Waste.

                  Chairman González: -- and -- you know, we need to find a long-term solution, not an immediate
                  solution, because otherwise, they will continue to do this every single meeting. All right.

                  Frank Castañeda (Chief of Staff, Office of Commissioner González): Commissioner, I'm sorry.
                  They wanted clarification, whether it is the first meeting in March or the first Zoning meeting in
                  March, which is the second meeting?

                  Chairman González: It's the first meeting --

                  Commissioner Regalado: No. He said the first meeting in March.

                  Chairman González: -- in March, the regular Commission meeting in March. If it would have
                  been the Planning and Zoning, I would have said the second meeting in March, but it is the first
                  meeting in March, which is the regular Commission meeting in March.

                  "[Later...]"

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me.

                  Chairman González: All right, so now we are going to break for lunch --

                  Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair.

                  Chairman González: -- and we should be back at 2:30 --

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me.

                  Chairman González: -- so we start early. Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Madam Clerk.

City of Miami                                      Page 54                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                  Ms. Burns: For the record, I'd just like to go over what our records show as far as the deferrals,
                  just to make sure we're on the same page.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Burns: We show PZ.4 being deferred to February 22, PZ.14 --

                  Chairman González: To March.

                  Ms. Burns: -- to March 22.

                  Chairman González: 21 and 36 to February.

                  Ms. Burns: To February.

                  Chairman González: 29 to February, 22 to February.

                  Ms. Burns: Correct.

                  Chairman González: 33, 34 to February --

                  Ms. Burns: Correct.

                  Chairman González: -- and 25 and 26 to February.

                  Ms. Burns: Correct, and then PZ.36?

                  Chairman González: And PZ.36 to February also.

                  Ms. Burns: OK. Correct.

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Ms. Burns: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: OK. All right. We're going to have -- we're going to adjourn for lunch,
                  and we'll be back at 2:30.

                  "[Later...]"

                  Chairman González: Madam City Attorney, would you please state the procedures for the
                  portion of the Planning and Zoning agenda?

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Yes, sir. PZ (Planning & Zoning) items shall proceed
                  as follows. Before the PZ agenda is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn by the City
                  Clerk. Staff will briefly describe the request, whether an appeal, special exception, vacation, text
                  amendment, zoning change, land use change or MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) and make its
                  recommendation. The appellant or petitioner will then present the request. The appellee, if
                  applicable, will present its position. Members of the public will be permitted to speak on certain
                  petitions. The petitioner may ask questions of staff; the appellant or petitioner will be permitted
                  to make final comments.



City of Miami                                      Page 55                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                   Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                       Chairman González: All right.

                       Ms. Chiaro: The City Clerk can swear in --

                       Chairman González: All right.

                       Ms. Chiaro: -- those --

                       Chairman González: We need to establish some order for this meeting this afternoon because,
                       as we all know, the agenda is pretty heavy. I will be allowing equal time -- amount of time to
                       each attorney on both sides, attorneys that are for and attorneys that are against, and to the
                       general public, we're going to be allowing two minutes per speaker, so I think it's a way that
                       everybody have the opportunity to come up to the podium and express their position, if they're in
                       favor or against each of these items, and also the attorneys will have whatever time they need to
                       present their cases, and we will give equal amount of time to both sides on the attorneys. All
                       right. Having said that, we need to swear in the witnesses. Everyone that is going to be
                       testifying in any of these Planning and Zoning items, please stand up to be sworn in.

                       Ms. Burns: Would you please raise your right hand and repeat --? And don't repeat after me,
                       but --

                       The Assistant City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those
                       persons giving testimony on zoning issues.

                       Ms. Burns: Thank you. Please be seated.

PZ.1      05-00078xt   RESOLUTION
                       A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                       ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A SPECIAL
                       EXCEPTION, REQUIRING CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL, TO ALLOW
                       SURFACE PARKING, WITH A TIME LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR AND
                       SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                       APPROXIMATELY 6789 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ZONED
                       "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL,
                       "SD-9" BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NORTH OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-12"
                       BUFFER OVERLAY DISTRICT, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
                       "EXHIBIT A."
                       05-00078xt Analysis.pdf
                       05-00078xt Zoning Map.pdf
                       05-00078xt Aerial Map.pdf
                       05-00078xt Extension Letter & Supporting Docs.pdf
                       05-00078xt Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                       05-00078xt Plans.pdf
                       05-00078xt Exhibit A.pdf
                       05-00078xt Extension Fact Sheet.pdf
                       05-00078xt CC Legislation.pdf

                       LOCATION: Approximately 6789 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc
                       Sarnoff - District 2]

                       APPLICANT(S): Lucia A. Dougherty, Esquire, on behalf of Balans Biscayne
                       Properties, LC

City of Miami                                          Page 56                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the extension of time
                        and approval with conditions* of the Special Exception.
                        *See supporting documents.

                        PURPOSE: This will allow an extension of time for a previously approved
                        Special Exception requiring City Commission approval for surface parking for a
                        restaurant and multifamily units.

                        NOTE: This file was publicly noticed as File ID 05-00078b, but later changed to
                        File ID 05-00078xt to reflect the extension.


                        Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be
                        ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        R-07-0054
                        Chairman González: All right. Let's take the first item, PZ.1. Good afternoon.

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Good afternoon, Commissioners.
                        For the record, Roberto Lavernia, with the Planning Department. PZ.1 is an extension of time
                        for a special exception. As you know, SD-12, when they come with surface parking, they have to
                        come in front of you, and this part is the one to do the ordinance authorizing that. Any extension
                        of time, it has to be approved by you, and that we're recommending approval. Planning have no
                        issues in the continuance of the item. Thank you.

                        Chairman González: Lucia.

                        Lucia Dougherty: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Lucia
                        Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. This is a project that is on Biscayne Boulevard
                        and 67th Street. With me is Ilija Mosscrop, and it's for Balans Restaurant. Balans is a
                        London-based restaurant that also has one in Lincoln Road in Miami Beach and will be locating
                        here. The proposal is actually for this area here, the special exception, to provide surface
                        parking lot to serve the restaurant. As you can see, it's a very modest building. It's only three
                        stories with one -- ten residential units and a ground floor restaurant. We have already
                        submitted for our building permit. This is a request to extend the time for getting a building
                        permit because we are currently in WASA (Water and Sewage Authority), meaning Water and
                        Sewer board, trying to get our permits. Originally, the building -- here's the parking lot -- was
                        only this part here. We've now acquired the service station on the other side, so the restaurant is
                        actually -- has the entire frontage from 67th to 68th Street. With that we would ask for an
                        extension of time to secure the building permit.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: When did you get your building permit?

                        Ms. Dougherty: No, we haven't. That's why we're asking for this extension.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: When did you get your -- you asked for your -- was it a variance you
                        got?

                        Ms. Dougherty: No. It was a special exception.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Overlay. I'm sorry.

City of Miami                                            Page 57                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Dougherty: January 28, 2006.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So approximately a year ago today?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Correct.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What have you done in that year to move forward in your plans?

                  Ilija Mosscrop: Ilija Mosscrop, with the offices of Mosscrop Associates. I'm the architect. What
                  happened was at the time we got the granted -- at the time we were granted the SD-12 overlay
                  for this portion, my client had not yet purchased this piece of property here. Shortly after
                  obtaining the SD-12 overlay, my client acquired the southern piece of property, on which used to
                  sit a Kwik Stop convenience market, and so between January and August, we redesigned the
                  whole building because it basically almost doubled in size --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: -- and it just took that long to do the redesigns, get the Historic and
                  Environmental Preservation Board approvals, and do the construction documents, which were
                  then submitted to the Building Department in August of this year.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That was the convenient [sic] store that you had said at some public
                  meetings that you would like to acquire for surface parking --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Correct.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and now you've decided not to use that for surface parking, but
                  instead you've decided to use it for further development of your restaurant and to move your
                  surface parking closer into the neighborhood.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: No, no, no. If you look at this site plan here -- in fact, this is a clearer -- I'll
                  show you. OK. This is an enlargement of the overall site plan. In orange you can see the Kwik
                  Stop store, where it used to be, which is now -- which we are proposing to put more surface
                  parking. As part of the --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: How many parking spaces?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Let me just say something to you. The City staff and your regulations do not
                  permit a parking lot -- an exposed parking on Biscayne Boulevard, on the SD-9 regulations.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So there was no way they could have had a parking lot --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: No.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- on Biscayne Boulevard.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: No. Correct. Yeah, we can't do -- the City mandate --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Without -- I'm sorry. Could Lucia answer that question?

                  Ms. Dougherty: You cannot have a parking lot on Biscayne Boulevard -- fronting on Biscayne --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Period.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Period --

City of Miami                                      Page 58                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- and the other thing, too, is we do have historic and preservation --
                  Environmental Preservation district approval, as well as the Urban Development Review Board
                  approval.

                  Chairman González: That's it?

                  Ms. Dougherty: That is it.

                  Chairman González: All right. It's -- this is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that
                  wants to speak on this item, please come forward.

                  Elvis Cruz: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, here on
                  behalf of the Morningside Civic Association.

                  Chairman González: Are you here today as an attorney representing this organization or as a
                  resident?

                  Mr. Cruz: I'm a resident.

                  Chairman González: OK, because I don't know if you were here when I said I was going to give
                  equal amount of time to each attorney representing both sides that are representing groups and
                  two minutes to each person -- each speaker.

                  Mr. Cruz: I should be OK with two minutes.

                  Chairman González: All right, sir.

                  Mr. Cruz: I wanted to give some important background information. First of all, the -- on the
                  screen, the area colored in blue is the interior square footage of the proposed restaurant as it
                  was originally proposed on July 28 to the City Commission. There is a gigantic loophole in the
                  Zoning Code, in that parking is determined by the square feet of interior space. That interior, if
                  you count the little seats, has about 34 seats. However, the pink-shaded portion would be
                  seating -- outdoor seating for a total of about 150 to 200 seats for the restaurant, so they're
                  proposing a 200-seat restaurant with 17 parking spaces. Now let me make it clear. We're all in
                  favor of the restaurant. However, we're opposed to using SD-12 to put parking into an R-1
                  neighborhood, and Commissioner Sarnoff is correct. Oh, by the way, here on this screen you
                  can see, the green is the R-1, the blue is the SD-9, and Commissioner Sarnoff is correct. This
                  Kwik Stop convenience store you see, at the time we proposed that they buy that property and
                  use that for parking, and we were told it wasn't for sale. Now it has been sold, or it has been
                  purchased, and it's not being used for parking; granted SD-9 does say that, but here we are at
                  the fork in the road. Is it a better public policy to move parking into a historic district that's
                  zoned R-1 or to make an exception to allow the parking to be on Biscayne Boulevard? And by
                  coincidence, there's a later -- Planning and Zoning item later today, just three blocks from there,
                  where the Planning Department recommends denial of an SD-12 in an R-3 area, an R-3 area.
                  This is R-1, and it's a historic district, so I would recommend that you please make whatever
                  changes need to be made so that they can keep their parking on Biscayne and not in an R-1
                  historic neighborhood. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.



City of Miami                                      Page 59                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none --

                  Ms. Dougherty: The only thing I would like to point out is that the --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- merits of the case is not at issue today, but simply should an extension of time
                  be granted in which to pull a building permit?

                  Chairman González: All right. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the
                  public hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Regalado.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is -- and I understand that we are not --
                  we're dealing only with an extension, but a proposal has been made, which, to me, makes sense.
                  Regardless of what the City says on Biscayne Boulevard, the logical thing will be to have
                  parking on Biscayne Boulevard for the restaurant. Is that something that can be done by
                  legislation? And the reason is it is safer, more visible, and going into an R-1 or residential area,
                  it would create problems for the customers and for the resident, but having the parking in
                  Biscayne Boulevard, a lit parking, something that is -- it's been done. I've seen it like Biscayne
                  Boulevard, when -- if you go to Houston in Biscayne Boulevard, parking is there, so I don't know
                  about them -- the case -- I'm not talking about the case itself, but I'm talking about the solutions,
                  and if, by legislation, things can be changed, well, things can be changed, and everything doesn't
                  have to be strict if it's a policy decision, so I don't know why would this mean for the restaurant,
                  or I don't know what would this mean for the business itself. What I'm saying is that when we're
                  offer -- we're being offer several choices, and one of the choice is to change legislation, to make
                  an exception for something that makes sense, it worth looking into. Thank you.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman, you know, I do recognize this is in Commissioner
                  Sarnoff's district, so I'm really going to defer to what he wants to have happen there. I just have
                  a quick question, and I do know that on the Biscayne Boulevard, at least in that particular area,
                  between 54th and about 79th, there are a lot of little restaurants that are popping up on
                  Biscayne Boulevard. It's actually kind of great to have something happen really nice over there.
                  It's been a long time since we've seen anything nice going on, and to see a restaurant happening
                  like that is -- I think is awesome. My question, though, was, at least between -- I know
                  Commissioner Regalado mentioned Houston's, but quite frankly, that's really closer to Aventura,
                  but my question was, are there any existing parking lots already on --? Because I don't really
                  recall. Most of the restaurants that are there, little cafes, mostly all the parking is behind those
                  restaurants. I'll use, for example -- can I just finish? -- the Starbucks, and I go in your district
                  all the time because I don't have one in my district yet, but I'm working on getting one, and the
                  parking is behind the building. Uvas, you know, same thing, you know. Dogged -- the dog -- hot
                  -- my favorite hot -- I always eat in your district, so most of the parking is behind it, which abuts
                  a residential area, so I'm not -- and I think that was done, it seems like, by design for some
                  reason. Cafe 71, which is bistros, is also the parking is behind it, which it abuts a residential
                  area, so my question is -- I don't know if that's been -- it seems as though it's been planned that
                  way for a purpose to keep -- to create a pedestrian-friendly, kind of like, I guess, walking area to,
                  you know, get people to go from one restaurant to the next, and I'm just going to tell you, even
                  though your district is finally cleaning up from prostitution and everything else that was
                  happening on Biscayne between that particular area, having more eyes on the streets and not
                  having parking lots to have to dodge through, it just seems to me it's just something that we need
                  to consider because it seems as though they're creating, you know, at least some sort of, you
                  know, walk-ability from one spot to the next, so I just wanted to give you -- again, I'm deferring
                  to you because it is your district, and I respect district Commissioner in whatever he decides to
                  do, but I do -- I am aware of the area because it's not too far from my home.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: May I say --

City of Miami                                       Page 60                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Sarnoff: No. I -- first of all, I appreciate your comment. I appreciate
                  Commissioner Regalado's comment, and I guess this is going to be one of the first times I'll be
                  speaking on an Upper Eastside issue. Whenever there is going to be a consideration of a
                  business versus residents, especially R-1, the business will yield to the residents because the
                  residents are going to be primary versus the business, so I also think about -- when I just pulled
                  into the Quizno's, and I know there was parking right in front there, I think there are about 48
                  units that I could park at, so I hear that I should not have been able to pull in there, but
                  somehow I was able to pull in there, and there's a parking lot there, and nobody wants to see
                  parking lots on Biscayne Boulevard. However, you can certainly line that parking lot with any
                  number of artifices that would make it look like an attractive parking lot. On the other hand,
                  you'd choose to put your parking pressing against an R-1, which is not something I'm in favor of.
                  Now if there's a way of granting you this extension would be understanding that you will put
                  your parking lot on the front towards the Biscayne side with some --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: He can't.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: We're not allowed to do that.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, you say you can't, and yet, she comes in with a variance. Why can
                  you not? I mean --

                  Ms. Dougherty: I think you have --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- unless the City Attorney says you cannot.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Laws can be changed.

                  Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning): If I may. Ana Gelabert, Planning director. The
                  SD-9 doesn't allow for parking on Biscayne Boulevard.

                  Unidentified Speaker: Or variances.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So then, he needs --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So how is --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- to just change --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Just making that point of --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- Quizno's -- how did -- because -- how does Quizno's exist?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would have to go -- I don't remember how Quizno's is. I do remember
                  the SD-9 --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Is this --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- parking was not allowed. Was just because exactly the people did not
                  want to see the parking upfront, so we usually have to ask for liners in the case that that can
                  happen just to block so it doesn't look like parking. The SD-12 was created to allow for exactly
                  that buffer, which is between the commercial and the residential.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Is there something else they can proffer besides a SD-9 that would
                  accommodate what the Commissioner's asking for?

City of Miami                                      Page 61                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Well, the SD-12 was the one that would remain the -- the zoning would
                  remain residential, yet you would have the buffer of the landscape protecting the residential, so
                  it -- SD-12 was created exactly for that. It wasn't a change of zoning, and it was still allowing
                  the zoning -- the residential zoning, yet allowing for the parking that the commercial needs, but
                  buffering it with landscape.

                  Ms. Dougherty: You know --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: There are --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: And yet --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- guidelines in order to allow for that buffer to happen.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- if we go with this plan as stated, we'll have how many interior parking
                  -- how many interior tables will you have?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: About 50, 51.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Fifty-one interior tables. How many exterior tables?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: A hundred and fifty.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: A hundred and fifty. How many parking spaces?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: We have 22 spaces here, and we have 14 spaces here.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So 36 parking spaces.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: About -- of those 36, 20 are allocated -- no, sorry -- ten are allocated for the two
                  floors of residential up above.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So just with regard to your parking for restaurant, how many parking
                  spaces do you have? Of a 200-seat restaurant, how many parking spaces have you allocated?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: We have 17 on-site parking spaces, and an agreement with the American Legion
                  for valet parking.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: An agreement with the American Legion?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What's the agreement?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: It's a signed agreement that we can use their parking lot for overflow parking,
                  which should be valeted. What -- sorry. Just one more thing. We have -- just so you're familiar
                  with the site, Commissioner, we have an entrance here and an entrance there, and the idea is to,
                  when the valet people are operating, avoid traffic going around this loop road, the loop road
                  being 67th, up that road, and then back down 68th. I know that that was one of -- a big concern
                  of the neighbors, so we are -- the owner of the building is very aware. He wants to be a good
                  patron, because it's not a speculative office. He's going to be present to minimize any kind of
                  traffic flow into the neighborhoods themselves. Your concern about parking on Biscayne
                  Boulevard, it is mandated by the City Planning that we line this lot here. This lot has to be lined
                  with a liner building of a minimum width, so we've got that minimum width, and we've tried to

City of Miami                                      Page 62                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  maximize the parking here, as you see where the Kwik Stop store used to be. The relation --
                  when this building is built, the person who lives in this house is going to have a much nicer view
                  this way than they did in the past. They were looking at the back of a Kwik Stop store. Now this
                  building is set way back here. It's only three stories high. They'll have a sidewall here, a solid,
                  masonry sidewall, which apparently they're happy about, so I think this will actually be an
                  improvement relative to the immediate neighbor. Marie, on this side, is looking forward to the
                  wall being built there, so the -- in terms of the physical -- the relationship physically of parking
                  to the neighbors, we don't believe that there's a problem. Our understanding is the biggest
                  concern neighbors have is the circulation of the valet.

                  Ms. Dougherty: We did have, you know, many public hearings on this, and we had lots of people
                  in support on this street of this particular proposal, and the issue again is should the -- there
                  should be an extension of time for the building permit. That's the only issue. We shouldn't be
                  revisiting -- it's already designed. It -- we -- this was approved in January of '05, but we started
                  working on this a year before that --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- and so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- correct me if I'm wrong. I assume you got your first building permit
                  without --

                  Ms. Dougherty: No, we haven't --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- regard to the convenient [sic] store. I'm sorry, you're right, you got
                  your change.

                  Ms. Dougherty: No. It's only a special exception for this lot.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: This is not something that --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's not designed yet, is it?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes, everything.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Yes, it's been designed. The whole building -- the whole project that you see
                  here is currently in the Building Department. All the drawings are done. The Building
                  Department has given us their first round of comments to which we, the architects and the
                  consultants, are now responding, and we were hoping to actually have had a construction permit
                  before this date so we could get a move on. As it happens, the process has taken longer than we
                  anticipated. That's why we're now asking for the extension to something which has already been
                  approved.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: The only issue in front of us is the extension --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- on the matter, and the reason, what, it's been tied up in permitting or
                  --?



City of Miami                                       Page 63                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Mosscrop: It's because -- Well, to be fair, it's taken longer because we changed the footprint
                  of the building because my client built the southern lot --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: -- so that made some redesigns, then we submitted the full set of construction
                  drawings in August. We're just now responding to the first round of Building Department
                  comments, so it's just a procedural thing.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't have a problem with the extension. I mean,
                  (UNINTELLIGIBLE) deny it or make a motion. I'm prepared to make a motion for the extension
                  of -- to extend the -- to extend it. For how long?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Six months.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: I mean, we'll -- hopefully, we'll have a permit in months.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year, just --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Six months?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: -- to be safe.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you OK with it?

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Up to a year.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Up to a -- make it a year.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Up to a year.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Up to a year.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't know. I just want -- when --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- are you going to --?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Make it a year. Do it as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't know about a year.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Well, we hope -- I hope we have a permit next month, but you know, whatever
                  you're willing to give us.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What's the condition of the property now?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: It's -- we actually got a demolition permit and a tree removal permit to remove
                  the Kwik Stop store, so the Kwik Stop store has gone and some -- the trees that we were
                  permitted to remove have been removed, and the rest of it is flat with a chain link fence around

City of Miami                                      Page 64                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  it, and there's a trailer on there in anticipation of starting work.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: The reason I'm inclined to second his motion on the six months is simply
                  because from what I understand and having walked it, you've not done a very good job of
                  maintaining a vacant lot.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Well, please don't blame me; I'm the architect, but I understand your point.
                  Yeah.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: You represent the owner, I take it?

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Yes, yes, sure.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, you can communicate to the owner.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: I will do.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll second the motion with the understanding that you will maintain this
                  property in a better condition than you have so far and maybe, possibly, even make that a
                  condition of the motion, because if you don't start maintaining that property --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: As amended by the second to --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- extend for six months, based on the condition that you clean up that
                  property.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: It's agreeable.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: Mr. Toledo, I have a question myself, because being a little bit familiar
                  with construction and getting plans approved and the entire process, what I will hate to see is
                  that we have to go through another debate and another -- you know, within six months because
                  they were not able to get their building permit.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

                  Chairman González: You submit your building permits, and they give you comment; you have to
                  go back and revise them, and then, when you come back again, they give you another -- other
                  comments, something that I can understand why it's like that. I mean, I don't see why you submit
                  a set of plans, and they give you all the comments in one shot, and you may go, take five months,
                  three months, four months, whatever, answer all your comments, do all your changes, and then
                  come back and get your plans approved. It's not happening like that, and I -- and the reason I'm
                  telling you this is because Allapattah Business Development, in Allapattah, the agency that is
                  doing affordable housing, have submitted plans for a twin home, simple twin home, about five
                  different times, and every time they submit the plans, there're new changes and there're new
                  conditions and there're new revisions, and times runs and runs, and you know, people get
                  desperate to get the project built, and you know, it's frustrating, so what I wanted to make sure is
                  that -- I will support whatever the district Commissioner wants, let me make that clear, but we
                  need to be fair. Make sure that they're going to be able to go through the process, you know, in
                  the time that we are allowing so they don't have to schedule another hearing, come to this

City of Miami                                       Page 65                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Commission again to ask for another six months because they were not able to --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me make an amendment to the motion and ask for a one-year
                  extension --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: I will support --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- with the understanding that this is -- this property is kept up --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: Yeah, and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- which --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: -- Commissioner Sarnoff, I'm going to reassure you that myself and my client are
                  more eager than you even to get -- to start building. They really are eager and sincere, so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well --

                  Mr. Mosscrop: -- but in the meantime, I will relay your message, your concern to maintain the
                  lot in a better condition.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Understanding that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- Commissioner González has more experience in this than me, if it
                  does take longer, I want to see that, during the process, a vacant lot on Biscayne Boulevard is
                  better maintained than it has been.

                  Mr. Mosscrop: I'll pass that on to my client.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: The maker --

                  Chairman González: Definitely.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the motion accepts the amendment.

                  Chairman González: All right, so this is a resolution. We had a motion, and we had a second,
                  as amended. All in favor, say "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: And those --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that --

                  Chairman González: -- opposed have the same right. There is no nos.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and for the record, it was amended for one year instead of six
                  months --



City of Miami                                      Page 66                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                     Chairman González: Right.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- with the same conditions.

                     Chairman González: With the same conditions.

                     Mr. Mosscrop: Thank you.

PZ.2      06-02237   RESOLUTION
                     A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                     ATTACHMENT(S), MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING A WATERFRONT
                     CHARTER REQUIREMENT AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3(mm)(ii)(A) OF
                     THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED, WHICH
                     ESTABLISHES A 50-FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PROJECTS
                     ALONG THE MIAMI RIVER, EAST OF NORTHWEST 5TH STREET, TO
                     PERMIT A 20-FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WATERFRONT (REAR) YARD
                     AND SIDE YARDS EQUAL TO EIGHTEEN (18) FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE
                     AND THIRTY-SIX (36) FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE FOR THE 1001
                     BRICKELL BAY TOWER PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
                     1001 BRICKELL BAY DRIVE A.K.A. 1001 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI,
                     FLORIDA.
                     06-02237 Zoning Map.pdf
                     06-02237 Aerial Map.pdf
                     06-02237 Letter of Intent with Supporting Docs.pdf
                     06-02237 UDRB Reso.pdf
                     06-02237 Plans.pdf
                     06-02237 Legislation (Version 1).pdf
                     06-02237 Exhibit A.pdf
                     06-02237 Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                     LOCATION: Approximately 1001 Brickell Bay Drive A.K.A. 1001 S Bayshore
                     Drive [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                     APPLICANT(S): N. Patrick Range, II, Esquire, on behalf of Brickell Bay
                     Tower, Ltd., Inc.

                     FINDINGS:
                     PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.

                     PURPOSE: This will allow fewer setbacks than required for the 1001 Brickell
                     Bay Tower project.

                     CONTINUED


                     A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was
                     passed unanimously, to continue item PZ.2 to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for
                     February 22, 2007.

                     Chairman González: PZ.2.

                     Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.2 is a request to waive from the

City of Miami                                       Page 67                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  City Charter the 50-feet requirement on the bay. They are requesting a waiver of that distance
                  to have -- in order to include residential uses on a building that is already existing, and the
                  recommendation of Planning is for denial. We have been consistent, recommending denial for
                  some other petition, even when the building (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at the end, Planning
                  Department has recommend denial of the waiver of the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And they're requesting a 50-foot setback along the water?

                  Mr. Lavernia: The 50 is the requirement.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right.

                  Mr. Lavernia: They are requesting for 30 in order to have 20.

                  Chairman González: So instead of having --

                  Lucia Dougherty: Thank you. Mr. --

                  Chairman González: -- 50, they want to have 20?

                  Ms. Dougherty: That is correct.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: And this is a very interesting project, and we have worked very hard with the
                  City staff, who actually loves this project. Again, for the record, Lucia Dougherty, with offices at
                  1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here with Maurizio Cavalieri, who's the developer, and the owner of
                  the property. Maurizio is a -- actually, a preservation architect in Miami Beach, and this is his
                  first project in Miami, and it's a very interesting project, 'cause what he's doing is taking an
                  existing parking garage and cladding it with residential units, but he is not taking away any of
                  the public spaces that currently exist there today, and the building still will remain much further
                  back than either of the two buildings on both sides, and the difference in this particular case is
                  that the -- there is an inlet that comes in front of this building, so for a reference, this is Brickell
                  Ave -- I mean, this is Brickell Bay Drive -- excuse me, this is Brickell Avenue. This is Brickell
                  Bay Drive. This is the Aon building, which is a -- has Aon at the top of it, and this is the
                  Oakwood apartments here, and this is the Four Ambassadors, so what is happening here is --
                  Julio Diaz, with Fullerton Diaz, is the architect. What they're basically doing is filling in gaps
                  with residential units, 52 residential units on the bay; have agreed to provide public access to
                  the waterfront. It's exactly the same size walkway that currently exists there today, except that
                  now you're going to have people living there with eyes on the walkway, using the walkway with
                  safety, and maintaining the walkway. We've gone to the Urban Development Review Board,
                  which have approved this project, as well as the Dade County Shoreline Review meeting. Dade
                  County Shoreline Review Committee approved this unanimously with certain conditions, which
                  I'm going to read into the record. They said they -- we must place sign at the South Bayshore
                  Drive side of the building, notifying the public of a public walkway, provide quiet -- provide a
                  gate at the north end of the walkway to show pedestrian connectivity, move coconut palms to the
                  east edge of the property, provide visual landscaping, a walkway terminus at the north end of the
                  shoreline walkway, and verify lighting in the final plans, so in conclusion, we have a condition
                  that's very different than everybody else. In other words, our property goes in as an inlet and
                  was never filled. All these other properties were filled in the '60s, so they extend much further
                  out than we do, even though our building is much further back, so while we're asking for what
                  sounds like a waiver -- and we don't have to prove hardship here. What we have to prove to you
                  is that we were going to provide some public amenities, and what we were proposing as a public
                  amenity is to landscape, light control, have adequate safety for people and pedestrians to walk
                  behind what is an existing, so with that we'd urge your approval for this waterfront waiver, and

City of Miami                                        Page 68                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  again, we've worked with staff for a very long time. I think they'd tell you that they really love
                  this project, but their concern about is the precedent it may establish for waiving this waterfront
                  set back, and what I'm saying to you, this won't be a precedent because there aren't any other
                  conditions that have this cut in. We wouldn't be here asking for this if this was filled in like our
                  neighbors, so that, we'd ask your approval.

                  Chairman González: All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to
                  speak on this item, please come forward. All right. Seeing none, hearing none, the public
                  hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah. I'd make a motion to deny.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second -- you made the motion?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: To deny.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're making it now?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Mr. --

                  Chairman González: -- to deny.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- Commissioner, could I ask you to defer this and go out and see it? I was at
                  the Mandarin today, and what you're seeing from this area is a open parking garage of this
                  building. This is such a better condition, if you could just go out and see it as opposed to
                  denying it --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'd be --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- out of hand.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- more than glad to accept a deferral. I don't see it. All I know is,
                  conceptually, you're putting the camel's nose inside the tent, and everybody else is going to get
                  up there and say, "I have a great idea, but I only need 30 of your feet, of your access." That's my
                  concern. My primary concern is --

                  Ms. Dougherty: I understand.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- the Dan Paul argument, is it not?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Isn't this the Dan Paul --?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes, but look at what we're doing. All we're doing is --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I understand --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- filling in.

City of Miami                                       Page 69                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- what you're doing, but another developer will come up here and say,
                  "You've waived 30 feet of a 50-foot setback. Why wouldn't you do it for me?"

                  Ms. Dougherty: But we do do that. This isn't -- well, this wouldn't be the first time it's
                  happened. We did it for One Miami. We did it for Dupont Plaza. This is not a first time this has
                  happened. If you provide -- and this is what the Code says. The Code says, "If you provide
                  public amenities" -- this is how you get people to maintain your walkways, and this is how you
                  get them to actually create walkways on the waterfront on private property is by allowing them
                  to have these kinds of concessions, so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I have no problem with deferring it and --

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- looking at it, but I'll tell you right now, I'm going to make a motion --
                  if you want me to defer it, I'll defer it, but right now I've heard nothing --

                  Ms. Dougherty: I'd like you to --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- to convince me.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- come out and see the conditions.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Seeing is believing, I agree.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. Thank you very much.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, you have a motion and a second. Are you willing to withdraw
                  your motion and continue the item?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I am, sir.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a --

                  Mr. Lavernia: A date, please. Continue to what, Commissioner?

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion -- you need to -- you want to make a motion --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll make a motion --

                  Chairman González: -- to continue?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- for continuance.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Chairman González: OK. For --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Until February --

                  Chairman González: -- what date?



City of Miami                                      Page 70                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                   Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007

                       Ms. Dougherty: -- 22?

                       Chairman González: What date, February 22?

                       Ms. Dougherty: Yes, sir.

                       Chairman González: All right. We have a motion to continue and a second for February 22.
                       All in favor, say "aye."

                       The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                       Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right, and that is item number 2.

PZ.3      05-01515sc   RESOLUTION
                       A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                       ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND
                       DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE THAT PORTION OF NORTHEAST
                       BAYSHORE COURT BETWEEN NORTHEAST 79TH STREET AND
                       NORTHEAST 80TH STREET, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
                       ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A".
                       05-01515sc Planning Analysis.PDF
                       05-01515sc Public Works Analysis.PDF
                       05-01515sc Zoning Map.pdf
                       05-01515sc Aerial Map.pdf
                       05-01515sc Application & Supporting Docs.PDF
                       05-01515sc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                       05-01515sc ZB Reso.PDF
                       05-01515sc Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                       05-01515sc Exhibit A.pdf
                       05-01515sc CC Fact Sheet.pdf

                       LOCATION: Approximately NE Bayshore Court Between NE 79th Street and
                       NE 80th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                       APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Aviño, Esquire, on behalf of River Bait and Tackle,
                       LLC

                       FINDINGS:
                       PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                       PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with a condition*.
                       PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval with a condition* on
                       November 2, 2006 by a vote of 5-0.
                       ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December
                       11, 2006 by a vote of 5-2.
                       *See supporting documentation.

                       PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the previously
                       approved Oasis on the Bay Major Use Special Permit.


                       Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be
                       ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.


City of Miami                                         Page 71                                     Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        R-07-0057
                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Number 3.

                        Chairman González: Number 3?

                        Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir.

                        Chairman González: I'm sorry. Number 3.

                        Mr. Lavernia: Number 3 is request to -- for a street closure as part of the Oasis on the Bay
                        Major Use Special Permit that was already approved, and they provide public benefit as part of
                        the Major Use approval. The Planning Department is recommending approval, and the Zoning
                        Board recommend approval, too. Thank you.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Quick.

                        Javier Aviñò: For the record, Javier Aviñò, with law offices at 1221 --

                        Chairman González: Let me get this clear. The item that was just deferred was PZ.2.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: 2.

                        Chairman González: You got me confused. You said PZ.3, so I was right. It's PZ.2. Now we
                        hear PZ.3. All right. Yes, sir.

                        Mr. Aviñò: For the record again, Javier Aviñò, with law offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue, here
                        on behalf of the applicant. With me today is Lucia Dougherty from my office. Let me just go
                        through the project really quick just to, I think, clarify a few things. This is, as Robert
                        mentioned, the Oasis Major Use Special Permit, which is along the Biscayne Bay, between 79th
                        Street and 80th Street. We had previously come in in February of last year for the vacation of
                        the portion that you're seeing in yellow of Northeast Bayshore Court. This has already been
                        approved by you all, this entire portion, which constitutes about 90 percent of the street. What
                        was not asked for in that application was this piece in blue, which constitutes about ten percent
                        of the street. That piece was intentionally left out of the original application. Now when I say it
                        was intentionally left out of the original application, it wasn't because we intended to leave that
                        portion of the street open to the public. The reason for that was because FDOT (Florida
                        Department of Transportation) owns or owned, I should say, this parcel here, this parcel here,
                        and what we believed was this parcel here, so when we worked with City staff -- and this is part
                        of a plat -- they said, you know, if this is part of FDO -- if this is indeed owned by FDOT, then it
                        does not need to be vacated. We later have come to realize that that piece is not -- was not
                        vested in FDOT. It was indeed public right-of-way. We worked with the Law Department on
                        this. A determination was made by them. We worked, you know, a lot with the Law Department,
                        as well as Public Works, that it needed to go through this public vacation process, although it's
                        really a technicality. I mean, you already closed the street. The intent was always to close the
                        entire street, so what we're here on is this little piece, this little piece in blue.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir, just a question for you.

                        Mr. Aviñò: Yes.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: We've already approved the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit), right?

                        Mr. Aviñò: You already approved the MUSP, and you already approved --
City of Miami                                            Page 72                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: So you're simply --

                  Mr. Aviñò: -- the street --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- coming back to close the Bayshore Court to allow for a unified
                  development site, right?

                  Mr. Aviñò: Correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is that what you're doing?

                  Mr. Aviñò: All we're here on is for this little piece in blue.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: That little site.

                  Mr. Aviñò: Just this little tiny piece in blue. The MUSP is already approved, the piece --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Mr. Aviñò: -- in yellow, which is the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Any time we do that, we ask what's the public benefit.

                  Mr. Aviñò: Yes. Thank you for asking that. There are a lot of public benefits that are being
                  provided for this. This piece in green that you see down here was also owned by the developer
                  and is being deeded to the City in fee simple for use as a park, in conjunction with planting --
                  and let me go through my list here.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: How big is that property, those two lots?

                  Mr. Aviñò: The piece across the street, which is being donated as a park, is 20 -- approximately
                  21,310 square feet. The street that you already approved is 13,569, and the street that's pending
                  approval today is 1,799, so it's a net difference to the City of about 6,500 square feet.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Has that proffer already been made in the MUSP?

                  Mr. Aviñò: Correct, yes. It was a condition of the MUSP approval, it's a condition of this street
                  vacation approval, and it's a condition of the approval today.

                  Lucia Dougherty: And by the way, when I -- when he said that there was a mistake, and the City
                  and everybody thought it belonged to FDOT, including FDOT, and they accepted $13,000 from
                  us in payment for that little piece in blue, and then we subsequently determined that they didn't
                  own it, but we're going to try to get our $13,000 back.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Chairman González: All right. Does that conclude your presentation?

                  Mr. Aviñò: Yes, that does. I'll just --

                  Chairman González: All right.



City of Miami                                       Page 73                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Aviñò: -- open it up for whatever comments.

                  Chairman González: This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on
                  this item, please come forward.

                  Allyson Warren: Good afternoon. Allyson Warren, 650 Northeast 82 Terrace, I think, on behalf
                  of the Shorecrest Homeowners Association; -- I am the president. The Related Group and their
                  attorneys and the developers have worked with the Association from day one. They have
                  provided a great number of benefits to the neighborhood, including the parkland and the
                  planting of the park, the public access bay walk, the planting of one street outside of their own
                  property, with liner trees, and rebuilding of the concrete wall. After that agreement was reached
                  with the association, they also have agreed and offered to pay for and install some
                  traffic-calming devices onto the internal streets to the neighborhood, because we've got a huge
                  problem that has -- that we've been unable to address in other ways. They have come to meeting
                  after meeting. There were some dissenters. They had resolved their differences, to my
                  understanding, and there is a letter agreement with the association that's been part of the Major
                  Use Special Permit process also from the beginning that lays out all of the things that the
                  neighborhood worked out with these developers. There was no cash, nothing but specific
                  benefits to the entire neighborhood. One of the gentlemen who was trying to be here, but his
                  business is in Delray Beach, lives in the condominium directly facing this project, and where he
                  started out not so sure about the project, his main concern was this exact issue, because where --
                  you can't -- you can see it from there. Where the street cuts in that you're closing is a huge
                  location for accidents be -- because it's prior to the main curve that becomes 82nd Street, and
                  where people were cutting in there, there were just accidents galore coming over the bridge, so
                  the people on the south side, as well as the remainder of the Shorecrest neighborhood, we're in
                  favor of this. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: All right. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is
                  closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Sarnoff.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'd like to understand better what exactly park is being dedicated. Is it
                  just a piece of property, or is it going to be made by The Related Group to become a park?
                  Because I know that this -- the parcel is barren.

                  Mr. Aviñò: Right. We are donating it to the City, and as part of our agreement, as Allyson just
                  made with -- just mentioned with the Shorecrest Homeowners Association, we have agreed to
                  plantings on that, so our intent is to make it a park. Ultimately, it's up to the City whether they
                  want to make it into a park. We are deeding it to the City, you know, in fee simple.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I hear what you're saying.

                  Mr. Aviñò: Right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I want to make sure I understand what you're -- what -- I know what it
                  looks like today.

                  Mr. Aviñò: Right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What is it going to look like when you tender it?

                  Mr. Aviñò: Well, we've --

                  Ms. Dougherty: It'll be landscaped. That's what --

                  Mr. Aviñò: Right.

City of Miami                                       Page 74                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                  January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Dougherty: -- it'll be.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I see that landscape plan?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Not now. We don't have it now, but we'll landscape it to the City's standards.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: You may not want City standards. You may want better than that.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, we don't have a landscape plan right now, I don't think. Do we?

                  Mr. Aviñò: No.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK, so we don't have one, but we have --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Would you get me --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- agreed to landscape it to --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- a landscape plan?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Huh?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Could you get me a landscape plan?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Sure. If you'd like us to work with you in connection with the --

                  Mr. Aviñò: We can work with the Commissioner's office --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- landscape, we'll happy to do that.

                  Mr. Aviñò: -- absolutely.

                  Ms. Dougherty: That's a good idea.

                  Mr. Aviñò: We'll work --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can we --

                  Mr. Aviñò: -- with your office.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- defer this so I can see your landscape plan?

                  Ms. Dougherty: We will -- if you would approve it, then what we will do is we will landscape --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Subject to.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- it to your standards. Now one of the things that we did have in the past,
                  many people -- there was a lot of discussion. Do you want a playground? Some people who live
                  in that neighborhood did not want a playground. They would like a passive park, so we've
                  agreed to do a passive park, and we'll landscape it to the standards, and we'll work with your
                  office, if you would like.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Fair enough. OK. I'll --



City of Miami                                       Page 75                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- make a motion.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Ms. Dougherty: I have a suggestion.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are there any conditions?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Make it a condition that we provide a landscape plan to you within two months,
                  and then we'll continue work, OK?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I make a motion to approve, subject to Greenberg Traurig providing to
                  our office a landscape plan acceptable to my office within 60 days.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- as amended.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second.

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Before the --

                  Chairman González: It's a resolution?

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- Commission votes --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Did I overstep myself?

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- just one legal point. Conditions cannot be attached to a vacation. The developer
                  may agree to voluntarily proffer that which --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's why I love deferrals.

                  Ms. Chiaro: I'm sorry?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's why I love deferrals.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Can we --?

                  Ms. Chiaro: But there can be -- under the law, there can be no conditions --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. That's --

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- on vacating property.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- why I like deferrals, and people expedite themselves when they want
                  to come back real quickly, and they want to impress you with, you know, giving you something.

                  Ms. Dougherty: What we could do -- Could we do this? Could we make it a condition of our
                  MUSP, which was already approved?



City of Miami                                     Page 76                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Chiaro: Yes, you can amend the condition to the Major Use Special Permit that was already
                  approved.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but then you would have to amend the MUSP.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Which we don't mind.

                  Ms. Chiaro: No. You can amend the conditions. No, you would not have to amend the MUSP.
                  We can adjust the language in the MUSP conditions to greater clarify that which --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's fine.

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- the plantings will be on the property that was previously --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Very good.

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- donated to the City in fee simple. You can do that by separate resolution.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Then I stand corrected by Madam City Attorney, and I would certainly
                  adopt her motion. I'd certainly adopt that as part of a motion, that it be part of a MUSP
                  amendment.

                  Mr. Aviñò: And we have no problem with that.

                  Ms. Chiaro: I would ask you that you vote then on the vacation separately --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right --

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- and then adopt a resolution to include the conditions that you set forth.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: All right. Let me make a motion to approve the -- adopt the vacation.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a resolution,
                  right? All in favor, say "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And now make a motion --

                  Chairman González: Now you have to make a reso -- a motion.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I make a motion for resolution that the MUSP be amended, that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Resolution? No.

                  Ms. Chiaro: That staff --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- the owner of the property provide to my office, within 60 days, a plan
                  acceptable to my office for the landscaping of lots 2 and -- I guess 1 and 2 on the Hayworth's

City of Miami                                      Page 77                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007

                        Village, block 4 -- PB (Plat Book) 44 and Pg. (Page) 54.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why don't you make sure all the five Commissioners get that? It's not
                        a big deal. Just the five Commissioners to get that.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, that's -- every Commissioner can look at it. I have no problem.

                        Mr. Aviñò: Not a problem.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                        Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say
                        "aye."

                        The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                        Chairman González: Motion carries.

                        Mr. Aviñò: Thank you very much.

PZ.3      05-01515sca RESOLUTION
                        A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE
                        CONDITIONS OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OASIS ON THE BAY
                        MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT, PROVIDING FOR STAFF APPROVAL OF A
                        NON-SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION ALLOWING THE APPLICANT,
                        GREENBERG TRAURIG, TO SUBMIT WITHIN 60 DAYS, AN ACCEPTABLE
                        PLAN FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF LOTS 1 AND 2, HAYWORTH'S VILLAGE,
                        PLAT BOOK 44, PAGE 54.
                        Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this matter be
                        ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        R-07-0059

PZ.4      06-01242ec    RESOLUTION
                        A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                        ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND
                        DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE, EASEMENTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
                        NORTHWEST 14TH STREET BETWEEN NORTHWEST 10TH AVENUE AND
                        NORTHWEST 11TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.




City of Miami                                           Page 78                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                    06-01242ec Planning Analysis.PDF
                    06-01242ec Public Works Analysis.PDF
                    06-01242ec Zoning Map.pdf
                    06-01242ec Aerial Map.pdf
                    06-01242ec Application & Supporting Docs.PDF
                    06-01242ec ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                    06-01242ec ZB Reso.PDF
                    06-01242ec Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                    06-01242ec Exhibit A.pdf
                    06-01242ec CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf
                    06-01242ec CC Zoning Map.pdf
                    06-01242ec CC Fact Sheet 02-14-07.pdf

                    LOCATION: Approximately South of NW 14th Street Between NW 10th
                    Avenue and NW 11th Avenue [Commissioner Angel González - District 1]

                    APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of Miami Hotel Investments,
                    Ltd.

                    FINDINGS:
                    PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                    PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                    PLAT & STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on September 14,
                    2006 by a vote of 6-0.
                    ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on December
                    11, 2006 by a vote of 6-1.

                    PURPOSE: This will allow a unified development site for the previously
                    approved Civica Towers Major Use Special Permit.

                    CONTINUED

                    Item PZ.4 was deferred to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007.

PZ.5      06-00086mm RESOLUTION
                    A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS,
                    APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION TO A
                    PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT PURSUANT TO
                    ARTICLES 5, 9, 13, 17 AND 22 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS
                    AMENDED, FOR THE LIMA PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED AT
                    APPROXIMATELY 2919 AND 2937 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AND 330
                    NORTHEAST 30TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT AN
                    APPROXIMATE 490-FEET, 43-STORY HIGH MIXED-USE STRUCTURE TO
                    BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 206 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY
                    RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES;
                    APPROXIMATELY 5,200 SQUARE FEET OF PROPOSED RETAIL SPACE; IN
                    ADDITION TO EXISTING 30,430 SQUARE FEET (OFFICE) AND 11,473
                    SQUARE FEET (RETAIL) USES; AND APPROXIMATELY 402 TOTAL
                    PARKING SPACES; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO
                    ("FAR") BONUSES; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF
                    FACT AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING
                    EFFECT; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
City of Miami                                      Page 79                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                        Meeting Minutes                              January 25, 2007

                  AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                  06-00086mm - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-00086mm - PAB Analysis.pdf
                  06-0086mm - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                  06-00086mm - Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-00086mm - Aerial.pdf
                  06-00086mm - PAB Projects in the Vicinity.pdf
                  06-00086mm - IDRC Comments (7.18.06).pdf
                  06-00086mm - Traffic Sufficiency Letter 12.05.05).pdf
                  06-00086mm - Public Works Comments (1.18.06).pdf
                  06-00086mm - UDRB Resolution (9.20.06.3).pdf
                  06-00086mm - MDAD Planning Comments (10.17.05).pdf
                  06-00086mm - School Board Comments (1.03.06).pdf
                  06-00086mm - PAB Legislation.pdf
                  06-00086mm Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-00086mm Exhibit B.pdf
                  06-00086mm PAB Reso.PDF
                  06-00086mm CC Projects in the Vicinity.pdf
                  06-00086mm - Front Cover.PDF
                  06-00086mm - Inside Cover.PDF
                  06-00086mm - Table of Contents I to III.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I. Project Information (A to J).PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.A Letter of Intent.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.B Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.C Approved MUSP Resolution 06-0132.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.D Zoning Write-Up.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.E Zoning Atlas.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.F Project Data Ssheet.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.G Deed-Computer.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.H Ownership List.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.I State of Florida Documents.PDF
                  06-00086mm - I.J Directory of Project Principals.PDF
                  06-00086mm - II. Project Description A(1 to 4).PDF
                  06-00086mm - III. Supporting Documents (Tab 1 to 3).PDF
                  06-00086mm - Tab 1. Modified Traffic Impact.PDF
                  06-00086mm - Tab.2 Survey of Property.PDF
                  06-00086mm - Tab 3. Drawings Submitted (page 1 to 34).PDF
                  06-00086mm - Additional Documents(Part 1 of 2).PDF
                  06-00086mm - Additional documents (Part 2 of 2).PDF
                  06-00086mm CC Projects in the Vicinity.pdf
                  06-00086mm CC Analysis.pdf
                  06-00086mm Revised School Board Impact Analysis.pdf
                  06-00086mm CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                  06-00086mm CC Fact Sheet.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 2919 and 2937 Biscayne Boulevard
                  and 330 NE 30th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                  APPLICANT(S): Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire, on behalf of 2937
                  Ferrari, LLC and 2915 Biscayne, LLC, Owners

                  FINDINGS:
City of Miami                               Page 80                                 Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with
                        conditions*.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with
                        conditions* to City Commission on November 15, 2006 by a vote
                        of 5-0.
                        *See supporting documentation.

                        PURPOSE: This will allow the substantial modification of the
                        Lima project.


                        Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, that this
                        matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        R-07-0055
                        Chairman González: PZ.5.

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.5 is a consideration of a
                        substantial notification for the Lima Major Use Special Permit already approved, at 2919
                        Biscayne Boulevard, 2937 Biscayne Boulevard, and 330 Northeast 30th Street.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: This is another MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) that was approved
                        and is coming back to us.

                        Mr. Lavernia: As I said, this is a substantial modification to the previously approved MUSP.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, OK, so they've made substantial modifications -- changes.

                        Mr. Lavernia: Yes. We're recommending approval, and conditions from design, from the
                        Planning Department.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Could you put on the records [sic] the modifications that
                        have been made?

                        Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir. That's -- ready to do it. Pursuant to design related comments received
                        by the Planning Director, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: (a) the applicant
                        shall reconfigure the vehicular circulation so that all entrances are from Northeast 30th Street
                        or Northeast 4th Avenue; (b) articulate the pedestrian sidewalk to give dominance to the
                        pedestrian realm over the vehicular area by providing a sidewalk with a consistent pattern and
                        height that continues across the vehicular area; (c) vehicles shall rise to the sidewalk level with
                        ramping beginning at the outer edge of the curb, with the ramp slope being the maximum
                        allowed by Public Works Department; (d) [sic] the plaza should not include a driveway to
                        continue to the face of the building to provide a wide sidewalk; (f) the parking pedestal louver
                        screening and the aluminum balcony railing will need to match the concrete facade of the
                        Technomarine Building in color and pattern -- not in material. That's it. Thank you.

                        Chairman González: Let me ask a question. Is there anyone in opposition to this item? Is there
                        any opposition to PZ.5? No opposition. All right. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon.

                        Adrienne Pardo: Good afternoon. My name is Adrienne Pardo, with law offices at 1221
                        Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of the property owner. With me here today, as well, is
                        Mr. Kobi Karp, the architect of record, as well as Jennifer McCooney, and with us here as well
                        is Sonia Shreffler-Bogart, who's with David Plummer & Associates. Our application, we're
City of Miami                                            Page 81                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  requesting approval. We can go through all the changes, if you'd like. I don't know if that's
                  necessary, if you want me to, but essentially, we have an existing -- the property takes up an
                  entire block. It's located off of Biscayne Boulevard, between 29th and 30th. The property is
                  located -- it's the entire block on Biscayne Boulevard, between Northeast 30th and 29th and 4th
                  Avenue over here, and there's an existing MiMo (Miami Modern) building on the property,
                  which is right here. It's an office building of approximately 30,000 square feet, with 10,000
                  square feet of retail, which we are maintaining. We're keeping this building, and then there's an
                  existing small out-parcel building that will have a Starbucks in it, and then there's the proposed
                  new tower. The reason we're before you today as a substantial amendment is because we want
                  to maintain that existing building. We're going to remodel it, but we pushed the tower back, and
                  because we moved the tower back more than ten feet, we're required to come back before the
                  Commission. That's in the Zoning Ordinance, if you move a building more than ten feet in any
                  direction, so that's essentially -- we kept the same style of the building. We kept the same --
                  actually, we lowered it by one unit. It's 206 units, and we actually had increased the parking
                  than what it was originally. We increased it by approximately 39 spaces. We accept the
                  Planning Department's recommendations. The only thing, which I'd like to just take a couple of
                  minutes of your time, is on one of the conditions. We have a proposed "exit only." Actually, we
                  used to have ingress and egress to Biscayne Boulevard. Right now we have it as "exit only," and
                  we're requesting that we be able to keep this. Planning staff is -- has a condition that we not
                  have any access here at all. The reason we are requesting to keep this condition is because we
                  have the existing -- this is the small out-parcel. It's about it's about 2,200 square feet that the
                  owner has a lease with Starbucks, and Starbucks has requested that we be able to have this exit
                  onto Biscayne Boulevard. We think that it will help traffic in the area, and I'll just say that
                  briefly why. The only traffic that would come out here are these 15 spaces. The traffic for the
                  building itself will come off of Northeast 4th and go into the garage, but it's very important for
                  the retailer to be able to have these parking spaces here for the cars to either exit to Northeast
                  30th, or they would exit onto Biscayne Boulevard and make a right turn only. There would be a
                  stop sign and a "right turn only" provided, rather than if they have to go out to Northeast 30th
                  only; there's no traffic light here. What that will do is it has a good chance -- if you had it
                  backed up at Biscayne and Northeast 30th, it would take the traffic back here and then it would
                  bring more traffic onto the roads back here. That's why we're requesting it. It's only a few
                  parking spaces --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Ms. Pardo: -- for those few.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, usually, when we approve a MUSP --

                  Ms. Pardo: Yeah.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and then there's any modifications made, and you come back to us.
                  I'm very prudent on that, because -- in other words, I -- we -- I certainly won't want you to pull a
                  fast one on me, and I'm not saying you, but you know, some developers may present it in a way
                  where they could get it through the Commission, and then later on modify it to how they wanted
                  to get it, and I just want to make sure that Planning -- PAB (Planning Advisory Board) approved
                  it 5/0, correct? And those -- they went -- those modifications went through them, and also
                  Planning recommended approval after your reviewing the --

                  Mr. Lavernia: With those conditions.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and basically, I just want to make sure that you put all the
                  modifications on the record, and as long as you put them on the record, and I feel that you have
                  the recommendation from PAB and Planning, I guess I'm OK with it, but just the process itself,
                  when MUSP come back, I just like to be very careful and make sure you don't, you know, throw

City of Miami                                      Page 82                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  me a fastball.

                  Ms. Pardo: No. The reason we're back before you is because -- I'm looking to see if I have a --
                  here, this was the original design, and you had the tower; was right on Biscayne Boulevard --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Right, and you moved it back ten feet.

                  Ms. Pardo: Right. This building was going to be demolished, but the developer has decided to
                  keep this building. They have a lease with Starbucks, and because of that, the building shifted.
                  See here, it was on Biscayne Boulevard. The building shifted back more than ten feet, so we
                  were required to come back for a substantial modification because of that. When we did that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there any opposition?

                  Ms. Pardo: -- we added more. The only thing we're asking for now, besides the approval of this
                  modification, we're asking that one be removed that says they cannot have the "exit only" to
                  Biscayne Boulevard, and I also -- I don't know if I should put this as a proffer on the record, but
                  there was a -- I know Commissioner Sarnoff likes to see two spaces for every two-bedroom unit
                  and one space for every one-bedroom unit. Right now we have slightly under that. We can do
                  that, and I can proffer that into the record, if you want to make that a condition of it, that we
                  would provide two spaces. This particular district only requires one space for one bedrooms or
                  two bedrooms.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is the Administration OK with the exit onto Biscayne Boulevard?

                  Ms. Pardo: No. They've -- don't want it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: They don't want it.

                  Mr. Lavernia: No, we are not.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, because see, that's -- usually modifications come back, and there's
                  always one or two items that --

                  Ms. Pardo: Right. That's something -- we didn't have this out-parceled when we came before
                  you the first time. We didn't have this building in the plans.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: What are your options if you can't exit Biscayne Boulevard --

                  Ms. Pardo: That this would be closed --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- 30th Street or 29th Street?

                  Ms. Pardo: These cars would have to go out to 30th Street, back to 30th Street. There's no light
                  here, so what that will do is if this gets backed up -- because a lot of times, you know, Starbucks
                  has a lot of their business in the mornings -- then what it does is it takes the cars -- let me see
                  where I can show you -- it takes them -- it'll take them back here and bring them out on this side,
                  perhaps, but it's just -- it's very small. If I could have our traffic engineer address this real
                  briefly, you know -- where are you? Sonia -- just go through it, why it's important. We also
                  narrowed it so it's only 14 feet wide, so you couldn't have ingress and egress. It would only be
                  "exit only," with a "right turn only," a stop sign, and it would serve these --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But right now you have two exit ways. You could either go onto
                  Biscayne Boulevard -- no, you cannot --



City of Miami                                      Page 83                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Pardo: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- or --

                  Ms. Pardo: Our plans shows an exit onto Biscayne or an exit onto Northeast 30th Street. For
                  these -- only for these 15 cars. You have these spaces here -- actually, 15 spaces. These spaces
                  here and here. Now all the spaces for the building itself enter from 4th Avenue, and they
                  wouldn't be able to go out to Biscayne Boulevard --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Ms. Pardo: -- and the loading and also exits back there.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have your traffic engineers go through the --

                  Sonia Shreffler-Bogart: Sonia Shreffler-Bogart, with David Plummer & Associates, 1750 Ponce
                  de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables. As Adrienne explained, currently they're proposing the
                  driveway here, exit only onto Biscayne Boul -- off onto Biscayne Boulevard. However, since the
                  intersection at 30th Street is unsignalized, there's a tendency to have delays. It's not that the
                  queue is really long backing up on 30th Street. It's just that the delays, because of all the traffic
                  on Biscayne, doesn't allow the gaps necessary, and by allowing this exit only, you're going to
                  better distribute the traffic that wants to go north on Biscayne Boulevard into the roadway,
                  network. You'll not only be able to turn right from 30th, but you'll also be able to turn right from
                  the driveway on Biscayne Boulevard.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll make a motion to approve it.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a resolution.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Allowing the exit to Biscayne Boulevard?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Fifteen cars.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Huh?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: It's fifteen cars.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, but -- it's fine, but I -- let me just make my point. I mean, if
                  we're focusing on making Biscayne Boulevard pedestrian-friendly --

                  Mr. Lavernia: Yeah.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and -- you know, 15 cars may not be a different [sic], but one again
                  -- once again you start opening the doors for others, and when someone else comes along and
                  may -- what are you going to tell them? Oh, we'll allow you 15 cars, so that's something that I'm
                  always worried about.

                  Ms. Pardo: Could I just add --? With this new design, the reason we have added to that
                  pedestrian-friendliness, and we have all of these -- we have this outdoor plaza area, which we
                  didn't have before, and we have all the pavers --



City of Miami                                       Page 84                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's --

                  Ms. Pardo: -- in here.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- a vehicular plaza for cars. It's not --

                  Ms. Pardo: No, no, here. Here is where I was pointing to.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh.

                  Ms. Pardo: The additional plaza area that we've added to it, and that's why we had the -- we
                  also narrowed it so that you would have -- it wouldn't detrimentally affect the pedestrians, but
                  it's extremely important --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second, right?

                  Ms. Pardo: -- because for the retail --

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would second it.

                  Chairman González: -- and we have a second. We already have a second. This requires a
                  public hearing. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on the item, please come forward.

                  Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. I have some questions I'd like to ask the City
                  Attorney and/or the Planning Department, specifically relating to compliance and consistency
                  with the Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to read a quick passage from it. Objective TL11, "All
                  arterial and collector roadways under county and state jurisdiction that lie within the City's
                  boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency." Biscayne
                  Boulevard, of course, is a state road, and therefore, it should operate at the state level, and
                  Biscayne -- excuse me -- FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) requires a level of "D."
                  Biscayne is already an "F." Therefore, would not this development be inconsistent with the
                  Comprehensive Plan?

                  Mr. Lavernia: As part of the Major Use Special Permit process, there was a concurrency
                  analysis done, and there was no problem with the number of the concurrency analysis. They are
                  OK.

                  Mr. Cruz: Did the concurrency analysis use FDOT's level of service or did it use the City of
                  Miami's person/trip methodology?

                  Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Director, Planning): Elvis, the -- that application, we would need to go
                  back, but the levels of services we use is the ones that we are required to, and we certainly could
                  provide that, but when the MUSP was approved, that is part of the analysis that we need to
                  make, and it's a form that we follow together with the County and the requirements that we have
                  placed upon the City of Miami. If we would not have met that, the MUSP would not have been
                  able to be approved.

                  Mr. Cruz: I'm not sure I understood your answer. You're saying that you followed the state level
                  of service or the City?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We followed -- and I would like to -- I don't have the numbers right now
                  with me, but the levels of services, the number that we have to use is the one that we're required,
                  and I can get that information for you. As part also of the large scale, which I'm reminded by

City of Miami                                      Page 85                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  the rest of the Planning staff, that is also looked at as part of the review that we're required to do
                  before we bring the MUSP to you, which was, again, approved.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, there is a question there. Are you following the State's --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- or you're following the City's?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I think it's -- I'm --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: It's a state road.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- if I could have --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's why I'm curious.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Yeah, it is a state road, but the concurrency we have is we follow -- we
                  work with the same numbers that the County has --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, now you've brought a third party in.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and I would need to get that number for you, because that form that
                  comes from the County -- and I would -- I could probably get that information from
                  (UNINTELLIGIBLE); I just don't have it at my finger (UNINTELLIGIBLE), if it's the County or
                  the state. What I can tell you is that when we do the analysis, we -- the number that is required
                  is the one we use, and then, as part of the Major Use Special Permit, we have a large scale
                  review that is not only City staff, but it's other agencies that review the project, and at that point,
                  everyone give the comments. Those comments are incorporated so when our recommendation
                  comes in front of this Commission, it has gone through that review --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- City, County, and other agencies that may pertain to that project.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- is there a way of counting Biscayne Boulevard of being anything other
                  than F-rated, and if it is rated differently by the City, how is it rated differently?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I would like to defer that question to Mary Conway, in the
                  Transportation office.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Where is Mary?

                  Ms. Pardo: We also have our traffic engineer here, who did the traffic engineer for the MUSP,
                  who can address questions, if you like?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Sure, if she knows.

                  Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: We set up the methodology with the City of Miami, and the -- using people
                  trips, or person trips, or vehicular trips; both of them are used. Person trips are used for the
                  second analysis and vehicular trips are used for the intersection analysis. We meet the level of
                  service standard for both. On the segments --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: But he's asking -- he's not asking you a conclusion; he's asking you a
                  processing question. Are you basing it on an F-rated road from FDOT?

City of Miami                                       Page 86                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: We're basing it on the data that's collected, and it's meeting the level of
                  service "D" standard.

                  Mr. Cruz: May I ask a question of the traffic engineer? All right. Just so we understand each
                  other, the Comprehensive Plan says that this road, Biscayne Boulevard being a state road, has to
                  operate at a level of service established by the State, not the City of Miami. There is another
                  paragraph here that talks about all other streets in the City being allowed to operate under a
                  traffic concurrency exception area. I imagine that's where you can use the City of Miami
                  methodology, but from what I read here -- and that's why I asked that the Attorney -- the City
                  Attorney concur or turn me down -- this road should operate at the state level, and the State
                  requires "D" as a minimum; Biscayne is already at "F," so that's why I'm having the reality
                  disconnect here. How can you approve a project on a street that's already rated "F" when the
                  Comprehensive Plan says you're not supposed to do that? Where am I wrong?

                  Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: The methodology and the MUSP traffic study are initially submitted to the
                  City of Miami, and they submit both the methodology and the MUSP traffic study to FDOT for
                  their approval.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So you're saying FDOT approves this inevitably?

                  Ms. Shreffler-Bogart: If there's any type of FDOT roadway -- state roadway involved, they've
                  been involved in the process.

                  Mr. Cruz: So FDOT approved this level of service, even though it's in conflict with the City of
                  Miami's Comprehensive Plan?

                  Kobi Karp: Hi. My name is Kobi Karp. I'm the architect for the project. What I think you
                  should really do is you should speak to FDOT because their calculations are based on links and
                  ours are really based more on intersections. Again, I'm an architect, but based on what I've
                  known -- working with FDOT for FDOT, working with the City of Miami and the City of Miami
                  and the County. That's where he should really send his questions, and I think what he'll see is
                  that the analysis is different between the links and the intersections. FDOT is for the links. We
                  are doing the analysis on the intersections.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Karp: So just to be clear, if you want, what she's saying is that she's doing the link analysis
                  with the methodology of the City of Miami. That's how it meets the criteria.

                  Chairman González: Mary.

                  Mary Conway: Mary Conway, chief of Operations. Regarding traffic engineering and the
                  traffic methodology that are done for these projects, they are based on a model that is
                  maintained by the County. It is one uniform model as far as the numbers that are generated.
                  Now, as far as the actual modeling that is done, the entire City of Miami's a transportation
                  concurrency exception area, so the modeling is not based on a vehicular level of service. It's
                  based on a person/trip methodology, so the methodology is different in the City of Miami than,
                  say, it would be in Unincorporated Dade, but the data that goes into the model is consistent
                  countywide.

                  Mr. Cruz: Mary, I realize you were not in the room when I first asked the question, but what I
                  was referring to is this passage in the Comprehensive Plan that says, "All arterial and collector
                  roadways under county and state jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at
                  levels of service established by the respective agency," and from that it appears that the state

City of Miami                                      Page 87                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  level of service is "F" on Biscayne Boulevard. Now down here it does talk about TCEA, Traffic
                  Concurrency Exception Area, for other -- all other city streets. Is it not true that Biscayne
                  should follow the state model and not the City model?

                  Ms. Conway: Once again, not exactly. DOT (Department of Transportation) measures level of
                  service for Biscayne Boulevard or any other state facilities based on vehicular level of service.
                  However, when a developer or a property owner comes into the City and they're required to do
                  traffic engineering modeling associated with their projects, they do it according to a person/trip
                  methodology, not vehicular, so even though, from a vehicular methodology, Biscayne Boulevard
                  may be at an "F" and may be failing based on a vehicular standard, the person/trip methodology
                  that's approved by the Department of Community Affairs, at a state level, recognizes the fact that
                  the City of Miami -- the eastern portions of the City of Miami is an urbanized area transitioning
                  to a very highly urbanized area and cannot solely rely on single-passenger vehicles as a only
                  mode of transportation, so there are allowances that are given that transit is available and
                  transit usage will be used. That's a major reason that we are working so hard to advance the
                  streetcar project so that while we use the person/trip methodology, it's also incumbent on us to
                  be providing viable alternate transportation modes via transit.

                  Chairman González: All right. I hope that --

                  Mr. Cruz: My question is answered. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: -- serve your --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Call the question.

                  Chairman González: -- inquiry. All right. This is a resolution. All in favor, say "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right. Motion carries.

                  Ms. Pardo: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: PZ.6.

                  Mr. Lavernia: Mr. Chairman, yes, it was approved with the condition "a" or --?

                  Chairman González: With conditions.

                  Mr. Lavernia: With the condition "a."

                  Ms. Pardo: Wait, wait, wait.

                  Chairman González: With --

                  Ms. Pardo: It was -- no. It was approved without that one condition, is my understanding.

                  Commissioner Regalado: I was going to say that, you know.

                  Ms. Slazyk: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) exception.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: For the record, the condition --

                  Chairman González: Time out.

City of Miami                                      Page 88                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- of the exiting was not approved.

                  Ms. Pardo: Right.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right. They removed it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: The exiting.

                  Chairman González: They removed it.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I did appro --

                  Mr. Lavernia: They remove what?

                  Ms. Slazyk: The condition about no egress on the boulevard.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I mean, my motion --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah, he approved it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: With the exit onto --

                  Chairman González: No. Without the condition, right?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right.

                  Ms. Pardo: Allowed with that one exit.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and that was with the condition --

                  Ms. Pardo: All the other conditions.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and with the condition of parking.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Adding parking.

                  Ms. Pardo: Yes, absolutely.

                  Mr. Cruz: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Five hundred and seventeen spaces.

                  Mr. Cruz: Yes.

                  Ms. Pardo: Two hun -- two spaces for every two-bedroom and one for every one-bedroom.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.



City of Miami                                      Page 89                                  Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right, so we're all on the same sheet of music on that?

                      Chairman González: Yeah.

                      Mr. Cruz: There's no parking and exit on Biscayne.

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes.

                      Mr. Cruz: Yes.

                      Commissioner Sarnoff: But you were playing trumpet.

PZ.6      06-00155a   ORDINANCE                                                                 Second Reading
                      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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                      THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST
                      AVENUE AND 1905 NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM
                      "GENERAL COMMERCIAL" AND "INDUSTRIAL" TO "RESTRICTED
                      COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO
                      AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
                      SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                      06-00155a Legislation.pdf
                      06-00155 & 06-00155a Exhibit A.pdf
                      06-00155a Analysis.pdf
                      06-00155a Land Use Map.pdf
                      06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf
                      06-00155 & 05-00155a School Impact Analysis.pdf
                      06-00155a PAB Reso.pdf
                      06-00155a PAB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 04-27-06.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 05-25-06.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf
                      06-00155a & 06-00155 Reconsideration Letters.PDF
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf
                      06-00155a FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf
                      06-00155a SR Fact Sheet.pdf
                      06-00155a CC Application & Supporting Docs.PDF
                      06-00155a Submittal Letter Greenberg Traurig.pdf
                      06-00155a Submittal Plans 11-29-05.pdf
                      06-00155a Submittal Plan 12-05-06.pdf
                      06-00155a Submittal Proposed C-1 Manny A Vega.pdf

                      LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court
                      [Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones - District 5]

                      APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Aviño, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management
                      Corporation


City of Miami                                         Page 90                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission
                        on February 1, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File IDs 06-00155 and
                        06-00155b.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for
                        the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit.

                        NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663.
                        Motion by Commissioner Spence-Jones, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this
                        matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        12875
                        Chairman González: All right. PZ.6.

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.6, 7, and 8 are companion items.
                        PZ.6 is the land use change, 7 is the zoning change, and 8 is the Major Use.

                        Chairman González: Once again, let me ask the same question. Is there anyone in opposition to
                        PZ.6, 7, or 8, and the address is 1905 Northwest 1st Court. No opposition. All right. Is there
                        opposition to the item?

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: PZ.6.

                        Chairman González: No opposition. All right.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Have no one.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: You want her to go --

                        Chairman González: You want to hear the presentation?

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                        Chairman González: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) already did it.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes. I -- one of the things I do want to say, first of all, I want to
                        say to Commissioner Sarnoff that I really appreciate your -- you deferring to my involvement on
                        this project. I know this is an area that really touches your district, but as you know, my
                        community in Overtown's very sensitive about what's happening in the area already, but I truly
                        appreciate you, you know, deferring to me on this particular item.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Just so long no one here thinks I'm a potted plant, I'm OK with that.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Well, we know that's not true. Anyway, I also wanted to say real
                        fast that in regards to this overall project -- as you know, this is something that I originally had
                        denied some time back because I really, you know, had -- have had a real strong push to support
                        industrial areas within my district. I also wanted to really make sure that the surrounding
                        residents in the area were comfortable with the project, and originally, they were not, so after
                        denying it, the developer has sat down and come up with something that makes sense for the
                        neighborhood, and has really added some additional things that I think will benefit many of the
City of Miami                                            Page 91                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  folks that are living in the Overtown area, and one of the other big concerns I had is that, you
                  know, that was a big vacant piece -- parcel of land in the industrial area, which had absolutely
                  nothing on it, and to see our kids that attend the local elementary school, Phillis Wheatley, have
                  to pass it every single day. It's just time for something to happen there, so I wanted to at least be
                  able to acknowledge, -- and I'm very happy with what we have in the project. I'd like for Lucia
                  to at least -- though brief all the Commissioners on --

                  Lucia Dougherty: Certainly --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- where we are.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- and we certainly appreciate your direction and your leadership in this
                  matter. Lucia Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today with Luis
                  Dominguez and Victor Labruzzo, who are the principals. Again, this was a rezoning request, as
                  well as a Major Use Special Permit that was initially denied and then brought back as a
                  reconsideration, and that was as a result of working with the Commissioner's office and the
                  community to get some different plans, as well as some conditions, which I'm going to put on the
                  record. Just to show you the different plans. This is now 120-foot height building. This was
                  originally a 17-story building; now it's 120 feet in height, and it is exactly the same height that
                  you could build in the district today as an industrial project. This is the original building.
                  Again, this is the modified building, and this is the building that we would ask to be put on the
                  record that we would like this building approved, meaning the 120-foot building approved as
                  opposed to the larger one. The staff has been re -- has reviewed, the Zoning staff, the Planning
                  staff, as well as Public Works have reviewed this subsequent submission, and this is the one that
                  we would urge the Commission to approve. In addition to that --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: If I can just add real fast for my colleagues. One of the biggest
                  issues that the community has -- if you look at the "before" picture and now the "after" -- is the
                  taller side was kind of facing the community, the taller side where the school was, and people
                  kind of felt that it was kind of creating almost like a fortress separating those folks from the folks
                  that live in Overtown, so it was great to see that they were able to make that change to reduce it
                  and make it more engaging towards -- in the community. Also the retail portion of it was really
                  facing on 20th Street --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- which to me, I thought it was really important to kind of wrap
                  that around so that those students that are, you know, going back and forth to school at Phillis
                  Wheatley could see and be inspired by things that were going on from a retail perspective. I
                  don't want to take everything away, but we really came up with some great stuff for the project.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Will you get your Starbucks in there?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Maybe.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Hopefully. We need to call Magic. Go ahead.

                  Ms. Dougherty: So it is a project that has retail surrounding the bottom floor, but let me just
                  read, and I'm going to abbreviate this, but --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Sure.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- I've submitted for the record --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No problem.

City of Miami                                       Page 92                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Dougherty: -- conditions that we want included in our MUSP (Major Use Special Permit).

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No problem.

                  Ms. Dougherty: One is a 4,000-square-foot retail space would be set aside for vocational
                  training center for the culinary arts, performing arts, medical training, architecture, security,
                  law enforcement, beauty, physical training, computer literacy, some other kind of training
                  facility, so what we've done is set aside a 40 -- 4,000-square-foot portion of the building right
                  across the street from Phillis Wheatley Elementary School, and we'll leave that available, and
                  one other requirements is that we actually solicit a tenant to go in there that would do one of
                  these things, in which we've agreed to do. Secondly, we've asked for ten -- we will set aside ten
                  percent of our units; will be affordable housing units, and either as a rental or ownership. The
                  City's going to work with us to try to find a methodology of actually subsidizing the unit owners,
                  but we're going to make these affordable housing units available --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Below market.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- below market rate, correct. Then, again, we've agreed to reduce the height,
                  have ground floor residential instead of live/work, all of which is part of the plans that we have
                  submitted, and we're going to attach as a condition of the Major Use Special Permit. We've
                  agreed to work with staff to ensure the maximum amount of urban-friendly -- pedestrian-friendly
                  uses on the ground floor. We've also put a roving, a sculpture garden here for local artists to be
                  able to display sculpture on a rotating basis, so with that, we'd ask that the City Attorney accept
                  these as conditions of the Major Use Special Permit, and I'm going to give it to you in a letter
                  form.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Well, I -- once again, I want to say thank you, and this is what it
                  takes to really pull developers and communities together to create something that works for the
                  people that are already there, and I just want to thank you guys for really sitting down. I think I
                  have -- I see at least one of my Overtown residents here, Mr. Charles Cutler, that was a part of
                  at least assisting with crafting this, and I think that this should really be a model of what we need
                  to do to try to encourage -- making sure that we spread some of this around, and the fact that
                  they're adopting Phillis Wheatley Elementary School, you know, the fact that they're trying to at
                  least make sure that they include some below market rate affordable housing units in this, and of
                  course, making sure that they're not -- that whatever homeowners that go into this space, they're
                  not burdened with the maintenance fee by at least reducing that, so we -- we're just thankful that
                  you were able to sit down and come up with something that makes sense, so --

                  Ms. Dougherty: You make a good point. We did agree to pay the maintenance fee -- half of the
                  maintenance fee for the first five years --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- for these affordable housing units.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: For the first five years, which is great, so I really appreciate you
                  guys able -- coming to some sort of conclusion for the community. Cutler one and Cutler two.

                  Charles Cutler, Jr.: My name is Charles Cutler, 654 Northwest 10th Street. It's finally good to
                  see a project that includes the Overtown residents, so I support this project a hundred percent.
                  Thank you.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thanks.



City of Miami                                       Page 93                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                     Chairman González: All right.

                     Charles Cutler, Sr.: Charles Cutler, 706 Northwest 4th Avenue. It's been a long time coming,
                     but with all the components that they have that's in this project for the residents, I think that this
                     should be a model for all the developers to follow this coming into Overtown. Thank you.

                     Chairman González: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none, hearing none, the public
                     hearing is closed; comes back to the Commission. Commissioner Spence-Jones.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: So moved.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                     Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Madam City
                     Attorney.

                     The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                     Chiaro.

                     Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                     Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                     A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                     Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0.

PZ.7      06-00155   ORDINANCE                                                                       Second Reading
                     AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                     ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                     ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                     CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
                     DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
                     FROM "I" INDUSTRIAL AND "C-2" LIBERAL COMMERCIAL TO "C-1"
                     RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
                     APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905
                     NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY
                     DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND
                     A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                          Page 94                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                         06-00155 Legislation.pdf
                         06-00155 & 06-00155a Exhibit A.pdf
                         06-00155 Analysis.pdf
                         06-00155 & 06-00155b Zoning Map.pdf
                         06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf
                         06-00155 ZB Reso.pdf
                         06-00155 ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 03-23-06.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 04-27-06.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 05-25-06.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 06-22-06.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 07-27-06.pdf
                         06-00155a & 06-00155 Reconsideration Letters.PDF
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf
                         06-00155 FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf
                         06-00155 CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                         06-00155 SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                        LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court
                        [Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones - District 5]

                        APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Aviño, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management
                        Corporation

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                        ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on January 23,
                        2006 by a vote of 8-0. See companion File IDs 06-00155a and 06-00155b.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                        Commercial for the proposed Avenue One Major Use Special Permit.

                        NOTE: This item was reconsidered on October 12, 2006; see File ID 06-01663.
                        Motion by Commissioner Spence-Jones, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this
                        matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones


                        12876
                        Chairman González: PZ.7. Commissioner Spence-Jones.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Oh. So moved.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                        Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a public hearing.
                        Anyone from the public that wants to speak on it, please come up to the podium. Seeing none,
                        hearing none, the public hearing is closed. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an
                        ordinance.

                        The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                        Chiaro.

City of Miami                                           Page 95                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                   Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007


                      Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                      Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado.

                      Commissioner Regalado: Yes.

                      Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez?

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, ma'am.

                      Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence-Jones.

                      Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                      Ms. Burns: Chairman González?

                      Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                      Commissioner Regalado: He wants "yes." Sarnoff says he wants to --

                      Ms. Burns: And --

                      Commissioner Regalado: -- register --

                      Ms. Burns: -- Commissioner Sarnoff?

                      Commissioner Regalado: -- he wants to --

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: I don't think he can --

                      Ms. Burns: He said "yes."

                      Commissioner Regalado: Yes.

                      Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- vote from the bathroom.

                      Ms. Burns: OK. The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 5/0.

PZ.8      06-00155b   RESOLUTION
                      A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS,
                      APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
                      PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 5, 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO.
                      11000, AS AMENDED, FOR THE AVENUE ONE PROJECT, TO BE LOCATED
                      AT APPROXIMATELY 1950 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE AND 1905
                      NORTHWEST 1ST COURT, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A
                      MIXED-USE TWO-TOWER DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM
                      APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET TO 180 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF
                      APPROXIMATELY 349 TOTAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH
                      RECREATIONAL AMENITIES; APPROXIMATELY 7,875 SQUARE FEET OF
                      RETAIL SPACE; AND APPROXIMATELY 633 TOTAL PARKING SPACES;
                      PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") BONUSES;
                      DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
                      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT;
City of Miami                                         Page 96                                     Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                          Meeting Minutes                              January 25, 2007

                  CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                  EFFECTIVE DATE.
                  06-00155b Outside Cover.PDF
                  06-00155b Inside Cover.PDF
                  06-00155b Table of Contents.PDF
                  06-00155b Article I - Project Information.PDF
                  06-00155b Letter of Intent.PDF
                  06-00155b Zoning Write-Up.PDF
                  06-00155b Major Use Special Permit Application.PDF
                  06-00155b Zoning Atlas.PDF
                  06-00155b Project Data Sheet.PDF
                  06-00155b Deed-Computer.PDF
                  06-00155b Ownership List.PDF
                  06-00155b State of Florida Documents.PDF
                  06-00155b Directory of Project Principals.PDF
                  06-00155b Article II - Project Description.PDF
                  06-00155b Article III - Supporting Documents.PDF
                  06-00155b Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF
                  06-00155b Traffic Impact Analysis.PDF
                  06-00155b Site Utility Study.PDF
                  06-00155b Economic Impact Study.PDF
                  06-00155b Survey of Property.PDF
                  06-00155b Drawings Submitted.PDF
                  06-00155b Analysis.pdf
                  06-00155 & 06-00155b Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-00155, 06-00155a & 06-00155b Aerial Map.pdf
                  06-00155b PAB Reso.pdf
                  06-00155b Legislation.pdf
                  06-00155b Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-00155b Exhibit B.pdf
                  06-00155b Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-00155b Submittal letter.pdf
                  06-00155b Submittal Petition Signatures.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 1950 NW 1st Avenue and 1905 NW 1st Court
                  [Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones - District 5]

                  APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Aviño, Esquire, on behalf of A-1 Management
                  Corporation

                  FINDINGS:
                  PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*.
                  PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions* to
                  City Commission on February 1, 2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File IDs
                  06-00155 and 06-00155a.
                  *See supporting documentation.

                  PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Avenue One project.
                  Motion by Commissioner Spence-Jones, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this
                  matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.


City of Miami                                 Page 97                                  Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Sarnoff

                        R-07-0056
                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: There's another companion item, PZ.7.

                        Chairman González: PZ.8.

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): PZ.8.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: 7 or 8?

                        Chairman González: PZ.8.

                        Mr. Lavernia: 7 and 8.

                        Chairman González: Commissioner Spence-Jones, PZ.8.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.8.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: So moved.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                        Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second.

                        Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): My understanding --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Wait.

                        Ms. Chiaro: -- of the motion --

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, wait. Staff has something that you want to add?

                        Mr. Lavernia: Yes.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Sure.

                        Mr. Lavernia: Is your motion with the conditions presented by Ms. Dougherty and the condition
                        that the set of plans presented as part of the Major Use will be substitute for the new set of plan
                        that she's presenting?

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes. We want to make sure this -- OK, you -- so it's officially on
                        the record, right?

                        Mr. Lavernia: Yes.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: We're substituting the item that we -- OK.

                        Chairman González: With all the conditions.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Second with all the conditions.

                        Chairman González: All right. Anyone from the public that wants to speak on this item, please
                        come forward. Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. All in favor, say "aye."

City of Miami                                             Page 98                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                    The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                    Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right.

                    Chairman González: All right.

                    Commissioner Spence-Jones: PZ.9.

                    Chairman González: PZ.9.

                    Vice Chairman Sanchez: Before they set up, you know, I hope that tomorrow the newspaper
                    writes about this project because this is when they criticize our Administration and when they
                    criticize us that sit up here for not affordable housing, and when you're able to get a
                    Commissioner, with the support of the Commission, to sit down with the private sector and bring
                    a project that is fully accepted by the residents, all right -- it is very hard to get everyone
                    together to the table and get everyone to agree on everything, but this is something that we
                    should all be very proud of because it really focuses on what Miami is truly all about, but I know
                    tomorrow, the front page of the news is going to be the Mercy Hospital thing and, you know.

PZ.9      06-01720ha RESOLUTION
                    A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING OR
                    GRANTING THE APPEAL FILED BY RUBEN MATZ ("APPELLANT") AND
                    AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC AND
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD ("HEPB"), WHICH DENIED A
                    CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                    714 NORTHEAST 59TH STREET, WITHIN THE MORNINGSIDE HISTORIC
                    DISTRICT, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
                    06-01720ha Aerial Map.pdf
                    06-01720ha Appeal Letter.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Reso 2006-74.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 09-05-06.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 03-19-02.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 11-21-00.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Fact Sheet 02-18-97.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Reso 93-12.pdf
                    06-01720ha HEPB Reso 91-44.pdf
                    06-01720ha Application & Pictures.pdf
                    06-01720ha Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                    06-01720ha Legislation (Version 3).pdf
                    06-01720ha CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                    LOCATION: Approximately 714 NE 59th Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff -
                    District 2]

                    APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Ruben Matz, Owner

                    FINDINGS:
                    PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of
                    the Certificate of Appropriateness.
                    HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD: Denied the
                    Certificate of Appropriateness on September 5, 2006 by a vote of 6-0.

City of Miami                                        Page 99                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will approve the installation of hedges
                  not in compliance with an approved Certificate of Appropriateness.
                  CONTINUED

                  A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chairman Sanchez, and was
                  passed unanimously, with Commissioner Spence-Jones absent, to continue item PZ.9 to the
                  Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 8, 2007; further directing the
                  Administration to meet with members of the Morningside Civic Association and its neighbors in
                  an effort to reach a consensus in reference to the installation of hedges.


                  Chairman González: PZ.9. Hi.

                  Kathleen Kauffman: Hi. Good afternoon.

                  Chairman González: Good afternoon.

                  Ms. Kauffman: Kathleen Kauffman, preservation officer for the City of Miami. This is an
                  applicant who has been to the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board several times.
                  They have requested that their hedge height be allowed at eight feet. That's not allowed in
                  Morningside historic district. We have guidelines which set the hedge height, so several times
                  the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board, the HEP Board, has denied their request.
                  They are appealing that decision, and that's why they're in front of you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Be careful what you ask for.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir. Good afternoon.

                  Santiago Echemendia: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Santiago Echemendia, 1441, on behalf of
                  the Matz family, Ruben and Gladys, who are here, as well as my colleague, Amanda Quirke. As
                  you can see from the picture in front of you, this is a beautiful home. We're here on an appeal
                  from a denial of a certificate of appropriateness to permit some hedges that go up to eight feet;
                  what's permitted is five. However, as you will see, if you're on a corner lot, there is a procedure,
                  and we got denied, and so we're here. The regulations really specifically talk about the front of
                  the property, and as you can see from the picture in front of you, the front of this property is
                  immaculate; it doesn't have hedges that obstruct. It talks about not locating fences and walls
                  either along the front of the property line or between the sidewalk and the front facade, and
                  that's clearly not the case here, as you can see from this picture in front of you. On corner lots,
                  it is understood that you can request to have hedges because corner lots are more exposed,
                  provided that it's historically appropriate to the house, or there are unique circumstances. Well,
                  we submit to you that there are unique circumstances in this particular case. This is another
                  picture of the home. This is the hedge on North Bayshore Drive. The Matzes have a number of
                  security concerns. Apparently, a lot of the folks use North Bayshore Drive to access the park,
                  Morningside Park, so folks are consistently walking by their side yard, rear yard throwing things
                  over the hedges, and even currently -- and their hedges are pretty tall at this point -- throwing
                  trash over the hedges. The exposure of their corner lot, of course, is of concern to them as well
                  because they have about five grandchildren that spend a considerable amount of time in their
                  backyard and their pool, and they want to prevent -- for security purposes, they want to shield
                  their grandchildren, as well as for purposes of privacy. We believe that the higher hedges, -- you
                  will see that it's not a small issue. In Morningside they're high hedges all over the place, and
                  you probably heard that there are security concerns in Morningside and a number of burglaries
                  on a fairly regular basis unfortunately. I'll show you pictures of a number of different homes in
                  the Morningside district that also have hedges that exceed the five feet. We have a petition
                  signed by 37 residents recognizing that higher hedges are a source of security and privacy in the
                  Morningside area, and if we can submit those into the record, I would appreciate it. Let me
                  show you a few of the homes in the Morningside area that have hedges that exceed the five feet,
City of Miami                                      Page 100                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  and you can see this one here on North Bayshore Drive. You have 677 Northeast 60th Street.
                  This is actually -- it appears to be in front of the home as well. Another home. Another home.
                  Another home. It goes on and on. It seems to be pervasive in Morningside that there be hedges
                  that exceed the five feet for one reason or another. At this point let me have Mr. Matz kind of
                  share with you his story, and he's also going to read into the record a letter from one of his
                  neighbors in support of the hedges.

                  Ruben Matz: My name is Ruben Matz, owner of the property at 714 Northeast 59th Street. If I'm
                  allowed, I just want to present the Commissioners with a letter. I -- on my way here, I was
                  thinking "What am I going to tell the Board about our property and our conditions of a
                  property?" And I thought it was best summarized by one of our neighbors who wrote me a letter
                  because he couldn't be present, and here today we have five or six of the residents of
                  Morningside, and three or four who had small children and had to leave earlier because it took
                  longer than they expected, but the letter of one of the residents to me, and of course, he couldn't
                  be here. He says, “Hedge of the home of Ruben and Gladys Matz. To whom it may concern: I'm
                  writing this letter in support of my friends Ruben and Gladys Matz. I have the pleasure of living
                  across the street from their home. The Matz family has one of the most beautiful homes in
                  Morningside and inarguably the best manicured landscaping in the neighborhood. The hedge
                  that seems to be in question does not in any way block the view of their home. It surrounds their
                  pool area, creating not only a beautiful wall of vegetation, but a protective barrier for their
                  property and family. This hedge, as well as the entire property, adds to the beauty of our street
                  and the neighborhood. It seems outrageous to me that they should have to reduce the height or
                  remove such beautiful greenery. If the hedge does, in fact, violate some rule, then the rule needs
                  to be changed. I believe that any reasonable person who views this hedge would conclude the
                  same thing. I suppose that some such rules may make sense in order to preserve the beauty of a
                  historic neighborhood, by enforcing them blindly, or with a vengeance, discourages people from
                  improving their property. Please make an exception for Mr. And Mrs. Matz's property, or better
                  yet, change the rule so that it accommodate -- it can accommodate vegetation such as their
                  beautiful hedge. Historic preservation is important to Morningside and our city, however in this
                  case, its strict application will actually detract rather than reinforce the historic element of our
                  neighborhood,” and this is signed by Brad Peltzer, who is one of our neighbors, and I think I
                  couldn't, myself, put in better words what the sense of the entire neighborhood is about
                  landscaping. Our landscaping is kept 365 days of the year, manicured to perfection.
                  Morningside has 400 residents, and there is never a single resident that walks by that does not
                  appreciate and even brag about the landscaping that we have brought to Morningside. I think
                  it's -- it enhances the neighborhood, and it complies with the historic preservation. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Echemendia: Mr. Chair, I believe we have some other folks in favor, if they want to come up
                  now.

                  Chairman González: All right. Each speaker will have two minutes.

                  Sherna Brody: Hello, everybody. My name is Sherna Brody. I'm a resident since 1942 in
                  Morningside, and I've seen the Matz house when it used to be owned by other people. It's really
                  outstandingly beautiful now; there's no question about that. I'm in my third house in
                  Morningside. One -- the last one I ended up with was my sister built and lived there with her
                  family for 40 years and moved on to be closer to them. What I would say to you is that
                  sometimes there's room for a variance, sometimes there's room for an exception. You know,
                  everyone is a part of their time, and if we have a historic neighborhood, we're still part of
                  history. This history is moving forward. This is a very enhanced property that makes
                  Morningside look like a finer place than, believe me, it ever looked before, and so I would say to
                  you that having received an 8-foot variance by the preservation board for a fence that we have
                  on 55th Terrace for various reasons of safety and enhancement and looking like the rest of the

City of Miami                                      Page 101                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  neighborhood and so on, I would also recommend the eight feet for the Matz family. Thank you
                  very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Errol Brown: My name is Errol Brown. I live at 520 Northeast 51st Street, almost 23 years. I
                  do know the Matz, so is other folks in the area that has hedging that exceeds the guidelines. If
                  you want an introduction to heaven, believe you me, that house is, and I think it's personal why
                  they're pushing it. You see, I'm a very plain, outspoken person. I live in Morningside. I have
                  done many things there; it had never been addressed, or show any form of appreciation, and I
                  seize the moment to express myself, that it is ludicrous to have these people undergoing such
                  stupid concern. It's more a personal thing, and I sincerely hope it could be upheld, giving the
                  Matz the opportunity of keeping their hedge, because I also is into landscaping, and I know what
                  beauty is all about. We have a problem in Morningside that needs to be addressed, a more
                  pressing situation. Speeding in the area. I have spoken -- I think I met Marc when he was
                  canvassing, and we spoke right at my gate.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: We did.

                  Mr. Brown: They know all the stuff that I do in Morningside. This might be irrelevant, but this
                  is a time to speak out. We have a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) office up the road in
                  Biscayne Boulevard; looks deplorable, and the fine folks of Morningside would go by everyday
                  and says nothing or do nothing. I took it upon myself -- I have purchased material, equipment; I
                  went there. I clean it up. None of the folks in Morningside was nice enough to say "thank you,"
                  because it's Upper Eastside, and it's a wonderful job looking out for your area. They're a bunch
                  of hypocrites. These people should never been here. I've spoken to them about speeding in the
                  area; they does nothing about it. The civic association does what pleases them for their
                  so-called close-knit friends. That's it.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.

                  Jon Koones: Hello. My name is Jon Koones. I reside at 547 Northeast 59th Street. I'm here in
                  strong support of the Matz's hedge height, and I think that this body and the historic board
                  should have more pressing things to do than to spend unnecessary time and resources on the
                  hedges at this property. The same terminologies that the historic board uses to enforce their
                  various laws and regulations could very well be used to uphold the opposite viewpoint of the
                  various laws or regulations that they deem required by us residents who live in a historic district.
                  I've had a number of occasions to be present in their presence, and I found their demeanor
                  somewhat disrespectful, and this is just another case of that. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Hi. Good morning. Good afternoon.

                  Kevin Halvorsen: Good afternoon. My name is Kevin Halvorsen. I live at 581 Northeast 58th
                  Street, in the historic district of Morningside. I'm actually a new resident of Morningside. I
                  purchased my home in September of 2006. I don't really know the Matzes all that well, but I do
                  know that, in walking by their home, I get a lot of appreciation for the beauty of the landscaping
                  in general of the community. I noticed, before I purchased my home, that a lot of residents have
                  made and continue to make improvements to their homes and landscapings. These
                  improvements, in my opinion, continue to make the neighborhood a unique place to live; it helps
                  to improve property values collectively. I personally enjoy walking through the neighborhood
                  with family and friends and appreciate the architecture and landscaping of the community. I
                  also think that the Matz's landscaping is complimentary to the home; it helps to improve the
                  overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. I hope the Commission can appreciate the beauty of this
                  property and realize that the level of care and attention paid to this home can serve as an
                  inspiration to other residents. I would find it disturbing to think that we would be blinded by the

City of Miami                                      Page 102                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  -- by a tape measure that would destroy something as nice as this. I would ask that the
                  Commission to allow the Matzes to continue to allow and maintain their property in its present
                  condition. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public
                  hearing is closed.

                  Ms. Kauffman: Wait. May I make a few more --

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.

                  Ms. Kauffman: -- may I just follow up --

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Ms. Kauffman: -- with a few of the comments I heard? They showed you some photos of other
                  properties within the district. If the hedge is exceeding the height that's allowed, there's two
                  possibilities. It's grandfathered in because it was already there when the district came into
                  place. We don't make people cut their hedges down if it was already there when the district was
                  created. Code Enforcement has been working very closely with us in order to try and cite the
                  rest of the people that have exceeded the heights, and most of them have come into compliance.
                  There are a few cases still out there that they haven't come into compliance, but Code
                  Enforcement is working diligently on it. The guidelines for each historic district are not
                  something arbitrary that the City comes up with. When each district was created, the City
                  worked with that neighborhood association to create guidelines specific to their own district.
                  That's why the heights of hedges are different for Morningside than they are for Buena Vista
                  East or for Spring Garden. Each of these districts worked with the City to come up with these
                  guidelines, so when the district was created, that is what that neighborhood wanted for them.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And I have a question. Could the homeowners amend that if they --?

                  Ms. Kauffman: What we advise people who call in to complain about the hedge heights, or they
                  don't like the guidelines, we advise them to work with the civic association or the homeowners
                  association, and if enough of them want to change it, the homeowners association will come to
                  us, and we work with them to change the guidelines, but we will take it to the HEP Board if the
                  homeowners association is behind it. We can't take it to the HEP Board every time an individual
                  person wants to change the guidelines.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me ask you a question because -- it's in regards to -- I think they're
                  trying to come under an exception, and I think the exception they're trying to come under -- Can
                  you go back to that on your --?

                  Mr. Echemendia: It's -- Mr. Sarnoff -- Commissioner Sarnoff, it's unique circumstances -- it's
                  the unique circumstances that include, in this case --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Who did -- who made a determination that unique circumstances did not
                  exist?

                  Mr. Echemendia: The Historic Environmental --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Preservation.

                  Mr. Echemendia: -- Preservation Board. I'm not sure that the --

                  Ms. Kauffman: Well, actually --

City of Miami                                     Page 103                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Echemendia: -- argument was --

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): That's correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And they voted 6/0? That's --

                  Ms. Chiaro: Yes.

                  Ms. Kauffman: Yes. They've been in front of the preservation board several times, the first being
                  in December of 2000, and at that time the preservation board told them they could have their
                  hedges at a height of three and a half feet. When they came back in March of 2002, they had
                  already exceeded that height of what the preservation board had allowed. They were already at
                  five feet, and they were requesting eight feet. The preservation board said, “Well, no, you can't
                  have eight feet, but because of your special circumstances of being on the corner, you can
                  maintain them at five feet,” so they've let them maintain them at five feet. They came back in
                  2006, again, requesting the eight feet.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What does the rule say with regard to hedges? I mean, what's the
                  height?

                  Ms. Kauffman: Five feet along the sides --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Ms. Kauffman: -- eight feet in the back, no hedges in the front.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: And this is considered the front?

                  Ms. Kauffman: It is a main façade.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'm sorry?

                  Ms. Kauffman: It is a main façade. Corner properties, under zoning, or any pro -- any side of
                  the building that faces a street is considered a main façade.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: And that would -- and just help me on that little interpretation. That
                  would mean --

                  Ms. Chiaro: That's considered to be --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- how high could they go?

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- the front.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: The front.

                  Mr. Echemendia: Yeah. Can I clarify a second, if I may, a little rebuttal?

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Mr. Echemendia: I'm having to rebut staff, which is kind of unusual because staff is acting more
                  as an advocate on an appeal than they are in simply giving a staff recommendation, it seems.
                  The -- what was originally approved was five feet, and that's the original approval, not three and
                  a half as she stated. All we're asking is the difference between five and eight, which has been

City of Miami                                     Page 104                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  granted before, and the exceptions may be authorized for any corner lot relative to rear, side,
                  what have you, as long as -- may be authorized if historically appropriate to the particular house
                  or unique circumstances exist. We submit to you that the unique circumstance in this case is that
                  it's on North Bayshore Drive, which is heavy with pedestrian traffic accessing Morningside
                  Drive. Moreover, if you will notice, we're talking about three feet. In this beautiful home, those
                  three feet will, in no way, detract from the historical integrity of the home, the façade of which is
                  clearly unobstructed and will provide security for the property owner and his grandchildren. I
                  would submit to you that in balancing those, and with respect to this particular site and the
                  pristine condition that it's in, and specifically, with respect to leaving the façade of the historic
                  home unobstructed, there are unique circumstances, and we would implore you to approve this
                  appeal.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What's the standard we're supposed to employ, an abusive discretion
                  standard, or what is our standard that we apply?

                  Ms. Chiaro: This is a de novo hearing. You can --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So we hear it brand-new --

                  Ms. Chiaro: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and we are now the arbiters of what's right and wrong?

                  Ms. Chiaro: That is correct. You may take the recommendations --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: This is the first time in nine years that I've had something like this in
                  front of us.

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- from staff, the recommendations from the lower board, and any testimony that
                  you heard today, giving it the weight that you deem appropriate.

                  Mr. Echemendia: And if I can add, Commissioner, if I may, through the Chair?

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Echemendia: If I can add. If -- the issue really is is there competent substantial evidence in
                  the record, which we think we have proffered, to sustain a decision that there are, in fact, unique
                  circumstances, i.e., North Bayshore Drive, heavy traffic, things being thrown over, et cetera, et
                  cetera. We're talking about three feet on probably, I hate to say, the most beautiful home in
                  Morningside because there're a lot of beautiful homes, but certainly the most uniquely
                  manicured as it relates to the landscaping.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I have been here eight years, and I -- nothing like this has ever come in
                  front of us, this board. I mean --

                  Chairman González: I wonder why does this come in front of us.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but since we're on the issue, I mean -- are you guys -- is it closed?
                  Is it coming to the Commission?

                  Mr. Echemendia: I guess that was my rebuttal and my plea that you approve --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

City of Miami                                      Page 105                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: All right. We're closing the public hearing; comes back to the
                  Commission.

                  Commissioner Regalado: If I may, Mr. -- Oh, sorry.

                  Chairman González: Vice Chairman Sanchez.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Matz, sir, you have a beautiful home.

                  Mr. Matz: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You have a very beautiful home.

                  Mr. Matz: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Unfortunately, you live in a neighborhood that has a well established
                  historical district with rules.

                  Mr. Matz: May I add something else?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sure.

                  Mr. Matz: The young lady said something about the civic association. One of my neighbors,
                  who's an attorney, Bruce Wile, has mentioned to me -- unfortunately, he couldn't be here today --
                  that he has tried, in more than 20 occasions -- and I even have e-mails (electronic mail) -- to
                  reach the president of the civic association trying -- for all the young neighbors who live in our
                  community -- to change the guidelines --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And --

                  Mr. Matz: -- and he has never, ever --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that's --

                  Mr. Matz: -- responded to it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the avenue that I think really -- I mean, it's -- you -- your
                  neighborhoods created it; you can amend it, but to put us in a situation where you're going to
                  come in front of us, what's to prevent, you know -- and it's -- I mean, it's -- people don't
                  understand that a historic district can be very, very complicated, but it has its pros and its cons.
                  I mean, your community is beautiful because it's protected; it has rules and regulations --

                  Mr. Matz: And this will make it --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but --

                  Mr. Matz: -- even prettier than it is.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- between you and me, I mean, I would be worried about other things
                  besides hedges --

                  Mr. Matz: Correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but I certainly don't want to be put --

City of Miami                                      Page 106                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: Me, too.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in that situation where you followed the process, and you went in
                  front of the HEP board, and the board denied it 6/0, and now --

                  Mr. Matz: I have --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it's in front of us.

                  Mr. Matz: -- to add one more thing that she did not mention. I've been only once in front of
                  HEP, which was last year, and the year before, when I was cited by Code Enforcement, I was
                  here, and Code Enforcement approved this hedges. They approved it. If you look back -- she
                  never mentioned it. Code Enforcement, which she says is on top of everything, was here, and I
                  was approved by Code Enforcement. You can look in the records.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just hope -- I just would hope that you are able to gather with all
                  those that signed the signature, you have people that are willing to support you on the issue, and
                  sit with your neighbors, and try --

                  Mr. Matz: But not even --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to work this out --

                  Mr. Matz: -- the president --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- instead of coming --

                  Mr. Matz: -- of the civic association --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in front of us.

                  Mr. Matz: -- doesn't respond to us.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, then, you should run for president then, or you should have
                  someone in your neighborhood, you know, run for president, but I mean, to put us in this
                  situation --

                  Mr. Echemendia: If I may, Commissioner Sanchez, just through the Chair a second. This is just
                  like any other appeal that regularly comes in front of you from the Zoning Board or any other
                  body that's --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Mr. Echemendia: -- lower.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it's -- listen.

                  Mr. Echemendia: It's really no different.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but you know what? We live in a nation of laws and rules, and
                  that association, which is their association, established those rules, and what's to say that today
                  it's hedges; tomorrow it's not awnings or whatever?

                  Mr. Echemendia: Commissioner Sanchez, it is significant, though, that you haven't had one

City of Miami                                      Page 107                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  person in opposition. Everybody in the neighborhood is in favor, including 36 residents who live
                  there. I mean, even Elvis is sitting down and hasn't opposed this application for God sakes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, you know what? You --

                  Mr. Echemendia: I mean, don't give him the opportunity now, but --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, but wait, wait --

                  Mr. Echemendia: -- I mean, I think --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- wait.

                  Mr. Echemendia: -- that's significant.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, but listen, listen, but wait a minute. Maybe he needs to
                  stand up and state his position, since he is so involved in the Morningside Homeowner [sic]
                  Association, because the people that are here -- -- and you know, I sympathize with you. I mean,
                  I sympathize with you. I mean, I'm -- once again, I want to make it very clear. I would be
                  worried about other things besides how big my brush around the houses are. Elvis, I'll yield to
                  you.

                  Elvis Cruz: There are many residents who are in favor of maintaining the hedges at the height at
                  which it is now. They are not here, and I did not speak out of respect for Mr. Matz because it's a
                  very socially, awkward thing for neighbor to go up against neighbor, and the only reason I'm
                  standing at the microphone is because I was singled out and, essentially, put on the spot.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But this Commission did not impose -- government should not even get
                  involved on that, to be honest with you, because you impose that in your homeowner association.
                  When I was president of the homeowners association in the Roads, they started to talk about a
                  historic -- in the first meeting that we had, people were smart enough to be asking a lot of
                  questions, and when people found out that if you're going to -- you -- that becomes an historical
                  district and you're going to change a window, and your window was in 1935, you have to get
                  that window, somebody said, “You're out of your mind,” so -- but once again, it does have its
                  pros and cons. I'm not going to argue with you.

                  Mr. Cruz: Commissioner Sanchez, if I can give you 30 seconds of history. On December 20,
                  1984, Morningside became the City of Miami's first historic district.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm aware of that.

                  Mr. Cruz: It has done wonderful things for our neighborhood. For at least the past 15 years, I
                  have asked the Planning departments to please produce a document, a pamphlet, a booklet that,
                  in very simple language, with pictures, shows exactly what the rules are. The problem is we have
                  a lot of new residents that have come into the neighborhood, and they don't get that information,
                  and very sadly, the first time that some of them hear about what the rules are is when they get a
                  letter in the mail, so I would hope that the --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I --

                  Mr. Cruz: -- regulations are upheld and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- make a suggestion?

                  Mr. Cruz: -- that the City produce an informative booklet for the neighbors.

City of Miami                                     Page 108                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I make a suggestion that we defer this item; ask the historic
                  preservation officer to go to a Morningside meeting; to come back to us and let us know what the
                  desires are of the -- of that particular association, and we'll have this record before us, and we
                  can then vote right there. I just --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I hate to see neighbor versus neighbor --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and I hate to see --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and we shouldn't get involved in those --

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- disputes between neighbors.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Chairman González: -- motion on the floor. Is there a second?

                  Commissioner Regalado: I will second that, and I --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- think it's a great idea. I think that our --

                  Chairman González: We have a motion to defer PZ.9, and we have a second, and --

                  Ms. Chiaro: To what --?

                  Chairman González: -- the instruction is to go back to the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Defer.

                  Chairman González: -- neighborhood and have a neighborhood association meeting, and --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm sorry. Who are you, sir?

                  Chairman González: -- come back --

                  William Hopper: President of the neighborhood association.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, come on up. We were waiting for you.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Well, he's here.

                  Chairman González: Well -- but we already --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah --

City of Miami                                     Page 109                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but the item has been deferred, giving you opportunity to sit down
                  with the neighbors and see if you could work it out. I mean, it's --

                  Mr. Hopper: We've been trying for four years.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: For four years?

                  Mr. Hopper: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: What is this, The War of the Roses?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: The war of the hedges.

                  Mr. Hopper: In fact, we worked with the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: For four years --

                  Mr. Hopper: Well, we've -- in terms of --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and I thought we had problems here at the City.

                  Mr. Hopper: Since two thous -- I believe the fall of 2000.

                  Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Excuse me.

                  Chairman González: My God.

                  Ms. Burns: We need your name for --

                  Chairman González: All right. This --

                  Ms. Burns: -- the record, please.

                  Mr. Hopper: I'm sorry. My name is William Hopper.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Four years over hedges.

                  Chairman González: -- this --

                  Mr. Hopper: I reside at 527 Northeast 56th Street --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Four years over hedges.

                  Mr. Hopper: -- and I'm president of the Morningside Civic Association.

                  Chairman González: The district Commissioner just made a decision to defer the item and send
                  the board to the neighborhood to meet with the neighbors and come back and give us some
                  guidance on what the neighbors feel about this issue, and then we will vote on the item, so --

                  Ms. Chiaro: Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: -- we have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say "aye."

City of Miami                                     Page 110                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                  January 25, 2007


                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Mr. --

                  Chairman González: Those opposed have the same right, and I'm going to be taking the last two
                  items before -- yes, ma'am.

                  Mr. Hopper: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Did you defer this to a particular date?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I -- no. We'll let them work it out.

                  Chairman González: March, I guess.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Let's not put it in February, right?

                  Teresita Fernandez (Executive Secretary, Hearing Boards): OK. If you don't --

                  Chairman González: Because February is going to be --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. We already have agenda.

                  Chairman González: At the rate that we're going, we're going to need two months of February -

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Exactly.

                  Ms. Fernandez: They have to pay.

                  Chairman González: -- so to March.

                  Ms. Fernandez Let --

                  Chairman González: First meeting in March.

                  Ms. Fernandez The --

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                  Ms. Fernandez: OK.

                  Commissioner Regalado: But the motion was for the historical --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Preservation.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- preservation --

                  Chairman González: Preservation.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- officer --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- to meet --

City of Miami                                     Page 111                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: With the neighbors.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- with the association, with -- and give us a report. That was the
                  motion.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be a stickler for procedure. If it is not deferred to a date
                  certain, the item has to be readvertised, and the appellate must pay for the re --

                  Chairman González: OK, ma'am --

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- advertisement.

                  Chairman González: -- I think I said for the first meeting in March.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Thank you. I didn't hear you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am, I did.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: In all fairness.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

                  Chairman González: All right. I'm going to be taking the last two items before --

                  Commissioner Regalado: And besides -- correction. We had, many years ago, more people and
                  more controversy about a similar case with the Stallonegate, and I remem -- I was here.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You've been here that long?

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, I was here. I was here with the Stallonegate. We had 400
                  people here.

                  Chairman González: Four hundred people.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's like 14 years ago.

PZ.10 05-00767    ORDINANCE                                                                    Second Reading
                  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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                  THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865 SOUTHWEST 22ND
                  TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO
                  "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL;" MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
                  TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER
                  PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                  EFFECTIVE DATE.



City of Miami                                     Page 112                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007

                         05-00767 Legislation.pdf
                         05-00767 & 05-00767a Exhibit A.pdf
                         05-00767 Analysis.pdf
                         05-00767 Land Use Map.pdf
                         05-00767 & 05-00767a Aerial Map.pdf
                         05-00767 School Impact Review Analysis.pdf
                         05-00767 PAB Reso.pdf
                         05-00767 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                         05-00767 FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                         05-00767 SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                        LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas
                        Regalado - District 4]

                        APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc.

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City
                        Commission on July 20, 2005 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID
                        05-00767a.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Restricted Commercial.
                        Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this matter
                        be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence-Jones

                        12877
                        Chairman González: All right. PZ.10 and PZ.11, which are companion. Is there anyone in
                        opposition to PZ.9 and PZ.10? These items are in Allapattah and --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: 10 and 11.

                        Chairman González: -- almost positive that they will be --

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: 10 and 11, Mr. Chair.

                        Chairman González: Huh?

                        Commissioner Regalado: 10 and 11.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: 10 and 11.

                        Chairman González: I'm sorry, 10 and 11, you're right. 10 and 11. Sorry.

                        Commissioner Regalado: It's in District 4, and it's second reading.

                        Chairman González: It's second reading. Anyone in opposition on PZ.10 and 11? OK, I see no
                        opposition.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

City of Miami                                           Page 113                                   Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: Yes, sir. Let him --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make a motion. No. This is second reading already.

                  Chairman González: This is second reading.

                  Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, it's second reading. It was
                  presented completely at first reading, yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: OK.

                  Chairman González: We had a full presentation on the first meeting, is that correct, because I
                  don't --

                  Mr. Lavernia: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: -- even remember, going through so many items?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: I --

                  Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- move to approve on second reading.

                  Chairman González: It's an ordinance. No, it's -- PZ.10 is a resolution. All in favor, say "aye."

                  Commissioner Regalado: No. PZ.10 --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Oh, no, it's an ordinance.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- is an ordinance.

                  Chairman González: No. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) one at a time.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Read the ordinance into the record --

                  Chairman González: It's an ordinance.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- Madam Attorney.

                  Chairman González: PZ.10 --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: PZ.10.

                  Chairman González: -- is an ordinance.



City of Miami                                     Page 114                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): PZ.10.

                  The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                  Chiaro.

                  Chairman González: Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I made a mistake. I made a
                  mistake. PZ.10 and 11 are your items.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: So -- all right. Good. No, because I said those items are in Allapattah.

                  Commissioner Regalado: No, no, no, no, no, no. You're talking of the next two.

                  Chairman González: The next one, OK.

                  Commissioner Regalado: No, no. I --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- that's what I said, it's second reading, and we had the presentation.

                  Chairman González: All right, so Madam City Clerk.

                  Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                  A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                  Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0.

PZ.11 05-00767a   ORDINANCE                                                                  Second Reading
                  AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                  ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                  ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                  CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
                  DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
                  FROM "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED
                  COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-23" CORAL WAY SPECIAL OVERLAY
                  DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2865
                  SOUTHWEST 22ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY
                  DESCRIBED IN "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND
                  A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                      Page 115                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007

                         05-00767a Legislation.pdf
                         05-00767 & 05-00767a Exhibit A.pdf
                         05-00767a Analysis.pdf
                         05-00767a Zoning Map.pdf
                         05-00767 & 05-00767a Aerial Map.pdf
                         05-00767a ZB Reso.pdf
                         05-00767a Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                         05-00767a FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                         05-00767a SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                        LOCATION: Approximately 2865 SW 22nd Terrace [Commissioner Tomas
                        Regalado - District 4]

                        APPLICANT(S): Kon N. Lee, President, on behalf of Four Dragons, Inc.

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                        ZONING BOARD: Made a recommendation of approval, which failed due to the
                        failure to obtain the required five affirmative votes, constituting a
                        recommendation of denial to City Commission on September 12, 2005 by a
                        vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 05-00767.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above property to C-1 Restricted Commercial
                        with an SD-23 Coral Way Special Overlay District.


                        Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this matter
                        be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence-Jones

                        12878
                        Chairman González: PZ.11 is also a second reading.

                        Commissioner Regalado: I'll move it.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                        Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's also an ordinance.

                        The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                        Chiaro.

                        Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                        Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                        A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                        Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0.

PZ.12 06-01058lu        ORDINANCE                                                                  Second Reading
                        AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
City of Miami                                            Page 116                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                              January 25, 2007

                        ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
                        FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
                        NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                        THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2862-64, 2900, 2908,
                        2922 AND 2930 NORTHWEST 22ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM
                        "MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED
                        COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO
                        AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
                        SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                         06-01058lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Analysis.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                         06-01058lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                         06-01058lu Letter of Intent.pdf
                         06-01058lu - Application Documents.pdf
                         06-01058zc Warranty Deeds.pdf
                         06-01058lu PAB Reso.PDF
                         06-01058lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                         06-01058lu & 06-01058zc Exhibit A.pdf
                         06-01058lu CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-01058lu CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                        LOCATION: Approximately 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 and 2930 NW 22nd
                        Avenue [Commissioner Angel González - District 1]

                        APPLICANT(S): Suzanne Besú, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on
                        behalf of Santo Antonio Holdings, Inc., Contract Purchaser

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to
                        obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor to the City Commission on July
                        19, 2006 by a vote of 4-5. See companion File ID 06-01058zc.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial.
                        Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be
                        ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence-Jones

                        12879
                        Chairman González: All right.

                        Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much.

                        Chairman González: PZ.12.

                        Unidentified Speaker: Thank you.

City of Miami                                           Page 117                               Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                   Commissioner Regalado: That's the one in Allapattah.

                   Chairman González: PZ.12 is the one in Allapattah. Is there anyone in opposition here for
                   PZ.12 and PZ.13? All right. Seeing none, hearing none, I'm closing the public hearing. Would
                   you make a motion?

                   Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move, Mr. Chair, PZ.12.

                   Chairman González: All right.

                   Commissioner Sarnoff: Second.

                   Chairman González: We have a motion --

                   Commissioner Sarnoff: Second.

                   Chairman González: -- and we have a second. It's an ordinance, Madam City Clerk [sic].

                   The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                   Chiaro.

                   Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                   Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                   A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                   Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0.

PZ.13 06-01058zc   ORDINANCE                                                                  Second Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 19, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF
                   DISTRICT REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
                   FROM "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1"
                   RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 AND 2930 NORTHWEST 22ND
                   AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
                   "EXHIBIT A," CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01058zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-01058zc Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01058zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01058zc Letter of Intent.pdf
                   06-01058zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01058zc ZB 09-11-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01058zc ZB 11-13-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01058zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01058zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01058lu & 06-01058zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01058zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01058zc CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf
City of Miami                                       Page 118                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                        LOCATION: Approximately 2862-64, 2900, 2908, 2922 and 2930 NW 22nd
                        Avenue [Commissioner Angel González - District 1]

                        APPLICANT(S): Suzanne Besú, Esquire and Bob de la Fuente, Esquire, on
                        behalf of Santo Antonio Holdings, Inc., Contract Purchaser

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                        ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November
                        13, 2006 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 06-01058lu.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                        Commercial.


                        Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be
                        ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez and Regalado
                        Absent: 1 - Commissioner Spence-Jones

                        12880
                        Chairman González: PZ.13 is also -- requires also a public hearing. Anyone from the public
                        that wants to speak on PZ.13, please come forward and be recognized. Seeing none, hearing
                        none, the public hearing is closed.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move.

                        Chairman González: We have a motion --

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Second, I'm sorry.

                        Chairman González: -- and we have a second. It's an ordinance. Madam City Attorney, it's an
                        ordinance.

                        The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                        Chiaro.

                        Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                        Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                        A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                        Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been adopted on second reading, 4/0.

                        Unidentified Speaker: Thank you very much.

                        Chairman González: All right.

                        Commissioner Regalado: All right.

PZ.14 06-01403zt        ORDINANCE                                                                  Second Reading

City of Miami                                            Page 119                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE
                   URBAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN
                   DRI AREA; PROVIDING FOR A HEIGHT INCREASE FOR THE PROVISION
                   OF PUBLIC PARKING IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED OFF STREET
                   PARKING REQUIREMENTS; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01403zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01403zt - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-01403zt PAB Reso.pdf
                   06-01403zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01403zt CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01403zt CC SR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf
                   06-01403zt CC SR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                   Miami

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommend approval to City Commission on
                   September 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0.

                   PURPOSE: This will provide a height increase for public parking in excess of
                   the required off-street parking requirements in the C-2 zoning district when
                   located within the Urban Central Business District outside of the Downtown DRI.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.14 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for March 22, 2007.

PZ.15 06-01057zc   ORDINANCE                                                                  First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 23, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL WITH AN "SD-20.1" EDGEWATER
                   OVERLAY DISTRICT AND "SD-19" DESIGNATED F.A.R. OVERLAY
                   DISTRICT, WITH AN INCREASE OF THE F.A.R. TO 3.0, TO "SD-6"
                   CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND "SD-20.1"
                   EDGEWATER OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 1756 AND 1770 NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE, AND
                   1751-61-71-77 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                    Page 120                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   06-01057zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-01057zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01057zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01057zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01057zc Application & Supporting Docs #2.pdf
                   06-01057zc ZB Fact Sheet 07-10-06.pdf
                   06-01057zc ZB Fact Sheet 09-11-06.pdf
                   06-01057zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01057zc CC Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01057zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01057zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 10-26-06.pdf
                   06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf
                   06-01057zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 1756 and 1770 NE 4th Avenue, and 1751-61-71-77
                   Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                   APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of V Downtown,
                   Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on September
                   11, 2006 by a vote of 5-1.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to SD-6 Central
                   Commercial-Residential District and SD-20.1 Edgewater Overlay District.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.15 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.16 06-00830lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1000 SOUTHWEST 30TH
                   AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO
                   "MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS;
                   DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
                   REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
                   FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                    Page 121                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   06-00830lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00830lu - Analysis.pdf
                   06-00830lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-00830lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                   06-00830lu - Zoning Map.PDF
                   06-00830lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                   06-00830lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-00830lu - Application Documents.pdf
                   06-00830lu PAB Reso.PDF
                   06-00830lu CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf
                   06-00830lu & 06-00830zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-00830lu CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 1000 SW 30th Avenue [Commissioner Tomas
                   Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Fernando and
                   Flor Garcia Tuñon

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission
                   on October 18, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00830zc.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Medium Density Multifamily
                   Residential.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.16 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.17 06-00830zc   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 40, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIFAMILY
                   MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 1000 SOUTHWEST 30TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
                   CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                   EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-00830zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-00830zc Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-00830zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-00830zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-00830zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00830zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-00830zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-00830lu & 06-00830zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-00830zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf


City of Miami                                    Page 122                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                   LOCATION: Approximately 1000 SW 30th Avenue [Commissioner Tomas
                   Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Ines Marrero-Priegues, Esquire, on behalf of Fernando and
                   Flor Garcia Tuñon

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on October 30,
                   2006 by a vote of 5-0. See companion File ID 06-00830lu.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-3 Multifamily
                   Medium-Density Residential.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.17 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.18 06-01238lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2735 AND 2745
                   NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND A PORTION OF 2700 NORTHWEST 15TH
                   STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO
                   "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
                   TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER
                   PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                   EFFECTIVE DATE.

                   06-01238lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01238lu - PAB Analysis.pdf
                   06-01238lu - PAB Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-01238lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                   06-01238lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01238lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                   06-01238lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-01238lu - PAB Application Documents.pdf
                   06-01238lu PAB Reso.PDF
                   06-01238lu CC Analysis.PDF
                   06-01238lu CC Concurrency.PDF
                   06-01238lu CC Application & Supporting Docs.PDF
                   06-01238lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01238lu 06-01238zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01238lu CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01238lu CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 2735 and 2745 NW 14th Street and a Portion of
                   2700 NW 15th Street [Commissioner Angel González - District 1]

City of Miami                                    Page 123                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                    Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                        APPLICANT(S): Matthew V. Rigg, President, on behalf of 1490 Plus, Inc.

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on
                        September 20, 2006 by a vote of 6-0. See companion File ID 06-01238zc.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial.
                        Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this matter
                        be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones

                        Chairman González: All right. I have an item which is -- supposedly, it's not going to be
                        controversial, PZ.18. I'm trying to clean up the agenda as much as I can. PZ.18.

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: I thought that was pulled.

                        Chairman González: No. That's an item in my district, but I have certain concerns. This is an
                        R-Z lot --

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, sir.

                        Chairman González: -- OK?

                        Mr. Lavernia: The request is from R-2 to C-1.

                        Chairman González: OK. If we grant C-1, they will be able to build a building in that lot?

                        Mr. Lavernia: Unless that they proffer a covenant saying that the only thing that they are going
                        to build in that lot is duplex, which is the designation that they have today.

                        Chairman González: Let me tell you. The only thing that I'm going to support there is a duplex,
                        whatever we used to have there before, because that's duplex and residential, and I will not --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: 18.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: 18?

                        Chairman González: -- support or approve a building next to a duplex or a residence, so --

                        Mr. Lavernia: The building that is -- that already is facing 27th Avenue, between 15 -- 14 and
                        15. There's an existing building in there that have parking on the back. The parking --

                        Chairman González: One --

                        Mr. Lavernia: -- is grandfathered in without the zoning designation, the proper zoning
                        designation.

                        Chairman González: OK. What we have there is we have a children and family building on the
                        --

                        Mr. Lavernia: Exactly.

                        Chairman González: -- corner --

City of Miami                                           Page 124                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Lavernia: Exactly.

                  Chairman González: -- of 15 and 27.

                  Mr. Lavernia: Yes.

                  Chairman González: Then we have a gas station. Behind the build -- the children and family
                  building we have a parking lot.

                  Mr. Lavernia: That's the applicant that you have in front of you today requesting to legalize the
                  use of parking in there and adding two lots. We tried to work with an SD-12 in order for him to
                  legalize the parking, but he can't comply with the condition of SD-12 because he cannot provide
                  the access form the commercial area or the 20 feet that they have in there, so --

                  Chairman González: OK. What I need, the bottom line, is protection for the residents, for the
                  owners of the duplex and the residences.

                  Mr. Lavernia: So I'm going to give the applicant --

                  Chairman González: You provide me protection for those residents, and I'll -- you know, I'll
                  move it. If not --

                  Mr. Lavernia: The applicant is going to put on the record that the only thing that they are going
                  to build in there is duplex uses and parking.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Well, I move the ordinance, in behalf of the Chairman, with a
                  covenant.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: With a what?

                  Chairman González: With a covenant.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Especially the terms of the --

                  Chairman González: Parking lot.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- only duplex or parking.

                  Chairman González: Or parking.

                  Matthew Rigg: Correct, correct. I'll make this very brief; I know you're in a hurry. The two lots
                  that we are requesting to add to our existing parking are adjacent to that parking, and they're
                  adjacent to another duplex lot which is also complying as a parking lot, so our immediate
                  neighbors on one side is the street, on the other side is a parking lot, and on the other side is a
                  parking lot. There is a duplex immediately west of us, and I might add that one of our employees
                  lives in that duplex. You know, all of our -- we've had to go through a long process, Zoning and
                  Planning. I don't want C-1. I don't want to build buildings. All I want to do is put a parking lot
                  and expand my parking lot for the Department of Children and Families --

                  Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Sorry. I --

                  Mr. Rigg: -- and I have covenant. I had presented a covenant, which says we will only use it for
                  R-2 and/or for parking, and it's been approved by all of the City --



City of Miami                                     Page 125                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: If they ever decide that they want to do something different, they will have
                  to come back to this Commission, right?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for the record, would you state your name and address?

                  Mr. Rigg: Sorry. My name is Matthew Rigg. I'm president of 1490 Plus, Inc., which is a
                  corporation which owns both the two lots -- actually, there are two corporations, but we have
                  unity of title between the building and the parking lot behind it, which is a single lot, but only the
                  front hundred feet of it is zoned commercial. Because the back part was zoned R-2, but has been
                  complying legally as a parking lot for over 30 years. It was Janet Reno's office, so we are
                  adjacent to other R-2 zoned lots --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Rigg: -- but they had been used as parking and legally for the past --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. I would --

                  Mr. Rigg: -- 20 or 30 years.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- second it, with the condition that has been proffered by the maker of
                  the motion, and therefore, you still have to go through all the permits and stuff, so all right.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. It's an ordinance, but
                  before reading the ordinance, is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on this item?
                  Please come forward to be recognized. All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Recess.

                  Chairman González: Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Madam City
                  Attorney, read the ordinance.

                  The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                  Chiaro.

                  Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                  Ms. Burns: Roll call.

                  A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                  Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been approved on first reading, 5/0. Is that with modifications?

                  Chairman González: With the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: With the conditions.

                  Ms. Chiaro: No, no.



City of Miami                                       Page 126                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007

                   Commissioner Regalado: Covenant.

                   Mr. Lavernia: With a covenant.

                   Chairman González: With a covenant that has been proffered. Yes, ma'am.

                   Mr. Lavernia: There's no modification. It's approval with the covenant.

                   Chairman González: With the covenant.

                   Mr. Lavernia: Accepting the covenant.

                   Chairman González: Accepting the covenant, OK.

PZ.19 06-01238zc   ORDINANCE                                                                 First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 26, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
                   FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2735 AND 2745
                   NORTHWEST 14TH STREET AND A PORTION OF 2700 NORTHWEST 15TH
                   STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
                   PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01238zc CC Analysis.pdf
                   06-01238zc Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01238zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01238zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01238zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01238zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01238zc CC Analysis.PDF
                   06-01238zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01238lu 06-01238zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01238zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01238zc CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 2735 and 2745 NW 14th Street and a Portion of
                   2700 NW 15th Street [Commissioner Angel González - District 1]

                   APPLICANT(S): Matthew V. Rigg, President, on behalf of 1490 Plus, Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 30,
                   2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-01238lu.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                   Commercial.


                   Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, that this
                   matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
City of Miami                                       Page 127                                 Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007

                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones

                        Commissioner Regalado: PZ.19.

                        Chairman González: All right. We --

                        Commissioner Regalado: 19 is the companion.

                        Chairman González: Pardon me?

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: 19 is the companion.

                        Commissioner Regalado: Has a companion.

                        Chairman González: There is a companion?

                        Roberto Lavernia (Chief of Land Development, Planning): Yes, sir. 19 is the companion item.

                        Chairman González: OK. 19.

                        Commissioner Regalado: Move it.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                        Chairman González: We have a motion, and we have a second. It's a public hearing. Anyone
                        from the public that wants to speak on the item, please come forward to be recognized. Seeing
                        none, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Read the ordinance, please.

                        The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                        Chiaro.

                        Commissioner Regalado: Roll call, please.

                        Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call.

                        A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.

                        Ms. Burns: The ordinance has been approved on first reading, 5/0.

                        Chairman González: Thank you. All right. We're going to be taking a recess. For those that
                        are here for the other items, the rest of the agenda, except PZ.37 and PZ.38, is going to be
                        continued until February 22, so those that are here for other items need to know that they won't
                        be heard today; there won't be time, and at 10 p.m. tonight we will adjourn, so we're going to
                        open at 5 o'clock PZ.37 and PZ.38, and we're going to be here until 10 p.m. Ten p.m. we will
                        adjourn. Thank you. We're going to take a 15-minute recess.

PZ.20 06-01433zc        ORDINANCE                                                                       First Reading
                        AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                        ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 14, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                        ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                        CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                        REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                        "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3"
                        MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" BUFFER
                        OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
City of Miami                                            Page 128                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   APPROXIMATELY 621-625 AND 645 NORTHEAST 64TH TERRACE, MIAMI,
                   FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
                   AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01433zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-01433zc Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01433zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01433zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01433zc ZB 10-30-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01433zc ZB 11-13-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01433zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01433zc Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01433zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01433zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 621-625 and 645 NE 64th Terrace [Commissioner
                   Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                   APPLICANT(S): Adrienne F. Pardo, Esquire, on behalf of Grec Luis
                   Development, Ltd., Contract Purchaser, and Grec/Luis II, Ltd. and Terra
                   Urbana, Ltd., Owners

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission on November
                   13, 2006 by a vote of 6-1.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to R-3 Multifamily
                   Medium-Density Residential with an SD-12 Buffer Overlay District.

                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.20 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.21 06-02104zt   PAB RESOLUTION
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF
                   THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6, SECTION
                   626, "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT; IN ORDER
                   TO CREATE THE "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY
                   DISTRICT, ADD AN INTENT STATEMENT, CREATE SPECIAL
                   DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS ON USES, AND TO
                   REQUIRE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMITS FOR EXTERIOR WORK;
                   CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND SEVERABILITY
                   CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

                   06-02104zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-02104zt - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-02104zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-02104zt CC FR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf
                   06-02104zt CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

City of Miami                                    Page 129                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                   APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                   Miami

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Pending recommendation on February 21,
                   2007. See companion File ID 06-02104zc.

                   PURPOSE: This will create the SD-26 22nd Avenue Special Overlay District
                   and add special district requirements.

                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.21 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.22 06-02104zc   PAB RESOLUTION
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S) AMENDING PAGE NO. 34, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
                   WITH AN "SD-26" 22ND AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE
                   PROPERTIES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ALONG 22ND AVENUE
                   BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET AND NORTHWEST 1ST STREET
                   (COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND ADDRESSES ON FILE WITH
                   HEARING BOARDS); MIAMI, FLORIDA, MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A
                   REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
                   FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-02104zc- PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-02104zc - SD-26 Special District Zoning.pdf
                   06-02104zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-02104zc - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-02104zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-02104zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-02104zc CC FR Fact Sheet 12-14-06.pdf
                   06-02104zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                   Miami

                   LOCATION: Approximately Along 22nd Avenue Between SW 8th Street and
                   NW 1st Street [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3]

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Pending recommendation on February 21,
                   2007. See companion File ID 06-02104zt.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
City of Miami                                    Page 130                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   Commercial with an SD-26 22nd Avenue Special Overlay District.

                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.22 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.23 06-02044zt   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6,
                   SECTION 606, CONCERNING THE SD-6, SD-6.1 CENTRAL
                   COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO PERMIT PUBLIC
                   STORAGE FACILITIES LOCATED IN A BUILDING THAT IS 150 FEET OR
                   LESS FROM A MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AS ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF
                   EXISTING BUILDINGS BY CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT, AND SECTION 615
                   CONCERNING SD-15 RIVER QUADRANT MIXED-USE DISTRICT IN ORDER
                   TO PERMIT PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES LOCATED IN A BUILDING THAT
                   IS 150 FEET OR LESS FROM A MAJOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAY BY CLASS
                   II SPECIAL PERMIT; AND ALSO IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE AFFORDABLE
                   HOUSING CONTRIBUTION IN THE SD-15 DISTRICT; CONTAINING A
                   REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR
                   AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-02044zt - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-02044zt - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-02044zt PAB Reso.PDF
                   06-02044zt CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-02044zt CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                   Miami

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommendation approval.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to the City
                   Commission on November 15, 2006 by a vote of 5-0.

                   PURPOSE: This will allow certain public storage facilities by Class II Special
                   Permit in the SD-6, SD-6.1 and SD-15 zoning districts and will modify the
                   affordable housing contribution in the SD-15 district.

                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.23 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.24 06-02178     ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, CREATING A NEW
                   SUBSECTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING
                   ORDINANCE 11000, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 9 ENTITLED "GENERAL AND
                   SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS," SECTION 906, ENTITLED
                   "ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES," PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
                   STATUTE SECTION 509.233, RELATED TO PUBLIC FOOD SERVICE
City of Miami                                    Page 131                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                   Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                        ESTABLISHMENTS, PROVIDING FOR A THREE-YEAR DOG-FRIENDLY
                        DINING PILOT PROGRAM TO ALLOW DOGS IN APPROVED OUTDOOR
                        SEATING AREAS OF SUCH FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS AND
                        PROVIDING FOR NECESSARY ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION AND
                        ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION,
                        A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                         06-02178 - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-02178 - PAB Legislation.pdf
                         06-02178 PAB Reso.PDF
                         06-02178 CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                         06-02178 CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-02178 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

                        APPLICANT(S): Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager, on behalf of the City of
                        Miami

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval to City Commission
                        on December 6, 2006 by a vote of 6-0.

                        PURPOSE: This will allow dogs in approved outdoor seating areas.
                        Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be
                        PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner González, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence-Jones

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Chairman, is there any way that we could hear PZ.24?

                        Chairman González: Yes. It's non --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Oh, that's the one --

                        Chairman González: -- controversial, right?

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that dog lovers are howling all over?

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, you are exactly.

                        Chairman González: It's not -- that's not controversial (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: That's not what?

                        Chairman González: Controversial?

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: No.

                        Commissioner Sarnoff: No, no.

                        Chairman González: All right. PZ.24.

                        Commissioner Regalado: Well --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

City of Miami                                           Page 132                                    Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Regalado: -- controversial, the cats --

                  Chairman González: The cats are going to be complaining, right?

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- will be against it.

                  Chairman González: Will be complaining.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, I --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yeah, because --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- hear the cat --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- it's only for dogs.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- lobbyists are furious.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: There's an equal protection argument here.

                  Chairman González: PZ.24.

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): PZ.24 is an ordinance that incorporates the
                  standards in state law, which allows for restaurants with certain outdoor dining areas to apply
                  for a permit to permit dogs to dine with their owners -- I'm sorry, to permit dogs, with their
                  owners, at restaurants if the restaurant has a permit and has submitted the requirements under
                  the ordinance. This was requested by the Commission. It went to the PAB (Planning Advisory
                  Board). It had -- it was approved at the Planning Advisory Board. It needs to be part of your
                  land use regulations. It is thus on your Planning & Zoning agenda, and we would like to add,
                  when it comes back to you on second reading, if it's approved on first reading, that the permits
                  be approved through a Class I process.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And that's a three-year pilot program for man's best friend, 21 dogy
                  years.

                  Commissioner Regalado: And besides --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No pun intended.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- you know, this is a state law.

                  Ms. Chiaro: It's the --

                  Commissioner Regalado: The state has passed --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Correct, the enabling legislation.

                  Chairman González: We have a --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen, I would move the item.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion --

City of Miami                                     Page 133                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                   Commissioner Sarnoff: Second.

                   Chairman González: -- and we have a second. I guess it's a resolution, right?

                   Vice Chairman Sanchez: I would raise my paw.

                   Ms. Chiaro: It is an ordinance.

                   Chairman González: Pardon me?

                   Ms. Chiaro: It's an ordinance.

                   Chairman González: It's an ordinance? OK. Read the ordinance.

                   The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                   Chiaro.

                   Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                   Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Spence-Jones?

                   Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                   Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado?

                   Commissioner Regalado: Yes.

                   Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff?

                   Commissioner Sarnoff: On behalf of Xena, Zoe, Plug, Buddy, and in memory of Petey, yes.

                   Commissioner Regalado: Wow.

                   Chairman González: All right.

                   Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez?

                   Vice Chairman Sanchez: Whoof. Yes.

                   Ms. Burns: Chairman González?

                   Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                   Ms. Burns: The ordinance has passed on first reading, 5/0.

PZ.25 06-00397lu   ORDINANCE                                                                       First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 21-23 & 31-33
                   SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT AND 20-22 & 30-32 SOUTHWEST 52ND
                   AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY
                   RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS;
City of Miami                                        Page 134                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
                   REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
                   FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-00397lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00397lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-00397lu - Analysis.pdf
                   06-00397lu - PAB Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-00397lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                   06-00397lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-00397lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                   06-00397lu - PAB Application Documents.pdf
                   06-00397lu PAB Reso.pdf
                   06-00397lu CC Concurrency Report.PDF
                   06-00397lu CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-00397lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-00397lu & 06-00397zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-00397lu CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 21-23 & 31-33 SW 52nd Court and 20-22 & 30-32
                   SW 52nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Rick D. Ruiz, on behalf of Francisco & Teresa Permuy and
                   Guillermo Permuy, Owners

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on
                   June 7, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00397zc.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.25 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.26 06-00397zc   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 31, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-3" MULTIFAMILY MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "C-1"
                   RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 21-23 & 31-33 SOUTHWEST 52ND COURT AND 20-22 &
                   30-32 SOUTHWEST 52ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                    Page 135                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   06-00397zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB 07-10-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB 09-25-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00397zc ZB 10-16-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00397c ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-00397zc CC Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-00397zc CC Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-00397zc CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-00397zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-00397lu & 06-00397zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-00397zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 21-23 & 31-33 SW 52nd Court and 20-22 & 30-32
                   SW 52nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Rick D. Ruiz, on behalf of Francisco & Teresa Permuy and
                   Guillermo Permuy, Owners

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   ZONING BOARD: Made a motion to recommend approval, which failed (due to
                   the failure to obtain five affirmative votes), constituting a recommendation of
                   denial to City Commission on October 16, 2006 by a vote of 2-4. See
                   companion File ID 06-00397lu.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                   Commercial.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.26 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.27 06-00829lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 399 NORTHEAST 82ND
                   TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO
                   "MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS;
                   DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
                   REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
                   FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                    Page 136                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   06-00829lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-00829lu - Analysis.pdf
                   06-00829lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-00829lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                   06-00829lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-00829lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                   06-00829lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-00829lu - PAB Application Documents.pdf
                   06-00829lu PAB Reso.PDF
                   06-00829lu CC School Impact Review Analysis.pdf
                   06-00829lu CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-00829lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-00829lu & 06-00829zc Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-00829lu CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 399 NE 82nd Terrace [Commissioner Michelle
                   Spence-Jones - District 5]

                   APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Katia Traikos,
                   Owner

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on
                   June 21, 2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-00829zc.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above property to Medium-Density Multifamily
                   Residential.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.27 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.28 06-00829zc   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 9, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO "R-3" MULTIFAMILY
                   MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 399 NORTHEAST 82ND TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
                   CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                   EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                    Page 137                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                            Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                  06-00829zc Analysis.pdf
                  06-00829zc Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-00829zc Aerial Map.pdf
                  06-00829zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                  06-00829zc ZB 07-10-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-00829zc ZB 09-11-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-00829zc ZB 10-16-06 Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-00829zc ZB Reso.PDF
                  06-00829zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                  06-00829lu & 06-00829zc Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-00829zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 399 NE 82nd Terrace [Commissioner Michelle
                  Spence-Jones - District 5]

                  APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Katia Traikos,
                  Owner

                  FINDINGS:
                  PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                  ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 16,
                  2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-00829lu.

                  PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-3 Multifamily
                  Medium-Density Residential.

                  CONTINUED

                  Item PZ.28 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                  2007.

PZ.29 06-01243mu RESOLUTION
                  A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS,
                  APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT
                  PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 13 AND 17 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000,
                  AS AMENDED, FOR THE OMNI DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TO BE
                  LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1501-1701 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD,
                  MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-BUILDING MIXED-USE
                  DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 584 FEET
                  TO 644 FEET TO BE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 4,208 TOTAL
                  MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH RECREATIONAL AMENITIES;
                  APPROXIMATELY 350,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE; AND
                  APPROXIMATELY 6,154 TOTAL PARKING SPACES; DIRECTING
                  TRANSMITTAL; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
                  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT;
                  CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                  EFFECTIVE DATE.




City of Miami                                   Page 138                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                          Meeting Minutes                                January 25, 2007

                  06-01243mu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-01243mu - PAB Analysis.pdf
                  06-01243mu - 3D Photo.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Projects in the Vicinity.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Traffic Sufficiency Letter (6.29.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - UDRB Resolution (6.21.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - Large Scale Development Committee Sign-In Sheet (5.24.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - Miami-Dade County Planning Comments (5.17.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - School Board Comments (5.17.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - Public Works Comments (5.4.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - MDAD Planning Comments (5.3.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - Solid Waste Comments (5.1.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet (4.4.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - IDRC Comments (3.14.06).pdf
                  06-01243mu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-01243mu - Exhibit B.pdf
                  06-01243mu PAB Reso.PDF
                  06-01243mu - Front Cover.PDF
                  06-01243mu - Inside Cover.PDF
                  06-01243mu - Table of Contents (I to III).PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - A Letter of Intent.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - B Major Use Special Permit Application.pdf
                  06-01243mu - I - C Zoning Write Up.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - D Zoning Atlas.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - E Project Data Sheet.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - F Deed-Computer.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - G Ownership List.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I -I Directory of Project Principals.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I - H State of Florida Documents.PDF
                  06-01243mu - I Project Information (A to I).PDF
                  06-01243mu - II Project Description (A Zoning Ordinance No. 11000, 1 to 4).PDF
                  06-01243mu - III Supporting Documents (Tab 1 to Tab 6).PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 1 Minority Construction Employment Plan.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Sufficiency Letter-Traffic Impact Analysis(Appendix A to K).PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix A Methodology Correspondence.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix B Traffic Count Data.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix C Miami-Dade Transit Data.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix D Existing Conditions (2006).PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix E Growth Trend Analyses.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix F Cardinal Trip Distribution.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix G Volume Development Worksheets.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix H Future Conditions(2020 without Project).PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix J Driveway Queuing Analysis.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 2 Appendix K Future Project Information.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 3 Site Utility Study.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 4 Econimic Impact Study.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 5 Survey of Property.PDF
                  06-01243mu - III - Tab 6 Drawings Submitted.PDF
                  06-01243mu CC Analysis.pdf
                  06-01243mu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
City of Miami                                 Page 139                                   Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                            Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                  06-01243mu CC Fact Sheet 11-09-06.pdf
                  06-01243mu CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 1501-1701 Biscayne Boulevard [Commissioner
                  Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                  APPLICANT(S): Javier F. Aviño, Esquire, on behalf of Downtown Miami Mall,
                  LLC and Downtown Miami Hotel, LLC

                  FINDINGS:
                  PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with conditions*.
                  PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended approval with conditions*
                  (excluding conditions 11b and 11c) to City Commission on September 20, 2006
                  by a vote of 6-0.
                  *See supporting documentation.

                  PURPOSE: This will allow the development of the Omni Development project.
                  CONTINUED

                  Item PZ.29 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                  2007.

PZ.30 06-01640x   RESOLUTION
                  A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                  ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR
                  REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING
                  OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO.
                  11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
                  ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES OF C-1
                  RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL (15), TO ALLOW SALES OF USED
                  AUTOMOBILES, SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CRITERIA, FOR THE
                  PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2220 NORTHEAST 2ND
                  AVENUE AND 180 AND 186 NORTHEAST 23RD STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA.

                  06-01640x Analysis.pdf
                  06-01640x Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-01640x Aerial Map.pdf
                  06-01640x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                  06-01640x Plans.pdf
                  06-01640x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-01640x ZB Reso.PDF
                  06-01640x Appeal Letter.PDF
                  06-01640x CC Legislation (Verison 3).pdf
                  06-01640x Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-01640x CC Legislation (Verison 4).pdf
                  06-01640x Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-01640x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 2220 NE 2nd Avenue and 180 and 186 NE 23rd
                  Street [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff - District 2]

                  APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Mark A. LeVine, Esquire, on behalf of Liliana
City of Miami                                   Page 140                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   Murillo, on behalf of Chris Kwangwari, Owner

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the appeal and
                   approval with conditions* of the Special Exception.
                   ZONING BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on October 30, 2006 by a vote
                   of 4-2.
                   *See supporting documentation.

                   PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a used-car dealership.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.30 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.31 06-01847lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3209 SOUTHWEST
                   23RD TERRACE AND A PORTION OF 2340 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE,
                   MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED
                   COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO
                   AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-00847lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01847lu - Analysis.pdf
                   06-01847lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-01847lu - Comp Plan -revised.pdf
                   06-01847lu - Zoning Map -revised (1).pdf
                   06-01847lu - Aerial.pdf
                   06-01847lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-01847lu - Application Documents.pdf
                   06-01847lu- Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01847lu PAB Reso.PDF
                   06-01847lu CC Application Supporting Docs.PDF
                   06-01847lu CC School Impact Review Analysis.pdf
                   06-01847lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01847lu CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01847lu CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 3209 SW 23rd Terrace and a Portion of 2340 SW
                   32nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire and Estrellita Sibila, Esquire, on
                   behalf of Renaissance at the Gables, Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on
                   December 6, 2006 by a vote of 4-2. See companion File ID 06-01847zc.
City of Miami                                    Page 141                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007


                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial for
                   the proposed One Major Use Special Permit.

                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.31 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.32 06-01847zc   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 42, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-2" TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" SPECIAL BUFFER
                   OVERLAY DISTRICT TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE
                   PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3209 SOUTHWEST 23RD
                   TERRACE AND A PORTION OF 2340 SOUTHWEST 32ND AVENUE, MIAMI,
                   FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
                   AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01847zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-01847zc ZB Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01847zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01847zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01847zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01847zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01847zc CC Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01847zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01847zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01847zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 3209 SW 23rd Terrace and a Portion of 2340 SW
                   32nd Avenue [Commissioner Tomas Regalado - District 4]

                   APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire and Estrellita Sibila, Esquire, on
                   behalf of Renaissance at the Gables, Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on November 13,
                   2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companion File ID 06-01847lu.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                   Commercial for the proposed One Major Use Special Permit.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.32 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.33 06-01056lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
City of Miami                                    Page 142                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
                   FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
                   NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1292 SOUTHWEST
                   21ST TERRACE AND 2149 SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
                   FROM "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL";
                   MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED
                   AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY
                   CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01056lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Analysis.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Exhibit C.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01056lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                   06-01056lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                   06-01056lu - PAB Application Documents.pdf
                   06-01056lu PAB Reso.pdf
                   06-01056lu CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01056lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01056lu 06-01056zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01056lu CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 1292 SW 21st Terrace and 2149 SW 13th Avenue
                   [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3]

                   APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Luis and
                   Mercedes Palomo and Palomo Holdings, Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                   PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on
                   September 6, 2006 by a vote of 5-1. See companion File ID 06-01056zc.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to Restricted Commercial.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.33 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.34 06-01056zc   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 38, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
                   "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN "SD-12" BUFFER OVERLAY
                   DISTRICT TO "C-1" RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROPERTIES
                   LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1292 SOUTHWEST 21ST TERRACE AND
                   2149 SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A
                   SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Miami                                    Page 143                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                            Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                  06-01056zc Analysis.pdf
                  06-01056zc Zoning Map.pdf
                  06-01056zc Aerial Map.pdf
                  06-01056zc Letter of Intent.pdf
                  06-01056zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                  06-01056zc ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                  06-01056zc ZB Reso.PDF
                  06-01056zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                  06-01056lu 06-01056zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                  06-01056zc CC FR Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 1292 SW 21st Terrace and 2149 SW 13th Avenue
                  [Commissioner Joe Sanchez - District 3]

                  APPLICANT(S): A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo, Esquire, on behalf of Luis and
                  Mercedes Palomo and Palomo Holdings, Inc.

                  FINDINGS:
                  PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
                  ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on October 30,
                  2006 by a vote of 7-0. See companiton File ID 06-01056lu.

                  PURPOSE: This will change the above properties to C-1 Restricted
                  Commercial.
                  CONTINUED

                  Item PZ.34 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                  2007.

PZ.35 05-00076x   RESOLUTION
                  A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                  ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR
                  REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING
                  OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO.
                  11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
                  ARTICLE 9, SECTION 917.7.2, REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS
                  FOR HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS, TO
                  ALLOW A 28.29% PARKING REDUCTION AS FOLLOWS: TO WAIVE 71 OF
                  THE REQUIRED 251 PARKING SPACES, PROPOSED 180 PARKING
                  SPACES, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5600
                  NORTHEAST 4TH AVENUE AND 368 NORTHEAST 57TH STREET, MIAMI,
                  FLORIDA.




City of Miami                                   Page 144                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                 January 25, 2007

                  05-00076x ZB Analysis.pdf
                  05-00076x Zoning Map.pdf
                  05-00076x Aerial Map.pdf
                  05-00076x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                  05-00076x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                  05-00076x ZB Reso.PDF
                  05-00076x Appeal Letter.PDF
                  05-00076x CC Analysis.PDF
                  05-00076x ZB Zoning Write Up.pdf
                  05-00076x CC Zoning Write Up.pdf
                  05-00076x Plans.pdf
                  05-00076x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf
                  05-00076x CC Exhibit A.pdf
                  05-00076x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf
                  05-00076x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                  LOCATION: Approximately 5600 NE 4th Avenue and 368 NE 57th Street
                  [Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones - District 5]

                  APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT(S): Tony Recio, Esquire, on behalf of Pinnacle
                  Place, Ltd., Owner

                  FINDINGS:
                  PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and denial of
                  the Special Exception.
                  ZONING BOARD: Denied the Special Exception on November 13, 2006 by a
                  vote of 5-0.

                  PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will allow a reduction in parking
                  requirements for housing for low-income families and individuals.
                  CONTINUED

                  A motion was made by Vice Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, and
                  was passed unanimously, with Commissioner Regalado absent, to continue item PZ.35 to the
                  Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22, 2007.

                  Chairman González: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to resume the
                  meeting. We're going to be taking up the Planning and Zoning agenda. Are we ready?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: We're ready.

                  Chairman González: Staff? We're ready, OK.

                  Gilberto Pastoriza: Mr. Chairman --

                  Chairman González: The --

                  Mr. Pastoriza: -- if I could, I have a deferral.

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Mr. Pastoriza: Gil Pastoriza, 2660 -- 2525 Ponce de Leon, 7th Floor. I'm here on item number
                  35.

City of Miami                                      Page 145                                    Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                  January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: 35.

                  Mr. Pastoriza: 35.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Pastoriza: And we wish to defer it to February.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Pastoriza: I think it's February 22.

                  Chairman González: We need to -- we need a motion to defer, right?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: So move.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Chairman González: All right. We have a motion, and we have a second. All in favor, say
                  "aye."

                  The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

                  Chairman González: It's a deferral of item -- of PZ.35 to February 22. Thank you.

                  Mr. Pastoriza: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Those are always in order, while we --

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- get ready for the granddaddy of them all.

PZ.36 06-01066x   RESOLUTION
                  A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                  ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL, AFFIRMING OR
                  REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY DENYING
                  OR GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO.
                  11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
                  ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO
                  ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES OF A DENSITY EQUAL
                  TO R-3 OR HIGHER, IN THIS CASE, R-4 FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED
                  AT APPROXIMATELY 5211 NORTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, 1629
                  NORTHWEST 52ND STREET AND 1630-1640 NORTHWEST 53RD STREET,
                  MIAMI, FLORIDA.




City of Miami                                     Page 146                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                             Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                   06-01066x Analysis.pdf
                   06-01066x Code Enforcement.pdf
                   06-01066x Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01066x Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01066x Letter of Intent.pdf
                   06-01066x Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01066x Plans.pdf
                   06-01066x ZB Fact Sheet.pdf
                   06-01066x ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01066x Appeal Letter.PDF
                   06-01066x CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf
                   06-01066x CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01066x CC Legislation (Version 4).pdf
                   06-01066x CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01066x CC Fact Sheet 01-25-07.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 5211 NW 17th Avenue, 1629 NW 52nd Street and
                   1630-1640 NW 53rd Street [Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones - District 5]

                   APPELLANT(S): Herschel Haynes, Adjacent Property Owner, on behalf of
                   Hadley Park/Model City Homeowners Association, as well as Lena Canty,
                   Elmira Green, Bertha Thomas, Henry Goa, Bobby McGhee, Lillie Williams and
                   Moselle Bell

                   APPLICANT(S): Gilberto Pastoriza, Esquire, on behalf of Mayor Realty, Inc.
                   and ALCO Group, Inc.

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial of the appeal and approval
                   with conditions* of the Special Exception.
                   ZONING BOARD: Granted the Special Exception with conditions* on
                   September 25, 2006 by a vote of 5-1.
                   *See supporting documentation.

                   PURPOSE: The approval of this appeal will not allow multifamily residential
                   structures of a density of R-3 or higher in the C-2 district.
                   CONTINUED

                   Item PZ.21 was continued to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for February 22,
                   2007.

PZ.37 06-01060lu   ORDINANCE                                                                   First Reading
                   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 BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF
                   THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI
                   AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL, PUBLIC
                   FACILITIES, TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES" TO "HIGH DENSITY
                   MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
                   TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A REPEALER
                   PROVISION AND A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
City of Miami                                    Page 147                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                             January 25, 2007

                        EFFECTIVE DATE.

                         06-01060lu - PAB Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-01060lu - Analysis.pdf
                         06-01060lu - Concurrency Report.pdf
                         06-01060lu - Comp Plan Map.pdf
                         06-01060lu - Zoning Map.pdf
                         06-01060lu - Aerial Photo.pdf
                         06-01060lu - PAB Legislation.pdf
                         06-01060lu - PAB Application Documents.pdf
                         06-01060lu PAB Reso.PDF
                         06-01060lu CC Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                         06-01060lu CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                         06-01060lu & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                         06-01060lu CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Letter Lapin & Leichtling.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Letter Levine & Partners, P.A..pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Letter Luft Consulting, Inc..pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Letter Tucker Gibbs P.A..pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Letters of Support.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Map.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Opposition Memo.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Petition.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Presentation.pdf
                         06-01060lu Submittal Presentation Grove Bay.pdf

                        LOCATION: Approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc
                        Sarnoff - District 2]

                        APPLICANT(S): Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of TRG MH Venture, Ltd.,
                        Contract Purchaser, and Mercy Hospital, Inc., Owner

                        FINDINGS:
                        PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                        PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD: Recommended denial due to the failure to
                        obtain the required five affirmative votes in favor to City Commission on
                        September 20, 2006 by a vote of 3-3. See companion File ID 06-01060zc.

                        PURPOSE: This will change the above property to High-Density Multifamily
                        Residential for the proposed 300 Grove Bay Residences Major Use Special
                        Permit.
                        Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Regalado, that this matter
                        be DENIED FAILED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado
                        Noes: 3 - Commissioner González, Sanchez and Spence-Jones
                        *****************************************************************************
                        **

                        Motion by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, seconded by Commissioner Spence-Jones, that this
                        matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.



City of Miami                                         Page 148                                Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner González, Sanchez and Spence-Jones
                        Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado
                        Chairman González: Good afternoon. I need your attention for a minute. We don't allow,
                        because of the Fire Department regulation, people standing on the aisles. Those that cannot be
                        sitting, they have to be waiting outside in the lobby, and they can look through the TV
                        (Television) and listen from the lobby, but you cannot be standing up on the aisles or on the back
                        of the chamber.

                        Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Mr. Chairman, those --

                        Chairman González: Yes.

                        Mr. Aguirre: -- of us who are in the lobby, would we be allowed to come in to present testimony
                        or to speak?

                        Chairman González: Yes, definitely.

                        Mr. Aguirre: All right. Thank you, sir.

                        Chairman González: Sure. Mr. Aguirre.

                        Mr. Aguirre: Yes, sir.

                        Chairman González: Those -- I'm trying to afford every group the opportunity to express himself
                        in reference to this item, and I know there is a lot of people here today, and let me tell you.
                        We're going to be working until 10 p.m. We're going to be here until 10 p.m. At 10 p.m. we're
                        going to adjourn. In order to do that, what I suggest that you do is that you form groups, and
                        you have a speaker representing different groups that can speak on the item because it will be
                        impossible. Even though I'm going to allow equal amount of time to attorneys on both sides in
                        favor and in opposition of the project, to the general public I'm going to be giving each person
                        two minutes to speak on the item, but even at two minutes, we will be here until tomorrow, and
                        time is limited to 10 p.m., so in the best effort to afford every group to express themselves in
                        reference to the item, what I suggest that you do is that you form groups and select a speaker to
                        speak, and you can say I'm representing 20 people, 25 people in opposition, because of whatever
                        reasons you have to be in favor or in opposition, but what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to afford
                        everyone to have an opinion, express their opinion in reference to the item.

                        Patrick Goggins: Mr. Chair.

                        Chairman González: All right. Yes, sir.

                        Mr. Goggins: Mr. Chairman, my name is Patrick Goggins, offices at 777 Brickell Avenue. I am
                        here representing Constance Steen in this matter in the opposition. Just a point of order, the
                        proceedings are going to start with presentations by the applicant, and then I would request that
                        the presentation time, that the opposition gets an equal amount of time to make its opposition.
                        There are currently two attorneys registered for the opposition.

                        Chairman González: OK.

                        Mr. Goggins: We also have presentations -- some of the homeowners have presentations that
                        would take longer than two minutes, and if we could be given the flexibility to insert -- if we have
                        extra time -- insert -- to have equal time, to insert those homeowners into the time allotted for the
                        opposition, then the remaining homeowners, who have standard two-minute presentations, could
                        make their presentation? I'd ask the Chair for that --


City of Miami                                            Page 149                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: And how many presentations are you planning on doing.

                  Mr. Goggins: Well, we -- depending on how much time that the applicant is given, I would
                  request equal time on behalf of the opposition in order to make these presentations, so if the
                  applicant takes 20 minutes, we'll take 20 minutes, and we'll work around the two-minute
                  limitation. If the applicant takes an hour, I'd request an hour to do that, and then -- beyond that,
                  then the public comment portion of the hearing, everybody would get the two minutes, whatever
                  the Chair thinks is appropriate.

                  Chairman González: Lucia, do you have -- you have -- how many presentations do you have,
                  just yours or --? And how many attorneys do you have?

                  Lucia Dougherty: We have one attorney and two expert witnesses and two people from the
                  hospital. I don't anticipate, total, that we'll take more than a half an hour.

                  Chairman González: You won't take more than half an hour?

                  Ms. Dougherty: No more, probably less in our initial presentation.

                  Mr. Goggins: Whatever the app -- I just simply request that we get an equal amount of time, Mr.
                  Chair.

                  Chairman González: OK. Very good. All right. When we start taking the public input, there --
                  I know there is some people here in wheelchairs. I will allow the persons in wheelchair to speak
                  first so they can, you know, come in, express their opinion, and then they're free to go home and
                  -- or be comfortable outside. All right, so let's begin.

                  Lourdes Slazyk (Zoning Director): For the record, Lourdes Slazyk. The -- PZ.37 and 38 before
                  you this evening is a request for a change of land use and zoning for the portion of property
                  located at 3663 South Miami Avenue. This is a 6.72-acre parcel. The recommendation from the
                  Planning Department is for approval. The recommendation for the Planning Advisory Board on
                  the requested land use change is a denial due to a tie vote of 3/3, and on the request of zoning
                  change from G/I, Government and Institutional, to R-4 multifamily high-density residential, the
                  recommendation from the Zoning Board is for denial. I did want to clarify also for the record, at
                  the lower board, some questions came up regarding a recent amendment to the Zoning Code that
                  was approved by this Commission for the G/I district, and the intent and effect of that ordinance
                  on this application. The G/I ordinance amendment was -- what it basically required was that
                  when a developer is going to develop a G/I property for something other than government or
                  institutional uses, that the interpretation that was going to apply would be that the property
                  could only be developed in accordance with the least restrictive zoning classification that it
                  abutted. The intent of that ordinance was that when a property is zoned government and
                  institutional, the moment it ceases to be used for government and institutional uses, it should be
                  rezoned, and it should be rezoned into a classification for the uses for which the property is now
                  going to be used if it's not government or institutional. The intent is not to keep G/I property and
                  try to use it under G/I, using the less intense district. The intent is that it should be rezoned. In
                  this particular case, the request before you is for an R-4 high-density multifamily residential
                  designation. That designation is actually a downzoning of the property from its G/I
                  classification. The G/I classification permits a whole list of uses that are not allowed in R-4, so
                  the request is for a downzoning. The R-4 and G/I property classifications are also equal in
                  density and intensity, so changing from G/I to R-4 is not increasing any -- the FAR (floor area
                  ratio), not increasing the permitted units per acre. It's actually equal in that classification.
                  What it is is eliminating a whole host of uses that are allowed in G/I that, again, if the property is
                  no longer going to be used for a government or institutional purpose, it should be rezoned, and
                  for that reason, the recommendation is for approval.



City of Miami                                      Page 150                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: Lucia.

                  Mr. Goggins: If I may, for just one moment, Mr. Chair.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Goggins: I'd like to, before the applicant's presentation, make an objection to the extent that
                  any of the presentation has to do with the Major Use Special Permit application. The public
                  notice was simply for the change to the land map and for the change to the comp plan. There
                  should be no discussion or consideration of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit) or the project
                  itself in this proceeding. Thank you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Lucia
                  Dougherty, with offices at 1221 Brickell Avenue. I'm here today on behalf of Mercy Hospital,
                  and joining me this afternoon or this evening is Sister Elizabeth Worley, John Matuska, Jeffrey
                  Horstmyer, who's a doctor at Mercy Hospital, as well as Dr. Pedro Greer, from Mercy Hospital.
                  This also is -- I'm also representing a joint venture partnership consisting of Ocean Land and
                  Related Companies of Florida. Jean Francois Roy and Mark Esserman are here on behalf of
                  Ocean Land, and Jorge Pérez is here on behalf of The Related Companies. This is a request --
                  this rezoning and comp plan amendment is a request to allow a three-building, 300-unit
                  residential project at the eastern tip of Mercy campus, which is currently a parking lot. Two
                  years ago this project would have been an as-of-right project without any rezoning or comp plan
                  amendment, just like the Grovenor, which is directly across the street. After the Grovenor was
                  approved, the developers of the Grovenor sponsored legislation that provided that if you wanted
                  to develop outside of the G/I, you had to do so on the least intensive zoning classification, or --
                  but what I want you to know, and what Lourdes just reiterated, nothing did or would or could
                  preclude the rezoning of the property to the most appropriate zoning classification, and in fact,
                  she just testified that the most impor -- most appropriate zoning classification is the R-4. We
                  believe it's also appropriate because it is the same FAR as the current zoning classification. It is
                  the same height as the current zoning classification. The density that is proposed is actually less
                  than the R-3 zoning classification, which is the most immediate abutting zoning classification.

                  Chairman González: Excuse me a second. Madam City --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Certainly.

                  Chairman González: -- Clerk, did you set the clock?

                  Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Yes, we did.

                  Chairman González: You did? OK.

                  Ms. Burns: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: Pardon me?

                  Ms. Burns: (INAUDIBLE) have the time.

                  Chairman González: OK. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

                  Ms. Dougherty: So as of right, under your -- even your new ordinance, we could develop 408
                  units on this property. We're, in fact, developing 300 units. If we were developing in
                  accordance with the R-4, 1,008 units would be permitted; again, we're only requesting 300. All
                  of the objections we have heard have to do with two things: height and precedent. We haven't
                  heard any objections to traffic because traffic for this residential project would allow -- provide

City of Miami                                      Page 151                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  for 110 trips per peak hour, whereas a medical office building of the same size would provide for
                  -- or would actually have 2,750 trips in the same peak hour, so regarding the precedent -- and
                  this is important to recognize -- we have agreed, and we have agreed by a covenant, to request a
                  zone -- a downzoning or an upzoning, in this case, to G/I after the CO (Certificate of Occupancy)
                  has been granted for each building. In other words, if the precedent is something that anyone is
                  concerned about, we'll agree to rezone the property back to a G/I classification, and we have
                  offered that as a covenant. In terms of height, this cannot be an issue since the height is allowed
                  today. In other words, compatibility is height; height is allowed today under the current zoning
                  classification. Medical office building of exactly the same height and the same size is permitted
                  today. A nursing home of exactly the same height and the same size is permitted today; only you
                  could have 108 units of nursing home units. Again, I wanted to read to you from our comp plan
                  -- your comp plan, and it says here under Government and Institution, it says, "Residential
                  facilities ancillary to government and institution are allowed to a maximum density equal to
                  high-density multifamily residential subject to the limiting conditions." That's 150 units per
                  acre. Again, we are not requesting that. We are requesting something much less, less than an
                  R-3, which is 65 units per acre. Before I conclude, and I just wanted to also indicate that this
                  use also allows or requires us to put $1.6 million into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
                  Before I conclude, I'd like to ask Bernardo Fort-Brescia to make a very brief presentation of the
                  plan as provided, or as we envisioned, and then Jack Luft to talk about the planning principles
                  and whether this use and this zoning classification is compatible with the surrounding
                  neighborhood.

                  Bernardo Fort-Brescia: Good afternoon. My name is Bernardo Fort-Brescia. I'm a principal
                  of Arquitectonica, the architects for this project, and I'd like to be as concise as possible within
                  the complexity of a project like this, and take you through what is being proposed on the site and
                  make some comparisons as well. For those of you who have been to Mercy but may have not
                  seen it from the air, this shows you the location of the site, and I'd like to point at it here, where
                  you see a red mark, because it shows accurately, from a true photograph, the position of the site
                  with respect to the surrounding neighborhoods, and the distance between the site and South
                  Bayshore Drive and other developed areas of the City, because you can see its position where it
                  is currently a waterfront parking lot, essentially, that is currently occupied largely by cement
                  and automobiles; adjacent to the loading area, which is what you see from the waterfront of a
                  major hospital, and in the proposed development that Lucia has mentioned -- and I will not run
                  through the zoning aspects that she has mentioned -- is this -- precisely this site, a very large
                  site, which allows certain advantages for creating a better environment for living and for the
                  neighborhood, and I'd like to take you through this second board to give you a sense of what the
                  site boundaries are, because as you can see, the site is comprised of this parcel that wraps from
                  the east and diagonally to the southeast and to the south on Biscayne Bay, and then it actually
                  has just a tangency point of connection with other neighborhoods to the south and has a very
                  long drive, over a thousand feet, all the way to South Bayshore Drive, as you see it here, so what
                  is it that we are proposing first from the public purpose point of view and then through the living
                  point of view? Well, in fact, currently this whole waterfront is not very well developed, is not
                  very user-friendly. In fact, if you want to reach it from South Bayshore Drive, you have to walk
                  on the street. There is no sidewalks, and it is not properly conditioned for bicycles or
                  pedestrians to reach that waterfront. This is in fact a private waterfront that happens to be that
                  people are allowed to walk into it and walk around it, but in fact, there is no official public
                  access to it, and what we are proposing is precisely to redevelop this avenue with a proper
                  landscaping, provide a pathway for bicycles and pedestrians to reach the waterfront, and then
                  develop along this waterfront a waterfront walk, a promenade that will wrap around this corner
                  and connect north. This is a huge improvement in -- for that adjacent neighborhoods, and
                  finally, they will have access to the waterfront into a very pedestrian-friendly environment, away
                  from a parking lots and cars and connected with the environment of Biscayne Bay. It is -- I'd
                  like to take you into further detail of -- if you look at this larger image that I'm going to show you
                  here -- excuse me -- over here to tell you a little bit about what happens here because -- in fact,
                  we all know what happens, and our City garages are a very dominant part of development, and

City of Miami                                      Page 152                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  they are vertical, and they become very much part of the facade of buildings. Not in this case.
                  As you can see, everything that you see here along the waterfront is that promenade, and that
                  promenade varies in width. In fact, this is probably one of the widest promenades that are being
                  provided in the City. It ranges from 19 to 40 feet in depth, with a series of pocket parks and
                  experiences along the waterfront with water areas, seating areas, and landscaping that is very
                  generous. In fact, the buildings are set back in -- to a variety from 50 to 74 feet from the
                  waterfront, and the entire garage, which is only two stories, is very horizontal, is a green garage.
                  It's a -- as you can see from the previous image, it is a park on the roof with tennis courts and a
                  children's playground and green areas, and the roadway rises to it, and therefore, from the
                  waterfront, you really can't see the garage. This is a series of terraces with a sand terrace, like a
                  beach, and swimming pools and cabanas that rise up to the level of the arrival of the buildings to
                  the flood level; in fact, where we have to build, so from the waterfront you will not see any
                  garage. In fact, you don't see the garage from anywhere. It's really a very horizontal garage.
                  It's a green roof. It is a park. It is a -- the towers rising from them are actually quite nautical
                  and soft; they're not hard, boxy buildings. They're three elliptical towers that follow the
                  curvature of the building, so I'd like to tell you how we architects look at buildings and how we
                  analyze them, how we analyze sites with clients, and we looked at all the possibilities of one can
                  do -- what one can do on this site. In fact, there are certain things that we can do here as of
                  right, and I'll give you an example, and we actually did an overlay. People often don't
                  understand what you can do with a million square feet. In fact, let me begin with the initial
                  possibility, which is an office building, say a medical office building, and we did an overlay, and
                  what is -- what people don't realize is a medical office building, or any office building, the
                  floor-to-floor height is one and a half times that of residential, so within the same FAR the
                  building would be about one-third to one-half larger in bulk than a residential building. Now
                  let's look at what a medical building requires. This is not in a mass transit neighborhood, so
                  you've got to drive to that office building, and if you did an office building, you would require --
                  let's say for a thousand square feet of office, you would require probably between three and four
                  cars per thousand square feet in a medical building; generally much higher than in a regular
                  office building. Let's take an average of three and a half cars per thousand. That means for
                  every 1,000 square feet, you have three and a half cars. Now if you do a regular residential
                  building, which -- with apartments that range between, let say, a thousand square feet in
                  average, you would have maybe one to one and a half cars per unit. That's already about less
                  than half -- excuse me, about a third of the number of cars that it would require for an office
                  building. Now what we're doing in this million square feet is not a thousand units. We're only
                  doing in this residential building 300 units, so you can see that the amount of parking is greatly
                  reduced. Right now in the proposed building, the parking is way down here; it's two stories. It
                  wouldn't be this monumental garage that you would be needing for either a regular office
                  building or even for a residential building of the kind that we see developed around our City, so
                  the decision -- when the developer told me among the options that we had, that we would be
                  going residential, I knew automatically that I didn't have a parking garage image problem; that I
                  didn't have a parking garage bulk problem, and that the bulk of the residential buildings would
                  be greatly diminished compared to an office building. Furthermore, in an office building,
                  because of the size of the floor plate, I would have had to put two massive buildings, not three
                  smaller footprint buildings because, logically, you can have -- you have to have an efficient
                  office building with a minimum floor plate. We also discussed a couple other options, and one of
                  them was to do an ALF, an Assisted Living Facility. Assisted living facilities, which are
                  permitted here, and we discussed them with Hyatt, as one of the operators of luxury ALFs. Well,
                  luxury ALFs can range from efficiencies that are about 600 square feet to larger units that are
                  1,500 square feet. Let's say, an average about 800 square feet. It would have the similar impact
                  of traffic and parking bulk -- forget about traffic -- the parking bulk, the services that come with
                  it that are similar to a hospital, loading areas and so forth, that are required for that kind of
                  facility, and we clearly felt that, really from the urban design point of view, there would be no
                  better proposal than doing larger apartments like these. They range from 3,000 to 4,000 square
                  feet, which have a diminished traffic count that is significant -- lesser traffic count, significant
                  less parking; no peak hours that you would have in an office building because peak hours -- and

City of Miami                                      Page 153                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  our traffic consultant will tell you about peak hours in office buildings compared to residential
                  buildings, particularly luxury residential buildings of this kind, so I thought this perspective was
                  an important way of showing you, in an overlay, what would be the impact of some of these other
                  uses as they would apply to this property. I think, however, in the end, what I really feel strongly
                  about here is that we are improving the sense of the public reaching the waterfront; that this
                  whole zone in front of these towers is such a huge improvement, and it creates an amazing
                  amenity for the neighborhood, a place where -- to go out to the waterfront and experience what
                  we've been trying to do throughout the City as part of the master plan, trying to create access for
                  the public to the waterfront, and creating pleasant environments along the waterfront that are
                  residential, that are quiet, where people can go spend time next to the most valuable asset that
                  we have in our community. The ability to have access through the proper way, through a
                  sidewalk, through a bicycle path, and out to the waterfront here, I think it's invaluable for the
                  surrounding neighborhoods in this City, and I think that tells you, in a nutshell, what I think are
                  the great advantages of a development like this over what is really entitled within this property.
                  Thank you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: And I think one of the important things is that this would be always open to the
                  public, whereas, right now you can go down there, but it is private property. I mean, at any time
                  the Archdiocese could close it off if they wanted to, but this way this would be guaranteed public
                  access for the future. I'd like Jack Luft to come forward, and he's our urban planner to testify --

                  John Lukacs: Mr. Chairman --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- about the --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- point of order. Forgive me, Ms. Dougherty. May I have an opportunity to ask
                  Mr. Fort-Brescia a couple of questions?

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: He will.

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me. I need your name again for the record, please.

                  Mr. Lukacs: My name is John Lucas. I represent Grove Isle. My offices are located 201 Sevilla
                  Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. Mr. Fort-Brescia, how long has your firm been involved
                  in the design of this project.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: It's been over a year.

                  Mr. Lukacs: OK, and have you met with members of the Planning Department, the Urban
                  Design Division, or the Land Development Division of the Planning Department.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Yes.

                  Mr. Lukacs: You have. OK. Would you agree, sir, that the change of zoning of this property
                  from G/I to R-4 will result in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions of
                  this area?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: No.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Would you agree, sir, that the project is out of scale for this area?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: No.



City of Miami                                      Page 154                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Lukacs: Would you agree that the land use should be consistent with the adjoining
                  neighborhood, and if a change of zoning were to occur, that that change of zoning should be to
                  R-1?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: I think it is consistent. I don't know the technicalities or the legal aspects that
                  you're asking me, but I think it's a residential use, and I think it's consistent with the residential
                  uses in the neighborhood.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Did you undertake any independent studies to ascertain whether or not this project
                  was in scale with the surrounding area?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Well, I'd like to -- I think that your question depends on how you look at it,
                  because this is adjacent to a hospital that is a fairly massive building, and I think this is very
                  much in scale with the hospital, Grove Isle, and there is a row of residential buildings in the
                  neighborhood that very much are compatible in terms of their use.

                  Mr. Lukacs: OK. The question was whether or not you undertook an independent study to
                  ascertain whether or not this project was in scale with the surrounding area. You responded
                  with respect to Mercy Hospital. How about with respect to the other homeowners that live
                  within a 500-foot radius of the subject property?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Maybe you can define for me what you call an independent study.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Well, tell me what studies, if any, you understood took to determine --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Well, I'd --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- that the scale --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- like to understand the question --

                  Mr. Lukacs: Let me finish my question.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- if it was an independent study.

                  Mr. Lukacs: An independent study would be a study by either yourself or members of your staff
                  wherein you determined, and can express an opinion today on the basis of that study, that in fact
                  this project is in scale with the surrounding area.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: I think every architect, when he undertakes a project, looks at what one
                  thinks is most appropriate development on that site in terms of scale, appearance, proportion,
                  and I think we do that, as a matter of fact, in all our projects, and I think that being this a G --
                  zoning -- G/1 [sic] zoning, it is -- I think this is very much a project that if anything, as proposed,
                  improves what would have otherwise been permitted on that site --

                  Mr. Lukacs: Was that study --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- and it creates a better environment.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Great. Was that study or undertaking on your behalf communicated to the
                  Planning Department staff?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: I think we have a series of hearings and internal review hearings, and we
                  exchange our philosophies and our ideas, and we do extensive presentations to the Planning
                  Department.

City of Miami                                        Page 155                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Lukacs: OK. Did you submit any written documentation that would embrace whatever
                  study was undertaken to determine --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Well, when we submit --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- the scale of this project?

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- to the Planning Department, we submit full sets of drawings and images
                  and diagrams and so forth that are very -- are a part of the file, and you probably can look at
                  them. They're a part of the official record.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Very good. Thank you, sir.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Jack Luft: Mr. Chairman --

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Luft: -- members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jack Luft. My
                  address is 1717 Windward Way, Sanibel Island, Florida. I have presented to the City Clerk a
                  copy of my resume and my biography as a planning professional to establish my credentials as
                  an expert witness for planning purposes. I have reviewed the request and change for a
                  comprehensive plan land use amendment and for the companion zoning change, which,
                  according to Chapter 163, would be required along with that, any approval of that comp plan
                  change. I am of the conclusion that both the change and the R-4 designation are consistent with
                  the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the standards of your land development
                  regulations for a project at this location. I'll explain to you how I've come to that conclusion.
                  Your Comprehensive Plan -- Lourdes spoke of the amendment or, excuse me, Ms. Slazyk spoke of
                  the amendment to the G/I district in your land development regulations. That did not change
                  your Comprehensive Plan future land use element description of the major institutional use, and
                  this is from your June 2006 adopted plan. Residential facilities in your major institutional area
                  consisting of public and private medical health facilities inclusive of that, that residential
                  facilities are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to high-density residential, multifamily
                  residential, and in the land use category high-density, that describes a density of a 150 dwelling
                  units, so the question becomes how is this compatible? It is consistent with your future land use
                  element and the uses that are permitted. Compatibility is determined basically in two or -- the
                  consistencies are determined in two measures; compatibility with the surrounding area and
                  synergy, that is, the fit with the adjacent uses that creates a positive impact on those uses.
                  Interestingly enough -- and I know this is -- I want to draw your attention to this graphic. The
                  project site or for those -- land use change is outlined here. I would correct Mr. Fort-Brescia in
                  just one small respect. Even though the access road is contiguous to the R-3, no part of this
                  particular zoning change is contiguous to any other land use district, except G/I; G/I on the
                  south, G/I on the west, and Biscayne Bay on the east and south. The site is bordered by R-3
                  zoning that's existing along the bayfront, which, as I've outlined in these buildings so that you
                  can see them more clearly, is almost completely developed, with structure is ranging from 50 feet
                  high some as high as 15 stories, notwithstanding the limitation of R-3 to 50 feet. In addition, to
                  the immediate south of the site -- to the immediate west of the site is a five-story Carroll Manor
                  property which is built to the limits of R-3. It is, in effect, an R-3 development that actually
                  serves the same physical purpose of the transition zone as does the R-3. Further to the west is
                  the environmental zoning along Bayshore Drive that acts as a 75-foot buffer zone from all of
                  these uses to the adjacent residential area of Bay Heights. This is important because R-3 is, in

City of Miami                                     Page 156                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  fact, a transitional use zone in your Zoning Code; you use it throughout the City to put between
                  high-density residential and low-density neighborhoods. That's why you have an R-3 district, to
                  create that transition. That transition is already in place. Therefore, if this wasn't here, this is
                  what you would want to do to be able to say that the R-4 was compatible. The second dimension
                  to this is a question of scale relationships. It's been discussed extensively and debated in the
                  community what is high, how high is how, how high is too high; big, too big. I will have to tell
                  you that, as a planner, scale and compatibility is not subject to a plebiscite. This is not
                  something you vote on. We don't take a show of hands to determine what it is. You utilize the
                  standards that are in your Code. All communities, in order to establish what constitutes the
                  legal satisfaction of the term compatibility and scale relationships, have to set standards. You
                  have a standard. Your standard is Section 907.3.2 of the Code. It says -- and this is the rule
                  concerning heights of building abutting all residential districts. I've put it on another graphic; I
                  can show it to you if you'd like, but what it says is that for any building in the city, anywhere in
                  the city, that is over 40 feet high, in addition to the base yard setbacks, all yards, you must
                  provide, in addition, abutting a single-family or duplex neighborhood, you must provide an
                  additional one foot of setback for every two feet of height over 40 feet. That is what we call a
                  building separation formula. It creates greater distance the higher you go. It -- you can see it as
                  a light plane that leaves in from that beginning point of the yard area at 40 feet. By definition,
                  any building in your community that falls below that light plane and absorbs those setbacks is
                  construed as compatible. In legal terms, it is presumptively compatible in scale. Let's look at
                  the exact situation that we have here. It so happens that from the first available footprint -- and
                  I'm not talking about the development that Mr. Fort-Brescia presented; I'm talking about
                  generically any development in the R-4 zone. The first available footprint observing in-place
                  setbacks for the R-4 would place a building, at its closest point, 600 feet from the nearest
                  single-family residence in an R-1 zone anywhere in this area, and that residence happens to be
                  here on the corner of Glencoe, 600 feet. If you were to apply that one to two setback over 40 feet
                  at the point of this property, this single-family residence, it would mean -- to be compatible in
                  scale, you would have to set back 125 feet for a 300-foot building and 195 feet for a 400-foot
                  building.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: How far from the R-3?

                  Mr. Luft: Six hundred. Oh, from the R-3?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: 3.

                  Mr. Luft: R-3 is a buffer zone. It is meant to abut R-4. Is it actually the width of the roadway,
                  about 50 feet, but R-3 exists along Miami Avenue; between R-4 and R-1, along 17th Avenue,
                  along 27th Avenue, in the river, along Biscayne Boulevard. Throughout the City it is an abutting
                  district between R-4 and R-1, so it is not a question of compatibility with the R-3, and your Code,
                  907.3.2, specifically addresses single-family. That 600-foot distance, as I said, would yield a
                  building that would have to be at least 125 feet for 30 stories and 195 feet for 400 feet. As you
                  can see, with a 600 foot separation we're well beyond any kind of scale relationship that your
                  Code says is compatible. On this property, it amounts to two to three times greater setback that
                  your Code would require to be construed as compatible. The only way you can measure that is
                  in terms of your own Code standards. It is compatible with your shoreline ordinance that
                  requires public access. It's compatible with your urban infill policy plan that encourages
                  redevelopment of underdeveloped and vacant sites within your urban center that are close to
                  major concentrations of facilities and services. That's precisely the situation on this site. In
                  conclusion, I have considered all of these factors: computability, setbacks, buffers, distances,
                  and concluded that you meet the compatibility requirements that your Code establishes; it is
                  consistent with your Comprehensive Plan; it comports with your G/I district, and as such, in my
                  opinion it is suitable for your consideration for approval. Thank you very much.

                  Mr. Goggins: Wonder if I might have a few questions for the witness.

City of Miami                                      Page 157                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Luft: Surely, sir.

                  Mr. Goggins: -- please? Thank you. My name is Patrick Goggins, and you mentioned -- it was
                  your testimony that under the Code, this proposed project is presumptively compatible, correct?

                  Mr. Luft: Compared with the standards in the Code for setbacks and scale relationships between
                  abutting districts.

                  Mr. Goggins: And that is based on the setback. Now have you done a study of the --?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes, I have.

                  Mr. Goggins: And have you published a report on this?

                  Mr. Luft: No, sir, I have not.

                  Mr. Goggins: OK. Now, in the study, did you take into account the height of the buildings in the
                  neighborhood?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes, I did.

                  Mr. Goggins: What is the highest building in the neighborhood?

                  Mr. Luft: The 15-story structure in the R-3 zone by Hiawatha. They range from 15 to 8 to 6 to 5
                  in the R-3 zone.

                  Mr. Goggins: So 15 stories?

                  Mr. Luft: Um-hum.

                  Mr. Goggins: And, again, how many stories is the proposed projects to be?

                  Mr. Luft: I'm not here to discuss that project. Within the R-4 zone, as with the G/I zone, there is
                  no height limit.

                  Mr. Goggins: OK, so if there -- if I was to tell you that the proposed project is 410 feet high,
                  would you disagree?

                  Mr. Luft: No, sir.

                  Mr. Goggins: How -- and -- so that would roughly be twice the size or more than twice the size
                  of the 15-story building you've talked about; is that correct?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Mr. Goggins: Now that is your -- it's your testimony that a building that's twice the size of the
                  building -- the closest building in the neighborhood is compatible?

                  Mr. Luft: I'm -- my testimony is that your standards -- the City standards specifically lay out a
                  formula that provides an objective basis, not an opinion, an objective basis for establishing what
                  scale relationships are acceptable and therefore compatible. That scale relationship analysis
                  says if you're with -- if you're a -- to use your example, a 40-story building, if you're within 195
                  feet of a single-family district, you're compatible. In the case of this site, the building that you're
                  referring to is closer to a thousand feet. The closest structure that you could build on a footprint

City of Miami                                       Page 158                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  in the R-4 is 600 feet; 1,300 feet from Bay Heights; 1,600 feet from Vizcaya, and 3,000 feet from
                  the Vizcaya mansion.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you. The -- now the notion though that the standard is an objective one,
                  does that mean that this Commission has no discretion or ability to determine which -- what is --
                  what kind of project is too high or too out-of-scale?

                  Mr. Luft: The Commission -- this Commission, any Commission, does not have the unfettered
                  ability to establish, in their own judgment, what compatibility is. They may adjust the footprint
                  of the building on the site. They may require buffering. They may look for setbacks. Most
                  normally what they do is they go through the architectural review committee and look at the
                  scale of the façade, the fenestration, the detailing to try to bring the scale of the building down.
                  That's how you address scale relationship. There's many ways to deal with it, but you cannot
                  arbitrarily pick a number out of the air and say, well, it's double, and it's too high. It doesn't
                  work like that. That's simply an arbitrary process.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you. One last question. In your testimony you mentioned that the subject
                  property that is part of this application does not abut the R-3 parcel, is that correct?

                  Mr. Luft: The -- on the site plan that you see here, just for the purposes of comparing the road,
                  the shared road access, which comes in off of Bayshore and then moves around the site to
                  provide emergency room access, it establishes a tangent point at the corner of the bay here. This
                  is the line of the shoreline where the R-3 sets. It is approximately a hundred feet away. There is
                  no direct point of tangency on this site here, which is the subject development site of the R-4 with
                  the R-3.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you, and is it within the scope of your expertise, within the scope of your
                  duties on this particular matter to make interpretations under the other Codes, like this R-4 Code
                  that -- including the so-called Grovenor ordinance? Could you speak to that?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Mr. Goggins: The Grovenor ordinance says that the property has to -- if you go to an ancillary
                  use like this, in -- a residential use, from a governmental use, it -- the Zoning class -- it reverts to
                  the Zoning classification of the least intensive abutting residential use. Now, if this property
                  does not abut an R-3 use, wouldn't you agree that it is surrounded completely by a government
                  and institutional parcel?

                  Mr. Luft: What the ordinance said, in my opinion, and I concur with Ms. Slazyk's description, if
                  you're changing the use and the ownership and the development of the site and eliminating the
                  G/I use entirely, then that change must go, if it's not going to be G/I, to the lowest district. That's
                  --

                  Mr. Goggins: The lowest what district?

                  Mr. Luft: The lowest abutting district.

                  Mr. Goggins: Abutting, correct.

                  Mr. Luft: For instance, if you were to change the G/I on the Coconut Grove Playhouse, you
                  would literally have to change the use, so it's a -- less than a two-acre site, so by changing the
                  entire use, you are now thrown into the situation, as Ms. Slazyk described, where you would then
                  eliminate G/I entirely and start over and look at the abutting districts. In this case, it would
                  either be the R-1 on the one back edge or the C-1 -- C-2 -- SD-2, excuse me. The fact is, on this
                  site, the Mercy Hospital occupies approximately 58 acres. If you combine that with LaSalle as

City of Miami                                       Page 159                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  part of the larger campus of the Archdiocese, it's over 80 acres. We're looking at a change here
                  of about six, so clearly, the predominant use, the G/I, remains; it is not being displaced, and as
                  such, the rule or the trigger that Ms. Slazyk described that then calls into how you change the
                  zoning when the G/I goes away is not in place. The intent was to have a safeguard so that a G/I
                  left, there was no more G/I left in the vicinity, then you would look to abutting relationships.
                  That's clearly not the case because, in fact, the G/I remains abutting the R-1 district.

                  Mr. Goggins: And just to take that one further, the -- you would agree, then, that if you looked
                  at the entire Mercy parcel, including Halissee Street, the Mercy parcel, the entire parcel that's
                  zoned G/I, including LaSalle and the Science Museum, would you agree that the least intensive
                  abutting residential use in that district is R-1?

                  Mr. Luft: For the entire tract?

                  Mr. Goggins: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Luft: The least intensive abutting district is R-1 for the entire tract. There's no abutting R-1
                  district on this particular tract in question today.

                  Mr. Goggins: In fact, there's no abutting district other than G/I?

                  Mr. Luft: That's right, so that's why it's -- what?

                  Mr. Goggins: And so would you look to the entire G/I parcel to determine what's the least
                  intensive abutting use?

                  Mr. Luft: No, because the G/I is not going away. As Ms. Slazyk clearly described, when you
                  replace the G/I, if you were to take, for instance, Ransom School and try to build a high-density
                  development, that's less than an eight-acre site. You would, effectively, take out critical facilities
                  that would be required for the continuation of that use that would obviate the need to remove it.
                  Once the G/I, in its entirety, goes away, then you trigger and you look at abutting relationships.
                  That's not the case here; the G/I remains, so in this case we look to the Comprehensive Plan,
                  which, in any case, sir, I'll remind you, the Comprehensive Plan is the governing document here.
                  All land development regulations have to be consistent with it by state law Chapter 163, and it
                  says that appropriate within, or adjacent to, or as a part of the complex of G/I in that family of
                  uses, residential high-density is appropriate. That's why we're saying it is consistent with your
                  Comprehensive Plan.

                  Mr. Goggins: Does the Grovenor ordinance and/or the -- or the Zoning Code, in this instance,
                  refer to the Comprehensive Plan as the standard that they use, or does the ordinance say the
                  least intensive abutting use?

                  Mr. Luft: The ordinance says least intensive abutted use if you're replacing, as Ms. Slazyk
                  explained the intent, the G/I in its entirety.

                  Mr. Goggins: And if I could just ask you one last question.

                  Mr. Luft: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

                  Mr. Goggins: What is the least intensive abutting use, and tell me again. I'm -- apologize. Mr.
                  Luft: The least intensive abutting use to this site the G/I, which is the same intensity.

                  Mr. Goggins: So, then, this property could only revert to G/I.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Excuse me. The witness is being --

City of Miami                                       Page 160                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Luft: Well --

                  Mr. Lucas: -- Mr. Chairman, when a witness is cross-examined, he is not at liberty to discuss his
                  testimony with counsel. Objection.

                  Mr. Luft: I was just provided a letter of interpretation that states that the G/I or the subject site
                  has a contiguous spot next to the R-3. It's not -- it doesn't show on this drawing, but that's what -
                  - she was just showing me the document.

                  Mr. Goggins: So, I guess, one last time, what is the least intensive abutting use that is not G/I,
                  and how do you make that determination?

                  Mr. Luft: For this site, if it's correct, which is not what's shown on that drawing, if it's R-3, then
                  it would be R-3.

                  Mr. Goggins: But you don't have a drawing that demonstrates that it's R-3, correct?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can I ask a question while he's looking?

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Luft, could you go back to your other diagram, where you had a
                  “G” on there, and I want to visit your testimony where you said that if you're not taking away
                  the entirety of the G/I use, then you necessarily would not look to the abutting property, correct?

                  Mr. Luft: Right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So if I were to --

                  Mr. Luft: That's what your staff said.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, I thought that was your testimony.

                  Mr. Luft: Well, I was concurring with staff.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I want to make sure that you concur --

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- so if I were -- I'm a simple guy -- to take a pizza and just start cutting
                  a bunch of pizza slices at that G [sic], each time I cut a pizza slice, I would have remaining other
                  G/I, and your way --

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- of looking at it, each pizza that I would take off the pizza pie, so to
                  speak, would remain G/I, subject to a zoning change, correct?

                  Mr. Luft: The piece or the remaining pieces?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, you're telling me that in order for it to revert back to the lowest
                  abutting unit, that you would have to do away with the G/I, so by my concept, I see a pizza, and

City of Miami                                       Page 161                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  as I take away a slice of pizza, what you're telling me is that slice can revert back to whatever
                  you choose because you're not taking the entire G/I away; is that correct?

                  Mr. Luft: As long as it's consistent with your comprehensive institutional use --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right --

                  Mr. Luft: -- which is R-4.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- so your interpretation is you'd have to eat the whole --

                  Mr. Luft: No.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- pizza before it would revert back to the lowest abutting use?

                  Mr. Luft: You would have to eliminate the G/I use.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK, so as you -- you could then go back a number of times after this
                  with other land use attorneys and make the same argument on the west side of the property, on
                  the east side of the property, on the north side of the property, and on the south side of the
                  property --

                  Applause.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- and argue you're only taking away a portion; thus, it does not revert
                  back to the lowest abutting use, correct?

                  Mr. Luft: Correct --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Thank you.

                  Mr. Luft: -- but I'll remind you, what I said is that, from the Comprehensive Plan standpoint and
                  from the point of view of putting the category on here, you then go to the next level of analysis,
                  which I provided you, which is to say, given this specific site, what are the contextual
                  relationships?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I understand.

                  Mr. Luft: Are the buffers in place?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: What you don't want to do --

                  Mr. Luft: And the one place on this site where an R-3 buffer is in place is this corner --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I'm not arguing at all --

                  Mr. Luft: -- so --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I'm not arguing with all --

                  Mr. Luft: -- you can't go from anywhere at any time automatic. You and the staff would have to
                  review this and consider the second level of transitional --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Luft.



City of Miami                                      Page 162                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Luft: -- and buffering zoning before --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Luft --

                  Mr. Luft: -- you could get there.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I'm only trying to establish --

                  Mr. Luft: Yeah.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- that, under your interpretation, should we see you here in a year, two
                  years, five years, or seven years, should you be good enough to be here, that you could come in
                  here and make the very same argument with the north side of the property, the south side, the
                  east side, the west side; once again, would only be subject to a zoning change because the
                  entirety of it would not be taken out.

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Correct, sir?

                  Mr. Luft: Yes --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Mr. Luft: -- and let me put it another way. If you're trying to argue that you can't change any of
                  it under the way they're reading the Code, then no G/I district in the city, including Jackson
                  Memorial, could have any zoning change anywhere within the geographic layout of G/I without
                  eliminating the entire G/I.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's because you're only choosing to -- you're not reading the GI
                  ordinance, correct, sir?

                  Mr. Luft: I'm reading the G/I language here, which clearly says that R-4 is a compatible use.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: You're not read --

                  Mr. Luft: What you're reading in the Code is the G/I ordinance for the City in its entirety, all G/I
                  districts --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Mr. Luft: -- and that's what Ms. Slazyk is saying. If you read it that way, you couldn't construe
                  it as meaning you can't change any part of it without changing the whole thing because that
                  would mean that all these other G/I districts are locked into, basically, single-family
                  development, everywhere in the city, because that's usually the context that most G/I is found --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That --

                  Mr. Luft: -- schools, cultural facilities --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. That was the intent of the --

                  Mr. Luft: -- hospitals.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- statute, though, right?

City of Miami                                       Page 163                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Luft: No, it wasn't.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: You don't think that was the intent?

                  Mr. Luft: No, sir.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Mr. Luft: Not at all.

                  Mr. Goggins: Well -- so it would be a bad thing to have G/I properties that are abutting res --
                  R-1 uses revert to R-1, if going to residential?

                  Mr. Luft: It would be inappropriate and unsound planning to tell every G/I property in the City
                  that if any portion of your G/I district, regardless of how large, touches a single-family zone,
                  then no zoning can occur anywhere in the district for any reason except single family. That
                  makes no sense. It is not the intent of the ordinance, and it would be a tremendous hardship and
                  a limitation on all the G/I districts throughout the City. You have to look to the specific site, the
                  specific site relationships that exist, the contextual relationships, the buffer zones, to make the
                  determination whether another district is appropriate. In this specific case, my conclusion is it
                  is. It fits the Comprehensive Plan, and it fits all of your standard planning practice for land use.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you, sir.

                  Applause.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, there -- before we go further, Mr. Chairman, there are several
                  people here from Carroll Manor who would like to leave. It's getting a little hot in here, and
                  they -- they're elderly and they'd like to leave, so I'd like to acknowledge that there's probably
                  about 50 people here from Carroll Manor who are probably going to be leaving.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. The City Commission --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But let's -- why don't we allow the disabled to come first, and that way
                  they could --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Why don't we let the disabled --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: We're going to --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- people that are wheelchair -- and that way they --

                  Mr. Goggins: I would agree to pause the presentation time clock if the disabled wanted to come
                  up and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Mr. Goggins: -- speak.

City of Miami                                      Page 164                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: Yes. I think that's a --

                  Mr. Goggins: I --

                  Chairman González: -- great idea.

                  Mr. Goggins: -- agree. I concur.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair, would you like me to swear everyone in again --

                  Chairman González: Yes, please.

                  Ms. Burns: -- if they weren't --

                  Chairman González: We need to do that.

                  Ms. Burns: -- here in the morning?

                  Chairman González: Yes.

                  Ms. Burns: OK. Would each of you who plan to provide testimony this evening please stand up
                  and raise your right hand.

                  The Assistant City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those
                  persons giving testimony on zoning issues.

                  Ms. Burns: Thank you. Please be seated.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Can we get those that'll be testifying that are disabled or in
                  wheelchairs to come up, and two minutes will be awarded to each. Two minutes -- is two
                  minutes OK on both sides?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes.
                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Because there are a lot of speakers that want to speak on this item
                  today, and we want to make sure we afford everyone that opportunity. Well, we realize there are
                  people outside that could not make it in. If they want to speak on the item, we certainly don't
                  want to deny anybody the right nor the due process, so listen, two minutes. All those who want
                  to speak have the right to speak to this legislative body.

                  Alvah Chapman: My name is Alvah Chapman.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. All right, folks. Bear with us, make it as less painful as possible.

                  Mr. Chapman: My name is Alvah Chapman. I'm a 46-year resident of the City of Miami. I live
                  at 1690 South Bayshore Lane, Apartment 10AB, Miami, 33133. As I said, I've been a resident of
                  Miami for 46 years. Since 1991 I've been a resident of Coconut Grove. I pay taxes to the City of
                  Miami, about $30,000. I think I'm getting a bargain. Before I retired I was chairman and CEO
                  (Chief Executive Officer) of Knight Ridder, and since 1993 I've been founding chairman of the
                  Community Partnership for Homeless. It's a nationally recognized homeless organization that
                  has helped 30,000 people leave the streets of the City of Miami for a better life. Most of my

City of Miami                                        Page 165                                     Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  career, I've been pro-development. I was chairman of the New World Center Action Committee
                  of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce for five years in the middle '70s and '80s, and we
                  were interested in making developments in downtown Miami. I proposed, aided, and assisted in
                  getting over a billion dollars worth of development of downtown Miami, so I've been very much
                  pro-development, but I'm opposed to this project because I think it's bad for the residents of the
                  neighborhood, very bad. I would not be opposed to Mercy Hospital expanding its project -- its
                  facilities for medical reasons. I've been a patient of Mercy Hospital twice in the last year. It's a
                  good hospital and they deserve an opportunity to expand for medical reasons, but I'm opposed to
                  this for traffic, being my main concern. The Bayshore Drive is bad traffic now; it'll be horrible
                  with a new project. I'm opposed to it because of the emergency vehicles I see pass by my home
                  everyday. They get bogged down on Bayshore Drive against present traffic, and if it gets to be
                  more traffic, it'll be more bogged down. I'm opposed to it from the emergency vehicle
                  standpoint. I oppose the project because of the quality of life -- that it would interfere with my
                  quality of life, my neighbors'. I've been living in a condo with 14 other residents, and each one
                  of us is opposed to this project very strongly.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Mr. Chapman. Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. All right, listen. We're going to be asking you very kindly to
                  try to hold back on the applause, or else both sides are going to be applauding all night, and
                  really, you know, we don't allow it. It's -- it was read before the PZ items that we don't allow
                  people to clap, so please, bear with us on this. All right. Next speaker. I believe they're getting
                  some of the speakers that may be outside, guide them in. Maybe we could have the sergeant at
                  arms help us with that, those that are in wheelchairs and --

                  Lucila Azcarate: Good evening, Chairman González and members of the Commission. My
                  name is Lucila Azcarate. I represent the family of Carroll Manor, as neighbors of the proposed
                  project. We support the proposed application, and feel it -- that it provides a true public purpose
                  for our community. We thank you for your great effort, and thanks for everything that they been
                  going to Carroll Manor to say hello to us, and all of them, very kind and very useful. God bless
                  you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Maybe I should have said it in Spanish. All right. Anyone
                  else?

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. No.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. At this time, what we'll do is we'll --

                  Ms. Dougherty: No. I haven't finished my presentation.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no. At this time --

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- since we took care of all those that were in wheelchairs, and we
                  wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to go on home -- I'm sure they want to get
                  home and be with their families -- we'll go ahead and continue with the presentation, and --



City of Miami                                      Page 166                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Dougherty: Before we ever start in any of our Planning & Zoning items, the Commission
                  always requests that we meet with our neighbors, and they insist on that before you ever vote, so
                  we did that. We've met with all of our neighbors, and we thought we've alleviated many of their
                  concerns. We've met and received the support of our adjacent neighborhoods, Natoma Manors
                  and Bay Heights, and their residents are here this afternoon and are ready to testify in support.
                  We also have the support of the Bay Heights Improvement Association, as I said, Natoma
                  Manors Association, Cocoanut Grove Village Council, the Coconut Grove Chamber of
                  Commerce, Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, the Brickell
                  Homeowners Association, Grove Isle Hotel & Spas, Grove Isle Marina, Beacon Harbor, 100
                  percent of its residents, and approximately 400 letters in support --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- and we're going to hand them -- Bill Thompson is going to hand out the
                  letters of support right now. I also would like to point out --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make sure that you give a copy to the Clerk. Thank you. You may
                  proceed.

                  Ms. Dougherty: We've tried to show, diagrammatically, the support we've received.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: More papers?

                  Ms. Dougherty: (INAUDIBLE) we have the support of the Herald Manor, right here, Natoma
                  Manor, Bay Heights. We now have a letter from the Archdiocese, on behalf of LaSalle, and the
                  entire Mercy campus, so if you'll look at this diagram, which was done a few days ago, all of this
                  area should be in orange as well. These are our supporters; all of the orange area, and
                  including these dots, including Grove Isle Hotel. I have a letter here from --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Now is it letter of supports or resolutions passed by the homeowner
                  association or civic groups?

                  Ms. Dougherty: We have both, letters in support from the actual homeowners and from Grove
                  Isle Hotel. We have a letter from the Chancellor to Sister Worley in connection with the
                  Archbishop, and one of -- there are two things the Archbishop is saying to us. He says, A, they
                  don't object to this project, and B, they don't have any intention of selling any of their property,
                  meaning the Carroll Manor, the national shrine of Our Lady of Charity, the Archdiocese Youth
                  Center, LaSalle High School, and Saint (UNINTELLIGIBLE)'s Parish because that's always
                  been an issue. Well, there would be a domino down the Mercy campus, and what we have is a
                  letter from the Chancellor and the Archdiocese that they don't have any intention of selling, and
                  in fact, they support the project. We have met with many other people besides the ones that
                  we've just mentioned, and we've been meeting with them over the last year. I'd just like to tell
                  you some of the people that we've met with. We've met with the Brickell Homeowners
                  Association, the Grove Isle Hotel & Spas, the Grove Isle Marina Association, Beacon Harbor,
                  Coconut Grove Merchants Association, Glencoe Neighborhood Association, several residents,
                  Bay Colony Condominium, Grove Hill, Beacon Reef Condominium, Coconut Grove Sailing
                  Club, Civic Association, Grove House Artist, and numerous other individuals living in the
                  neighborhood, so we've made the effort and the outreach that I know that you would ask us to
                  do, but I want to talk about another important aspect of this application. We think, from a purely
                  land use standpoint, this is a compelling application, but it's more than that. It's more than that,
                  and it's more than Coconut Grove as a district, and it doesn't affect just the Coconut Grove
                  residents. It affects the citizens who use Mercy Hospital. It affects the doctors and the nurses,
                  the orderlies, and all the employees of Mercy Hospital. That's who this affects, and what this
                  proposal will do will bring $100 million infusion into Mercy Hospital, and you're going to hear
                  from Sister Elizabeth Worley, who was the former president of the board of directors for Mercy

City of Miami                                      Page 167                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Hospital for 20 years, and she'll tell you that it was always the intent of Mercy Hospital to sell
                  this property for an infusion of cash to support the hospital and their mission. She'll also --
                  you'll also hear from Dr. Horstmyer as to how critical these funds are to the hospital, and from
                  Dr. Greer, who will tell you the benefits that this hospital brings to this community, so with that,
                  I'd like to turn it over to Sister Worley.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairman, point of order. I would like to object to any testimony or evidence
                  that pertains to Mercy Hospital. This is not about Mercy Hospital. This is about a parcel of
                  land located within the parent tract owned by Mercy Hospital and the interpretation of the
                  Grovenor ordinance, the G/I ordinance. This is nothing but fluff. It has no evidentiary value. I
                  need to have the Commission focus on the true facts before us, and on that basis, I would ask the
                  Chairman to receive that objection --

                  Chairman González: Madam City Attorney.

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- and preclude testimony on that.

                  Chairman González: Madam City Attorney, would you please give me some guidance? Is the
                  attorney correct --

                  Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Yes --

                  Chairman González: -- on his statement or --?

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- sir, but this Commission applies the rules of evidence in a very broad way. There
                  is pretty broad discretion about that which is introduced and that which is considered by the
                  Commission. It has been your policy to take testimony. The lower boards have received
                  testimony in opposite of these issues, and in fact, have -- there have been questions at the lower
                  board related to this. You can give the weight of that which is presented to you whatever you
                  wish, but the rules of evidence are not strictly applied.

                  Chairman González: So what you're telling me, in one word, is that I cannot allow anyone to
                  speak in reference to Mercy Hospital?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No. That's not --

                  Ms. Chiaro: What I'm saying is that you may consider testimony related to Mercy Hospital or
                  you may not, but you can give it the weight that you wish. You can limit the testimony, and you
                  can take the information that's offered or not at your discretion.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Madam City Attorney, what is in front of us today? What two
                  ordinances -- what two matters are in front of us?

                  Ms. Chiaro: A change to the Comprehensive Plan and a change in land use.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: So no building should be considered today, correct?

                  Ms. Chiaro: How -- yes, that's correct, sir, but there has already been testimony adduced as to
                  the buildings and the plans for the parcel, and in fact, the cross-examination has been allowed
                  for the buildings and the plans for the parcels.

                  Chairman González: That is correct.

                  Ms. Dougherty: I think what --



City of Miami                                      Page 168                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: That is correct.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- she's saying, it's totally within your discretion as to whether to permit this.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I personally would like to hear both sides of the story because it's
                  an unfamiliar thing to --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: This --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- me, so I would like to at least hear -- and I'm going to defer to
                  you, Commissioner Sarnoff, but I personally would like to hear both sides --

                  Mr. Lukacs: Very well.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- the people that are against it --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, this --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- and the people that are for it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I tend to agree with you. This project has citywide implications, and
                  I think that the more arguments that we are -- hear, the more we're able to make a determined,
                  intelligent decision on this item.

                  Elizabeth Worley: Thank you. My name is Sister Elizabeth Worley. I am the immediate past
                  chairperson of the board of Mercy Hospital for 19 years. I am a sister of St. Joseph, the sponsor
                  of Mercy Hospital. I live on the campus at the convent at 3665 South Miami Avenue. I would
                  like to note that, in 1945, it was the City of Miami, the city fathers, that requested that a sister's
                  hospital be built, and requested that for the sake of the community of Miami that was, at that
                  point, beginning to grow and grow rapidly. The service to the community has been the focus of
                  the hospital. It has been the intent of the sisters and Mercy's mission to serve. The parcel that
                  we are discussing with respect to rezoning is obviously being requested for a project. The
                  hospital has held that land in trust. It has deliberately never built anything on it, other than a
                  parking lot, because it was a valuable asset to be used for the sake of the work of the hospital in
                  serving the community, and we feel that rezoning in order to do that now is in the best interest of
                  the community and the best interest of Mercy in serving the community. It certainly does bring
                  tax dollars to the City of Miami. From our perspective, it is most important because it will
                  provide the opportunity for the renovation to be able to do exactly why we're there -- exactly why
                  we went there, beginning in 1945, and that is to be a hospital in this community and to serve this
                  community well. It has been our intent. This has been a subject for long discussion. It has
                  always been our intent, and that is the reason this land has been saved for the right purpose at
                  the right time. We feel this is it. This is a critical project to Mercy in its service of the
                  community. It will provide renewal of the facility and the technology for you and I, and anyone
                  in our community who needs quality healthcare. The -- neither Mercy nor the sisters of St.
                  Joseph, nor the Archdiocese, as you already heard, have any intent to further develop, other than
                  for the sake of the ministries of education, healthcare, and social services now on that property,
                  have no intent, and in order to document that in the record, I requested yesterday, Monsignor
                  Michael Souckar, the Chancellor of the Archdiocese, to put that in writing, and I believe that has
                  -- it has been read into the record, but that letter is available, that e-mail (electronic mail) note,
                  if you would appreciate seeing that. There is no intent -- there is no domino effect issue here.
                  This one piece has been saved in perpetuity from the beginning of the hospital for exactly this
                  purpose, and I encourage you to consider the rezoning request. Thank you.



City of Miami                                      Page 169                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Dougherty: I just have one question for you, Sister. When this -- you heard testimony today
                  about the G/I being changed so that you could no longer have a residential development, much
                  like the Grovenor across the street. At the time that it was changed, about two years ago, was
                  the hospital ever notified of that zoning change?

                  Ms. Worley: No. The first I heard of that, as a member of the residential area -- I live on that
                  campus. The first I heard about it was here, when it was presented at one of the earlier
                  meetings. Thank you.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairperson, I do have a question or two for Sister Worley. Sister, you
                  indicate, as I understand your testimony, that the proceeds of the sale of this parcel are going to
                  assist Mercy in enhancing and bettering the services which Mercy can provide to the community;
                  is that correct?

                  Ms. Worley: That is correct. It will allow us to renovate the existing buildings and to provide
                  the infusion of capital for the renewal of technology. It is not intended to expand the facility
                  larger, but to improve the current facility so that we can serve the community as we are intended
                  to do so.

                  Mr. Lukacs: And wouldn't you agree that that infusion of cash can result from a different buyer
                  or a different purchaser, or perhaps, from the sale of this property to be developed for a use
                  other than as is being proposed by the Related Companies and the applicant today?

                  Ms. Worley: As I' ve said earlier, Mr. Lukacs, we have had the thought about the use of that
                  land in discussion for many, many years, and I'm not going to mention the name of the developer
                  nor of the name of the corporation who had hoped to develop, but you would recognize both
                  readily. We did not entertain those proposals. It was not the right proposal at the right time.
                  We feel this one is.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Sister, most respectfully, if the application for the rezoning is to be denied and this
                  sale does not go through, Mercy is not without an alternative; isn't that correct?

                  Ms. Worley: What do you mean by alternative?

                  Mr. Lukacs: Are you familiar with a publication that was produced by Mercy --

                  Ms. Worley: Yes, I am.

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- which, essentially --

                  Ms. Worley: There are uses for which this land may be used.

                  Mr. Lukacs: OK.

                  Ms. Worley: You are correct. As the zoning exists, and I think we've heard discussion, there are
                  uses for which it could be used; medical office building was one of them that was mentioned
                  today; assisted living facility was mentioned; nursing home was mentioned. I believe -- and I'm
                  not an expert, Mr. Lukacs -- they're all included in the current zoning, but all bring to this
                  community, though, some concerns. We've had discussion about traffic. Each of those projects
                  would bring enormous traffic issues that the proposed project does not bring. Secondly, none of
                  those would provide the value to the land that would give Mercy its maximal value for use back
                  to serve the community.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Is this publication, which I'm holding here called Mercy Hospital: A Look into the
                  Future of Mercy Hospital -- is this a publication that was approved by the hospital for

City of Miami                                      Page 170                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  publication to the public at-large?

                  Ms. Worley: I believe it was.

                  Mr. Lukacs: OK. Would you agree that this publication indicated as follows: Should the option
                  --?

                  Ms. Worley: I'm sorry, Mr. Lukacs. I read that several weeks ago, and I did not memorize it. I
                  can't respond to that.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do is just read it in the record because we have
                  court reporters here today to make a record --

                  Ms. Worley: Fine.

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- for both the developer, as well as the opposers, and it reads as follows: Should
                  the option for high-end condominium project not materialize, the development team has an
                  alternative plan to utilize the parcel's existing G/I zoning designation to develop an assisted
                  living facility, medical facility, or some combination of both. We believe the community clearly
                  should and does have a voice as to what is built on that parcel. Choosing a low-density
                  residential project seems to be prudent course of action, but we are neutral on how Related and
                  Ocean Land choose to develop the property, so therefore, if this property were to be developed
                  for something other than the project which is being proposed today and the sale goes through,
                  Mercy is going to receive that infusion of cash, and you're going to be --

                  Ms. Worley: I think --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- able to real --

                  Ms. Worley: -- though, if you would read back to the last one, if the Ocean Land and Related
                  purchased it at the price that is on the table, what they build on it, as long as it looks good, is not
                  our decision, but there was an issue there, and that was price. If they changed the price, that
                  affects Mercy; that affects what we can do for this community.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Most respectfully, that's an issue between Mercy and the developer and not a
                  subject matter for determination or deliberation by this Commission. Thank you --

                  Ms. Worley: It is related --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- very much, Sister.

                  Ms. Worley: -- to zoning. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: All right. I had to step out for a minute. When I left, we were discussing
                  taking the disabled --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: We did.

                  Chairman González: -- persons. We did?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: We'd like to now call Dr. Pedro Greer and then Dr. Horstmyer.

City of Miami                                       Page 171                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                  Pedro Greer: Commissioners, my name is Pedro Jose Greer, Jr. My family has been here in
                  Miami since 1944, when my parents came from Cuba. They actually met here in 1945. I grew
                  up in the City of Miami until we moved to Westchester, which eventually became Westchester, so
                  I have been here my entire life. My children have been born here, as is my wife. I am a
                  physician. I work full-time at Mercy Hospital. I'm a gastroenterologist and a liver specialist.
                  My background with the City of Miami is my deep love for this community, which I was brought
                  up with in the example of my father. Myself, as well as with other people, founded the Camillus
                  Health Concern 25 years ago, which serves over 10,000 people yearly for free for this
                  community for the City. In 1991, with Mercy Hospital, we started a clinic in Little Havana, St.
                  John Bosco, and originally, were running the Penalver Clinic, also at a cost completely to Mercy
                  Hospital, without any reimbursing -- imbursement. These are indigent patents which nobody
                  else takes care of, and we live in a community, we live in a city, we live in a state, we live in a
                  country which, at this moment, right now is heavily concerned with healthcare delivery, quality
                  healthcare delivery. If you do read the Herald, there was an article -- quality and healthcare is
                  always mentioned but rarely measured. I'm very proud to say that Mercy Hospital had the best
                  outcomes of this entire community, including Baptist and Jackson, in both early diagnosis and
                  outcomes of the patients. Medicine is dependent upon knowledge, training, and technology.
                  We're also dependent upon the illness of a community on what we can handle. The approval of
                  this -- and I know nothing for zoning. It's R2-D2 to me; it's pizza to you -- is -- the reality is that
                  we're dedicated physicians at Mercy Hospital. We chose to be there. We take care of everybody
                  that walks into that door, and then we walked outside of that door because, when Camillus Clinic
                  needed a nurse practitioner, which was a good 50 grand, plus everything else along with it,
                  Mercy Hospital came up and gave it to us. When we needed a physician, they did the same
                  thing. When we needed labs, they did the same thing. When patients needed admission, they did
                  the same thing, and as a community service, this is what we do at our hospital. If a sale like this
                  can improve the quality of healthcare for the people that you, sitting there, represent, that's a
                  deep consideration. I understand the limitations of law, but I want you to take it beyond law and
                  think about society and community that you represent. These are human beings. These are
                  individuals. When they are acutely ill, they need care. When they are chronically ill, they need
                  care, and when they need prevention, we're there. I'm proud to be a member of the Mercy
                  family, and I hope that each and every one of you seriously take into considerations the great
                  benefit that this will be to every single citizen in this community. Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Ms. Dougherty: And Dr. Horstmyer.

                  Jeffrey Horstmyer: Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm Dr. Jeffrey Horstmyer. I'm a resident of
                  Miami, Key Biscayne since 1971, when my family came down to town; graduate of the University
                  of Miami Medical School; been involved in the FIU (Florida International University) Medical
                  School project for the past 11 years, and am currently president of the medical staff at Mercy
                  Hospital. As the president of the medical staff, I've been asked to present the consensus feeling
                  of the doctors at Mercy in support of the project, limited to the support of this particular six-acre
                  sale. We feel that it's a quality issue. Mercy Hospital has been able to demonstrate sustained
                  quality of provision of medical services for the past number of years, as illustrated by the J.D.
                  Powers awards three years in a row, which was unheard of, as well as by state and national
                  measures of outcomes. For the hospital to continue to be able to provide the tier one level of
                  quality services that we currently provide, we need to renovate the facility. Further, we need to
                  maintain the state-of-the-art technical facilities as well. It's extremely important to -- in
                  particularly, today's world of medicine -- be able to provide the very highest level of medical
                  care. Secondly, it's a strategic issue, and this was one of the points that we used in obtaining
                  approval of the FIU med school is that there is a dwindling supply of physicians that's going to
                  become quite acute over the next five to ten years, and if one wants to recruit the very best
                  physicians into your neighborhood, into the hospital where you want to have yourself or your

City of Miami                                       Page 172                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  family brought in an emergency situation, we're going to have to have a first-rate facility in
                  order to attract those physicians in the future. Further -- and this was well documented in the
                  FIU Medical School presentation to the board of governor and the legislatures. Further, in
                  terms of the hospital becoming a -- maintaining a successful financial operation, we're going to
                  have to have a quality facility in the future. If we were to deteriorate in terms of quality, due to
                  lack of investment, lack of opportunity to invest, then we could easily deteriorate into a tier two
                  or tier three hospital, and that would be the quality of facility in your neighborhood, and number
                  two, it would be a threat to the continued ability of the hospital to maintain a mission in that
                  location, so I think that, in terms of quality of facility, for all the reasons I outlined, it's an
                  important addition to Mercy to be able to sell the six acres for the $100 million to reinvest in the
                  hospital and the community. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: So, in conclusion, these are the benefits we think that we have to this
                  community. A land sale that provides a major community benefit, an excellent alternative in
                  terms of traffic in term -- for residential, as opposed to any other use that's permitted under the
                  GI. The existing loan -- the existing zoning classification allows the same height and the same
                  right of -- same size of building. What we're proposing is a use that is less than the R-3, which is
                  the most immediate abutting zoning classification. We have 300 units total, and we have a
                  covenant that we have -- actually, an agreement that we've proposed with our neighbors that
                  limits this to 300 units for the future, and the most important thing and the most cogent reason
                  why our neighbors are supporting us, meaning Natoma Manors and Bay Heights, is because we
                  have agreed with them -- or Mercy Hospital has agreed to limit its development for the next ten
                  years, so we have a funding for the bay walk. We have a beautiful building that's going to be
                  there, and with literally no impact on the community, and for that reason, we'd urge your
                  support for this project.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Goggins: Point -- I'm sorry. Point of order, Mr. Chair. The presentation began at 5:20.
                  It's roughly 6:35 at this point, so --

                  Chairman González: That's what I was going to ask.

                  Mr. Goggins: -- hour fifteen, with cross -- time for cross-examination and the disabled
                  witnesses.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, let's just ask them what's the time, how many minutes.

                  Ms. Burns: We have kept the time, and we show 40 minutes on the presentation.

                  Mr. Goggins: Forty minutes, so request that the opposition take -- have 40 minutes as well?

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Ms. Dougherty: And we would also reserve some time for rebuttal.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you. Mr. Lukacs, who represents Grove Isle, will be making the first
                  presentation. I will be making a presentation on behalf of Constance Steen, a woman who lives
                  in the neighborhood. We have several interested people, people who are active in the
                  community, people who live in the neighborhood, who will be making presentations, so we'll
                  start now with Mr. Lukacs's presentation. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: OK, but my question is, the people that are active in the community that

City of Miami                                      Page 173                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  want to do a presentation, is that going to be included on the time that you --?

                  Mr. Goggins: It would be included in the time, yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: In the time --

                  Mr. Goggins: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: -- so it's going to be 40 minutes.

                  Mr. Goggins: It'll be 40 minutes.

                  Chairman González: OK, good. Go ahead.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is John Lukacs, with offices
                  at 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. I have the privilege of
                  representing the board of directors of Grove Isle Association, Inc., which vigorously opposes the
                  application before you today. For the record, our objections have been consistently advanced
                  both before the Zoning Board, as well as the Planning Advisory Board, and we incorporate all of
                  our objections and those of the other objectors into the record for purposes of this hearing. The
                  requested upzoning from G/I to R-4 is wrong. The applicant, the Related Companies and Mercy
                  Hospital, as the case may be, are not legally entitled to the Comprehensive Plan amendment nor
                  the upzoning that they have requested. The applicants are attempting to do indirectly what this
                  Commission has said they can't do directly. On September 27, 2004, the City Commission, upon
                  a unanimous recommendation of the Planning Advisory Board, adopted an ordinance providing
                  for a text amendment of the then G/I zoning classification specifying that when a G/I zoned
                  property is not going to be used for government and institutional uses, it can only be used for the
                  least intensive abutting zoning district. Prior to this text amendment, the G/I ordinance provided
                  that when G/I zoned property ceased to be used for governmental and institutional uses, it could
                  be used, in the case of residential uses, to an intensity of R-4. It is precisely the R-4 intensity that
                  was in the prior G/I ordinance that was eliminated by the City Commission in September of 2004
                  that is being sought by these applicants today. The developer is, in effect, asking this
                  Commission to remove the restrictions imposed by the 2004 text amendment to the G/I zoning
                  classification. The text amendment to the G/I ordinance came about as a result of an application
                  by the Planning and Zoning Department. Before you, you see a planning fact sheet, which
                  accompanied the proposed text amendment in 2004, which provided a background and an
                  analysis which I believe speaks volumes. That background and analysis provides as follows:
                  The proposed amendment is in order to prevent incompatible uses from occurring within
                  low-density neighborhoods when a G/I zoned property ceases to be used for government and/or
                  institutional uses. It's noteworthy that the applicant here is the Planning and Zoning
                  Department. It's also noteworthy that the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval,
                  with a vote of 8/0, to the City Commission. The G/I ordinance, which was adopted on September
                  27, 2004, contained whereas clauses, or recitals, as we know them, as we see in every ordinance,
                  but most noteworthy is the recitals on this one. The very last one indicates, “Whereas the City
                  Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing, has reviewed this ordinance, and after
                  considering the staff recommendation, as well as the public's testimony, has determined that this
                  ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Miami.” Pursuant to section one of
                  that ordinance, that very powerful recital was incorporated as an integral part of the overall
                  ordinance. The text amendment, just like all other zoning classification, was intended to benefit
                  the public as a whole, not a select few. The citizens of the City of Miami have the absolute right
                  to rely upon the existing G/I ordinance as it was amended in 2004. It was for their benefit and it
                  was in their best interest, in the words of the City Commission, that that ordinance was adopted.
                  Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, it is the law. This is why we're here today. Our
                  existing land use zoning designations were adopted because they were based upon a rational
                  and sound planning principle and after doing thoughtful consideration of the rights of all

City of Miami                                       Page 174                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  affected persons. Within the Planning Department you have different divisions. If you go to the
                  City of Miami Planning Department Web site, you'll see that the Planning Department has two
                  specific divisions; one's called a Land Development Division, the other is the Urban Design
                  Division. The Land Development Division, if you look on the Web site, is responsible for, among
                  other things, to analyze and make recommendations on development proposals, on changes of
                  zoning, and on land use designation changes that affect the general welfare of the City of Miami.
                  The Urban Design Section, as defined on the City of Miami Planning Department's Web site,
                  indicates that that division is responsible for developing and implementing a visionary plan for
                  the future development of the City of Miami as a whole. On April 4, 2006, the City of Miami
                  Planning Department, by and through those two divisions, conducted what is referred to as
                  design review comments. They essentially approached three different topics. They spoke to the
                  issue of zoning, urban design, and architecture. The most significant and noteworthy
                  commentary by these two divisions of our Planning Department is that which is highlighted on
                  this exhibit. The change of zoning of this property from G/I to R-4, combined additional FAR
                  (floor area ratio) gained from bay frontage and adjacent roads, results in a project density that
                  is inappropriate for the existing conditions of this area. We heard testimony from Mr.
                  Fort-Brescia. He doesn't believe that's the case. Our own Planning Department, on April 4,
                  2006, believed that was the case. They undertook an analysis; they undertook a review. The
                  Urban Design and Land Development sections came to these conclusions because they utilized
                  the entire staff, as is indicated in this memo of April 4, 2006. That commentary on zoning, which
                  is entirely pertinent to today's discussion, indicates that the FAR bonuses in the application
                  further exacerbate the situation, and here is the most significant observation by those divisions.
                  Our Planning Department, the City of Miami, said the Planning Department feels that this
                  project is out of scale with the area, and that if the applicant chooses to rezone the property, it
                  should be to a land use that is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood, which, in this case, is
                  R-1. Planning Department comments, in summary, are that the project density was
                  inappropriate; the project was out of scale; rezoning should be to R-1, and the land use should
                  be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. It appears that all of these reasons were the
                  reasons that the Zoning Board, and the Planning Advisory Board, and those who were not in
                  favor of this application going forward felt the same way. I submit to you that the Planning
                  Department's conclusions and opinions as of April 4, 2006, were correct and should be applied
                  today. Well, what happened after April 4, 2006? Why are we here today? The reason why
                  we're here today is because the Planning Department, for some inexplicable reason, went ahead
                  and reversed itself. You heard the opening statements by the Planning Department official
                  today. I can't understand how the Planning Department could have reached that conclusion.
                  We did a public records request. We visited the Planning Department. We reviewed all of the
                  papers in their files. There were no studies. There were no analysis. Where was the analysis?
                  It didn't exist. How do you determine that a project is out of scale or not -- or in scale, I should
                  say, just like Mr. Fort-Brescia? Well, you go ahead and you consider some maps and you
                  consider some drawings, and you have some discussions with your staff, and -- I mean, that's
                  what architects do. That's not what the Planning Department did on April 4, 2006. What the
                  Planning Department did was they pulled together two significant divisions of that department,
                  and the entire staff expressed a unified opinion that those four conclusions were reached upon
                  examination and an evaluation of this project. That alone is enough to deny this application.
                  What did occur is we went through the public records. We did find that there was a -- well,
                  actually, here. I'm a little bit ahead of myself. What we did was we went ahead and
                  superimposed the proposed project to some photographs on the shoreline to demonstrate the
                  four criteria or the four comments that were made by our Planning Department. Project density
                  inappropriate, project out of scale. Look at that in relationship to those other R-3 properties.
                  Rezoning should be to R-1. That's what it looks like at Glencoe and South Bayshore Drive.
                  Land use should be consistent with adjacent neighborhood. What happened? Well, what
                  happened was is, on April 20, 2006, there was a meeting had called a pre-application meeting.
                  At that meeting there were nine persons in attendance. We had a representative from the City of
                  Miami Planning Department. We had a representative from the City Manager's Office, and the
                  other seven individuals were the team of advocates and experts and representatives from the

City of Miami                                      Page 175                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Related Company [sic], including lawyers, representatives of the Related Company [sic], as well
                  as Arquitectonica representatives, the firm that Mr. Fort-Brescia is involved with. Subsequent to
                  that meeting, and there's no telling how many other meetings may have occurred between that
                  and the Zoning Board meeting, which was held or at least scheduled to be held some time in
                  July, but subsequent to that meeting, our Planning Department provided, for the very first time, a
                  written analysis of this project, and let me share that with you. This analysis, essentially, says
                  we recommend approval of the change of zoning as a component of the Major Use Special
                  Permit application, but look at the findings, if you would. The first one says is that the proposed
                  zoning change encompasses the southwestern boundary of the Mercy site. OK. I could have
                  gleaned that from the site plan. That's only one sheet. Let's go to the second finding. It is found
                  that this change of zoning is in order to develop three residential towers consisting of 300
                  residential units and 642 parking spaces. Well, I could have taken a look at the second page of
                  the plans, which is the data sheet, and I could have gleaned that information from there as well.
                  Let me skip to the fourth one because the third one is the one I really want to focus on. The
                  fourth one says it's found that the requested zoning designation change is not consistent with the
                  underlying land use designation, and therefore, does not require an amendment to the future
                  land use map of the comp plan. Again, rocket science not required. That's something that could
                  be very easily ascertained by looking at the comp plan, but let's look at number three. It is found
                  that the requested change to R-4 multifamily high-density residential designation will allow
                  greater flexibility in developing the proposed residential use at the above-described location,
                  and therefore, should be changed as part of the MUSP (Major Use Special Permit). Greater
                  flexibility? Any time you upzone a piece of property, you provide the owner or the developer
                  with greater flexibility. How in the world does greater flexibility translate to a recommendation
                  of a change of zoning on this property involving very complex issues? This one-page document
                  is the only analysis for a zoning change that existed in the Planning Department files, and if
                  there are other studies, or if there are other analysis, they weren't made available. This is it.
                  This so-called analysis, plain and simple, is not an analysis at all. It contains no underlying
                  facts, no chain of underlying reasoning, and merely, in an absolutely conclusory fashion,
                  recommends that a change of zoning be had. This non-analysis is absurd. Nowhere in the
                  Planning Department's files is there a reference to the criteria set out in the Zoning Code, no
                  reference to 2210, which are the criteria that you'll all be considering in whether or not a
                  change of zoning should occur. This so-called analysis by our Planning Department should be
                  rejected outright and totally disregarded. Let's not forget the memo, the very honest, the very
                  hardworking result of the two divisions, Urban Design and Land Development, when they
                  reviewed this project and concluded it's wholly inappropriate for the subject area. This
                  development is out of scale, notwithstanding the testimony that you've heard here today. It is out
                  of scale with the adjacent single-family homes. It's out of scale with the entire neighborhood. If
                  constructed, the immense size, the height, the bulk, the mass will irreparably and adversely affect
                  Grove Isle's quality of life, light and view, and negatively impact its market value, as well as the
                  market value of the surrounding area. It will totally envelope and overwhelm a low-scaled
                  character of the surrounding area. The project is, by any standard, wholly out of scale with
                  anything in and around it, not to mention, the noise, the dirt, the dust, the vibration, the traffic
                  condi -- congestion, the maintenance of traffic that's going to have to be addressed as a part of
                  the construction of this project, which we have been told will span somewhere near six years.
                  The G/I ordinance, as it was amended in 2004, was for the protection of the citizens of the City
                  of Miami, and as indicated in the plain language of the ordinance, was adopted because it was
                  in the best interest of those citizens that it be adopted. Developer's request to upzone and to
                  develop the subject property at a density higher than R-1 is unreasonable, it's unacceptable and
                  does not support any legitimate governmental and/or community interest. The requested
                  rezoning would, essentially, accord this developer treatment to the subject property for the sole
                  development of the developer. You're carving out an exception. You're carving out a parcel of a
                  parent tract owned by Mercy Hospital for their benefit. If you carve it out for something less
                  intense, something like we heard -- there were other alternatives in the publication by Mercy
                  Hospital -- so be it, but the fact of the matter is, this carving out and granting of an R-4 zoning
                  classification is tantamount to spot zoning, which is usually thought of as giving preferential

City of Miami                                      Page 176                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole, and that's significant;
                  preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of the zoning scheme as a whole. To adopt
                  this change would be irrational, arbitrary, and capricious. The requested upzoning does not, in
                  any way, shape, or form, bear any relationship, substantial or otherwise, to the public health,
                  safety, and welfare of your community. In addition, the requested zoning, notwithstanding the
                  testimony that we heard, is wholly inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan,
                  which will be addressed in detail by my colleagues, Mr. Goggin [sic], Mr. Devine, and Mr.
                  Bloch. Mercy Hospital is not without any alternatives. The applicant, Mercy Hospital, their
                  entire advocacy team are entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts,
                  and the fact of the matter is, the intent of this ordinance was to protect against the precise
                  actions that are being sought by the developer in this case. There is no substantial competent
                  evidence offered to justify a departure from the G/I ordinance, and I disagree with the experts
                  because I believe the intent of this ordinance is something that must control your decision today.
                  We can hear all about Mercy Hospital. We can hear about all the great things that it did, but
                  that's really not relevant. What we're dealing with here is an interpretation of an ordinance, the
                  interpretation of the intent of a Commission, findings of fact in the record that are admissions
                  against interest by your Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as
                  our lawmakers, it's your obligation to enforce the law, and most importantly, to protect the rights
                  of the citizens for which this ordinance was designed to protect. I thank you very much for your
                  time, and I respectfully urge your denial of these applications.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Goggins: Good evening, Mr. Chair and the Commissioners. My name is Patrick Goggins. I
                  here -- I'm here representing Constance Steen, whose address is 1632 South Bayshore Court.
                  We're here today because the applicant is asking the Commission to create the first R-4 zoning
                  classification ever in Coconut Grove. I submit that this is not a decision that should be takely
                  [sic] -- taken lightly by the members of this Commission. The application should not be
                  approved because, one, the proposed change would violate the Grovenor ordinance. The
                  proposed change does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, specifically 2210,
                  pertaining to upzoning. The proposed change would constitute spot zoning. The proposed
                  change violates the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The proposed change would
                  allow the tallest building in Coconut Grove ever. The proposed change would allow a building
                  that is twice as high as any building within a one-mile radius of the project site. The Zoning
                  Board recommended that this application be denied. The Planning Advisory Board
                  recommended that this application be denied. This Commission should deny this application.
                  Now the memorandum that I've distributed to opposing counsel, the Clerk, and the Commission
                  sets forth my arguments in more detail. I would like to just summarize a few short points. Again,
                  on the Grovenor ordinance, the testimony was that the subject parcel does not touch any other
                  residential -- any other use. The subject property is surrounded with governmental and
                  institutional land, so in making a determination, this Commission should not go to the
                  Comprehensive Plan and make its own decision. You look at the entire parcel. If I have a pizza
                  and I cut out a slice, I look at the crust to see what is the least intensive abutting use, and the
                  least intensive abutting use on the pie -- that is, the Mercy parcel -- is R-1. Bayshore Drive is all
                  R-1; it abuts the Mercy parcel. By operation of the Grovenor ordinance, the applicable zoning
                  classification would be R-1. Now the developers argued that this application -- they -- with the
                  larger units and, you know, less density, you're actually getting less density than was allowed
                  under R-3. That's incorrect because, under R-1 you're not going to get 300 units. The
                  applicable classification is R-1, and this Commission should deny the application because
                  they're seeking to violently increase the density on this parcel from what's allowed under the law.
                  The proposed ordinance that is before the Commission today has to meet the requirements of
                  Section 2210 of the Code, and I won't bore you with a detailed analysis of it, but you look at the
                  ordinance and you look at the Code, they don't match. As matter of law, the proposed ordinance

City of Miami                                      Page 177                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  assigned would be legally insufficient and subject to a, I think, valid challenge. Again, like Mr. -
                  - as Mr. Lukacs said, the proposed change constitutes spot zoning. Spot zoning is when you
                  make a change not because of the decisions of the -- considerations of the public good. It
                  becomes considerations of, well, Mercy Hospital needs money to improve their property. The
                  other consideration is that the developer wouldn't make enough money if they built one that was
                  smaller. Those are not public considerations. Those -- that constitutes spot zoning, and again, if
                  approved, this project would be subject to a challenge for spot zoning, but I, again, urge this
                  Commission to not approve this application. The rest of my analysis is contained in more detail
                  in the memorandum. I would like, at this time, to call Mr. Blumberg to testify.

                  Max Blumberg: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Max Blumberg, a trustee of the
                  Vizcaya Museum & Gardens Trust, and past president of the support group. I'm here to speak
                  against the proposed development for the irrevocable damage that it will cause to Vizcaya
                  Museum & Gardens. A major scholarly book that was just published last month calls Vizcaya an
                  extraordinary national and international treasure, and an architectural and landscape
                  masterpiece. The developer mentioned the many entities that they spoke to, but Vizcaya was not
                  one of them. The proposed residential towers, at the scaled planned, would have irrevocable
                  negative impact upon Vizcaya's view shed and the visitor experience of Miami's only public
                  national historic landmark. The proposed towers would dominate the view from Vizcaya's main
                  house and gardens. It would be nothing less than a disaster for Vizcaya. Debates about view
                  shed protection are not uncommon in a rapidly developing world. This has been a hot topic in
                  Virginia, where the Thomas Jefferson Foundation works closely with local government and
                  developers on the design of new construction within the Monticello view shed to protect the
                  integrity of the site, and the Trust for Public Lands has worked arduously to protect views at
                  numerous historic properties, including George Washington's Mt. Vernon, which was threatened
                  by development across the river. The National Park Service even maintains a watch list for the
                  endange -- or there's an endangered list for national historic landmarks whose integrity is
                  threatened. Diminished or otherwise compromised view sheds have been the basis for a number
                  of national historic landmarks being placed on this list, and Vizcaya's integrity and status are in
                  grave danger. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has led efforts to protect the view
                  shed of numerous sites that are historic, and they've determined that a compromised view shed
                  would significantly mar the integrity and visitors experience and undermine earned income of
                  these sites. Based on the National Trust concerns, local jurisdictions have rejected many plans
                  for the development of such sites. Most states have view shed protection legislative for historic
                  properties. While we don't have this protection in Florida, we appeal to the City of Miami to
                  prevent the destruction of Vizcaya's view shed. We heard tonight that Mercy will not permit
                  further development for ten years. That's a blink in time, and this sets a precedent for future
                  development of the site, even closer to Vizcaya Museum & Gardens. There's no question that
                  this current development will irreparably damage Vizcaya's beauty and integrity, significantly
                  undermine its capacity to earn income, which is its livelihood through admissions, through
                  facility rentals, and diminish support for the organization in the future. It's not possible to put a
                  price tag on this damage. The developer has not examined the impact of this project on Vizcaya,
                  and -- which is an historically designated property, and I trust that the City of Miami
                  Commission will require the developer to address this issue as Vizcaya will sustain massive
                  damages. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Ms. Dougherty: I just have a question. I have a question for you, please. I have a question.

                  Mr. Goggins: Mr. Blumberg.

                  Mr. Blumberg: Yes.

City of Miami                                      Page 178                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Dougherty: Which organization do you represent?
                  Mr. Blumberg: I'm speaking as a private citizen, but I'm a trustee of the Vizcaya Museum &
                  Gardens Trust.

                  Ms. Dougherty: So you don't have a resolution from the Viz --?

                  Mr. Blumberg: No, we do not have a resolution from the Trust.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. Are you aware of how long a distance this is away from Vizcaya?

                  Mr. Blumberg: I heard tonight that it's 1,600 feet. The issue was the view shed, and a 50-story
                  building -- or three 50-story buildings would certainly be very much in the view shed of Vizcaya.
                  In addition, I referred to the potential for future changes if this is accepted, you know, directly on
                  the edge of Vizcaya Gardens.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, first of all, it's not a 50-story building, but are you aware of the most
                  important historic district in Miami Beach, the Art Deco District?

                  Mr. Blumberg: Yes.

                  Ms. Dougherty: And are there high-rises around there?

                  Mr. Blumberg: There are high-rises, but not within the historic district itself.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, but they are within walking distance, within visitors district -- in fact, they
                  are immediately across the street from the historic district.

                  Mr. Blumberg: That is true, but you may want to equate the historic district with the Vizcaya
                  Museum & Gardens. I would not do so. I think that would be debatable.

                  Ms. Dougherty: What about the Je -- what about Jesuit Church downtown? Are you aware that
                  it's directly across the street from high-rises?

                  Mr. Blumberg: Again, I would not equate that with Vizcaya Museum & Gardens, and I'd like to
                  provide you with the recent book that was published to educate you about Vizcaya, and its
                  significance, and its international recognition, as well as its importance to --

                  Ms. Dougherty: There is no doubt --

                  Mr. Blumberg: -- Miami. Right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- about it --

                  Mr. Blumberg: Right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- but -- and let me just say this to you. If you can see this from Vizcaya, we will
                  gran-- plant the biggest trees you have ever seen to assure that you won't even see this building.
                  We don't believe that you will ever see this building from Vizcaya. Just look at it. I mean, all --
                  you don't have to believe me. You look at where you are.

                  Mr. Blumberg: I -- as I said, I think that since there has never been any communication between
                  Vizcaya Museum & Gardens and the developer, that, you know, we would like very much for that
                  to happen, and in that case, we'd have a chance to understand the impact, and certainly to
                  ensure that the developer would understand the impact. As we see it now, it's disastrous.

City of Miami                                      Page 179                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Dougherty: OK, but you're speaking as a private citizen.

                  Mr. Blumberg: I am speaking as a private citizen.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you.

                  Mr. Blumberg: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Mr. Goggins: I'd like to call Mr. Aguirre.

                  Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Lady and gentlemen of the Commission, my name is Horacio Stuart
                  Aguirre, residing at 1910 Northwest 13 Street, Miami, Florida 33125. I come to you as an
                  individual resident of this community for the last, gree -- I believe, since 1953. I'm president of
                  the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, past president of Miami Neighborhoods United.
                  Like the fine doctor that spoke, I also graduated from the University of Miami with an MBA
                  (Master of Business Administration). I'm a commercial real estate professional and a mortgage
                  broker licensee. I'd like to say that the developer is, indeed, a fine gentleman, and the good
                  sisters of Mercy Hospital have, indeed, been doing the Lord's work for many years in service to
                  this community, and we recognize that, and we applaud it, but nonetheless, this project is
                  unquestionably the wrong use of this land and would be to the great detriment of the Roads
                  Neighborhood and the Coconut Grove neighborhoods and to all that drive on Bayshore Drive.
                  Those that learned our civics lessons in this wonderful country learned that the single-family
                  neighborhoods were held as sacred as the family homestead and as the family itself. The
                  concept of invading the environs of single-family neighborhoods with millions of cubic yards of
                  concrete and hundreds, if not a thousand additional automobiles for the sheer sake of financial
                  profit has historically been considered sacrilegious to the tenets of good government of this
                  country. These neighborhoods do not need a mega project. They do not want a mega project,
                  and approving them would not only be nothing less than shameful theft of the quality of life for
                  the residents of this community. I'd like to remind you that I've spoken to you for the last three
                  years, and I've spoken to you and told you of the upcoming collapse of the condominium market,
                  and I predicted it, and I'm embarrassed to say that, for once, I was right. The collapse has come.
                  As recently as last week, the New York Times published a front - page story listing Miami as one
                  of the four cities with a condominium collapse, and that is going to bring about a bigger
                  nightmare than you've ever experienced in this community. I strongly urge you to decline this
                  project as proposed. Thank you very much.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Goggins: I'd like to call Elvis Cruz, please. Moving on, Nina West, please.

                  Nina West: Nina West, 3690 Avocado Avenue, Coconut Grove. I'm here on behalf of Miami
                  Neighborhoods United. We are here to ask the Commission to please -- to defend the ordinance,
                  GI zoning to protect the city. This is a citywide issue. There are GI properties all over the city.
                  This -- the governing body unanimously voted, enthusiastically, for the ordinance when it was
                  designed. It was said at that time -- and I was at the meeting -- that there would never be
                  another Grovenor situation anywhere in the City of Miami; that the ordinance was for us, and
                  that you would uphold the ordinance, so that is what I am asking you to do. Every
                  Commissioner here has tons of G/I property, and they are surrounded by single-family
                  neighborhoods, and each one of you was elected by the representatives who live in, mostly, these
                  single-family neighborhoods, and even here tonight, we have condominium representatives who

City of Miami                                      Page 180                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  have elected you, who are asking you to maintain the G/I zoning, so I beg that you do. Thank
                  you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, here is a picture of the
                  property as it appeared in the public notice in the newspaper. This picture is misleading and
                  deceptive. Why? Because here is a true picture of the platted property in question, as shown by
                  the County tax records. It is much larger. Here it is on the City Zoning map. The least intense
                  abutting district to the Mercy Hospital property is R-1, at the top, by Bay Heights. What this
                  proposal does is to carve out a portion of the property that does not abut R-1, but rather, R-3, in
                  an attempt to evade both the spirit and letter of the GI ordinance. Not only should you not allow
                  this manipulative precedent to be set, you should strengthen the GI ordinance by amending it to
                  specifically prevent this sort of evasive maneuvering in the future. Otherwise, what's to prevent
                  any GI property in the City from being strategically subdivided to circumvent the ordinance.
                  The applicants have said they could build a maximum of 425 units under R-3, so we should think
                  that 300 units under R-4 is somehow better. That statement assumes that the maximum density is
                  an entitlement, which it is not, so that the neighbors will be fooled into thinking that R-4 is the
                  lesser evil. Very importantly, the attorneys who represent developers here at City Hall routinely
                  mislead the advisory boards and this Commission by saying that they can build a project to its
                  maximum intensity “as of right.” Not true, as per Section 2301 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance.
                  “In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this zoning ordinance shall be held to
                  be minimum requirements or maximum limitations.” That means that density, FAR, and height
                  limits are maximums, not entitlements. This fact was verified by the Miami City Attorney in the
                  Morningside case, and I asked the City Attorney to correct me if I am wrong on that point. At
                  the Zoning Board the applicant did not mention the inconvenient truth that R-3 has a 50-foot
                  height limit. No part of this property abuts R-4, only R-1 and R-3. Furthermore, zoning
                  decisions made by the City Commission should be based on public benefit or to compensate for a
                  hardship and not on a desired profit motive. There is no public benefit to justify this upzoning,
                  nor is there a hardship. The land pays no taxes, so the applicant doesn't even have carrying
                  costs. The applicants have said they need the money from this land sale to buy medical
                  equipment, even though they have also said that medical equipment quickly becomes obsolete as
                  the technology improves. They also said they want the money to do remodeling and that they
                  expect to spend it all in two to three years, but by common business practice, all of those
                  expenditures should be paid for by recurring revenues, not by a one-time land sale. What will
                  they do the next time they need medical equipment or remodeling? Will they sell another piece
                  of land? How does every other hospital in the country that doesn't have waterfront acreage to
                  sell still manage to survive? The applicant said their emergency room doubled in patient volume
                  in recent years. Shouldn't this land be saved for future medical needs? There is no shortage of
                  R-4 land in the City. I urge you to deny this upzoning. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Mr. Goggins: John Devine, please.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Could I just ask Elvis Cruz a question, please?

                  Mr. Cruz: Yes, ma'am.

                  Ms. Dougherty: You do live in Morningside, correct?

                  Mr. Cruz: I do. I'm very familiar with this issue because of my experiences there, as you're well
                  aware.

City of Miami                                     Page 181                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. The most immediate abutting zoning classification -- I don't think that you
                  meant to mislead everybody to thinking it's R-1. It's really R-3, isn't it?

                  Mr. Cruz: No, ma'am. Would you like to see the map, again? It's the County map. I did not
                  make it up.

                  Ms. Dougherty: The most immediate abutting zoning classification to the property that we are
                  rezoning is R-3.

                  Mr. Cruz: The close -- well, what you're doing is you're trying to carve out a piece of one large
                  property.

                  Ms. Dougherty: This is correct.

                  Mr. Cruz: The lowest is --

                  Ms. Dougherty: This is the --

                  Mr. Cruz: -- R-1.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- only place that we are asking for a rezoning is in this one --

                  Mr. Cruz: The closest is R-3.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

                  Mr. Cruz: You are correct.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. That's all I had.

                  Mr. Lukacs: I just want to object. The legal standard is not immediate abutting; it's abutting.

                  Mr. Cruz: Do you have any other questions for me, Ms. Dougherty? Is that it?

                  Chairman González: Any other questions?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I'm --

                  Mr. Cruz: OK, thank you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you.

                  John Devine: Good evening. My name is John Devine. I live at 1717 South Bayshore Drive, a
                  short distance from the project site. I am opposed to this project. I've been opposed to it from
                  day one. I remain opposed to it, and I urge you to deny the application. The Miami
                  Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan has a goal that -- for the City to maintain a land use pattern
                  that protects and enhances the quality of life in the City's residential neighborhoods. Further, it
                  requires that the City enforce, and where necessary, strengthen those sections of the land
                  development regulations that are intended to preserve and enhance the appearance and the
                  character of the City's neighborhoods. As the applicant's expert testified, the entire Code must
                  be read as a whole and in its entirety. This is a very important part of our Code. Coconut Grove
                  is a low-density, low-rise neighborhood, predominated by R-1 single-family homes. There is no
                  R-4 zoning and unlimited height development in Coconut Grove. The City recognizes this
                  distinct character and has historically preserved it. Our zoning scheme codifies it. Coconut

City of Miami                                       Page 182                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Grove is contained within a neighborhood conservation district, the purpose of which to
                  preserve the neighborhood character and promote compatible development by regulating new
                  construction. Within that conservation district, we have special districts. Special districts may
                  only be created by the City in general areas where there exists, through official designation, a
                  special and substantial public interest in the protection of the existing character of the area. The
                  special districts in Coconut Grove all have maximum height limitations. They range from 26 feet
                  up to 220 feet. The 220-foot maximum limit is across the street here, and it's in a very limited
                  geographic area. Everywhere else in the Grove is zoned accordingly to protect the character, so
                  the Zoning Ordinance -- the scheme is clear. Coconut Grove is low-density, low-rise. There is
                  no R-4, high-density, and unlimited height development, and the City has determined that there
                  is a special and substantial public interest in the protection of this existing character. Now go
                  ahead and compare this zoning scheme to some of the other zoning schemes we have in the City
                  of Miami. Look at the Brickell Area Office Residential District, Special District 5. Look at the
                  Central Commercial Residential District, Special District 6. The Central Brickell Rapid Transit
                  Commercial Residential District, SD-7; the Miami Design District, SD-8, and SD-15, the River
                  Quadrant Mixed-Use District. In those districts, there -- they have been designated for
                  high-density and unlimited height development. This project belongs elsewhere; it doesn't
                  belong in Coconut Grove. The project is simply not compatible with the character of Coconut
                  Grove, as evidenced by the existing zoning scheme, and is, therefore, inconsistent with the
                  neighborhood plan. For that reason, it must be denied. Further, to amend our Zoning
                  Ordinance and the Future Land Use Map, the Code provides that the Planning Department must
                  opine that the rezoning requested is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lukacs
                  showed us a couple of planning reports. The first planning report, dated -- I believe it was April
                  4, 2006, said it was incompatible. It didn't work for the area, very clear. The second -- and I'm
                  going to call this the City Manager-influenced planning report listed a bunch of -- well, I don't
                  know what they were. They justified approving this on greater flexibility in developing the
                  property. Well, that's not a criteria, and as a matter of fact, that criteria only applies in the
                  general downtown area, and particularly, along the Miami River, so that's not even a criteria to
                  be applied. As a matter of law, this application has to be denied. I have met with the developer.
                  The developer did reach out to me, and we had a very nice talk, and he told me how it was going
                  to be, OK. The developer understands the character of Coconut Grove, low-density, low height
                  buildings. The developer has said the developer can build a low height, low-density project on
                  the subject property, but they're not going to do it, and the reason why they're not going to do it
                  is because they don't make enough money. It's not that they're going to lose money. They won't
                  make enough money. It's very clear this developer, despite all of the marketing materials and all
                  of the presentations, cares nothing about the character of Coconut Grove. You do. I urge you to
                  deny the application, to enforce our ordinances, and to protect our neighborhoods. In addition,
                  when you look at the considerations in Section 2210 of the Code, this application should be
                  denied. As previously stated, it is not in conformity with the neighborhood plan.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're referring to the Zoning Code, correct?

                  Mr. Devine: Yes, sir. It is contrary to the established land use pattern in Coconut Grove. We
                  don't have any R-4 here. It will create isolated districts unrelated to the adjacent properties,
                  both with the project itself and with the Bay Heights and the Natoma Manors areas, which,
                  pursuant to these secret agreements, the public understands that there's going to be some road
                  closures. That creates additional isolated areas. It is out of scale with the neighborhood. The
                  Planning Department says that. It will materially alter the population density of the
                  neighborhood. We're going to R-4, high-density. It will overtax South Miami Avenue, South
                  Bayshore Drive, and 17th Avenue, not because of only the traffic emanating from and entering
                  the project site, but because of the road closures in Bay Heights and Natoma Manors and how
                  that's going to further stress our existing roads. It will both excessively -- will both create and
                  excessively increase traffic congestion for the same reasons. It will grant a special privilege to
                  Mercy Hospital, in essence, as a land speculator. They are going ahead and entitling property
                  for a much more higher profit. There are no substantial reasons why the use of the property is

City of Miami                                      Page 183                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  unfairly limited under the existing zoning, and further, it's not difficult to find other adequate
                  sites in the surrounding area for the proposed use. I've just enumerated several districts right in
                  the community here, just up the street, where this project would be perfectly appropriate. I urge
                  you to deny the application. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Mr. Goggins: A point of order for the Clerk. How much time is remaining?

                  Chairman González: None, I believe.

                  Ms. Burns: Three minutes.

                  Mr. Goggins: Three minutes.

                  Chairman González: Three minutes.

                  Mr. Goggins: OK. I'd like to --

                  Ms. Dougherty: I have a question.

                  Mr. Goggins: For Mr. Devine?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes.

                  Mr. Goggins: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Devine, were you speaking on behalf of a client or an expert -- are you an
                  expert? What is your --?

                  Mr. Devine: An expert in what?

                  Ms. Dougherty: In zoning and planning.

                  Mr. Devine: No. I'm not --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Are you an expert?

                  Mr. Devine: I wouldn't say that I'm an expert, no. I don't hold myself out as an expert, but I
                  have read the neighborhood plan.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. What do you think that the Ritz Carlton, for example, is zoned?

                  Mr. Devine: I have no idea.

                  Ms. Dougherty: What if I told you it allows 150 units per acre, would you believe me?

                  Mr. Devine: I don't know.

                  Ms. Dougherty: How about Bayshore Drive, where the SBS (Spanish Broadcasting System)
                  Tower is?

                  Mr. Devine: There's a special district, I understand, between Aviation and Bayshores [sic]

City of Miami                                       Page 184                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Drive, Tigertail, where the maximum height limit is permitted to go up to 220 feet.

                  Ms. Dougherty: That's correct, but how many units, density?

                  Mr. Devine: I was talking about height and density. I don't --

                  Ms. Dougherty: You wouldn't know?

                  Mr. Devine: -- know. I don't --

                  Ms. Dougherty: If I told you 150, would you believe me, 150 units per acre?

                  Mr. Devine: As long as you're telling me the truth, I would believe you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, I'm just asking you.

                  Mr. Devine: Well --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Would you believe --

                  Mr. Devine: -- I'm telling you.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- me? Would you dispute this?

                  Mr. Devine: I dispute a lot of things, yeah.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK, so -- well, I have a zoning map here, and it is zoned SD-17, and I'd ask
                  your Planning Department to verify that 150 units per acre is allowed on South Bayshore Drive
                  all the way up through the Ritz, and it is exactly in scale with what Jack Luft had proposed. In
                  other words, the further away you are, the larger the building that you can have, so you have the
                  Grovenor House, you have SBS Tower, you have the Ritz Carlton, all with the same zoning
                  classification at 150 units per acre, which is allowed in the R-4.

                  Mr. Devine: Are you asking me a question?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes.

                  Mr. Devine: I have no idea what your question is.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Thank you. Is that the conclusion of their presentation?

                  Mr. Goggins: Is there any more remaining time for the opposition?

                  Chairman González: How many minutes did the --? They used 40 minutes, right?

                  Ms. Burns: You had three minutes left.

                  Mr. Goggins: Three minutes left. I'd like to call Grace Solares.

                  Grace Solares: Good afternoon --

                  Chairman González: Good afternoon.

                  Ms. Solares: -- Commissioners. The Roads -- my name is Grace Solares. I'm the president of
                  the Roads Association, and the Roads Association opposes this. The Roads Association opposed

City of Miami                                       Page 185                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007

                  this since we found out about it. We contacted our attorney, Tucker Gibbs. He had been in a
                  meeting with us. We told him we were opposed to it. He says I'm representing two other groups.
                  I'm going to find out whether they don't mind you guys joining in opposition at that time; never
                  heard back from Mr. Tucker Gibbs. In any event, I ask you, Commissioner Sanchez, if the
                  Catholic Church -- you don't have to answer, by the way --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I won't.

                  Ms. Solares: OK. If the Catholic Church, who's the greatest real estate holder in the world, who
                  usually buys and sells for a profit, decides to sell the St. Peter & Paul School, which is G/I, and
                  then sell it to the Related Groups [sic] for $92 million, it will revert and will do the same thing
                  as R-4 in the section --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But, Grace --

                  Ms. Solares: -- and --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- let me interrupt you. That is totally irrelevant.

                  Ms. Solares: No, it is not.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes, it is, totally irrelevant.

                  Ms. Solares: Because if you rule on this issue, sir, you'd be ruling -- if something comes up in
                  the future right in our section, you're probably ruling the same way.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could I ask you a question? Did the --

                  Ms. Solares: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- homeowner association pass a resolution in opposition?

                  Ms. Solares: Yes, we most certainly did --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Great.

                  Ms. Solares: -- and I think either Mr. Lukacs or you have -- Mr. Goggins has the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Make sure --

                  Ms. Solares: -- resolution.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you turn it in to the City Clerk.

                  Ms. Solares: OK, so finding this -- I mean, and they do that and they sell it -- because now we
                  know that not only the devil wears Prada, but also the Pope -- and they decide to sell this for $92
                  million, we're running the same risk of having the same issue right in the middle of our
                  neighborhood, and for you, Commissioner Sarnoff, there's another part of the Roads that is in
                  your district, which happens to be right on South Miami Avenue. Ms. Dougherty said before
                  that, gee, nobody has said anything about traffic. Well, I'm saying about traffic, OK, because
                  we're going to be impacted. Right now that section of the Roads on South Miami Avenue is
                  impossible to cross over to South Miami Avenue and go to downtown. People here will probably
                  not take that, probably go down to Coral Way, and go, again, north on Coral Way. These
                  studies are based on statistics because the people are not there. It's just a projection and
                  numbers, so in closing, I'm going to close with a quote from Spence-Jones appointee to the

City of Miami                                       Page 186                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  Planning Advisory Board on an issue of the Downtown Development Authority, which the
                  argument was based on statistics, and he ruled against them, and he ruled against them because
                  he said, “Gentlemen, I'm going to quote,” and he said, “Mark Twain, who said, 'A lie is a lie is a
                  statistic.'” Thank you, and I hope you'll reject this upzoning.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Goggins: Thank you, Commissioners.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Goggins: That concludes the opposition's presentation. Thank you for your attention.

                  Chairman González: Thank you very much.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Just a few words in rebuttal, Commissioner --

                  Chairman González: Go ahead. You're recognized.

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. First of all, I'd like Bernardo Fort-Brescia to come forward because they
                  were talking about facts, and they completely misrepresented his exhibit when they showed that
                  exhibit of the -- of his buildings.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: During the presentation by the opponent counsel, he showed an image
                  several times, more than once, from different angles of this project, and we took a lot of care in
                  the design to compose the façade at different parts at a smaller scale. They were shown as a
                  single mass, but most importantly -- and I really think it is unfair to represent to the public things
                  that are not accurate -- we carefully stepped down the buildings from a taller building on the
                  waterfront, reducing in height significantly; five stories each time, all the way down to the
                  neighborhood, and the exhibit that was shown by the gentleman actually did exactly the opposite
                  and made it appear that we were doing exactly the mirror image reverse, and actually rising
                  from a low building on the waterfront to a high building toward South Bayshore Drive, and I
                  don't think it's correct to create that -- those kind of impressions to the public, to yourselves, and
                  to the people who even oppose here, who may have that incorrect impression that we actually
                  are doing the reverse of what the -- our sensitive design has done for the neighborhood, and --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- I want to make that clarification, please.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need -- for the sake of clarity, we need to keep the project -- the
                  project is not even in front of us, so let's not even see pictures of projects or what is going to be
                  out there. I mean --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Well, sure, but the opponent has shown images of the project, architecture
                  included. Clearly, he starts with an image, has an image in the middle of the way, an image at
                  the end, so I have to rebut. When there is a presentation of my architecture by a third party, I
                  think I need --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- to respond to it.



City of Miami                                       Page 187                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- at least --

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I think we all know that's irrelevant. Let's just stick to the facts.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Just a point of --

                  Ms. Dougherty: OK. One of the --

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- clarification.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- things that I need to --

                  Mr. Lukacs: Excuse me, Lucia. Just a point of clarification, and this is not in surrebuttal, but
                  just for clarification. One of the exhibits offered by the applicant actually attempted to portray
                  the scale of this project. That issue was addressed specifically by Mr. Luft, as well as by Mr.
                  Fort-Brescia, and the actual exhibit, which is sitting in front of the podium in front of Ms.
                  Dougherty right there, is a cropped version of what this project purports to be, which is a
                  perspective that was selected by Arquitectonica to send a specific message. It does not, in any
                  way, envelope or encompass the relevant surrounding neighborhoods by which one could
                  reasonably conclude that the project is clearly out of scale. Thank you very much.

                  Applause.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: Well, I'm --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Fort-Brescia: -- I'd like to say that what I am talking about is not subjective; it's factual and
                  objective. The actual lower building is to the west, and that -- it was represented exactly in
                  reverse in the exhibits shown by the opponent, and it actually -- represented incorrectly, and I
                  just wanted to point that out. This is a factual thing. I'm not talking here judgment calls.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. All right.

                  Ms. Dougherty: One of the things that -- and this is in rebuttal -- was raised by the other side is
                  a pre-application design review comment, and what I want you to know is that this is the first
                  thing that happens in a litany of nine months of various hearings and meetings that we have to
                  go through through a Major Use Special Permit, and it's just factually incorrect. I mean, it says
                  that the lowest abutting neighborhood is R-1. Well, they were wrong, and that's what the
                  planning analysis shows later on, and that's a -- that's what your Planning Department just
                  testified to. The lowest abutting zoning classification is R-3. What we're proposing, it is a
                  density of less than R-3; not R-3, less than R-3, and this is what they're saying. They are saying
                  that the R-4 combined results in a project density that is inappropriate with the existing
                  conditions of the area. Not true. The density is actually less than the most -- the closest abutting
                  zoning classification, which I'm just going to point out to you on this exhibit. What you see in
                  orange is the R-3 district. This is R-3. This allows 65 units per acre. What we're proposing is
                  something less than --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Can we get a mike?

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- 65. This is the R-3 district. This is the property that we're proposing to zone
                  to R-4. This allows 65 units per acre or 104 units. We aren't proposing 104 units. We're
                  proposing less density than this was proposed -- than the R-4, or the R-3, for that matter, so the

City of Miami                                      Page 188                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  original comments were just a mistake, and as we go through the process, they revised their
                  comments, and they revised their conditions, and they revised their recommendations because we
                  revise our plans according to what they're proposing, so they didn't show you what the plans
                  were originally. We've modified these based on what the Planning staff has asked us to do along
                  the way of the procedure in the MUSP, and we have a Urban Development Review Board. They
                  propose a staff -- we have a board of architects in the City of Miami called the Urban
                  Development Review Board. They recommended approval of this project. We also went to the
                  Shoreline Review Committee of Dade County. They recommended unanimous review -- approval
                  of this project, so to take a staff -- one staff recommendation is the very beginning of the whole
                  process, and to kind of construe that that ought to be it for the end, not knowing that we've
                  actually changed our plans any number of ways and times to meet staff objections throughout the
                  process. I want to just point out to you there has been no expert testimony here today. We've
                  had lawyers' arguments, and that does not constitute competent substantial evidence. With that,
                  I'd like to close.

                  Chairman González: All right. We're going to start taking input from --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Excuse me.

                  Chairman González: Are you done?

                  Ms. Dougherty: No.

                  Chairman González: Oh, you're not? OK.

                  Mr. Luft: OK. The opposition's arguments are based on one significant fallacy, totally flawed.
                  Commissioner Sarnoff, let me read this to you. It says -- I'm reading from the G/I governmental
                  district, as amended. It says that any use within the comprehensive development plan
                  designation as set forth below is permitted. However, for accessory, nongovernmental or
                  noninstitutional uses only, such uses may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense
                  abutting district. What they're missing entirely in this whole debate, that statement says, if
                  nothing else occurs, if G/I remains and there is no rezoning, if there is no master plan change,
                  then all you can do in the G/I district, as of right, is whatever is permitted in the lowest intensity
                  abutting district, if nothing else changes. Why are we here today? Because staff said, if you
                  want to do the kind of R-4 development that is referred to in our Comprehensive Plan as
                  appropriate in connection with G/I and you want to eliminate that Mercy Hospital parking lot as
                  a G/I use, then you have to change the zoning, and to change the zoning, you have to change the
                  comp plan. That's all. There's nothing here that says you can't change the zoning and you can't
                  change the comp plan. It only says, if you don't make those changes, then you are limited to the
                  lowest abutting residential district, period. We are making the changes. That's why we're here.
                  Your argument is -- will -- only holds if we're in here to get an as-of-right permit for a
                  development without any changes. That's when the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to the district applies.
                  That's what happened on the Grovenor. There was no change of zoning. There was no change
                  of master plan. They just came in and built a high-rise. The Department and the City made the
                  change and said, no, that's not going to happen anymore. You can't just come in here and say,
                  oh, well, we're going to build a high-rise on G/I. Uh-uh. If it's not governmental and it's not
                  institutional, i.e., residential high-density, then the proper procedure is, A, change your comp
                  plan, and B, change your zoning. There's nothing illegal about this. This is the process we have
                  to follow, and you'll have to follow in any district. Their interpretation -- they're trying to say,
                  hey, if you have a G/I district, you can't do anything but whatever the lowest residential use is,
                  even if you change the zoning. That's ridiculous. That would be a complete usurpation of the
                  right to appeal for a comp plan change and a land use change, and --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Luft.



City of Miami                                       Page 189                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Luft: Yes.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Thus, your argument that you have to change the entire GI in order --

                  Mr. Luft: If the --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Let me just say it. You could tell me if I'm wrong. I don't mind being
                  wrong. I'm probably wrong more --

                  Mr. Luft: Right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- than I'm right. Thus, your argument that you have to change the
                  entire GI tract of land in order to revert back to the lowest adjacent neighborhood.

                  Mr. Luft: If the GI goes away, which is what I said --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Mr. Luft: -- if it goes away, then you have to change the plan, or the zoning, or all you can do is
                  the R-1.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. Your --

                  Mr. Luft: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- suggestion, then, is that you have got to get rid of the entire GI, and
                  then, only then, do you revert back to --

                  Mr. Luft: I'm say --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- the lowest --

                  Mr. Luft: -- that's what they're saying.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, I thought that's what you're saying, Mr. Luft.

                  Mr. Luft: No. I'm saying that the -- as long as the G/I is there and you make no other changes,
                  all you can do is single-family or R-3. In this case, the abutting -- nearest abutting district -- and
                  your Department has already had a ruling on file that the nearest abutting district to this
                  property is R-3, OK. So that would be -- without a change, that would be the limitation. What
                  I'm saying is, only if you change the G/I can you go to something else, OK. You can't just leave
                  it there. You got to change it, so their entire argument falls apart because they're arguing a
                  status quo, and we're here seeking a change. Their argument has no application to this at all.
                  Moreover -- and spot zoning, the legal case law is that if you have a less intensive use -- and
                  your Department has said this is a downzoning. It is a more restrictive use district. It cannot be
                  a spot zone.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Does that conclude your rebuttal?

                  Mr. Luft: One last point. Vizcaya has said that they will be irreparably damaged by a tall
                  structure that they could see. I simply want to know if, in their opinion, they can see any of the
                  high-rises on Brickell because the distance from the Vizcaya property, the gardens on the north
                  side to the Cosmopolitan or the 50-story --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Jack, that --

City of Miami                                      Page 190                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Luft: -- Bristol --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- that's irrelevant.

                  Mr. Luft: Well, I'm -- all I'm saying is they've alleged that this will incomparably damage their
                  property, and what I'm saying is, look at the map. The distances are the same. They don't
                  mention the other properties, of course, because they haven't irreparably compromised them.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Thank you.

                  Mr. Luft: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: There is --

                  Applause.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Lucia, could you come up for one minute?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Coun --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Lucia. I have a question for Lucia.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, the Commissioner has a question, but there is no rebuttal to a
                  rebuttal. Counsel, you --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Understood.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- know that better than I do --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: I just want to --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and then --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- ask her a question. When you --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You could go ahead with the question, but afterwards, please start
                  lining up, all those that are going to speak in favor or against because I think it's important now
                  we listen to the people.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Lucia.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Commissioner, you're recognized.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: When you were telling us -- because I want to be able to exclude this in
                  my thought process -- all these groups, like architectural groups, had approved of this, you were
                  discussing the actual buildings themselves?

                  Ms. Dougherty: That's right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Are you equally aware that the Planning Department has disapproved
                  these?

                  Ms. Dougherty: What do you mean?



City of Miami                                      Page 191                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Oh, I have a memorandum here from -- the Planning Department has
                  recommended -- although approval of the project, feels that the project is not designed -- or is
                  designed with too much height. Are you aware of that?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Yes.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Let's go ahead and start -- listen, I'm going to allow --
                  there's a lot of speakers. I'm sure we all want to get home and be with our families, our pets, our
                  loved ones, so two minutes, please. Two minutes is a lot of time to get your message across. OK,
                  we'll start with you, sir.

                  Raúl Ramírez: Yeah.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All we need is your name and address and two minutes.

                  Mr. Ramírez: Right. My name is Dr. Raúl Ramírez, and I'm a neighbor of the north Grove,
                  Grove Isle, B1409, and I'm going to be talking for myself and for Myron (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
                  He's also a Grove Isle citizen who's here, and he filled in the --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: All right.
                  Mr. Ramírez: -- application.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But you only get two minutes.

                  Mr. Ramírez: I get Myron. I can get him here, and he can continue reading, but in any case --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, we'll give you four minutes.

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- you know, I worked as a physician-based radiologist at Mercy Hospital for 27
                  years. I'm sorry I didn't bring my lab coat, like some of these people, which I never met them
                  there, so they have not been there long enough, but in any case, I did work at Mercy for 27
                  years, and I know what's going on. This text amendment to the G/I ordinance of 2004, some of
                  our sitting Commissioners were present at that time when it was passed, and the intent of the
                  resolution was very clearly [sic] and then Commissioner Johnny Winton spoke clearly about it,
                  and Lourdes Slazyk, who was there, also talk about the intent of the resolution. I would like to
                  show you an excerpt from that meeting of September 27, 2004. By the way, I brought a VHS
                  (Vertical Helical Scan) and they spoil it over there, so I have to show you the --

                  An audiovisual presentation was made.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Before we do that, let's go ahead and put a face behind the
                  voice. Commissioner -- former Commissioner Winton's here, so Commissioner Winton --

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. How much time does he have? That's it --

                  Chairman González: That's it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.


City of Miami                                     Page 192                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- in conclusion.

                  Mr. Ramírez: In conclusion, you -- I have a slight -- you know, these people have talked for an
                  hour and a half, and --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No. Come on.

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- I have --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Listen --

                  Chairman González: No, no, no, no.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- my friend --

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- two other people --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, listen --

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- over are here that are giving me their time.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I'm not the Chair; I'm the Vice Chair. He's the Chair.

                  Mr. Ramírez: OK.

                  Chairman González: No. We need to establish a time --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: -- limit. We have established, from the beginning of the meeting -- excuse
                  me --

                  Mr. Ramírez: He's giving me --

                  Chairman González: -- from --

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- his time.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Unless somebody wants to waive their time and give you the time?

                  Unidentified Speaker: I'll give my time.

                  Mr. Ramírez: Yeah, here it is.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, yeah, because, listen -- there's going to be -- but you -- it's going
                  to be you?

                  Mr. Ramírez: Here it is.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but you're giving up your time?

                  Unidentified Speaker: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, so I'm going to keep an eye on you.



City of Miami                                      Page 193                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: All right, so you have two --

                  Mr. Ramírez: Let me --

                  Chairman González: -- additional minutes. Two minutes.

                  Ms. Burns: Could we get the names for the record, too, who's giving up their times?

                  Mr. Ramírez: My name is Raúl Ramírez --

                  Chairman González: Remember --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no. Sir, what --?

                  Manuel González: My name is Manuel González.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Manuel González.

                  Mr. González: I reside at 1649 South Bayshore Drive.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir.

                  Chairman González: Remember that the reason that we are allowing two minutes each is so the
                  majority of the people have the opportunity to express themself [sic]. At 10 p.m. we're going to
                  be adjourning the meeting, so you know, we have to manage the time, and we have to manage
                  the amount of people that we have here that want to speak on the item. You have an additional
                  two minutes.

                  Unidentified Speaker: Go ahead.

                  Mr. Ramírez: This is the City Commission building where we are now.

                  Chairman González: I hope so.

                  Mr. Ramírez: As you can see, this is along the waterfront from the City Commission, from the
                  parking space of Commissioner Sanchez, all the way across to Grove Isle on the right-hand side
                  and Mercy campus on the back, and to the left, you can see Brickell corridor. Mercy -- Grove
                  Isle has 18-story building, the highest in the north Grove at this time. We're talking about 32,
                  37, and 41 stories high. It's going to be twice as big as that. OK, these are the buildings next to
                  where they plan to do the project. Right there, where that little wood fence is, to the right, that's
                  where the project starts and goes to the right. This is a view from Grove Isle, across to Mercy,
                  and that's the area where they're going to build the three towers, 32, 37, and 41 stories high.
                  This is going out of Grove Isle, so you can have a comparison. You're talking about an island
                  that has 20 acres and has 510 units versus 6.7 acres and 300 units, and it has a private bridge,
                  and it's a private island. This is a McMansion at the entrance of Halissee, which is the -- what
                  they're talking about. I took this a couple of weeks ago, this photograph, but this still here, and
                  the reason I'm showing you the McMansion is so I can show you later on the entrance to
                  Halissee from Natoma Manors. This is the little wood fence I was talking about and the view
                  from the little wood fence to Grove Isle, which is 18 stories high. This is Halissee, and this is
                  what they talk -- this is -- big thing they're going to build and everything else, and that's Natoma
                  Manor [sic] on the right-hand side, where we have so many people representing them, and this
                  is the way they're keeping it. Even now the people are fighting and saying that, you know, this is
                  really pitiful the way they have kept the campus. They still haven't even clean it up. You can see
                  they say that this is a private road, but you can see a bus coming in -- municipal bus route that
                  go through Halissee and takes in all the little old people over there in Natoma Manor [sic]; they

City of Miami                                      Page 194                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  coming in that bus. This is coming from Natoma Manor [sic] and Bay Heights into Mercy into
                  that traffic light. You can see that the street has been partially blocked from before in agreement
                  that Bay Heights did with Mercy so they can redirect traffic and they cannot go into the
                  neighborhood.

                  Chairman González: All right. Wait a minute. You yield --

                  Mr. Ramírez: OK.

                  Chairman González: -- your two minutes --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Somebody wants to give you credit --

                  Chairman González: -- to the gentleman.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for two more minutes?

                  Chairman González: Anyone else wants to yield their time?

                  Mr. Ramírez: I just gave you --

                  Chairman González: You also want to yield your time.

                  Mr. Ramírez: She'll give me --

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, folks --

                  Mr. Ramírez: -- her --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen. These are --

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- people that are going to speak anyway. They could do that.

                  Mr. Ramírez: She's going to speak.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: They may not be here to speak, though.

                  Mr. Ramírez: She won't speak.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: They might just be here to observe.

                  Mr. Ramírez: She won't speak. Let me show you. This is the McMansion I was talking about,
                  and this is going into that road. You can see the chronic flooding problem in front of Natoma
                  Manor [sic]. They have not fix it. That's my last slide. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

                  Chairman González: Is that the conclusion of your presentation?



City of Miami                                       Page 195                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Ramírez: Mine, not hers.

                  Chairman González: That's your presentation. All right. Your name and address for the record.
                  You have two minutes.

                  Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue, Coconut Grove, resident and nonpaid
                  speaker against the merciless project. Friedrich Nietzsche said, the most common form of
                  stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do, and the reason I mention that to you is that this
                  morning my lovely lady, Cecilia, said to me, Nathan, you're working so hard on these issues of
                  quality to life that you're actually damaging our quality to life. The only G/I I ever heard of was
                  an upper GI (gastrointestinal), prior to coming to Coconut Grove. To Commissioner Sanchez,
                  Commissioner González, Commissioner Regalado, I ask you to fulfill the promise that you made
                  by strengthening the G/I ordinance after allowing the steroid, built up Grovenor House to be
                  plunked down on Bayshore Drive, please. To Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones, prior to
                  Commissioner Sarnoff being elected, I used to sit in this audience and wish that you were my
                  Commissioner because, to the degree of focus that you represent your constituents, it's almost
                  jealous. Just even today, ordinance 6, 7, and 8, not only does this project get built in your
                  district, but you get special pricing, set aside housing, a school for the residents. It's quite
                  impressive. I ask that you show this kind of consideration to the residents of Coconut Grove,
                  who, quite honestly, myself included, are feeling a bit closed in. To the west we have the
                  Metrorail project. Last night the hundred of us who attended that project were referred to as a
                  burden on the RTDIC (Rapid Transit Development Impact Committee) Committee. We had to sit
                  there while the RTDIC Committee approved a project where we gave the 200 space -- parking
                  spaces that are at the train station to the developer, who is then going to sell them back to the
                  City of Miami. I don't understand, but I'm the burden. We also dealt, for the last two years, and
                  continue to deal with the industrial warehouse a couple of blocks from this building. This fight
                  will go on and on, just like this one here. I'm in awe of some of the eloquence displayed this
                  evening by the attorneys and by the people against this. These are my neighbors. I thank you
                  very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Julio Garcia: Yes, sir. My name is Dr. Julio Garcia.

                  Chairman González: OK, OK. Let me ask you a favor, you know.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Stop clapping.

                  Chairman González: Let me ask you a favor. Stop clapping because every time --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Waste time.

                  Chairman González: -- you start clapping, you take 30 seconds, 45 seconds, so you're taking
                  time from the people that want to speak, so you know --

                  Mr. Garcia: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission, my name is Dr. Julio Garcia --

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Garcia: -- and I am active at Mercy Hospital over Dr. Ramírez that was only 27; I am 33
                  years at Mercy Hospital. I have been seeing the growth of our community. I am seeing -- be in

City of Miami                                     Page 196                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  the emergency room with a patient waiting for several hours because we don't have space to take
                  care of the patient. We need the money, not for the sister, not for the priest, not for the Catholic
                  church. We need the money for you people that live in this community in the City of Miami
                  because if you don't remember, St. John Bosco Clinic is in the Little Havana. We provide service
                  in the emergency room to all patient that go there. Not only that, we admit free of charge all the
                  patient from the Little Havana on the John Bosco Clinic. We provide free service in our
                  community for everyone, but realize one thing. In order to keep the hospital at the level that you
                  need to keep, you need to get new equipment, new technology. In the Radiology Department that
                  Dr. Ramírez was there many years back, he knows that we need to get the state-of-the-art in
                  order that our patient and our people in the community are treated correctly. Don't giving [sic}
                  the excuse of if it's 100 unit or 200 unit. Thinking first what mean the $92 million for us, not for
                  me. I don't have any share. I don't get any money from that, but I am talking because I still
                  practice everyday. I see all the patient of the League Against Cancer since day one. I have been
                  the founder in that institution, and we are proud of Mercy Hospital. Thank you, sir.

                  Chairman González: And let me add to that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, no, no, no, clapping.

                  Chairman González: -- that you practice Liga Against Cancer free --

                  Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: -- and you do surgery free --

                  Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: -- and you do all your services free.

                  Mr. Garcia: All my service are free to the community --

                  Chairman González: Let me add to that.

                  Mr. Garcia: -- and also, I have one clinic in Key Biscayne for the people that doesn't have
                  insurance, and it's called the Buen Pastor Clinic, and we offer free service, and they get service
                  at Mercy when they need it, sir.

                  Chairman González: I know that.

                  Mr. Garcia: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: No clapping, please. No clapping.

                  Allan Reiss: Good evening. My name is Allan Reiss. I live at 236 Shore Drive East, Bay
                  Heights. I'm the crust. My two-year-old son is the crust; my four-year-old daughter. I want to
                  know if this lawyer is going to put trees so we don't have to look at this eyesore. I want to know
                  what's going to happen with the traffic. An assisted living facility isn't going to have rush hour
                  traffic. Six hundred, three hundred units is going to have people trying to commute, trying to get
                  in and out. It's going to destroy the neighborhood. Speaking of the neighborhood, this lawyer
                  represented twice that Bay Heights supports this. We do not. I live there. I have tried -- and I
                  have the letters -- over and over again to see this secret agreement that supposedly is going to

City of Miami                                      Page 197                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  shut off the neighborhood, which would increase my property value. I have been refused over
                  and over again. I have not been allowed to see it. We've been accused of being a Third World
                  country. How is it that this developer is -- allegedly has a secret agreement with Bay Heights,
                  and I, a resident, have been refused access? I've written over and over again to Mr. Gibbs,
                  Tucker Gibbs. I have the e-mails. I have the fax receipts. I have the letters. They'll let me see a
                  redacted version of the agreement. What kind of nonsense is that? How can this developer come
                  in here with secret agreements that -- and tell us Bay Heights supports it, but the residents of Bay
                  Heights aren't allowed to see it? You should be aware that Bay Heights is an informal
                  association. There is no formal association. There is no covenants running with the land. These
                  people have no basis to speak for me or for my family or for my neighbors, who all are against
                  this project. I request that you all deny this. This should be residential use only. They can -- the
                  hospital is -- if it's -- if they need to sell land, then they could find other ways. They can build
                  their assisting living facility. They can be financially responsible. They don't have to sell to a
                  developer. These gentlemen who purport to speak on behalf of Bay Heights legally have no
                  authority. The documents they've given you, they have no authority. I've warned them over and
                  over again that they should not represent to the Commission that they have authority to speak for
                  me. There is no association formally. It's informal only in the public records --

                  Chairman González: Your time is up, sir.

                  Mr. Reiss: -- and I respect the doctors and all that they do for our community. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Murray Marcus: My name is Murray Marcus, and I am the president of Bay Heights. I've been
                  the president for 13 years. I've lived in Bay Heights since 1959. This man's a liar, an
                  out-and-out liar. I am -- to say --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Mr. Marcus: -- that he has asked to see the agreement -- he has never been refused to see the
                  agreement. We made a confidential statement with The Related Group and Mercy Hospital that
                  we could show --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Mr. Marcus: -- the agreement, but we could not show the amount of money that was involved.
                  This man --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Hey, hey.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: That's enough.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, listen. Let us learn to disagree, but let us respect one another.

                  Unidentified Speaker: He started it.

                  Mr. Marcus: This --



City of Miami                                      Page 198                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah --

                  Mr. Marcus: -- gentleman that spoke --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but --

                  Mr. Marcus: -- before --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- I understand. It's not -- we're not going to point fingers at each
                  other. Let's not allow this. Sir, please, let's --

                  Mr. Marcus: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you have your two minutes.

                  Mr. Marcus: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Let's not insult anybody --

                  Mr. Marcus: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and let's not point fingers at anybody.

                  Mr. Marcus: OK.

                  Chairman González: Time is running.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK?

                  Mr. Marcus: Thank you. I'm sorry.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Hey, I apologize for that.

                  Mr. Marcus: I apologize to the gentleman. I will start with a story, and I have a couple of
                  people that will allow me their two minutes. In 19 -- rather, in 2004 I saw an article in the
                  Miami Herald, and it said that Mercy Hospital sold land for $100 million. I went and I spoke to
                  John Matuska at our picnic, and I asked him what was he going to do with the land. He was
                  evasive. He never said anything, and then the rumors started that they were going to build an
                  eight-story medical building, they were going to build 1,200 condominiums, and I didn't know
                  what to do, so I went to an organization in Coconut Grove called Grove First.

                  Chairman González: Let me be fair. Is any -- who's going to be giving you another two
                  minutes?

                  Tucker Gibbs: I will.

                  Chairman González: You will?

                  Mr. Gibbs: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Gibbs: Tucker Gibbs.

                  Mr. Marcus: I went to Grove First and Marc Sarnoff, who is now your Commissioner, was the

City of Miami                                     Page 199                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  president of Grove First. I told them what our problem was. I went to a number of meetings.
                  Unfortunately, Grove First was involved with office -- with the office -- homeown -- Home Depot,
                  and they couldn't help me, but I was recommended to Tucker Gibbs. At that time I called
                  everybody who had a homeowner's president -- you get a list from the NET (Neighborhood
                  Enhancement Team) office -- and I left messages. I spoke to this gentleman, Elvis, and
                  Morningside, and I told them the problem that they were going to build an eight-story building,
                  they were going to build 1,200 condominiums, and then I got a Class II that they were building --
                  they were going to build an emergency room. I hired Tucker Gibbs, and we decided we would
                  start to see if we could get them to come to the table. We came in front of the Zoning Board, and
                  we said let emergency room go through, but we wanted to get some sort of a semblance of what
                  was going to happen, and then we got a call to sit down with The Related Group, and I went with
                  Yery Marrero, from Natoma Manors, in Tucker Gibbs's office, and we sat down and we spoke to
                  the principals of The Related Group, and they said they wanted 1,200 condominiums. Mercy
                  Hospital wanted the eight-story building, and we walked out of the meeting. We walked out of
                  about four subsequent meetings, and at that particular point in time we had a problem because
                  our biggest problem is traffic.

                  Chairman González: Your biggest problem is that the time is up.

                  Mr. Marcus: Well --

                  Chairman González: That's your biggest problem.

                  Mr. Marcus: Here's another gentleman who'll give me two minutes.

                  Mr. Reiss: Gentlemen, I'd just like to introduce the letters into the record -- make copies because
                  the --

                  Chairman González: You may give it to --

                  Mr. Reiss: -- man called me a liar.

                  Chairman González: -- the City Clerk.

                  Mr. Reiss: OK, thank you.

                  Chairman González: All right. You have an additional two minutes --

                  Mr. Marcus: OK. At that particular time --

                  Chairman González: -- and you know, let me help you.

                  Mr. Marcus: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: What you need to do is to talk in reference to this application and why you
                  support the application because, actually, you know, you're going through a process that is not -
                  -

                  Mr. Marcus: Yes.

                  Chairman González: -- helping you any in --

                  Mr. Marcus: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: -- supporting the project.

City of Miami                                     Page 200                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Marcus: The reason that Bay Heights and Natoma Manors made a deal is because, number
                  one, we were very, very concerned about traffic, and I can tell you right now, an eight-story
                  medical building with four stories of parking garages is not in our best interest. Three hundred
                  condominiums, starting at $5 million and going to $15 million is in our best interest. We have --
                  we know that these condominiums will be used possibly six to eight months out of the year if at
                  much -- if Brickell is any sort of a guide, that we will not have the type of traffic. I have asked
                  the City of Miami for help with Bayshore coming into Samana. We average between 300 to 350
                  cars every night, between the hours of 4 and 7. In the morning, between the hours of 7 and 9, we
                  average 300 cars. That's 600 cars. Children can't play on our streets. I hear these people from
                  Grove Isle worrying about the view. Well, I'll tell you a little something. If a child gets killed,
                  that's much, much worse than having the view blocked. I thank you very much. I hope you
                  support this amendment.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me.

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                  Ms. Burns: Mr. Chair, we need the name of the individual who gave up his time to speak.

                  Chairman González: Yes. Tucker Gibbs --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Tucker Gibbs and somebody else.

                  Ms. Burns: There's a second person.

                  Chairman González: -- and there was a gentleman standing back there, the gentleman with the -
                  - yes, sir. What's your name, please?

                  Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE), and he gave the two minutes, not me.

                  Chairman González: You got it?

                  Ms. Burns: No.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Sir, tell me your name. You, with the moustache.

                  Aurelio Linero: L-I-N-E-R-O, last name; first name's Al.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Linero: 65 Shore Drive West.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Linero. Linero.

                  Unidentified Speaker: Lineros [sic].

                  Chairman González: Lineros [sic].

                  Helene Díaz: Lineros [sic].

                  Chairman González: OK.



City of Miami                                     Page 201                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Linero: Linero.

                  Unidentified Speaker: Linero.

                  Unidentified Speaker: No “s.”

                  Unidentified Speaker: No “s.”

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am. Good evening.

                  Ms. Díaz: Distinguished City Commissioners and dear neighbors, my name is Helene Diaz, and
                  I've been a resident of the north Grove since early 1980's. Notwithstanding the letter of the law
                  in which this project is not allowed under current zoning, we should reiterate that their project
                  has already been rejected by our City Zoning and Planning boards, which, after extensive
                  discussion, gave the project unfavorable recommendations. Our neighborhood is predominantly
                  R-1 and R-3, and many properties abutting the proposed project are R-1 in the Glencoe
                  Subdivision. Mercy has operated as a nonprofit institution for more than 55 years without
                  paying taxes on land donated by the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) family for medical campuses and other
                  G/I uses. Now they want to make a windfall real estate profit of more than 100 million by
                  selectively selling 6.73 acres of their campus to The Related Group in land investments so they
                  can build three massive towers of 32, 37, and 41 stories. Their stated reason for the sale of the
                  land is that they need money for the capital investment of the facilities. However, they neglect to
                  tell you that Mercy has been one of the most profitable hospitals in South Florida for many
                  years. Just this past July 2006, Mercy -- Miami Herald published an article reporting that
                  Mercy Hospital posted more than 229 million in net profits in 2004, so where have all the profits
                  gone? Intimidating threats by Mercy Hospital and developers regarding maximum density
                  permitted by G/I zoning are not well received by most of the neighbors, which feel that this
                  project is totally out of context and do not wish another Brickell corridor. Furthermore, I own
                  property in Grove Isle, but this is just very recent. Before, for the past two years, I owned
                  property at the Fairview Subdivision, which is much more near than Natoma Manors people,
                  and we were never ever notified, and we were never approached of this is happening. Thank you
                  very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

                  Yery Marrero: Commissioners, good evening. Yery Marrero. I'm actually -- board of the
                  directors for Natoma Manors. I'm also president of the board of directors for Natoma Manors.
                  I've been in that position for two years. I'll tell you the genesis of why we support the project and
                  we support the project after we did our homework. We've been doing our homework for two
                  years. When the rest of the Grove was interested in dealing with the Home Depot situation, I
                  actually went to One Grove Alliance and some of my members from my community, and Grove --
                  One Grove Alliance put us in the bottom of the totem pole, so we decided we needed to take
                  things under our own hand and find out how this project will affect us. Well, it'll affect us -- we
                  did a traffic study, and the traffic study obviously showed that any institutional building or any
                  institution structure, even if it's four -- only four stories or five stories, would generate more
                  traffic in the Grove and in that area and for Natoma Manors and Bay Heights.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Who did your traffic study?

                  Ms. Marrero: We had -- I forget his -- Mark Alvarez did the traffic study, and he -- I believe he
                  does traffic studies for --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Did you provide a --

                  Ms. Marrero: -- you know --

City of Miami                                      Page 202                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the Clerk?

                  Ms. Marrero: I could -- I will. OK, we did that traffic study, and obviously, that traffic study
                  indicated that a 300 condo unit building in that area would be less dense, and there would be
                  less traffic than a hospital or a old age facility in that area, and for us, for Natoma Manors, we
                  have traffic coming up Tigertail. We have traffic coming up Micanopy going all the way into
                  Mercy Hospital. Our neighborhood is the most affected, our neighborhood. It's not about how
                  pretty the buildings are. It's not about -- it's about traffic for us. It's about -- it's not about --
                  how can I say --? I know Grove Isle is here, and it's about -- they mentioned their quality of life.
                  Well, their quality of life, I think, is not affected as much as our quality of life at Natoma Manors
                  when the traffic is running as I'm running up those streets to Mercy Hospital. We have been
                  living with the traffic of an institution of Mercy Hospital. With the agreement, OK, that we have
                  entered -- and it's been a two-year long going process --

                  Chairman González: Your time is up.

                  Ms. Marrero: Can some --?

                  Beth Kipnis: I'll give her my two minutes.

                  Ms. Marrero: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: What is your name?

                  Ms. Kipnis: Beth Kipnis.

                  Ms. Burns: What was that again? We couldn't hear over here.

                  Ms. Kipnis: Who am I talking to?

                  Unidentified Speaker: The Clerk.

                  Ms. Kipnis: Beth Kipnis.

                  Ms. Burns: Thank you.

                  Ms. Marrero: Thank you, Beth. That ongoing process that we did after we did the traffic study
                  and looked at what the condo project would be like to our neighborhood, it's the least intrusive
                  to the Grove, and it's not only Natoma Manors. It's to the rest of the Grove, and that is
                  something I think that a lot of people or a lot of groups in the community have not taken into
                  account. They're up here, Commissioners, talking about, you know, the zoning and talking
                  about, well, this building's going to be too high, but have they ever thought about really doing a
                  traffic study in their own neighborhoods like we did? Well, guess what? A 300-unit condo
                  building is not going to bring that much traffic to the Grove as much as any other institutional
                  building that that is zoned for now, and that is our concern, and actually, as a neighborhood,
                  with Bay Heights, the deal that we did, the genesis of that deal was traffic, period. If anything
                  else came out of that deal -- I know Murray mentioned money -- it's to secure security and to
                  ease the traffic in our neighborhood because, unlike Grove Isle, which, by the way, would not be
                  here if the zoning was not changed because they're not a single-family home --

                  Deborah Scarpa Castro: That's true.



City of Miami                                       Page 203                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Marrero: -- OK, unlike them, we are affected, and we're asking the members of the City
                  Commission to really look just beyond the height of these buildings. We want you to look at the
                  density and how it really, really affects us because we are the most affected. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Ms. Scarpa Castro: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. Can you hear me? Am I --
                  should I go up? Thank you. I'm here to talk about a subject --

                  Chairman González: We need your name and address for the record.

                  Ms. Scarpa Castro: Oh. My name is Deborah Scarpa Castro. I'm a resident and business
                  owner in Coconut Grove. My home address is 3683 Hibiscus. My business address is 2398
                  South Dixie Highway 33133. I'm here to talk about a subject I have not heard yet this evening,
                  and that is about beauty and the fact -- at the inflexibility of our community to bring Coconut
                  Grove into the 21st century, and the fact that Coconut Grove is not keeping up with the rest of
                  Miami. I have a business. It is an international business. Many times I have the pleasure of
                  hosting my clients in my offices; yet, of the 18 clients in 20 years of doing business in this area,
                  none of them have purchased in Coconut Grove. Miami is seen as Miami Beach. We have a
                  responsibility, and you, as our governing body, have a responsibility to look at that waterway,
                  which is unreachable for many of the residents -- residences here. My own daughter, I think I
                  could count on one hand the times I have walked by that waterway. I deserve accessibility. I
                  think that, as someone who travels around the world, other people, other cities, like Portofino,
                  Monte Carlo, they can move their architecture and their design. I think the caliber of design that
                  is being initiated here is a very high level, and I am for the project. I think it would be an asset,
                  and we do need to keep up with the rest of Miami. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Leonard Abess: My name is Leonard Abess. I live at 100 Southeast 32nd Road on the north side
                  of Vizcaya. I am a third generation Miamian, and my family's been here since 1917, and I'm
                  chairman of City National Bank, which has been headquartered in Miami for 60 years. I also
                  was chairman of Mt. Sinai for four years. I was born at Victoria Hospital, which does not exist.
                  Hospitals go away. Mt. Sinai is a waterfront hospital. I think Mercy is relevant. Anyone here
                  who really does live in the neighborhood will go there when they call 911. We need a strong
                  hospital in our community, and they need the money, and they need it now. I remember the fight
                  over Grove Isle. The original developer was bankrupted by the community. It was the first
                  high-rise. It took years. It was going to ruin the Grove forever, change everything, and so it is a
                  little ironic that the ones who started it all want to stop it now, but there's nothing about Coconut
                  Grove, or very little in the town I grew up, there's very little about Miami or Miami-Dade, and
                  yet, today is the happiest day I've ever lived here. I love living here. My children live here, and
                  it's wonderful. I think we all know that, one way or another, this land will be developed, and I
                  personally think this is the most exciting project that could go there. I think it's a wonderful
                  project, and I urge you to let them get going. I'm excited about the bay walk and everything
                  that's going on. I walk through there now. It's not very nice right now, and I urge you to
                  approve this. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

                  David Ralph: Hello. My name is David Ralph, and I live at 2516 Swanson Avenue, and I'm also
                  the president of the Coconut Grove Park Homeowners Association, which consists of about 600
                  homes, and my neighborhood is 2,500 feet away from this proposed upzoning, and I'd like to just
                  refocus the issue on this G/I ordinance and this concept of upzoning and give you a brief history.

City of Miami                                      Page 204                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  My neighborhood association, along with the civic club and a few other organizations in the
                  Grove worked to keep the Grovenor out -- off of Bayshore. That was a government/institutional
                  institutional zoned land that the developer, in the end, after our fight, was able to upzone from
                  G/I to what it is today. We worked with the City to craft the G/I ordinance so that this
                  development abuse could never happen again, so it's kind of frustrating to be up here going
                  through the same issue, and as Commissioner Sanchez stated, this has citywide implications
                  because, if it happens here, it can happen anywhere in the City, and we don't even know where
                  these G/I zones are peppered. They're between homes. They're anywhere, so we are opening the
                  door to a citywide problem, and you know, I'd also like to ask my fellow Grove neighbors who
                  are supporting this -- and we love you. You're in the Grove with us, but we want -- I would ask
                  that you look past your property lines and past your neighborhood area and think about what
                  this precedent would do to our city, so I'm asking the Commission to deny the upzoning, and I
                  would further ask that we also harden the GI zoning ordinance so that we don't have to go
                  through this again. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

                  Adrienne Arsht: My name is Adrienne Arsht, and I live at 3031 Brickell Avenue. I've lived here
                  for ten years. I wouldn't leave Miami, except maybe with a backhoe or in a box. I support what
                  the developer is proposing. I have known Jorge Pérez since I came here. He cares about his
                  community. He has a master's in urban planning. He is a proponent of the new urbanism, as
                  put forth by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. He knows what's important in a neighborhood. He would
                  not seek to harm it. My neighborhood has many bits of history. Down the street is the devil's
                  punchbowl. When Jorge Pérez did a building -- or is doing a building on Brickell, he is
                  protecting the Tequesta Circle. The swimming pool at my house was built in 1920, and with
                  some and -- considerable difficulty, I was able to preserve it. When I built my house, I took into
                  consideration the architecture and style and history of Vizcaya. When Jorge Pérez built One
                  Miami, he built a bay walk there. As for accessibility to the water -- and it was questioned and --
                  or remarked how important it is -- what he has done at One Miami is bring the water and that
                  accessibility to many, many people. In closing, I urge you to consider that the developer is not a
                  horrible name. The developer is not a concept. The developer is Jorge Pérez, who has a history
                  of caring about our community and understanding the importance of neighborhoods. I urge you
                  to support the Grove Bay request.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening.

                  Andy Parrish: Andy Parrish, 1617 Tigertail Avenue, in Natoma Manors. I just first want to say
                  I'm so glad to see all my neighbors, pro and con, on this issue. It's great to have all the Grove
                  come out like this. Fantastic.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I'm even going to clap to that.

                  Applause.
                  Mr. Parrish: All right, so it's Groundhog Day in Miami. Once again, you face a packed hall
                  asking you to vote on a zoning matter that has citizens angry at you because they can read with
                  their own eyes and brains; it's somehow being translated into something entirely different. You
                  have heard testimony today from citizens who volunteered many long hours to help craft the
                  Grovenor ordinance that you passed. That ordinance was written in plain English and says that
                  uses other than government and institutional uses are “allowed to a maximum density and
                  intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district.” This ordinance made any other
                  upzonings of any G/I property impossible. They can still use their G/I use, but they can't upzone
                  to a different one, and yet, here we are again with a developer and his attorneys saying that all
                  the Grovenor ordinance requires is for a G/I property to be temporarily zoned the same as the
                  least intensive abutting property. After that, it can be upzoned if three of you five Commissioners
                  agree to allow it. This is a very dangerous thing for you to consider doing. Over the years, you

City of Miami                                     Page 205                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  and everyone in this room have seen the Miami Zoning Ordinance interpreted in ways that defy
                  common sense. Usually, it has been the developers and their lawyers who have prevailed here.
                  The members of the public are then told that they can appeal through the court system, and every
                  lawyer here will tell you that the courts are reluctant to overturn local zoning decisions and you
                  know why. Because judges generally say that they don't want to be super zoning codes for every
                  single one of the many municipalities in Dade County. Instead, they say, if you don't like the
                  zoning decisions of your Commissioners, then you have to vote them out. Now this is where the
                  danger lies. If you allow the City's laws to be twisted and turned in defiance of common sense
                  and in contempt for the average citizen's ability to read and understand the law, then you destroy
                  the respect for that law. Proof of that sits right here before you today, whether they're here for
                  or against this ordinance, this upzoning of the Mercy project. If you ask them whether they have
                  respect for the City of Miami's Zoning Ordinance, the resounding answer, no matter who you
                  ask, will be no.

                  Chairman González: Your time is up.

                  Mr. Parrish: It is a -- I'm just about finished, Commissioner.

                  Chairman González: I need you to conclude.

                  Mr. Parrish: -- very slippery slope once you start on it. Respect for the law is one of the
                  foundation pillars that supports our country. The law is for everyone. There is simply no
                  credible way to say that the Grovenor ordinance allows the developer to do in two steps what the
                  law clearly prohibits him from doing at all. As our Commissioners, you can change the law, but
                  you cannot change the way citizens read the law. Even a Mercy groundhog knows that what --
                  that equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, what that means. Thank you very
                  much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Good evening.

                  Maurice Wiener: Hello. I'm Maurice Wiener, reside at 1734 South Bayshore Lane, in Coconut
                  Grove, which immediately overlooks the proposed project. I'm also the chairman of the
                  company that owns the Grove Isle Club & Hotel, which is the -- one-third of the island to the east
                  -- at the east end, again, immediately overlooking this project, and I'd like to come at this from a
                  different perspective, if I could. I'm not interested in traffic. I'm not interested in sewer lines,
                  and I'm not interested in blocked views and, you know, a lot of the things that people raise. I'm
                  really interested in Coconut Grove and where we are in this community. I moved in this
                  community over 20 years ago. I felt it was a balanced community. We were famous for being a
                  place where you could work, you could live. There were professional people. There were artists.
                  There -- the entertainment and recreational opportunities in the Grove were boundless with
                  waterfront. We had the playhouse, the Coconut Grove Playhouse, one of perhaps ten institutions
                  of regional nonprofit theater which had reached national acclaim. We had the Museum of
                  Science. We had Vizcaya. We had artistically oriented movie houses. We had art galleries and
                  plenty of artists and other professionals who found this a very enjoyable community. Where are
                  we today? Coconut Grove Playhouse, it's historic. It's empty; it's gone, and it sits there as an
                  empty building. We have no artistic movie houses. The Museum of Science -- and it's on its way
                  out heading downtown. Vizcaya. What would be the impact on Vizcaya if the hospital were
                  somehow not viable some day and passed into hands who we have absolutely no idea who that
                  would be? So I'd like to then approach this from what is the hospital industry, and our company
                  invested in the hospital industry for many years, and so, I think I know something about it. It is
                  axiomatic that people stand here and say that why don't the -- why doesn't the hospital just build

City of Miami                                      Page 206                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  an office building, when the hospital, as we all know, must be cutting edge to attract doctors to
                  go to a hospital?

                  Chairman González: Your --

                  Mr. Wiener: I would like to address a doctor who -- and say to him, why don't you move into
                  this office building, and someday, you'll have a very nice hospital next door? He'll say, well, I'll
                  go where there's already a nice hospital. Thank you --

                  Chairman González: Pardon--

                  Maurice Wiener: -- because my patients are not interested in an X-ray when you need an MRI
                  (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), so --

                  Chairman González: I need you to conclude because your time is up, and I need to be fair to
                  both sides, so --

                  Mr. Wiener: OK, so I would just like to say that we are losing all of our institutions that made
                  this community a place where people wanted to live, and if we do not provide a way for this
                  institution to survive -- and believe me, everybody knows Mt. Sinai, Baptist, the downtown
                  medical center with the University of Miami attached has modernized and they're cutting-edge
                  hospitals. If this is no longer a cutting-edge hospital, and it's not today, and I take at face value
                  they're going to make it a cutting edge --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Wiener: -- we will --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Wiener: -- lose this institution.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, thank you. Yes, ma'am.

                  Cindi de Rothschild: Hello. My name is Cindi de Rothschild. I live on 2901 South Miami
                  Avenue. That's the little patch of houses between US 1 and Vizcaya, and I heard a lot of hype
                  today about projected studies. What I'd like to talk about is strictly practical reality. Now I live
                  less than two miles from here, maybe it's a mile and a half. Tonight I came to this meeting. I left
                  my house at 6 o'clock. I was parking my car at 6:25. This is normal, everyday traffic. I can't
                  even imagine what the traffic is going to be if this is allowed to happen, these huge buildings.
                  Sometimes it takes me ten minutes just to get out of my driveway because, when the light is red at
                  US 1 and the traffic is backed up almost to Vizcaya, I sit in my driveway for ten minutes trying to
                  get out. It is impossible now. I'd hate to think what the future is going to be. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am. Sir.

                  Andrew Hague: Good evening. My name is Andrew Hague, and my address is withheld,
                  pursuant to Florida Statute, but suffice it to say, my house is within one house of the Halissee
                  drive across the street from Mercy Hospital, so I'm one of the closest ones to having an impact
                  on this project, and I'm not a member of any of the homeowners associations that have been
                  listed in support of this project, but I am in support of this project because of traffic. I am
                  concerned that if this project does not go through with what I consider to be lower density
                  occupancy of this project, that some other project that Mercy Hospital has planned for this
                  property will go into place, an office building, some other proposed plan, and it will mean even
                  more traffic for South Bayshore Drive, and that will mean that it's even more difficult for me to

City of Miami                                       Page 207                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  get out of my driveway, and I do not have any other alternative to get out of my driveway other
                  than South Bayshore Drive. This is the first developer that has come to me and explained to me
                  their plan in detail. No other developer in the past has come to me, even though I am the one
                  that is immediately adjacent to south -- to Mercy Hospital. In the last two years, I have had my
                  wall knocked down because of a traffic accident, and I have been rear-ended waiting to turn into
                  my driveway. It's daily there're accidents in front of my house, and there's nothing that can be
                  done with the traffic on South Bayshore Drive. The only thing that can be done is the amount of
                  density on South Bayshore Drive, and the fact that this G/1 [sic] is a little different because it's
                  being built on a piece of property that juts out onto the bay. It's not being plopped down
                  between two houses. It's being built next to a hospital out on the bay. It's not being put between
                  two houses, so it's a little -- it's distinguishable from Grovenor or another piece of property.
                  That's something that should be taken into consideration when you make your decision, and it's
                  something that you have to think about the safety and concerns of the citizens, and I urge you to
                  approve this project for the density issue on this project. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir, you're recognized.

                  Ron Nelson: Hello. My name is Ron Nelson. I live at 2535 Inagua Avenue, in Coconut Grove.
                  I'm here speaking out of both sides of my mouth on this project. I like what they've done about
                  preserving the bay. I like fairly low-density. I don't like the height, which I've stated from the
                  beginning. As far -- I'm also here to disagree with Jack Luft on the intent of the G/I ordinance
                  since I'm -- been credited with developing the G/I ordinance or making it happen, and I can
                  assure you that Jack Luft's interpretation of the intent of the G/I ordinance is -- was not my intent
                  when I worked so hard to get the GI ordinance written. I'm also here as a realist to say that I
                  don't know what this Commission's going to do, and this Commission might vote in favor of this
                  project --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or might vote against.

                  Mr. Nelson: -- or might vote against, but I -- so leave it to say I'm a very bad gambler. I always
                  hedge my bets, and I'm here to ask you -- because I haven't heard it said by anyone else here
                  tonight -- that if you are so inclined to vote for this project, that you need to take some things
                  into consideration; one is that zoning is not project specific, so if this project, this property is
                  zoned R-4, and Mr. Pérez, for whatever reason, does not build this project -- and he's an
                  honorable man, and I'm sure he intends to build it, but if he does not build this project, anything
                  that could be built under R-4 can be dumped there, and whatever that number of units is, 2,500,
                  1,500, whatever it is, it can be built, so you need to make sure that this zoning is granted specific
                  to this project, and that can be done with a covenant that runs with the land, I believe. I've spoke
                  to County attorneys who say they do it at the County, so you need to put restrictions on this if
                  you are so inclined to vote for it. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Sir, you're recognized.

                  Neil Schiller: Good evening. My name is Neil Schiller. I'm a lawyer in the law firm of Becker
                  and Poliakoff, at 3111 Sterling Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312. I'm here tonight
                  representing the Bay Colony Condo Association, which is southwest of the project, and I'm
                  registered to lobby on their behalf. Several weeks ago Bay Colony wrote all of you a letter --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have you paid your fee?

                  Mr. Schiller: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

                  Mr. Schiller: Yes. Bay Colony wrote a letter to you several weeks ago regarding to our position

City of Miami                                      Page 208                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  to this project and outlining some of the concerns that we had regarding this project. Why I'm
                  here tonight to report that we've met with the developers and the development team and no
                  longer have any issues with the project and withdraw our opposition. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much.

                  Gary Vander Voort: Good evening. Gary Vander Voort, 1690 South Bayshore Lane, longtime
                  resident of the neighborhood. Wow. What an evening. Each side has very convincing lawyers
                  all insisting that the other party doesn't know what they're talking about, but in reality, what
                  we're facing here tonight is a decision that you've already voted down twice to say no to. I'm
                  against it. In reality, also, you have to look at -- there's just tremendous amount of money and
                  interest involved in this. We've got the developer going to make millions and millions. Of
                  course, they're favorite. They're doing their job. They're going to twist and turn any regulation
                  to suit what they want to do, and then, in the other circumstance, we have Mercy Hospital. This
                  meeting has turned more to a collection process, a fundraiser for Mercy Hospital, as opposed to
                  dealing with the facts we need to do with it. Hey, they're a wonderful organization. They do a
                  lot of good, charitable work, but they've kind of run astray on this issue. In following and
                  running to the gold, they've decided to throw the neighborhood and the neighbors right under
                  the bus. Let's talk about the neighborhood. You think about this neighborhood and where it's
                  located, how close to the city, Coconut Grove, downtown. This is unique in the United States.
                  It's a model that a lot of other cities should have, q neighborhood filled with single-family homes,
                  some condominiums, low-rise, mid-rise. It's a wonderful area. This isn't a deteriorating
                  neighborhood that needs a financial injection of a lot of capital and change. This is a great
                  neighborhood, and I hope you vote this proposition down. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, Sir.

                  Applause.

                  Scott McNary: Commissioners, my name is Scott McNary. I reside at 170 Shore Drive South,
                  Miami, Florida 33133. I'm a member of the board of governors of the Bay Heights Improvement
                  Association. I'm here today to support the proposal. Today we've heard from a number of
                  people that have argued that this sets dangerous precedent. This sets no precedent at all. It's an
                  exercise of your discretion to determine whether, on these facts and these circumstances, this is
                  an appropriate project for this community, and I suggest that it is. The reality is Mercy Hospital
                  is going to do something with this land. They have every right to do so. It is their land. They
                  are going to sell this land. They need it to buy, according to them, equipment but certainly, to
                  renovate their rundown structure. If you've been to Mercy Hospital as many times as I have, you
                  will understand, of course, that it is rundown. It needs a great deal of renovation, and this
                  money is going to be used for that purpose. If they don't sell it to Related, they're going to use it
                  for some other purpose, and I will guarantee you, the traffic conditions that will exist, the traffic
                  that we will have to deal with on Bayshore because of another project that Mercy Hospital will
                  engage in rather than this one, will be truly horrible. This project is limited to the -- by the
                  developer. We've talked to all of these folks; talked to John Matuska from Mercy Hospital. It's
                  limited to 300 units. They're going to cost in excess of $3 million per unit. I will suggest to you
                  that there is not going to be one single car from those condominium units that's going to have
                  any affect on those of us that deal with rush hour traffic on Bayshore, and that is the issue,
                  Bayshore traffic. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you so much. Sir.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.



City of Miami                                      Page 209                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  John de Olazarra: My name is John de Olazarra. I live at 1689 South Bayshore Lane, a couple
                  of blocks from the -- from Mercy Hospital. I find it rather ironic -- because I hear the words of
                  Johnny Winton, one of the former Commissioners, who said, watch out, folks, what you wish for
                  because you may get it, and it was always a -- kind of a veiled threat that, you know, you need to
                  look at the -- and pick the lesser of the evils. Everybody keeps standing up here and talking
                  about Mercy Hospital and what they can do by right and all these, you know, horrific scenarios,
                  but we all come back to the fact that our infrastructure, our community can't support the
                  development, whether it's 300 units, whether it's 200 units, we've got South Bayshore Drive,
                  which is a historic road which is rated “F” by the FDOT, that can't support any development,
                  unfortunately, and it's a sad affair for Mercy, but you know, candidly, I think that the staff and
                  the Commission ought to be looking at a moratorium on any further development and any
                  additional density at Mercy because the community has grown up around this G/1 [sic] zoned
                  property and it can't support the additional density and the additional use. You know, as part of
                  our prep on this, we've kind of become students of the Municipal Code, and we pulled out the
                  Section 2210 of the Municipal Code, and it talks about the 16 different standards that are a
                  requisite of any rezoning of a piece of property, and I would encourage you all to pull it out and
                  take a look at it because staff clearly hasn't, and I'll just enumerate a couple of them. That the
                  proposed change conforms with the adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Pull it
                  out and read it because it doesn't, folks. It doesn't come close to it. That the proposed change is
                  in harmony with the established land use patterns. Putting R-4 next to R-1 or R-3 is not in
                  harmony. The proposed changes related to adjacent and nearby districts. Again, your -- this is
                  in a residential neighborhood. This G/1 [sic] was established as are G/1 [sic] scattered across
                  the City, at a unique time in the history of the City. Would we suggest that we build this hospital
                  in an R-1 neighborhood today? No. The answer would be no, so history changes, thus, the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: In con --

                  Mr. de Olazarra: -- G/1 [sic] use of Mercy --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- conclusion.

                  Mr. de Olazarra: Yes. In conclusion, you know, I would encourage you to listen to the voting
                  public. We just had an election in District 2. The incumbent was voted out resoundedly [sic] by
                  a voting public that would sug -- that sug -- who supported this project, mind you, and was very
                  vocal about her support of this project, but they voted her out because the community says, let's
                  put the breaks on development. Let's step back. Our quality of life is eroded irreparably. We --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. --

                  Mr. de Olazarra: -- can't get from Point A to Point B. You guys are our watchdogs. You guys
                  are the last stop. Please do your job and protect our citizens.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Mr. de Olazarra: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ma'am.

                  Cynthia McCall: My name is Cindy McCall. I live at 1628 Nocatee Drive, in Natoma Manors.
                  The reason we moved to Natoma Manors was because it was a quiet community. We really
                  enjoyed living there. It's a true neighborhood. You can walk your dogs or your children, if you
                  have them, and we see the traffic every single morning cutting through to get to Mercy Hospital.
                  It is nonstop; people coming through in the mornings and in the afternoons. When the marathon

City of Miami                                      Page 210                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  was run last year, and I believe it's going to be run again this year, when they stopped it on a
                  Sunday morning, stopped the traffic so the runners could get through, the cars were packed up
                  from -- all the way from Alatka and Tigertail back up through Nocatee almost to 17th Avenue,
                  and that was all traffic going to Mercy, so I encourage you to please, please vote yes for this
                  project. We truly believe that condominium unit would bring a lot less traffic to our
                  neighborhood and our quality of life. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Ma'am.

                  Barbara Lange: Barbara Lange, 3495 Main Highway, Coconut Grove, and I oppose this project
                  also. On Jack Luft, with his interpretation of the amendment for GI, I remember working on that
                  also, and I don't think that was your intention either, an upzoning for that, and I'm going to make
                  this short and make this --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Ms. Lange: -- short and make everybody happy.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir.

                  Agustin Arellano: My name is Agustin Arellano. I live in 8580 Schoolhouse Road, in Miami
                  33143. I'm speaking on behalf of the Mercy -- the board of directors of Mercy Foundation, of
                  which I am a member. First of all, I would like to clarify the statement made by a young lady a
                  few minutes ago indicating that Mercy Hospital, in 2004, had a profit of $220 million. What
                  Mercy Hospital had was revenues of $220 million and expenses of close to $220 million. That
                  year Mercy Hospital barely broke even, so that's a big difference. The board of directors of the
                  Mercy Foundation is backing this project. We feel that it's the -- the project -- the use for the
                  land that would benefit the most people. The City of Miami will receive a big taxable base from
                  300 luxury condominiums. The residents in that area will see improvements made to Bayside
                  [sic] Drive and will also get a boardwalk along the coast there, and most importantly, the City --
                  the citizens of the City of Miami are going to reap the benefits of all the improvements that are
                  going to be made at Mercy Hospital, so I urge you to please vote for this project. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ma'am.

                  Berta Dieguez: Good evening. My name is Berta Dieguez. I'm just plain mother of five kids. I
                  lived in Bay Heights for the last 22 years, and I have raised five kids there. I look at the little
                  kids that play around and I look at them, and I say, this is not going to be for long because of the
                  traffic that we're looking to be getting. The fact is that a project of this size will bring many cars,
                  many service workers, many people in and out of our neighborhood that we have enough of.
                  Also, there is a proposed addition to the expanding of the ER (Emergency Room) at Mercy
                  Hospital, which will also bring more and more people around neighborhood, so --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But are you -- you're against that, the expansion of the --?

                  Ms. Dieguez: I am against it totally.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But that's not the issue. The issue --

                  Ms. Dieguez: No, but the issue is the traffic, and the issue is that I'm totally against anything
                  else because I want to save the Grove --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

                  Ms. Dieguez: -- and so far, what I'm seeing is more construction, more construction. Pretty

City of Miami                                       Page 211                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  soon, it's going to look like Brickell or Miami Beach, and I don't want that for my grandchildren
                  or my children.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, ma'am.

                  Ms. Dieguez: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Sir.

                  Steven Alexander: Good evening. Steve Alexander, and I think this is one of the very few times
                  I've been before this board without being paid to be here, so it's a privilege for me. I am
                  probably the second closest person -- if I can tell by where everybody said their addresses are
                  tonight -- to the project. I ride my bike in front of the project every morning. Several times a
                  day I drive through the Grove. I've been here since the hospital expanded their office buildings.
                  I was here when the Grovenor came to town and everybody was talking about traffic. Mr.
                  Sarnoff, on the Home Depot issue, the number one thing that you were concerned about for your
                  neighborhood was increase of traffic from a business. Hospital's a business, and this hospital
                  generates a whole lot of traffic, and a lot of this traffic -- the gentleman was talking about being
                  rear-ended in front of his house. A lot of these people don't know exactly where they're going to
                  go to that hospital. There's one drive, there's another drive. They get confused, and the traffic in
                  front of the hospital is an issue. When the Grovenor was added, I can tell you, as somebody that
                  goes up and down Bayshore Drive every single day, several times a day, I didn't notice any
                  additional traffic, OK. I didn't notice anything, but alternatively, when the hospital added space,
                  it was a very clear difference. Parks. This project -- right now, if you go out to that drive along
                  the bay, a security guard from the hospital will come along and say you can't park here. Don't
                  blame them. They got liability issues. They should be doing that. You don't -- as a resident, you
                  don't have access to that part of that bay. Mr. Pérez is not only going to give us access, he's
                  going to make sure that it's maintained well so that we have, in add -- in effect, another park
                  here. OK, parks again, $3 million --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Conclusion.

                  Mr. Alexander: -- $3 million of impact fees for this City for its parks. These are big, easy things
                  to understand for everybody. It's very simple. Your staff has recommended approval. They
                  believe it's legal. They believe it ought to go forward, and it does a lot of benefit for the
                  community, and it will be less damaging in terms of traffic than anything else that you can think
                  to put there. Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you. Sir.

                  Francisco Dieguez: Yes. My name is Dr. Francisco Dieguez. I'm at 117 Shore Drive West, in
                  Bay Heights, been a resident of Bay Heights for many, many years, and I'm opposed to this
                  project because of the impact it will have in all the area -- all the issues have been already
                  spoken about, and I ask all you Commissioners to fulfill your duties as our watchdogs in the
                  community and reject this project.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right.

                  Mr. Dieguez: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized.

                  Donna Sweeny: Donna Sweeny, 2843 South Bayshore Drive. I've been a resident of South
                  Bayshore Drive since 1987. Until last year, I lived at 2000 South Bayshore Drive, literally
                  within walking distance of Mercy Hospital. On December 5, 2003, my husband suffered a

City of Miami                                      Page 212                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  catastrophic cerebral hemorrhage at our home. As the fire-rescue man ran up three flights of
                  stairs to reach my husband, who was bleeding profusely from the head, they informed me that the
                  Mercy's emergency room was closed. Do you know what that means? It means the hospital can
                  no longer accept any ambulances because they're scrambling to care for the large number of
                  patients who are already there, so my husband and I got into the ambulance for what seemed
                  like a very long ride through late night streets of downtown Miami to Cedars. Very precious
                  minutes were lost, and what did it mean to me and my four step-children? Four weeks, one
                  month of leaving home early to make the trip to Cedars; stay there all day; no chance to go
                  home for a rest; no comfort of being in a neighborhood hospital where we are known and with
                  which we are familiar; countless hours on cell phones trying to arrange for nurses and a
                  hospital bed at our house, when it could have been easier if we were close at home. Bottom line,
                  Mercy Hospital was built 56 years ago. Its ER is almost 30 years old. It's woefully inadequate
                  to address the needs of our community, which has grown so much in the last few decades. Mercy
                  needs about $200 million to update its facilities, principally, the emergency room. The proposed
                  project provides half of that money. I have listened to and read the objections to this project,
                  and always, there's been an underlying ignorance of the facts. I urge you to let this project
                  proceed. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening.

                  Carol Garvin: Carol Garvin, 1815 Tigertail. I have owned a property in Coconut Grove for
                  over 35 years, and I'm opposed to this project. The proposed change does nothing to promote
                  any future land use goals set forth in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhoods [sic] Plan. You
                  call us the jewel of the city, but the proposed change would endanger, not protect our quality of
                  life in Coconut Grove. The proposed change does nothing to foster development and
                  revitalization of blighted or declining areas in the City. The proposed change does not promote
                  or facilitate economic development or the growth of job opportunities in the City. The proposed
                  change does nothing to foster the growth and development of downtown as a regional center,
                  domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment. The proposed change does
                  nothing to promote the efficient use of land and minimize land use conflicts. The proposed
                  change does nothing to protect and conserve the City's significant natural and coastal resources,
                  and the proposed change would promote condo sprawl, which taken to its logical conclusion,
                  would create a visual barrier along Biscayne Bay, blocking the view for everyone except those
                  privileged enough to afford these condominiums. It was the beauty of Biscayne Bay that drew
                  the original pioneers to Coconut Grove. When the Grove was settled, there were no roads
                  linking it to anywhere else. There was only the bay, and the people arrived by sailboat. The bay
                  fed them and provided them with lumber from shipwrecks to build their homes, and it was their
                  avenue of transportation. Three monoliths, 310 feet, 360, and 410 feet high do not belong in our
                  village on the bay. They are out of character, overbearing, and inappropriate for Coconut
                  Grove. When Grovenor was built, laws were changed to protect us from this type of debacle. I
                  beg you to uphold the law and deny this application.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Ms. Sweeny: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Good evening.

                  Michael Smith: Good evening. My name's Michael Smith. I live at 1660 South Bayshore Court,
                  which is Beacon Harbor. It's approximately 500 feet from this property -- the property under
                  question, and I'm in favor of the project. From my balcony, I see Grove Isle, and I will see this
                  project. I like how they both will look. I'm in favor for many reasons; I'll state three. There are
                  other projects that could be built on this property that will bring more traffic and have a bigger
                  detriment to the community. Two, I believe that Florida -- South Florida, Miami, and Coconut
                  Grove is a better place to live today than it was ten years ago, five years ago. One of the

City of Miami                                      Page 213                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  reasons for this is development. Development is progress. Progress is better than a paved
                  parking lot behind a chain link fence, which is what it is now, and lastly, I believe the benefit to
                  Mercy Hospital is a true benefit to the entire community, so I urge you to vote in favor of this
                  project. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.

                  Sharon Wilson: My name is Sharon Wilson, and I live at 1632 South Bayshore Court. I, too, am
                  affected greatly by the traffic. However, I feel there's a greater issues [sic] that are at stake
                  here, and it's been said many, many times tonight that the City Commission passed the ordinance
                  8/0, and that they would not allow -- that -- which would not allow a G/I property to be sold and
                  rezoned, and in my opinion, in my books, that should say it all. We shouldn't even go beyond
                  that. It has been voted on twice, and it -- and that is the law. I have an issue. I'm sure that the
                  developer is a very honorable man, but I have an issue that a powerful developer has more
                  power than the people that live in this community, and also, more than the laws of this
                  community. There is a compelling need for a medical facility and its future life and contribution
                  to this citizenry of this city and in the community. There is no compelling need for a 300-unit
                  high-rise condominium development on the bay front. Mercy Hospital has -- says in its own
                  brochure -- and it was read tonight -- that should the option for high-end condominium project
                  not materialize, the development team has an alternative plan to utilize the parcel's existing G/I
                  zoning designation, and Mercy Hospital also says that we believe the community clearly should
                  have and does have a voice as to what is built on that parcel. Part of the agreement in that
                  Mercy -- in the Mercy agreement with Related Group is that Mercy cannot build for ten years.
                  However, the Related project is going to take close to six years, and I think it's pretty clear -- the
                  math is very clear. We'll have something going on shortly after that.

                  Chairman González: All right. We need you to conclude. Your time is --

                  Ms. Wilson: I'd just like to say, in closing, that we should not have to beg the Commission to
                  uphold the law and those things that have been voted on already and agreed upon, and I think
                  that the job of the Commission is to protect the citizenry and not do spot zoning.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Frontis Wright Evins: Good evening. I'm Frontis Wright Evins. I'm also known as “Dub” is my
                  nickname. I'm wearing two hats here tonight. I am the president of the Coconut Grove Chamber
                  of Commerce, and I am also a licensed hospital architect, a master planning expert. I am not
                  under the employ or have I ever worked at Mercy Hospital. The Coconut Grove Chamber of
                  Commerce strongly endorses this project, as it brings a very welcome component of potential
                  neighbors, friends, customers, and clients into our shops, restaurants, and businesses. As you
                  know, the Grove has been rumored to be in decline, and we heard that earlier, that some of our
                  larger institutions are leaving. We cannot let Mercy Hospital fall into that category. They say it
                  is not the way it was once commercially. As you know, Coconut Grove has formed a BIC
                  (Business Improvement Committee) to enhance the business and have viable commercial district.
                  Hand in hand with these public endeavors abiding a mercantile growth comes quality
                  residential, i.e., private development. I would like to think in terms of development as
                  facilitators, as agents for change and improvement. The Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce
                  would like for you to strongly consider the approval of this project. Wearing my other hat as a
                  professional architect and hospital master planner, I cannot imagine a more complementary use
                  for this project to guarantee the future success, financial viability of Mercy Hospital. I've
                  learned a lot here tonight, certain terms like vertical density and the confusion over what density
                  is. If you take 150 people and put them on one acre or 300 people and put them on six acres,
                  which is less dense per unit. I would like to also briefly mention that the choice is clear, but one
                  option that I don't think has been adequately discussed is if Mercy's denied this plan. If they're
                  denied this plan, they will develop. It will come back in another way. It may not be optimal, and

City of Miami                                      Page 214                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  it may not be able to help them achieve their future objectives. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.

                  Ellie Haydock: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Ellie Haydock. I reside at 1617 Tigertail,
                  and I'm a member of the Natoma Manors Homeowners Association. I think they're a great
                  association. They're working for the best -- good of the neighborhood, but not for the good of
                  the Grove. I think that the project that's being proposed -- I was -- wanted to see the scale.
                  There's a great deal of discussion about the scale, so I went next door to our neighbors, the
                  Hydes, and got the -- Alec and Casey and Abigail Hyde to work with me on -- with a model,
                  knowing that I couldn't do it by myself, so we picked out the Legos, and this little red box here
                  represents a single-story home, which is right there on east and west Glencoe. Now there might
                  be a home that has a variance, so maybe it's 30 feet high because the R-1 height is 25 feet. Now,
                  when I went -- when we went to build the proposed project, I wanted you to be able to see that
                  this is the scale, and it doesn't matter what's in the pictures, but this is the scale. Now what's
                  currently at the hospital is five-story, or I think that's R-3, so here is an example of R-3, and this
                  is my point. Please do not change the zoning to R-4. It's just not compatible. I have one more.
                  This is Grove Isle, but anyways, that's all I wanted to say. I hope you could see it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Very well illustrated.

                  Ms. Haydock: Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Hi.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You learn something new everyday with Legos.

                  Nancy Benouaich: Yes. My name is Nancy Benouaich. I reside at 243 Shore Drive East 33133.
                  I am in between. I have behind me South Bayshore Drive and in front of me is Shore Drive East,
                  and at 5 o'clock it's bumper-to-bumper in my back, and in the front it is Shore Drive East, which
                  all the traffic cutting -- and cutting through my street. Presently, I'm vice president of the Bay
                  Heights Homeowners Association. Before that, I was on the Cocoanut Grove Village Council,
                  and before that, I was eight years as president of Bay Heights. I've been around the block once
                  or twice. I was here in the Grove when the hippies were walking down the street with their no
                  shoes, so -- and when I look at -- when I think back to Winn Dixie down there and I see what's
                  over there now, there's a big difference, so I don't think any of us should be afraid of what's
                  going on and the growth of the Grove. It's fantastic. Everybody's saying we don't want this, we
                  don't want that over there by the land. Right now there's floating chickens there. We wouldn't
                  dare go walking down there, and they have told us they were ---they're going to have a walkway
                  through there where we'll be able to go and have a -- not only you will have to walk down to
                  Kennedy Park, but we'll be able to go there, and I said, well, are we going to be able to stop and
                  have a coffee there? Fantastic. Getting back to the G/I [sic], the Constitution of this United
                  States, as old as it is, is flexible, and I want you to remember that because every case is different,
                  and I think you really need to think -- you know, a law is a law, but a law comes upon
                  circumstances, and it needs to be changed and amended, so I want you to think about that, and
                  also, there are many older people living in Bay Heights that need that hospital, and many people
                  have said, it's old and it needs help. Well, I really think about $100 million could do some major
                  help.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Your time --



City of Miami                                       Page 215                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Benouaich: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: -- is up. Yes, ma'am.

                  Applause.

                  Constance Steen: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Connie Steen. I reside at 1632
                  South Bayshore Court, stone's throw from the proposed development at Mercy Hospital and part
                  of Glencoe Sub. On a lighter note, my husband and I have lived and worked in the north Grove
                  for nearly 50 years, one of the few tranquil residential neighborhoods still left, besides south
                  Grove and Coral Gables. I have in my possession 43 signatures collected from my immediate
                  neighbors, Glencoe East, Glencoe West, and South Bayshore Court, all within 500 feet of the
                  proposed development. Ladies and gentlemen, please do not change the density of this north
                  Grove. This is the beginning of the destruction of this particular area. Once you allow the genie
                  out of the bottle, you will never be able to get it back. Coconut Grove has a numerous -- has
                  numerous properties under the G/I zoning, an easy target for additional zoning changes once
                  you allow the Mercy property to take the lead. The (UNINTELLIGIBLE) estate made this land
                  grant to the sisters of St. Joseph many years ago. They envisioned a hospital, a school to learn
                  and play, a church, retirement homes for the elderly, assisted living, possibly, and a home for the
                  sisters themselves, all for nonprofit. Never did they envision that this lovely piece of land next to
                  the Vizcaya to be used for private gains by a developer to build in such magnitude. It is totally
                  out of character. It does not fit. My husband and I are in the autumn of our lives and should not
                  have to care, but we do. We care about the young people and their children born today and
                  tomorrow. Sooner or later, someone will say the sins of our fathers, what have they done to us?
                  Thank you for listening.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Michael Larimore: My name is Michael Larimore. I grew up in the Grove, and I currently live
                  across the street from the project in Bay Heights. I'm very interested in the quality of life, and
                  I'm quite concerned about the traffic from an expanding Mercy Hospital that could possibly look
                  like Baptist or it could turn into a Jackson, so I've also -- my quality of life's got me to join the
                  homeowners association, so I have some insight into some of the things that went on with this,
                  and we hired an attorney to represent us and fight against the development. When I heard that
                  the attorney had reached an agreement with the developer, I was surprised and I was worried
                  that we might have sold out our quality of life, so I listened a lot of Tucker Gibbs, who is our
                  attorney -- I listened to his presentations with concern that we might have sold out, and I asked
                  him at each one of them, point blank, if you take away the financial settlement, is this still a good
                  settlement for Bay Heights and the north Grove, speaking primarily in terms of quality of life,
                  and his reply every time was absolutely yes. Tucker's very knowledgeable, and we pay him to
                  give us the facts. When he tells us that the agreement is good for the residents of the north
                  Grove, based solely on its nonfinancial merits, I believe him, so I'm for this project, and I think
                  the density is very important. I don't understand why they call it upzoning when you're going
                  from an unrestricted G/I to a lower density. I'd call it downzone.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir.

                  Mr. Larimore: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Andres Gomez-Mena: Good evening. My name is Andres Gomez-Mena. I live at 3560 Vista
                  Court. I've lived there for 14 years. You're all my Commissioners, but you, Mr. Sarnoff, in
                  particular, represent my district. When you ran for the district, you mentioned you were not
                  definitely against all development. You were just for reasonable development that would

City of Miami                                      Page 216                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  improve our quality of life, or at least, would not destroy our quality of life. You have here a
                  vote, sir. You vote against this project today, Mercy Hospital will use that land for other uses
                  that, as all the people that have mentioned this today here, will definitely lower our quality of
                  life. If they don't do it, Mercy Hospital will reduce its services, would reduce its capacity to
                  service us as a community, and that will furthermore reduce our quality of life. Sir, you have to
                  vote for this project. This -- and all of you have to vote for this project because the option is
                  really the worst thing that could happen to my neighborhood, all right, and to the City of Miami,
                  and as far as 300 units increasing the traffic, like everybody else said here, no. An office
                  building, a greater facility is -- for the hospital's activities would much further increase our
                  traffic. The traffic that we're all complaining about is not because of one 300 story -- or three
                  300 three 300-apartment buildings in our neighborhood. It's because there are 50 such building
                  north of our neighborhood and 50 other south of our neighborhood, and they all have to come
                  either through US 1 or through South Bayshore Drive. It's not those three buildings that are
                  going to increase the traffic. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Jihad Rashid: My name is Jihad Rashid. I reside at 2983 Washington Street. I work in Coconut
                  Grove Village West. I'm here representing the Coconut Grove Village West Homeowners and
                  Tenants Association, which has passed a resolution urging your support for the rezoning. We
                  cite a lot of conditions. We realize that things do not stay the same. We have unprecedented
                  growth, so it's not a question of density. It's a question of practibility [sic] and appropriateness.
                  We see this as a well conceived project that will usher in a new era. We cannot return to the
                  idyllic days of the fishing village that Coconut Grove once was. We cannot enjoy the era of the
                  flower children, but we can make sure, as we shepherd in a new era, that we do good growth,
                  and we have several other reasons why we support it. One, the Homeowners and Tenants
                  Association supports this project because those neighbors immediately impacted by this project
                  support it, and in concert with these folks, we see that we support them in their effort as they
                  support this. There have been considerable testimony by the neighbors in the immediate
                  surrounding area supporting this project, and we in the Village West also will be impacted by
                  this project. The other good reason that we support this project is because Mercy Hospital has
                  been a good neighbor, a good employer for this community, and some of the West Grove
                  residents had their first jobs at Mercy Hospital, and we enjoy the services of the hospital, so we,
                  in concert, urge good governance, that you hear the people and that you operate in the
                  overwhelming benefit for the overwhelming good of this community, Coconut Grove, as well as
                  Miami, and including the Village West. Additionally, the things that we consider about this
                  project is that they will agree to contribute 1.700 -- $1.7 million towards affordable housing, and
                  this is a important and crucial issue for our community, as well as the South Florida region. We
                  also will expect to receive 700 construction jobs for this project, so we can go on that good
                  governance requires hearing the people and appropriate development, and we urge you to
                  support this project for good reasons. We cannot retreat to the past, and we want to move
                  forward and take the best alternative, and we recognize, in conclusion, that Mercy Hospital have
                  other alternatives, and those alternatives will not be as good as the one that's proposed here,
                  which is a well conceived project. Thank you for your time.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Applause.

                  Jason Bloch: Good evening. Thank you. My name is Jason Bloch. I'm a resident of 3501 West
                  Glencoe Street. I also am the president of the Glencoe Neighborhood Association, several of

City of Miami                                      Page 217                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  which members are here tonight. I'm speaking in opposition to the project, and first, I'd like to
                  thank the Commissioners because I know you have a very difficult responsibility here, and I
                  know that all of you want to do what is best for the City of Miami and its residents. We don't
                  think that the developer has presented you with a case that what they want to do is best for the
                  City of Miami residents. I think the way to describe what they have done, both in dealing with
                  the residents and with this Commission, can be described only as audacious. I was surprised
                  when I heard Ms. Dougherty say among the neighbors that she said she reached out to was the
                  Glencoe Neighborhood Association, our association. In fact, Related refused to meet with us,
                  and I have letters from our attorney indicating -- confirming that they refused to meet with us.
                  They did not reach out to me as a homeowner. They did not reach out to the other neighbors,
                  and I would just like the Commission to be aware, if I may --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You got one minute.

                  Mr. Bloch: -- exactly where Glencoe is. This is the Mercy Hospital site. This is Halissee Street,
                  which is going to be the entrance for the project. This is Glencoe Street. We're right next door.
                  One of the pictures that Mr. Lukacs showed to the Commission, which showed the enormous
                  building and its juxtaposition of the house off of Bayshore, was the entrance to Glencoe Street.

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Please be on the microphone, please.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Just hold it up to your mouth.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You're divided by a wall, right?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Hold it up to your mouth.

                  Mr. Bloch: I'm sorry?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a wall dividing your neighborhood from --?

                  Mr. Bloch: There is a short wall that goes down Halissee Street. Our neighborhood is right next
                  door to the proposed project impact.

                  Chairman González: You need to speak on the mike.

                  Mr. Bloch: I apologize. Can you hear me now?

                  Chairman González: Yeah.

                  Mr. Bloch: Good. As I say, The Related Group chose not to speak with us. We had several
                  concerns, and instead of addressing them, they suggested that we raise our concerns with you in
                  front of the Commission. Obviously, in the two minutes that I have or if some of my members
                  relay the time, I can give you some of them, but certainly, not all of them.

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Mr. Bloch: I would suggest that a common theme that you've heard tonight from several
                  members of the community, including those representing neighborhood organizations, was
                  traffic, their fear about what an alternative to this project would bring, and I can tell you --
                  because I was here at the Zoning Board meeting, and I also attended a home -- a condo
                  association meeting at the Bay Colony Condo -- I own a small one-bedroom unit that I rent out
                  there -- an informational session. The Related has told the community that if they don't put up
                  this project, another project consisting of medical office towers will go in there, and the impact
                  to Bayshore and the community will that -- will be that much higher, and I would suggest that the

City of Miami                                      Page 218                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  speakers that you have heard in support have been under the presumption that if they do not
                  support this project, those will happen, but I would suggest that is a fallacy. If you look at the
                  actual Zoning Ordinance --

                  Chairman González: On all fairness to everyone, you have exceeded your time.

                  Eric Scherr: I'll give him my time.
                  Chairman González: You are three -- Pardon me?

                  Mr. Scherr: I'll give him the rest of my time.

                  Chairman González: You're going to --

                  Mr. Scherr: Yes.

                  Chairman González: -- yield your time --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Chairman González: -- to him? OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen --

                  Chairman González: You have an additional two minutes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need names because we still have --

                  Chairman González: Yeah. We need your name to the Clerk so --

                  Mr. Scherr: Eric Scherr.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Eric?

                  Chairman González: Pardon me?

                  Mr. Scherr: Eric Scherr.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Scherr --

                  Chairman González: Eric Scherr.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- donates his two minutes, so get his paper, Eric Scherr. All right. All
                  right.

                  Mr. Bloch: Thank you, and this is so important. If you look at the Zoning Ordinance, it does not
                  allow a medical office building to go onto this site; it is prohibited. The only way that it could
                  happen is, in new structures, this Commission would have to give a special exception, and
                  further, office uses could not be used beyond which is a customary accessory use to the principal
                  governmental/institutional use. In other words, the only way that you could have office space at
                  this hospital site would be, A, to get a special exception by this Commission, and if there was
                  going to be all that traffic, you would hear from the same neighbors, and good government
                  would suggest that you would not want to do that, and B, it couldn't go beyond what would --
                  what is traditionally allowed for that institutional use. There is a hospital there now. That
                  hospital has been there for years. They have never attempted to put up one million square feet of
                  office space as they have threatened to the community they would do if this project was not

City of Miami                                      Page 219                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  given, and I would suggest that one million square feet of medical office space is not customary
                  for a hospital of this size. This hospital has all the office space that it needs because it has been
                  operating and functioning as a hospital with the space that it needs. It is a false comparison. It
                  is one that has been perpetrated on the community, and it has what caused by fear a number of
                  these organizations to capitulate and come in to say to you candidly, we are afraid of what is
                  going to happen if this project does not go in. That is a false comparison, and they have
                  threatened and coerced these neighbors into doing something which would not otherwise
                  happen. Now in terms of the audaciousness --

                  Chairman González: You're running out of time, so --

                  Patricia Lyons: He can have mine.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Names.

                  Ms. Lyons: Patricia Lyons.

                  Chairman González: Got yours?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Patricia what?

                  Ms. Lyons: Lyons.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lyas?

                  Ms. Lyons: Lyons, L-Y-O-N-S.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Lyons, Patricia Lyons.

                  Mr. Bloch: I think the gut reaction that people have when they see the scale and scope of this
                  project is something that triggers the negative reaction to what's being proposed. You can see in
                  this scale right here, this little itty bitty part is where, I believe, the condo where I own a unit in
                  exists. My house is just a few feet further down the street. Perhaps, if a project had come in,
                  something more reasonable, something smaller, something in scale with not as many units, the
                  reaction wouldn't have been so great, but this is going from something abutting the least dense
                  use, R-1, single-family homes like myself and my neighbors and people in the surrounding area,
                  to the most intense use, and the argument that was made by one of the speakers on behalf of the
                  Related that, well, that's not relevant what you're -- the Grovenor ordinance because you're
                  changing the Grovenor ordinance, but the purpose of the Grovenor ordinance was to prevent
                  this very thing happening. The old Zoning Code allowed and R-4 use came in. When this
                  Commission amended that ordinance, you took that out. You explicitly said, we do not want R-4
                  in areas that abut something less dense, and this is the very definition of that. This is more than
                  twice the size of anything that's even close to that and eight times the size of the buildings that
                  are on my street, the condos. What else has The Related Group done in presenting to -- this to
                  you to do the best thing that you can for the City? You saw the slides from Mr. Lukacs's
                  presentation. The Planning Department originally said the change of this property from G/1
                  [sic] to R-4 results in a project density that is inappropriate for the existing conditions in this
                  area. The project is out of scale with the area, and then, inexplicably, with no analysis
                  whatsoever, that decision is abruptly changed, considering none of the factors that you will have
                  to consider under 2210. This matter comes to you after the Zoning Board has said, do not
                  approve this; it is inconsistent with the use; after the Planning Board has says it is inconsistent
                  with its use. They have come to you with -- Anyone else?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Anybody else want to waive two more minutes? Name?



City of Miami                                       Page 220                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Julie McCready: Julie McCready.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Julie.

                  Ms. McCready: Julie McCready.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: McCree? Julie McCree [sic] waives her two minutes.

                  Mr. Bloch: And Commissioner, I'll try to wrap it up. It is clear what's going on here, and that is
                  that we have a private developer who is trying to turn this sacred area, this protected area of
                  Coconut Grove in the City of Miami into something that is completely out of scale. You saw in
                  that picture what it would look like from a house on Bayshore. Every time I want to go for a jog
                  or anyone else, or take a bike ride, or any of the other citizens of the community in South Florida
                  that come down to the arts festival or any of the other wonderful festivals, they're now going to
                  see this thing that is literally going to look -- stick out like a sore thumb. Now let's talk about
                  traffic very quickly because the traffic study that was submitted by the proposed developer -- this
                  is very important -- does not take into account that there will be lane closures in Bay Heights
                  and there will be lane closures in the Natoma neighborhood. In fact, that is the very reason why
                  they came in and say we now support the project. All of the facts and statistics that were in the
                  traffic study that was submitted do not take that into account. Furthermore, I would suggest and
                  advise you that the traffic study does not even consider Glencoe Street. If you look at the study,
                  there's a picture of this street. The name's not even on there, and all the intersections that are
                  measured are not on there. These are just some of the objections and concerns that we had that
                  we were unable to present, but now we must present to you, and for all of these reasons, I and
                  the neighborhood association ask you to vote this project down.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Please, no clapping, please. Let's save time. Yes, ma'am.

                  Lottie Person: Yes. My name is Lottie Person. I live at 3111 Plaza Street. I got out of my bed
                  to come here to this meeting. Y'all can look at my eyes and the way that I talk. I don't feel well,
                  and I'm going to leave right after I speak. I'm speaking as an individual. When I first saw the
                  presentation of The Related Group, I really liked it, what they showed us, and my vote is still
                  going to be what it were then. I am voting yes for the project and whatever else that it takes to
                  have that project, you know, to get off the ground. There were some people here from Village
                  West, but they had to leave because they had their children with them, but I -- the only thing that
                  I hope that the neighbors, you know, the opposing side, all of you can really get together and
                  work out something, and maybe a compromise or -- some kind of compromise so everyone can
                  be happy, but I do -- I don't live in that area, but I do know for one thing. Mercy Hospital, from
                  many, many years ago, even before I moved away and retired back home, there was a lot of jobs
                  were there for our African-American people. There are -- what get me all -- the affordable
                  housing and everyone know that Miami, and especially, Coconut Grove, just like Overtown, we
                  need that affordable housing, so I'm asking, please, you all -- you all know I love you because all
                  of you my favorite. I would like for you to please pass, support this project, and --

                  Chairman González: Thank you, ma'am.

                  Ms. Person: -- I love you all.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Michael Butler: Michael Butler, 2580 Lincoln Avenue, Coconut Grove. We have almost five

City of Miami                                      Page 221                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  hours into this party, so to speak. I'm going to ask you to stay focused. This isn't about Mercy
                  Hospital. It is not about Mercy Hospital. It's about a developer coming in and requesting to
                  change the Zoning Ordinance that this good body passed -- or not to change, to get a variance to
                  the or -- an ordinance that this good body passed in June of 2004. Three of you gentlemen were
                  on that board and you voted in favor of it. The other two newcomers to the board were not
                  available to vote on it. I would employ you to stick to your convictions, and for the best interest
                  of the citizens of Miami, not the citizens of a piece here, a piece here, a piece here, the citizens of
                  Miami, vote this down. I know it's four and a half hours. Stay focused. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Mariano Cruz.

                  Mariano Cruz: Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26 Street, in the neighborhood of Allapattah, in
                  the City of Miami since 1962. I know this here pretty good because I was here before all of you,
                  more than 30 years coming to City Hall, and I know what's going on. First, I am going to say
                  what I want. I want the zoning of the parcel there at Mercy to be changed from G/I to R-4.
                  That's the main thing. Now what I'm going to say is different. Oh, how I love when we get
                  districts. Oh, how I love -- I remember years ago when I used to come here and everything was
                  control south of Flagler Street. All the Commissioners and the Mayor and everybody was living
                  south of Flagler Street, so you don't see a homeless shelter or a prison in Coconut Grove. Never.
                  The only thing you see something on 37 and 57, so now we need to keep a balance life. OK. The
                  other day, I was for Camillus House. They had to change the zoning to have Camillus House in
                  the border of Allapattah/Overtown because you know what? And I was opposed to Camillus
                  House for almost 20 years. You know why? Because it is necessary for the whole community,
                  and here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) good, but now Coconut Grove only got one vote. It used to be -- I
                  remember when the Mayor used to be Natoma, Curtis Lane, Nocatee; all those streets were
                  people were Commissioners or the Mayor. South Miami Avenue, Mayor Suarez, so you
                  remember. They control, so what we were doing -- the only thing we were doing was taxpayers.
                  We were paying money, but we were not represented. Now we have representation. That's why I
                  encourage you because all those changes are good because, in our neighborhood, you remember
                  the -- in Santa Clara Station, we got housing there, affordable housing, and that was government
                  institutional there, in Allapattah Station, too. The Miami Station, we got affordable housing
                  there too, OK, and that's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you got to -- at least they solving -- by doing that,
                  we're solving the problem because don't tell me that -- because I remember when the neighbor
                  resource was there, and you know what happened? The people of the Grove didn't want it.
                  When it was (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the GSA (General Services Administration), what
                  happened? They didn't want it, so --

                  Chairman González: Mariano.

                  Mr. Cruz: -- they fought -- the neighbor resource was supposed to go to the Miami Coalition for
                  the Homeless.

                  Chairman González: I need --

                  Mr. Cruz: They didn't want it.

                  Chairman González: -- to be fair to everyone, so your time is up.

                  Mr. Cruz: Yeah, OK.

                  Chairman González: OK. Thank you so much.

City of Miami                                       Page 222                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Cruz: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                  Judith Sandoval: Judith Sandoval, 2536 Southwest 25th Terrace. Just briefly, I wanted to say
                  that I think, in regard to traffic, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. So Mercy takes the
                  98 million from Mr. Pérez and they improve the ER or whatever else they're going to do at
                  Mercy. They're going to get a lot more traffic at Mercy because of it, so you're going to get the
                  traffic there. It doesn't help any to have this condominium development. Another thing I'd like
                  to say is that what's Mercy going to do next? Maybe Mr. -- you've all -- if you break the --
                  what's -- the rule in Coconut Grove that you can't do this kind of zoning without it reverting to --
                  if -- what's Pérez going to do next? Maybe he's going to buy another piece from Mercy Hospital,
                  another six acres somewhere else. They've got plenty of land. They could sell it, take another 98
                  million. Maybe he's going to build a whole little village in there and call it the Jorge Pérez
                  Village, like he did -- put his name on the terrible building at the University of Miami School of
                  Architecture. This is not only one instance. This is a precedent that you gentlemen can sell. I'm
                  glad you're laughing. It's really a laughing matter. Mr. Pérez, I'd like to ask you to do
                  something else. If you're the gentleman that everybody here is praising you as being, I think you
                  should reveal the terms and the amount of money with which you bought off one of the
                  homeowner associations, and I don't think that sort of thing should be approved. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am. No clapping, please. Yes, ma'am.

                  Linda Bruton: My name is Linda Bruton. I live at 1640 Tigertail Avenue. I'd like to say I'm an
                  artist, at least, I think of myself of an artist, and when I looked at these buildings, they looked
                  like magnificent sculptures to me. I think they'll be beautiful on our underused waterfront, which
                  is now no more than parking lot and rubble. People who are in favor of the project say, well, it's
                  the lesser of the evils. I don't see it as the lesser of the evils, although I do think that a medical
                  building would be a disaster. I think this won't impact our traffic, and I think the buildings are
                  magnificent. I can't wait 'til the waterfront is opened. I've lived here since 1944, and I've never
                  walked down Halissee to the bay. I can't wait. Thank you so much. Please approve it.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, ma'am. Good evening, Commissioner.

                  Victor De Yurre: Good evening. How are you?

                  Chairman González: How are you, sir?

                  Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. Very well.

                  Chairman González: Nice to see you.

                  Mr. De Yurre: Thank you. I'm getting Alicia Cervera's two minutes --

                  Chairman González: OK --

                  Mr. De Yurre: -- just for the record --

                  Chairman González: -- so you got four minutes.



City of Miami                                      Page 223                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. De Yurre: -- and I feel we've been in a cell phone commercial all night long. We're getting
                  everybody's minutes here, but that's all right. Victor De Yurre, 3625 Curtis Lane, Coconut
                  Grove. As a former City Commissioner, I've been listening for hours to this process, and I've
                  applied that mentality to what I've heard throughout the evening, and one of the main things that
                  I looked for when I was in office was who are we dealing with? Who are the proponents? Here
                  we have Related Group and Mercy Hospital. Needless to be said, Jorge Pérez, who started
                  working in the Planning Department of the City of Miami, in -- back in the late '70s, if I'm not
                  mistaken, and has a great reputation nationwide is an asset to us and is an asset to Coconut
                  Grove, where he lives also. Mercy Hospital -- what could you say about Mercy Hospital that we
                  don't already know? It's an institution that's been there where my children were born, where
                  many of us here had family members born and die, unfortunately, but it's there for us, so when I
                  see the participants, I know that whatever they bring to the table is the truth, and they're going to
                  stand by what they proffer to all of us. What are we talking about? We're talking about a
                  300-unit development, and 300 units -- and we've heard all the stories what they mean. People
                  are going to buy it that are -- really are not 9-to-5 people; that it's going to be a particular
                  group of individuals that are not going to create any traffic flow problems. I believe that's going
                  to happen. What is the alternative? We don't know. Nothing may happen for years there, or
                  something may that may not be what we want, as far as the traffic flow that people have been
                  addressing. Where's it located? It's located in an isolated area; the closest thing is 600 feet
                  away. What does it mean for the community? Well, if you talk about Mercy Hospital gaining
                  $96 million, what it means is more jobs. It means better environment, from a health wise
                  standpoint for us that live close to the hospital. It means also that monies are being donated for
                  different things; $2.5 million to improve our city parks, $6 million to improve Bayshore Drive,
                  including 17th Avenue and that corner -- I don't know how more people have not gotten hurt
                  with what goes on on that corner. Affordable housing, $1.6 million towards affordable housing,
                  and we all know, in each one of your districts, that there's an area that does need help as far as
                  affordable housing is concerned. We talk about the bay walk. It's improving, giving access to
                  the people to the bayside. A lot of people don't have that ability to be on the water. We're
                  looking for support, and we've seen a lot of people in favor, a lot of people opposed, and it's --
                  everybody's impassioned with their feelings, and that's the way it should be, but when I see that
                  it's that -- it's split that way, what I look for is, what about the approximate neighbors? You've
                  got Bay Heights and Natoma, which is basically the bulk of that area, in favor, not that all are in
                  favor, but a majority are in favor when the association represents to be so, so when I see all that,
                  I see that it's a win-win for our community. It's a win-win for the hospital. It's a win-win for the
                  tax base, which will increase by $33 million annually, but the bottom line is that, when you vote,
                  you cannot take these things into consideration. Why? Because that's not what your vote is
                  going to be based on. Your vote has to be based on legal issues, and the legal issue here tells
                  you, as recommended by your staff, that this should be approved, and I employ you to consider
                  that and please vote yes for this project. Thank you very much.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir.

                  Ms. Marrero: Commissioners, I will not address you again, even though I want to. I just wanted
                  -- I know Commissioner Sanchez wanted to see the traffic study, so I --

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Your name for the record, please.

                  Ms. Marrero: Yery Marrero, from Natoma Manors.

                  Chairman González: Please provide it to --

                  Commissioner Sanchez: No.

                  Chairman González: -- the City Clerk.



City of Miami                                      Page 224                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  Ms. Marrero: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Who's next? Go ahead.

                  Anthony Asbury: I'll go.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Asbury: Thank you very much. I'm at 2645 Halissee. My name is Anthony Asbury, and I
                  would like all of you to know that this exciting project, and I would employ you to vote for it and
                  change the zoning. I would also like to ask you if you could take the $33 million extra in the
                  budget and put it towards our parks system? If this is a concern, maybe we can make a park that
                  will have the impact that the neighbors need that are against this. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

                  Luis Herrera: My name is Luis Herrera. I'm the president of the Vizcaya Homeowner
                  Association. Before the time come, Commissioner Angel, let me say something about -- I'm
                  American Cancer Society volunteer, like this gentleman before talk. I work free too.

                  Chairman González: Respect you for that.

                  Mr. Herrera: OK. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: I have a lot of respect for all the people that work with the cancer society.

                  Mr. Herrera: All, right. First of all, everybody mentioned they don't have no traffic by the
                  apartment. There's plenty traffic that is going to come out. Like the gentleman over there, he
                  said the bicycle -- he run a bicycle over there too. He not going to run the bicycle if you make
                  the building. Now Mercy Hospital, they collecting money 365 days every year for the parking lot
                  that they have from the Mercy Hospital. They have apartment next to the Mercy Hospital. They
                  collecting money for there. We need --

                  Chairman González: Which apartment?

                  Mr. Herrera: -- a new --

                  Chairman González: Which apartments are that?

                  Mr. Herrera: Next to the -- next -- in front of the hospital, on the side, they got about three
                  building, I think it is, or two, something like that.

                  Chairman González: You're talking about --

                  Mr. Herrera: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) be rental, it be rental.

                  Chairman González: -- Carlton Manor?

                  Mr. Herrera: I don't know exactly the --

                  Chairman González: That doesn't belong to Mercy Hospital. That belongs --

                  Mr. Herrera: I understand that.

City of Miami                                      Page 225                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: -- to the Catholic church.

                  Mr. Herrera: The Catholic church?

                  Chairman González: Yes, sir.

                  Mr. Herrera: But that money is collecting for the hospital too, I think.

                  Chairman González: I don't -- I know.

                  Mr. Herrera: I'm not sure, I'm not sure.

                  Chairman González: But go ahead.

                  Mr. Herrera: OK. They collecting money on the parking for the hospital. We need a new
                  hospital in there. Why they want to sell that property when they need to put a new building in
                  there? I think for the money they collecting in there, they can make a new building and they
                  don't have to be sell their property. The property, they need it. Now, the government, they can
                  give you money, a loan, or whatever, out of the taxes roll or taxes -- low taxes. They can build
                  another hospital on there. I'm asking you, please, you are the lawyers of the neighborhood. You
                  the lawyers of the neighborhood.

                  Chairman González: We are the Commissioners.

                  Mr. Herrera: You represent all the neighbors. We vote for you people, and you sit down there
                  to represent us. We need to vote down that project, only the hospital -- it needs some new
                  hospital and they have some money to do that. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: All right. Thank you. Commissioner Winton, how are you, sir?

                  Johnny Winton: Very well, thank you. How are you all this evening?

                  Chairman González: Good.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Feeling great.

                  Mr. Winton: It's been -- is my two minutes working already? -- very interesting. I am not,
                  however, going to try to break new ground in this whole thing, and I'm not coming as the major
                  expert. I'm not coming even as the final architect of the zoning change that dealt with this issue.
                  I'm not going to talk about that either. I am, however, a voter. I live in Coconut Grove, and I
                  live in the neighborhood across the street from Mercy Hospital -- that's Bay Heights -- and as
                  many people have said that live immediately within the area, this issue is about traffic, and
                  anyone who suggests that Mercy doesn't have other alternatives -- I don't care if Jorge Pérez
                  goes anywhere or anyone else. Mercy owns the land; Mercy has alternatives. Those alternatives
                  -- there are no alternatives that Mercy has that they can do on their own. They don't need some
                  other developer. Mercy can do on their property -- there is no alternative that will be good for
                  our neighborhood as a result -- as it relates to their expansion. Rebuilding their hospital could
                  be very good for our neighborhood. By the way, I stayed in Mercy Hospital when I had my
                  appendix out two years ago in an emergency, and I can assure you they need upgraded facilities
                  and they need them badly, and it isn't part of the joke. It's part of the reality. This money can
                  help them do the kinds of things that they need to rebuild their hospital, but as a neighbor across
                  the street, I don't want them doing things like adding additional medical office buildings, which
                  they could add. I don't want them adding new clinics. I don't want them expanding the hospital
                  because the traffic that goes to Mercy comes through Natoma Manors and Bay Heights, where

City of Miami                                      Page 226                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                  my eight-year-old child tries to play in the street, but he can't many times because traffic -- and
                  Marc's seen it many times -- comes roaring right down Tigertail, right into our neighborhood
                  and takes two entrances -- or two exits out of our neighborhoods onto Bayshore to try to get
                  away from the traffic on Bayshore. Those condominium units that are huge are not going to
                  bring significant additional traffic to Bayshore or the neighborhood, so as a voter, I strongly
                  recommend you to consider my interest and the interest of my neighbors who have expressed the
                  same thing I have, and that is to vote yes in favor of this project at Mercy. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am.

                  Applause.

                  Marci Weber: Hi. Marci Weber, 2525 Swanson. I live in the Grove. I'm also vice president of
                  my homeowners association, but I'm here just speaking on my own behalf. Everyone keeps
                  talking about the 300 units and how it's not really going to have a big impact, but I have to tell
                  you, the pictures I've seen and the Lego demonstration kind of says it all, and I also agree with
                  Ms. Burton [sic]. The structure is just magnificent. It's beautiful, and it would be welcome in
                  Brickell. However, in Coconut Grove, can't we kind of get together because, obviously, Mercy
                  Hospital needs help. There -- I disagree with Mr. Winton. I think if -- they should be a
                  world-class hospital. Why not? That would bring people to Coconut Grove and put them in the
                  Ritz Carlton and put them in our hotels because we'll have a great, incredible hospital, so I
                  believe that we should look to a way to work with Mr. Pérez, and maybe Mr. Pérez can build a
                  wing called the Pérez Wing. Why not do that? What better way can you Donald Trumpify [sic]
                  yourself than to build your own wing? So -- and that would really be great for tax purposes, and
                  it would also make him as -- in our hearts forever. His name would be right there. I just don't
                  see how building 50 stories, 40 stories, or double the -- Grove Isle is tall in our neighborhood. I
                  just don't understand what doubling the size would really do, and as for traffic, traffic is a
                  problem on its own. Traffic is a problem now. Traffic's going to be a problem in the future, and
                  the more development -- we're just in between. We're a part of Miami. We're in between south
                  and north. People come through everyday, and that is something we have to address. I don't
                  support the project as it is, although I think it's beautiful. I would welcome other ideas, and
                  obviously, I support Mercy.

                  Chairman González: Thank you. Yes, sir.

                  Bruce Reep: My name is Bruce Reep, 3530 East Fairview Street. I got involved with this. I'm
                  one of the troublemakers that got it started with the opposition. I have numerous signed things
                  from my neighbors, which are giving me their two minutes. There're seven of them here, and I
                  got five more people out here. This is for Fairview. They all could not stay, so I'm speaking on
                  their behalf. I'll try to make it as quick as possible, but I've got over 22 minutes, but I won't take
                  that long. Everybody else got their two minutes. Would you please raise your hands, the people
                  that offer me --? Jeff and the other gentleman with the hat. OK, plus --

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me. The names given to me were Gus Andy, Fotini Andy --

                  Unidentified Speaker: Yes.

                  Mr. Reep: Yes, they're here.

                  Ms. Burns: -- Jeff Goldstein, Barbara Schindler --

                  Mr. Reep: Some of the people have had to leave.

                  Ms. Burns: -- Sheila Goodman, and Lynn & Paul Steinfurth.



City of Miami                                       Page 227                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Reep: All right, and I have two more people here that -- with the hat. You want their
                  names?

                  Margaret Lopez: Margaret Lopez.

                  Ms. Burns: Those --

                  Chairman González: All right. We need to move on because we --

                  Mr. Reep: OK. Can I --? Let me just --

                  Chairman González: It's --

                  Mr. Reep: -- get on with it.

                  Chairman González: -- quarter to 10 --

                  Mr. Reep: That's the best idea. OK.

                  Chairman González: -- and I said --

                  Mr. Reep: Yes.

                  Chairman González: -- at 10 o'clock, we're going to adjourn.

                  Mr. Reep: OK. I'm here to break some myths that, unfortunately, that -- of what's being offered
                  to our neighborhoods. First, I want to talk about the bay walk and what dangers this has. If you
                  go over there right now and walk it, sure, you can't park your car there, but I walk it all the time.
                  I've been in this neighborhood since I was seven years old, and I have fished off from there and
                  been in that neighborhood, and you go there, and you don't have to worry about looking around
                  the curve of a 20-foot high proposed wall, so basically, a bay walk, where you've got a big curve
                  and 20 feet high, you can't see what's coming around the corner. The reason I have personal
                  experience of the bay walk is I helped get the bay walk at Peacock. We fought hard for it. We
                  said this is not a great idea to having it behind the mangroves. Give us lighting. Because it's
                  back there, it is closed at sunset. You don't have to have it be closed over at -- to walk at Mercy
                  right now. You can see all the way around the bend. Nobody's going to sneak up on you. They
                  say it's a -- when you have a place, you cannot see, this bay walk will end up being closed.
                  They'll say drug dealing or it's not safe, and in that high (UNINTELLIGIBLE) neighborhood will
                  lose it. The Miami river walk is just another example of that, so all the gifts that are being given
                  to us, the bay walk's a joke. Fifteen feet? That's ridiculous. They -- the City should get a little
                  more than that. Now we're going to talk about the traffic. There's already been shown in the
                  drawings for right lane turns, basically making Bayshore into right turn at 17th, later at 22nd,
                  and all the way to Aviation, right-hand turn lanes, basically making Bayshore into a three-lane
                  road. It is a historically designated highway. You can't do it, but they're going to do it anyway.
                  They're going to take the front yards, and they're going to start making right-hand turn lanes.
                  After that, we've got -- when we finally get too much traffic -- and I'm going to show you how
                  you're going to get the too much traffic with condominiums -- everybody says that they don't
                  cause traffic. I've been here since I was seven years old. I'm telling you, there were nothing but
                  beautiful mansions. I have nothing but condos in my neighborhood, but this is outrageous, this
                  size. You're going to lose your jogging path and your bicycle path. You almost kill them now
                  when they ride by you. Bless their hearts. They take their lives in their hands when they ride our
                  bicycle paths. Coconut Grove's character is based on a jogging path and a bicycle path. OK. I
                  just want -- four of the things that were being given to us. Far as the myths of condominiums not
                  causing traffic. Mercy received this property fifty-some -- six years ago and it was to be the
                  benefit of the community. For over 50 years, they have saved on the backs of us taxpayers in

City of Miami                                      Page 228                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  Coconut Grove and the Miami area probably 20 million in taxes. They got free roads, free
                  sewers, free libraries, free police, free fire, free museums, free parks. They enjoyed them too.
                  We all paid for it. That's fine. I'm glad to give it. They're a nonprofit and they do wonderful
                  things. I think it's great, but what they were supposed to give back to us is they were supposed to
                  keep a hospital up to par for the rest of us. You've heard about the millions they made. Where
                  did it go? The sister at the Planning Advisory Board admitted that they have missions all the
                  way in Maine, in the Caroli -- up and down the coast. Where did the rest of the money go
                  because it sure didn't all stay here? I don't know why they need this infusion so badly. I'm not
                  saying the place doesn't need to be fixed up. If they so desperately need the 96 million, I would
                  have like -- loved to have had the questions asked by you all. Where did the rest of the money
                  go? The proponents have tried to scare Bay Heights and Natoma neighbors with gloom and
                  doom of about -- and at those other zoning meetings and other meetings that they gave in the
                  Grove, they're talking about the one million square foot of office buildings. There are other
                  options for them there. They could put assisted living facility in. They could further and make
                  this a wonderful place for a better hospital, and I'm fine with the hospital growing, and you'll
                  find a lot of our neighborhoods think that, as our population grows, you all need to look into the
                  future and make sure this land isn't all sold off, and I'm going to tell you the financial pressures
                  to sell this land off. R-4 zoning at Mercy will break the G/I code, as we all understand it, to
                  protect our neighborhoods. That was the intent and the promise given to our neighborhoods,
                  and basically, what you're going to have here is the least abutting property in the future will be
                  R-4. That's 150 units per acre. There's 74 acres there. Do the math. These 300 units, plus the
                  66 left, it's over 10,000 allowable units. What is before you tonight is not the whole project, it's
                  R-4. That's what you're voting on, not the whole project, and if you give R-4 there, then the least
                  abutting neighborhood is R-4, so when you talk about the -- that's not going to cause much
                  traffic. I've watched these condos boom, boom, boom, go, and then the nice sister said, well, we
                  don't have the intent at this time to sell any other land. You, the Commission, the residents, none
                  of us, as Johnny Winton -- Commissioner Winton said, do not have control over their ability to
                  sell to whomever they want, and they can sell at will, and she also stated, at the Planning
                  Advisory meeting, the same sister, that there's no room. I'm going to show you how there is
                  room. You've got three parking garages there right now. There are parking garages being built
                  in front of the Four Ambassadors. They're nine and ten stories tall. Why so tall? So they can
                  see over the top of the Four Ambassadors. You can C-4, with plastic explosives and tear down
                  those three 5-story parking garages at Mercy right now. In a week, it could be hauled away, and
                  you can build three 10-story parking garages, just like in front of the Four Ambassadors.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I wouldn't be using that language here at City Hall.

                  Mr. Reep: Oh, what, that they could build those?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: About blowing up buildings.

                  Mr. Reep: No, no. I'm just saying, that's how it works. Come on. I mean, I've been in the demo
                  business for years. I remodel cruise ships, OK. They can take those buildings away --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, it's been a long --

                  Mr. Reep: -- I -- OK, fine, fine.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- night, and I think --

                  Mr. Reep: Fine. OK, I got ----

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- we need to laugh a little, you know?

                  Mr. Reep: OK. I agree. Thank you. My point is is that they could come down and you can

City of Miami                                         Page 229                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  build bigger, tall ones on there and put another 30 stories on top of each of those, so the room is
                  there. That football field -- now where do I get these numbers from? Ninety-six million for the
                  6.7 acres, a $5 million gift that's in the Miami magazine to Mercy. That's 101 million. We
                  probably spend another three or four with all the expensive attorneys and personnel and pretty
                  drawings, and with your neighborhoods, who know what they got? And that makes it very
                  cloudy and suspect why you should -- when people take money, you should suspect why they're
                  voting for it, but my bigger intent is to show you why and how it's going to happen. I've been
                  here since I was a little boy. I've watched it, and here's how it's going to happen financially.
                  The financial stress on waterfront property will put the pressures to sell that football field --
                  you'll move those 750 kids from LaSalle somewhere else. They'll move west because if you can
                  make 1.3 to $1.5 billion, with a B, on just six acres, what's to make anybody on this Commission
                  have the power to tell Mercy they can't sell it again and not do it again? It will happen. I'm
                  going to tell you the reason why you have an obligation, as guardians to this city of ours, to not
                  let it happen, and it's about people and it's about hospitals. It's about Key Biscayne and how far
                  they are away from a hospital. Tens of thousands of people live on Key Biscayne. Tens of
                  thousands of people live in the condominiums in Brickell. I'm going to give you the five
                  neighborhoods that are very dependent on Mercy. Coconut Grove, the Roads section, Mr.
                  Sanchez's area, Coral Way, and Silver Bluff. Those five areas, you won't get to a hospital in time
                  to save your life. Of the five big municipality areas -- neighborhoods that I've just told you, think
                  how many retirees are there. I'm over 50. You need to get to a hospital quick if you have a
                  stroke, quick. You want to think you're going to make it to Jackson? You already heard horror
                  stories about people having to go to Cedars. Yes, they need to keep up the place. Yes, they need
                  the money, but there are other ways to do this. This is not the only way, and to get rid of the
                  voodoo, gloom and doom that both the Natoma Manors and Bay Heights bought into, if you
                  build these three -- and I don't care if you have a ten-year moratorium. It's only going to take a
                  few minutes -- ten years is nothing. Basically, there's nothing to preclude Mercy from still
                  selling off and still building the million square foot of medical office buildings that's going to
                  cause all the traffic. Why? They got 66 more acres, so how does this -- is there some
                  agreement? Ten years is nothing, so we can still get those big, huge buildings. You are the
                  guardians. We don't have any other G/I hospital property around. You all need to be
                  visionaries. You need to look into the future, for our kids and our grandkids. We elected you
                  because we trusted you. That's why all of you are sitting up there. We elected you, each one of
                  your neighborhoods, because they trusted you to be leaders and to plan for the future of Miami,
                  and I just gave you five huge neighborhoods, and one's its own little town, that are so dependent
                  on this G/I property not to have the pressure of condominiums, waterfront. If Mercy can't do it
                  themselves because they've mismanaged it, sell it to Baptist or sell it to somebody else, if they
                  can't, OK.

                  Applause.

                  Mr. Reep: If not, do it right and do assisted living. You know why? Assisted housing living
                  doesn't cause tons of people coming in. They don't own cars. All the maintenance people are
                  right there. The maintenance people are right there. OK, the painters, the plumbers. If you
                  have just the 300 units, or the 10,000 units that I'm telling you are going to happen, each one of
                  those housewives is going to buy -- call somebody when the -- and this is where the numbers are
                  wrong and everybody's wrong about the numbers of population -- of traffic, and they've been
                  sold a bill of goods because they think they're only getting these 300 units now. This is a quick
                  Band-Aid. Every one of them are going to have -- especially if they're $3 million properties --
                  they're going to have maids or housekeepers, cooks, flower deliveries, plumbers, appliance --

                  Chairman González: You --

                  Mr. Reep: -- repairmen, exterminators. We --

                  Chairman González: Excuse me. You have --

City of Miami                                      Page 230                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Reep: I'll be real quick.

                  Chairman González: -- already used ten minutes.

                  Mr. Reep: OK.

                  Chairman González: OK?

                  Mr. Reep: All right.

                  Chairman González: Believe it or not.

                  Mr. Reep: All right.

                  Chairman González: Ten minutes.

                  Mr. Reep: Remodeling kitchens -- I'll be real quick -- painters, guest visitors, family and friends,
                  tow trucks, landscaping services, pool services, cable TV (Television) installers, computer repair
                  service, phone repair services, FP&L (Florida Power & Light) repair, food delivery -- I'm just
                  saying, it goes on and on.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Reep: The point is -- you got my point. You are going to have --

                  Chairman González: Yeah. We --

                  Mr. Reep: -- tons of traffic with your next 10,000 units.

                  Chairman González: -- do. Thank you very much.

                  Mr. Reep: Enjoy yourself with south Brickell --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Reep: -- being in the north Grove.

                  Chairman González: Thank you, thank you.

                  Applause.
                  Chairman González: Wow. My God. Yes, sir.

                  Joseph Ganguzza: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joe Ganguzza. I live at 3551 Vista
                  Court. I'm a neighbor, and as Commissioner Winton said, a voter. I'm also a member of the
                  City of Miami Zoning Board. I was home watching this on TV while my wife was watching that
                  silly Grey's Anatomy. I thought I'd come down and share my thoughts, and I'd like to ask the
                  City Attorney, do I have a problem discussing this as a citizen since we heard this matter?

                  Ms. Chiaro: No.

                  Mr. Ganguzza: OK. Since I sat up there -- and I've glazed over listening to these endless
                  hearings. I'm going to be very brief. The Zoning Board heard this. The Zoning Board heard a
                  lot of what you're hearing tonight, and we voted this application down, and really, it's all about
                  keeping the Grove the Grove. You know, there's a lot of things that have been discussed about

City of Miami                                      Page 231                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  what Mercy Hospital's going to do, you know, what it can do in the future. Let's cross that
                  bridge when we come to it. This is the last neighborhood in town where we've got sane levels of
                  density, where we've got a quiet low-rise waterfront. Let's keep it that way. I think we owe that
                  to the City of Miami. I think everyone treasures the Grove, and you know, that's all I really want
                  to say. Please vote to deny this application. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: Yes.

                  Monette O'Grady: Monette O'Grady --

                  Chairman González: With these two speakers -- I'm closing the meeting down with these two
                  speakers.

                  Ms. O'Grady: -- 1660 South Bayshore Court. I live on Glencoe. I enter my community through
                  Glencoe. A gentleman stood up and said that he formed an association called Glencoe
                  Neighborhood Association, Inc. I know nothing about this. It was formed three days ago. I
                  believe that you owe it to yourself to verify when somebody stands up and says that they form an
                  association. This is a self-appointed entity that I know nothing about. I give you this document.
                  This project is a win-win. There's $11.5 million of impact fees that will go with this project, 6.5
                  million to the road improvement of our neighborhood, 3 million to the parks, and 2 million to
                  affordable housing. Maybe we should keep 3 million to the parks of Coconut Grove. Thank you.

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Mr. Bloch: If I might respond, I think she was referring to me, Jason Bloch.

                  Chairman González: Go ahead.

                  Mr. Bloch: That is correct. We started this organization recently, and the reason why is because
                  we were told -- I was told --

                  Ms. Burns: Excuse me. Your name for the record, please.

                  Mr. Bloch: Jason Bloch. I was told that The Related Group would not speak to me as an
                  individual, and that the best thing to do -- that they would only speak with organizations, so I set
                  up an organization, and several of my neighbors and our memberships were here. In fact, you
                  heard several of them yield their time to me.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Mr. Bloch: Some of them are still here. This is a legitimate organization.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Bloch: They did not contact one of our members, any of the people that own houses on
                  Glencoe Street.

                  Chairman González: All right. You clarified the record. Yes, sir.

                  Jorge Lopez: Yes. Mr. Chairman --



City of Miami                                      Page 232                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Chairman González: Good evening.

                  Mr. Lopez: -- honorable members of the Commission, good evening. My name is Jorge Lopez.
                  My family and I reside at 1889 South Bayshore Drive, and I'm delighted to be here today as a
                  resident. All of you have heard that we're all voters, but more importantly, someone that's
                  impacted on a daily basis. My family and I worship just nearby this property. We've attended
                  this hospital for personal needs, and more importantly, my wife and I believe so much in this
                  hospital that we're volunteering our time, as well as our resources to help it grow because it's a
                  significant asset in our community. I'm here to also share with you how proud I am to be part of
                  this community. We moved into the Grove about a year ago. We knew this project was coming.
                  We knew we were coming to a street that was heavily traffic, and we knew that it would be
                  challenges for a family of five young children to be able to grow in this community, but we
                  believe that this community can thrive and we can thrive in it. This evening, Mr. Chairman,
                  you've conducted a wonderful meeting and a sharing of ideas and a building of consensus
                  around a project that we think is significant, not only as neighbors to this piece of property, but
                  more importantly, as people who might use it, and I also invite my neighbors to, for once, speak
                  in the City of Miami as, yes, in my neighborhood, as opposed to, no, not in my neighborhood.

                  Chairman González: In my neighborhood.

                  Mr. Lopez: We share, oftentimes, in the Grove, the privilege of having other areas represented
                  by many of you, which do take on the burden of growth and development and affordable housing
                  and impacts in this community --

                  Chairman González: And hospitals and jails.

                  Mr. Lopez: -- and hospitals and jails, and sometimes, it's incumbent upon us to say, yes, in our
                  neighborhood, and yes, we'll deal with it, and more importantly, I invite all of my neighbors to
                  join with me in looking at how we're going to take some of those resources that are coming as a
                  result of this project and invest them wisely in this community. We talked about parks. We
                  talked about the streets. We talked about other areas of impact, and I think that, constructively,
                  we can channel all the energy. I mean, there were some very important arguments made here
                  today. I -- they're way beyond my pay grade to understand, and I hope that you will make the
                  right decision, but as a community, if we come together and work diligently, I think we can solve
                  many of those challenges. Is it going to be a challenge? Yes, but I'm here to tell you I'm willing
                  to burden it up and share the responsibility with all of you, as a resident, as a voter, and as a
                  friend. Thank you very much and Godspeed.

                  Chairman González: Thank you --

                  Applause.

                  Chairman González: -- and with that, I'm closing the public hearing, and I'm bringing it back to
                  the Commission. Who wants to speak on the item first? Commissioner --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, I'll --

                  Chairman González: -- Sarnoff.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, I'd like to speak to it. First off, to Coconut Grove, I congratulate
                  you. What you did today was bring forth your side of the story. You did it eloquently, justly, and
                  fairly to both sides, so I think you should be congratulated, and regardless of how this vote
                  comes out, you should hold your heads up high and remember that we're a community and
                  tomorrow we will be Coconut Grove, the Village, once again. I was also glad to see
                  Commissioner Winton here, and I was glad to hear him speak. The one thing I learned today is

City of Miami                                      Page 233                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  probably how to solve Jackson Memorial Hospital's financial crisis, and I guess they could sell a
                  part of their property, and they would somehow generate income, and that's not what we're here
                  to do today. We're not here to solve a financial crisis or to build anything for anyone else.
                  We're here exclusively to look at a Major Use Special -- I'm sorry, not to look at a Major Use
                  Special Permit, but to look at a change in the planning -- the comp plan of the City of Miami and
                  to look at whether G/I allows to R-4, and the reason we're not looking at a Major Use Special
                  Permit is, very simply, it's not attached to this item, and it shouldn't be considered in this item,
                  and we took a lot of testimony today that, quite frankly, while sexy and interesting, is not relevant
                  to our decision, and whether there's going to be a Major Use Special Permit attached to this
                  item, that can change with market forces. Projects can change, projects can go, and to me, this
                  issue is about the G/I ordinance, and I am a very simple person in a lot of respects, and when I
                  heard Jack Luft's interpretation of how this ordinance works and I drew the analogy of a pizza
                  pie and I asked him if you take one slice of pizza, does that mean the entire slice reverts back?
                  And he says, oh, no, no. It's got to be the entirety. You have to take the entire G/I ordinance.
                  You have to take the entire plot of the G/I away, and I've read the ordinance time and time again,
                  and I think it's very, very clear. I sort of watched it being developed by Ron Nelson. I watched it
                  being developed by others in the Grove during the Grovenor project, and I was very glad to
                  watch three of my Commissioners up on this screen very recently, and they seemed to be very
                  confident in what they were doing. Now, Coconut Grove is a special place, and I actually looked
                  up in the Code how has the City of Miami ever addressed Coconut Grove? And I was surprised
                  to see not only did it address Coconut Grove, but it equally addressed the Mercy Hospital
                  Overlay District, and here's what it said. Within Coconut Grove, bounded by a scenic highway (
                  South Bayshore Drive), as designated in the Miami Environmental Preservation Ordinance, on
                  the northwest, a historic place (Vizcaya) listed in the National Register of Historic Places on the
                  northeast, and surrounded on two sides by a predominantly single-family area is attractive land
                  containing the Mercy Hospital complex. Because of its location and relationship to the
                  surrounding area, it is of special and substantial public interest to apply special regulations on
                  this tract of land and to ensure that the future development or redevelopment of this land will
                  respect and enhance the general character of this area and to protect against inappropriate
                  height, destruction of natural and manmade features or incongruent design. When we look at a
                  comp plan change, we have to ask ourselves, what has changed? What conditions are new?
                  And the question you ask yourself is, is the change to the value of waterfront land and in the
                  market for luxury apartments, does that constitute changes on the grounds of our neighborhood?
                  Because if that is true, I suggest to you we could change all the comp plans because all of our
                  waterfront is more and more valuable. We have Vizcaya, LaSalle, Mercy Hospital -- when I
                  listened to Jack Luft's explanation, I thought to myself, what's next, LaSalle? If you allow this
                  camel into the tent, the rest of the body will follow. How hard is it for anyone to imagine Jack
                  Luft coming in here in six years and explaining to us the G/I ordinance and Lucia Dougherty, as
                  I would joke, maybe with a little bit of a walker, coming in here and telling us exactly what can
                  be done on the LaSalle High School side? Sometimes you defend your neighborhoods, and
                  sometimes you defend them against encroachment, and this is a place you defend, and I know the
                  other side of the story is going to be what if, what if, what if. Sometimes it takes courage, and
                  sometimes you just need to say no, and you need to back up and preserve what you have and let
                  the law take care of it because we're only here today for the law. We're not here to right
                  somebody's red ink or black ink. We're not here to do anything other than establish a comp plan
                  change for Coconut Grove and to decide whether the G/I ordinance, which was eloquently
                  debated, veraciously thought of, and very competently passed by a former Commissioner, I
                  guess, on whose shoulders I now stand because we all stand on the shoulders of the people who
                  have been here before us. Each one of us should have an obligation to be good stewards of our
                  land, and ask yourself, are you being good stewards with your land? And that's why I ask my
                  Commissioners to back me in a motion to deny this application because it's not right for this
                  village. It's not right to do. There has been no justification. If you look at the law, if you look at
                  the pretense and you look at some of the money that's been spent, the right thing to do is to deny
                  the application.



City of Miami                                      Page 234                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Is there a second?

                  Commissioner Regalado: I'll

                  Chairman González: Commissioner --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- second the motion for discussion.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I just have --

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I have a couple --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: We (UNINTELLIGIBLE) discussion.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Well, go ahead.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I just wanted to get some clarity. It's been definitely a long
                  night. I'm sure my two-year-old son is wondering where his mommy is at this point, but I really
                  wanted to just get some clarity on a couple of things. The vote has already been made, but I still
                  wanted to at least understand it. This was kind of like déjà vu for me because I had a pretty huge
                  item like this before me, Commissioner Sarnoff, probably about four or five months ago, and you
                  know, it's very difficult to sit in the audience and look at both groups trying to decide which one
                  is the right decision for your neighborhood, and as you know, my neighborhoods within my
                  district have so many challenges, so you know, you have to make some truly tough decisions, but
                  I hate to see division take place within a community, period, and usually when big projects like
                  this come, that's -- that usually happens. Hopefully, beyond today, you know, we can move
                  beyond that. I needed some clarification on something. The Lego lady -- I don't know where the
                  Lego lady went, but that was like a real neat presentation that she had there, and I wanted to ask
                  the City Attorney -- I understand, Commissioner Sarnoff, that we're not voting on the project,
                  correct?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: We're only deciding --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Just the land change.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- comp plan --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Just the land change.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- change and R-4.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, so -- where's the Lego lady? I want the -- is she around?

                  Unidentified Speaker: She left.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Oh, she left. OK. The question I have for you, Maria, if -- OK,
                  currently it's zoned G/I, right?

                  Ms. Chiaro: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And they want R-4, right?

City of Miami                                       Page 235                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                              January 25, 2007


                  Ms. Chiaro: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: R-4 allows them to go up to how much?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: There's no height restriction.

                  Ms. Chiaro: Well, it --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I'm sorry. Lour --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's 150 --

                  Ms. Chiaro: Lourdes Slazyk --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- units per acre.

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- can answer the details of --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. OK, I'm sorry. I'm just -- Lourdes.

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- what's (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

                  Ms. Slazyk: And --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I just -- because I like to be clear --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- when I'm --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- making a decision about something. What now?

                  Ms. Slazyk: The R-4 allows 150 units per acre and a base FAR of 1.72.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK --

                  Ms. Burns: Your name --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- and --

                  Ms. Burns: -- for the record, please.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Oh --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Your name for the record.

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- Lourdes Slazyk.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: All right --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.



City of Miami                                      Page 236                                Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so what is the difference between if Mercy Hospital was doing it
                  now -- I mean, have the -- took the existing land -- how tall would the building be?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Same height. They're both -- both districts allow unlimited height. The difference is
                  that the GI allows a whole host of additional uses that are not allowed in the R-4 district.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK --

                  Ms. Slazyk: R-4 is --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so technically, they could --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- high-density residential.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- put an office space, like you said earlier, right?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes, they can.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, so that means we'd probably have more people than we
                  would have if we had residents, right, if they were the same height?

                  Ms. Slazyk: The -- remember, we're not talking about a project, so, you know, you can --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No. I'm saying if --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- kind of forget for a moment 300 -- the 300 units. They'd be allowed 150 per --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- but I want to understand the difference because --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Oh, yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- if it's zoned -- if --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- currently, if -- they can do G/I, right?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: At a -- and you say it's unlimited heights --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- OK, which means it could be a real tall building, right?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So what is the difference?

                  Ms. Slazyk: The difference is --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I just -- I was just lost on --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- that the G/I zoning would not allow a --



City of Miami                                        Page 237                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: For people to live there, right?

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- the high-density residential project. That's correct.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: But it still will allow for it to be the same height?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes. They --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And part of the issue or concern was the -- how tall the buildings
                  were.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Correct, but even under the G/I zoning, if they were to come in with a building of
                  that size, it would still need a Major Use Special Permit, so this Commission would see it,
                  regardless of whether it was residential or institutional.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So even if the -- if -- even if we voted or we supported it happening
                  tonight, not being G/I, but being R-4 -- because I just want to understand the difference between
                  the two -- regardless, it would still have to come in front of the City Commission, correct, if --
                  whatever that project is would have to still come in front of the City Commission for Major Use
                  Special Permit, right?

                  Ms. Slazyk: If it crossed the thresholds of the Major Use, yes. If they kept it under the threshold
                  of a Major Use, then no. It would only be a Class II Special Permit.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. All right. Then my other question is -- because somebody
                  mentioned earlier about a covenant with the land, that this item could -- it was way earlier,
                  somebody mentioned. Could this item be voted on with a covenant to the land?

                  Ms. Slazyk: If the applicant were to proffer a covenant and the Commission accepted, then there
                  -- then the covenant would govern, but --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Would that happen --

                  Ms. Chiaro: No.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- after the MUSP or before?

                  Ms. Chiaro: It would -- a covenant goes with the MUSP. It would not go --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right --

                  Ms. Chiaro: -- with any (INAUDIBLE).

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- but there's no MUSP tonight. That's what I'm saying. If the MUSP --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No, no. I'm just trying to understand.

                  Ms. Slazyk: OK. All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: It's important when you vote on issues like this for you to
                  understand, so --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right.

City of Miami                                      Page 238                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- you're -- because someone mentioned earlier in their
                  presentation --

                  Ms. Slazyk: That they were proffering a covenant --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And that was for --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- or it's with -- it's with the MUSP, but there's no MUSP tonight. Tonight it's just a
                  land use --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I know that.

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- and zoning change.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I understand.

                  Ms. Slazyk: OK.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I just want to be clear regarding the issue of the covenant of the
                  land itself. I'm not necessarily talking about the building, so you're saying to me that you can't
                  necessarily have a covenant to the land itself. It would have to be to the building or to the
                  project, correct?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, so that could not be a possible solution because --

                  Ms. Slazyk: I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm sorry.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I guess I'm just trying to understand -- someone made a
                  presentation earlier mentioning something about a covenant to the land. They didn't say to the
                  building or to the project, they said to the land --

                  Ms. Slazyk: It would run with the land, and -- yes --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- but that's only --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- somebody could --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- if it's a -- only if this is a MUSP application that they were
                  coming in front of us for.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But it's not.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I know that.

                  Ms. Slazyk: The --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I know it ain't, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand. I'm
                  glad you understand. Now I want to make sure I understand. I'm sorry.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Well, this Commission sees zoning changes, like some that were earlier this evening,
                  where an applicant can proffer a covenant along with a zoning change, so even in the absence of
                  a MUSP, you could consider a voluntarily proffered covenant, but I think the one that was being

City of Miami                                      Page 239                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  talked about earlier runs -- would go with the MUSP --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- and so this -- it's a little different, but yeah.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I guess that was -- I needed to get some clear understanding,
                  you know. Someone made mention to me -- I'm just going to tell you, frankly -- made mention
                  earlier about -- I don't know who it was in the audience -- how they were happy to see, you
                  know, us come to a positive resolution in my district for a project that was presented earlier in
                  Overtown, and how originally I had voted to deny the project and was able to later sit down and
                  talk and pull the people from the community together to come up with a project that made sense,
                  and again, it's not always easy, but sometimes there are, you know, possible solutions to what
                  may seem to be big problems at this point, and when I start like -- I asked for -- and I don't know
                  if -- I asked for Ana to give me -- because, again, what I -- what we passed earlier in Overtown
                  does nowhere compare to, honestly, what's, you know, going to be accomplished from this
                  particular project. It was, you know, 2.6 for impact fees; 1.1 for, you know -- what is this? I
                  can't -- you write in Chinese. What is this word?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Millions, ten million.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Ten million.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- 1.14. What does this say?

                  Ana Gelabert-Sanchez (Planning Director): Other fees.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Other fees for parks, I guess, and 1.6 for affordable housing. I
                  mean, it seemed like the community was getting a lot out of it, so I -- I mean, and then the
                  hospital. I mean, we all know that a hospital needs a lot of support, so I just -- I'm actually -- I'm
                  not really -- I --

                  Ms. Dougherty: Mr. Chairman, can I address the covenant issue?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                  Ms. Dougherty: We had proffered to our neighbors to have a covenant running with the land on
                  this property that would limit it to 300 units and also to roll back the zoning to G/I so it doesn't
                  become a precedent for the rest of the hospital campus --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- and that covenant is already --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- and did they --

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- in place for Natoma and Bay Heights, but --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- and they were not ha -- they didn't like the --?

                  Ms. Dougherty: Natoma and Bay Heights agreed with us. They supported us.

City of Miami                                        Page 240                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: But the other people didn't.

                  Mr. Lukacs: You're --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- correct, Commissioner. The -- well, according to this -- to the City Attorney, a
                  covenant cannot be considered as a part --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Mr. Lukacs: -- of this application because it goes with the MUSP, so when you're dealing with a
                  land use change decision, you cannot consider a proffer of -- that's not a solution that's on the
                  table at this time.

                  Ms. Dougherty: Well, that's --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Ms. Dougherty: -- not true.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. What's your name again? I always see you in City Hall ev --
                  yeah. What's your name?

                  Mr. Reep: Bruce Reep.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Bruce Reed [sic]?

                  Mr. Reep: Yeah, Reep.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. I know -- and you kind of helped organize and make sure
                  that all the neighbors can -- I just need to ask you just a very straight question because I know
                  that you have to have --

                  Mr. Reep: OK.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- a great heart, and I see that just by your passion in what you're
                  trying to do for your community, and I'm sure the sister back there really -- the sister from
                  Mercy, you know, knows that you definitely support what they're doing, but deep down inside, do
                  you feel -- I'm just asking you a very straight question -- that there is any possible resolution that
                  could be made between your group and the --?

                  Mr. Reep: I could explain one --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: I mean --

                  Mr. Reep: -- and we had discussed --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I'm -- I just --

                  Mr. Reep: -- it before.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- want to know, do you think --



City of Miami                                       Page 241                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Mr. Reep: Yeah, yeah.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- that there is a possible resolution that could --?

                  Mr. Reep: As far as R-4, understanding the Code --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                  Mr. Reep: -- as we understand it, the moment you get R-4, and this is what's before us tonight --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right.

                  Mr. Reep: -- with R-4, you're setting a precedence for that land.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: OK, and I've watched it, like I said, since I was little, happening to all other things --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, right.

                  Mr. Reep: -- the domino effect.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right.

                  Mr. Reep: There is nothing to preclude them from getting it -- the R-4 for the next piece of land
                  and a little piece of pie and a little piece of pie, as Mr. -- Commissioner Sarnoff was talking
                  about.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right.

                  Mr. Reep: Well, we had said to them, do R-3; talk to the neighborhoods; get a real park and
                  downsize this thing --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: -- and, yeah, it means Mercy won't get their 98 million -- or the 96 million, but the
                  point is, we're not here to discuss their redline.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah, right.

                  Mr. Reep: We're here to discuss R-4. That is what's before us tonight --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right.

                  Mr. Reep: -- and so the point is, is if you get the R-4 here, you have just set the precedence for
                  74 acres.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, OK.

                  Mr. Reep: OK, and the pressure will be that it will -- that's why R-4 -- you know, I said, listen,
                  they've given a lot of variances for R-3s in my neighborhood --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: -- and you can negotiate and get good things for the community. A bay walk that's

City of Miami                                       Page 242                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007

                  got a 20-foot wall is not a good thing. It's only --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So you're not -- you are at least open --

                  Mr. Reep: Not to R-4, in --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No. I'm just saying --

                  Mr. Reep: -- anyway, shape or form.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, and Lucia -- where's Lucia?

                  Bill Thompson: May I speak to this matter for a minute?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Sure.

                  Mr. Thompson: My name is Bill Thompson. I'm an executive vice president with The Related
                  Group. We currently have in place, with Natoma and Bay Heights, a covenant that runs with the
                  land that limits this to 300 units. Earlier today I sent to Ron Nelson a land covenant that we
                  were willing to give within 1,000 feet of the site, which would, again, limit us to 300 units, and
                  we also are willing to -- that as soon as we hit CO (Certificate of Occupancy), we would revert
                  the land back to G/I so that no -- so at some point in time, the land would all be G/I. The
                  building would be built, and then we could not -- there would not be a proliferation of R-4 down
                  the bayside, which I know a lot of people had concerns about, and we're more than willing to do.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK. Can -- OK, 'cause I --

                  Mr. Reep: OK.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- wanted you to --

                  Mr. Reep: My response to that is the Legos.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: OK. Let me explain to you what--

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So, let -- can I ask you a question?

                  Mr. Reep: Go ahead.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So your res -- definitely not a R-4, but you are open -- I know
                  we're not supposed to be --

                  Mr. Reep: We have told them --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- negotiating with them, but --

                  Mr. Reep: -- numerous times that if they would downsize this thing and talk to us in a realistic
                  way -- but if you looked at that Lego demonstration, there is no way that putting residential
                  condominiums and the pressures of -- financially of what it will be on the abutting land -- they --
                  listen, when we talked earlier, I said get us a restrictive covenant from LaSalle High School,
                  from the Archdiocese and from every bit of the 74 acres that it will never go condominium and,
                  you know, the size -- restrictive covenants, and definitely, R-4 is never going to be acceptable to
                  us --

City of Miami                                       Page 243                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But --

                  Mr. Reep: -- and what I'm trying to say to you is --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- listen, in -- no.

                  Mr. Reep: -- it's out of the character for our neighborhood is -- everybody has said because of
                  its size. Make it something that fits with everybody else.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: In all fairness --

                  Mr. Reep: Yes, OK. That's the ask -- that's a question that's asked.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- let's not confuse the issue.

                  Mr. Reep: OK, R-4.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: We are right now discussing the --

                  Mr. Reep: R-4.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- land change. That's the only issue. Forget about a building or
                  forget about anything else because they could come in front of us and we could deny it or
                  whatever. The land change is the issues now that are being presented --

                  Mr. Reep: Not acceptable, R-4.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and we are --

                  Mr. Reep: Correct.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Exactly.

                  Mr. Reep: I'm sorry.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: We act like quasi-judicial judges, based on the arguments made by
                  both sides. Now, when my time comes, I will make some of the arguments and --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And I'm --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- pinpoint some of the concerns that the attorneys made, and I will
                  bring more clarity to the issue.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And I'm just going to wrap up, so -- so I just wanted to hear from
                  you personally and the group that you represent. The -- and I think that even the suggestions
                  that you've made today, you know, just in these few seconds saying that you are open --

                  Mr. Reep: We always had been.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- or your group is open, and the issue --

                  Mr. Reep: They said R-4 or nothing to us.
                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, right, so R-4 was the issue, and R-3 could maybe, perhaps,
                  be a possibility, and your iss -- I'm just trying --

City of Miami                                      Page 244                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Mr. Reep: Yeah.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- to understand what --

                  Mr. Reep: It's obviously the size, and this --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Because I would like --

                  Mr. Reep: -- remark, I don't know how to say this in a polite way.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Mr. Reep: I'm going to try -- word it so -- we're not going to let anybody else do it to you, but
                  we're going to stick it to you, OK?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: And that's basically how we feel about the size --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: -- the size of this thing. It is so massive. I -- you got the orange flyers that shows --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.

                  Mr. Reep: -- how little Mercy is, and the -- it's not just the height. It's -- they're three-story
                  condominiums. You understand -- one unit -- the reason they can go 300 feet -- the reason they
                  can get 3 million or $5 million for them is they're probably $6,000 unit -- I mean, 6,000 square
                  foot units.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right.

                  Mr. Reep: They're three stories or they're massive in size.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, but let's just get back to the fact that R-4 is the issue. You
                  would be open to something that was less than that.

                  Mr. Reep: We always had been.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK, and that --

                  Mr. Reep: Never R-4.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- your suggestions of just making sure that everything else
                  surrounding it, if there is something put in place so that you don't have to worry about this same
                  fight two or three years from now. I'm just -- I'm asking a question because I think that, always,
                  you can find good in both issues, and I would hate to see Mercy not get what it needs to have.
                  You know, and clearly, we all know that that hospital, you know --

                  Mr. Reep: Needs help, yes.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- it needs help, so if there's a way to help both --

                  Mr. Reep: There is a way.

City of Miami                                      Page 245                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: OK.

                  Mr. Reep: There is other medical facility sort of things there. What I was trying to express to
                  you all, with all honesty, about you having to be visionaries and think out of the box into the
                  future for our communities and I need the communities to -- who are so dependent that Mercy --
                  not necessarily Mercy the name, but that a hospital at this location is wonderful and successful,
                  and cutting a piece of meat off yourself, or a leg, and an arm, and a toe at a time because you
                  couldn't do it right the first 50 years, scary to us. Why -- I've been over there. I've been there for
                  emergencies. I'm glad it's there, OK, but I will tell you, with all honesty, it needs work, but we're
                  not supposed to bail it out that way. That's part of a business practice. That's a management
                  situation. That's not what we sell off and -- at the expense of the rest of the neighbors, and here's
                  the last big part that's real important when you're asking this question. You got the Melreese
                  Golf Course and you got so many other GI properties in this town that if you break this Code
                  now, are we going to see the hotels out on Melreese Golf Course? Because, hey, that's a
                  residential neighborhood; Durham Park right next to it, so these sort of issues, in all of your
                  zone -- areas -- or should a nice church in the West Grove say it's part of our mission, I've got an
                  acre of land here with my parking lot. I'm going to put my tabernacle on the top, and I've got a
                  150 units of condos.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: All right. I just wanted to get clarity. Thank you so much, so that
                  I understood. Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: All right. Commissioner Regalado.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really want to congratulate
                  both sides because, for more than five hours, we have been here with passion defending the
                  issue, and it's an irony that, two days ago, we had an election in Miami-Dade County and only
                  14 percent of the voters decided to go to the polls, and yet, we see here a massive participation
                  of the people, which shows that the most important thing for us is and should be what is next
                  door, what is next to our daily routine and our quality of life. I'd like to say also that I voted for
                  Mercy Hospital emergency expansion when it came to the City Commission, and there were
                  some people that sort of didn't want to, but it was something that was needed. I also voted for
                  One Miami, a spectacular project of Mr. Pérez in downtown, and of course, the new one next to
                  the Miami Circle because I believe that, number one, he is one of the best developers in the
                  nation, and number two, downtown is where the big buildings belong. However, I voted against
                  some projects next to the Herald because of the view and because of every time we are getting
                  less and less space to see through the water being Miami a city, which is in the water, and
                  because we are on the water, we pay more insurance, but sometimes seems that we are not even
                  able to see the water like the people in Miami Beach, that they cannot see the water anymore. I
                  remember that, in the early '60s, I was a child and I attended LaSalle High. It was a school for
                  every age. At that time, it was only boys, and the -- Our Lady of Charity wasn't even built and
                  Mercy was there, and it had a spectacular view, and after lunch, we were given breaks to go see
                  the waterfront, and you know, I -- sometimes I think if my granddaughter and my grandson will
                  not be able to see the water, and I am really hurt because we need the development, but
                  sometimes we try to be very aggressive with the view that we have, and by the way, it's the only
                  thing we have, so I seconded the motion because I think, number one, the area Commissioner
                  should have the, at least, lead in these cases because the area Commissioner is the person that
                  takes the brunt when the residents are upset with one of the decision, and number two, because I
                  think that we need to separate good developers and the need of the healthcare industry from
                  what we leave for the future, and these are two different issues, so I just hope to hear my
                  colleagues and move on with the vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  Chairman González: You're welcome. Vice Chairman Sanchez.



City of Miami                                       Page 246                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Mr. Chairman, it certainly has been a long night, and I do want to take
                  this opportunity to thank you for your patience, and once again, I do want to thank everyone who
                  came out to address this important issue that will affect our entire city. I also want to say there
                  is a person outside who asked me that they had e-mailed me some documents pertaining to this
                  case, and I just want to bring out, for the record, that we are not allowed to e-mail back,
                  pertaining to the Jennings Rule, and I just want to say that for the record. Now the only issue
                  that's in front of us today is the land use, and all it does is it change high-density multifamily
                  residence. That's the only issue that's relevant in front of us, not the building, not the Lego, not
                  the pictures, and it's all based on the arguments that are presented to us by both sides that I think
                  did an excellent job in presenting their case. This ordinance that's in front of us is on first
                  reading. By law, it has to come back again. Now I took a lot of notes on the arguments that
                  were presented by the attorneys, and once again -- Is Mr. Lukacs here? Mr. Lukacs, please.

                  Mr. Lukacs: Yes, sir.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes. We have to decide, at the end of the day, how we vote on this
                  issues [sic] based on substantial competence [sic] evidence, as you stated, Counsel. I want to
                  praise you for your eloquent presentation. I think that whoever's paying you should give you a
                  bonus. You did a great job in making certain points, and above all, setting your record. There
                  were some questions here that I wrote down that, really, I think the Administration or the
                  department head need to answer, and you stated in your summary, in the argument that you
                  made, the proposed change does not meet the requirement in the Zoning Code. Very valid
                  argument, and I think it's important that the Administration, in this case, Madam Director, you
                  need to come up and say does it meet the requirements?

                  Ms. Slazyk: And again, for the record, Lourdes Slazyk. Yes, the rec -- the proposal does meet
                  the requirements of the Zoning Code for the zoning change. It complies with the size
                  requirements for a zoning change in the City of Miami.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Another important issue that you heard all the Commissioners
                  addressing was the ordinance, known as the G/I ordinance. You stated, under this ordinance,
                  when a developer seeks to change a property zoned G/I, it only allows it -- is for a less dense
                  abutting zone, I --a zoning district. That was the argument you made. Based on that ordinance,
                  could you clarify that? Is that accurate or inaccurate?

                  Ms. Slazyk: Yeah. No, no, that's not an accurate statement.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It is -- I'm sorry. It is or it's not?

                  Ms. Slazyk: It's not an accurate statement.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's not an accurate --

                  Ms. Slazyk: It's not an accurate statement.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Could you state why it's not an accurate statement?

                  Ms. Slazyk: OK. The -- what the G/I ordinance says, the intent of that G/I ordinance was for if a
                  piece of property ceases to be used for government or institutional purposes, it should be
                  rezoned, but what the ordinance says is, in the absence of a rezoning, if a developer chooses to
                  keep it G/I and develop it, that's when he becomes limited to the less intense abutting district,
                  and this came out of the Grovenor in that the developer of the Grovenor chose not to rezone that
                  property. Once the Naval Reserve ceased to own it, the property should have been rezoned to
                  SD-17. What Grovenor did was choose to develop it under G/I, and that's why they were able to
                  do a bigger building than anything else on Bayshore Drive. What this ordinance does is it says

City of Miami                                      Page 247                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  that when you choose to develop under G/I, and it's not a government or institutional use, we're
                  not going to let you do it as under the G/I. We're going to restrict you to what your least intense
                  abutting district is.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: So, in other words, if I buy the G/I property and I don't rezone --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Then you're --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- it automatically goes --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- automatically --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to the butting [sic] --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- we will apply the zoning to the least abutting -- least intense abutting district to
                  your property, but what you should do is rezone it because --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- and that --

                  Ms. Slazyk: -- it's not appropriate for a development that is not government or institutional to be
                  developed on government and institutional zoned land, and that's what happened with the
                  Grovenor. That's why that ordinance was written the way it was written. It says that what you
                  should do is rezone it, and if you don't, we're going to limit you to least intense abutting district.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK, and on another issue that was brought forth -- I don't recall who
                  put out the argument. I did hear that it did -- the argument was, does this constitute [sic] spot
                  zoning?

                  Ms. Slazyk: No, it does not. It meets the size requirements of Section 22 -- Article 22, Section
                  2214 of the Code says that in order to apply for a change of zoning on a piece of property, you
                  have to meet one of three criteria. It either has to be 40,000 square feet in size, it has to have
                  200 linear feet of street frontage, or it has to be an extension of an existing classification. This
                  one meets the 40,000 square foot size. It's over six acres.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Also, arguments were made that the Comprehensive Plan -- in other
                  words, the proposed change does not conform with the adopted MCN (Miami Comprehensive
                  Neighborhood) Plan --

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right. The --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, but I believe is what
                  it's called.

                  Ms. Slazyk: Right. We believe it does. We conducted a concurrency analysis. It was -- it came
                  out that it was consistent, and you also have to remember that the City of Miami is designated as
                  an urban infill area, and this sort of infill-type development is consistent with an urban infill
                  designation, so it does comply.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I just wanted to bring those arguments out because I felt they were
                  valid. They pertained to the arguments that you were making for your point because I could see
                  that this, no matter what, is going to end up in court. Any time you see a couple of court
                  reporters here, you know this is not going to end here, and of course, everybody's entitled to that
                  due process. The other issue that I need someone to opine on, and I think, at the beginning of
                  the meeting, we discussed that Mercy Hospital is relevant. It is relevant because it affects our
                  entire city, and I just want to make sure that I'm -- the questions that I ask, I have someone who

City of Miami                                       Page 248                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  can answer those questions, and I think that you may be the gentleman who could answer my
                  questions. Could you please step up and state your name for the record?

                  John Matuska: My name is John Matuska. I live at 178 Shore Drive South, Miami.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Pertaining to Mercy Hospital, how would this deal benefit your
                  facility?

                  Mr. Matuska: Well, most of our buildings were built between 1950 and 1977, and over 80
                  percent of the square footage is now over 30 years old, and those facilities need to be replaced,
                  and this would give us the capital to do that. For example, you know, we're building a new
                  emergency room. Our emergency room was built back in the late '70s. It was built for,
                  approximately, 15,000 visits a year. It's 9,700 square feet. We now treat 32,000 people a year,
                  and so we're building a new facility that's 27,000 square feet. That's a $25 million project that
                  benefits the community. As you well know, emergency rooms in the community are overloaded,
                  and many times, you heard tonight, they're on divert. Ambulances, you know, squads are not
                  sure where to go, where to take patients, and minutes are sometimes critical, you know, when
                  you're treating patients, so this -- the proceeds of this will allow us to continue to refurbish the
                  campus, particularly, the patient towers, to complete the emergency room construction, and to
                  do -- keep up with new modern technology. An example, a CAT (Computed Axial Tomography)
                  Scanner today costs about $1.2 million and is outdated in approximately a year because they
                  come out with new and faster and better CAT Scanners that give doctors better tools, so, yes, it
                  would definitely benefit Mercy Hospital.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Just about everyone that lives around here, including some
                  of the homeowners association that came forth and gave testimony, they would attend Mercy
                  Hospital if they had an emergency, or I would assume. The closest hospital to Mercy would be
                  Jackson Hospital, correct?

                  Mr. Matuska: No. It would probably be Cedars, Cedars or South Miami, depending upon which
                  way you're going.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: And how many people would you say, maybe from in between -- how
                  many residents live in between Mercy and Cedars, across the street from Jackson?

                  Mr. Matuska: You mean what is the population?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Where do we look? Population wise.

                  Mr. Matuska: I don't know offhand, Commissioner.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. In other words, the argument that you're making is that
                  increased services would result in -- greater revenue would result in better services --

                  Mr. Matuska: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for the hospital, and you've committed to that already?

                  Mr. Matuska: Yes.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK. Thank you. Now there was another argument -- Yes?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: I just would like to clarify something else that was said on the record
                  regarding the comments by the Planning Department regarding the design review, which is the
                  Urban Design Divison. We -- the comments have been consistent. They're not in front of you

City of Miami                                      Page 249                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  because that would be part of the Major Use Special Permit, the comments regarding the
                  massing, the bulk, and the -- which, I believe, Commissioner Sarnoff read it. I just wanted to
                  clarify because in some of the arguments that were made, the -- it was presented as -- that the
                  Planning Department had changed, and we have been consistent on the comments that we have
                  been expressing. They're part of the Major Use Special Permit. They are not part of the zoning
                  or the land use analysis.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: OK.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Thank you.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: The --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't misread what you --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: No. I did not say you misread. I believe you read --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Right. We shouldn't even be considering what the buildings --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: Precisely --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- look like.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and I'm just taking the opportunity to clarify just the --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: And I was just taking the opportunity, when I addressed it, when
                  somebody was telling me how the Urban Environment League, or somebody like that, had
                  approved what these buildings look like because what I was saying was your own department
                  didn't approve of them.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And what I was just clarifying, there was a statement made that the
                  department had initially made the arguments, and then we had changed the recommendation,
                  and I'm just clarifying for the record that it was not; that the comments from the Design Division
                  had been consistent from the beginning.

                  Chairman González: That was going to be -- and that is -- was going to be one of my questions -
                  -

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Chairman González: -- and I'm sorry for interrupting you, but that was a concern that I had
                  from the beginning, you know, why the Department denied the application first, and then they
                  decide to approve it?

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: We didn't deny the application. On the land use and the zoning, we're
                  recommending approval. The comments that were read -- part of the comments that were read
                  on the record regarding design review, when a project comes in, they go first through design
                  review, and it's just we're looking at the project, independent of the zoning and the land use, so
                  the Urban Design Division reviews it and they comment on the architecture. Actually, as part of
                  those comments, I believe it should be maybe on the second or third paragraph down, it always
                  makes reference that the applicant needs to make sure that the zoning is correct, given that that's
                  not what we're reviewing, the zoning, so it's design, it's architecture, those -- and the reviews
                  come -- it depends on the project, but they do come often. Those comments were made and
                  similar comments are part of our recommendation to you for -- in the Major Use application, so
                  it was not that we denied and we approved. We approved the land use. We made

City of Miami                                      Page 250                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                  recommendations of approval for the zoning --

                  Chairman González: But --

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: -- and the comments where we feel that we need to keep working with the
                  architect is on the project itself, on the architecture.

                  Chairman González: -- what I'm referring to is to this here that -- where it says the Planning
                  Department feels that this project is out of scale with the area.

                  Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez: And that is, again, part of the architecture. On the Major Use Special
                  Permit, on the comments that, again, they're not in front of you, we still address the issue that, on
                  the scale and the area, but it has nothing to do with the zoning because you can have a zoning,
                  yet, how do you develop the envelope of the building is what we are reviewing in the design
                  comments that you have in front of you, which is independent. You can have a zoning. It's how
                  is the envelope designed. That's what we were looking at, and that's the comments that the
                  design review looks at, and on those comments, we have been consistent.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Are you done? Mr. Chair, are you --?

                  Chairman González: Yeah. Go ahead.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Have your issues been addressed?

                  Chairman González: Go ahead, go ahead.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well, getting back to my discussion on this item, I could see the
                  concern that Commissioner Sarnoff has and some of the residents have, to be honest with you,
                  and it is -- he used it as the theory of the pizza, as one being rezoned one, and you know, later
                  on, what's to prevent others from happening, but if you look at it, I mean, I honestly don't ever
                  see LaSalle selling their property, or Ermita De La Caridad selling their property.

                  Unidentified Speaker: Didn't see Mercy selling property ten years ago.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's -- listen, that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion. At
                  the end of the day, I have to make a decision here that people may support or not support, but
                  I'm going to do what I think is best -- good for the entire community, and if you look at what's in
                  front of us today, it's not a building. I mean, they could come back with a building, and we'll
                  decide what we could put there, based on your input because you'll be back again. There's a
                  second reading on this ordinance, and of course, when the development is put forth, you'll come
                  back, and I'm sure the attorneys will be back on it to try to get approv -- whatever is put forth in
                  front of this legislative body, but you know, I honestly feel that the argument that you made,
                  Counsel, today were very good. However, you didn't provide any expert witnesses to back up,
                  and that's -- those are the things that I have to take into concern as a judge, quasi judge hearing
                  the arguments up here, so -- you know, I know there's a motion to deny. I think if the Chair
                  wants to make some comments and --

                  Chairman González: I do.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: we'll see what happens. I honestly think that maybe, you know, if it's
                  not approved or it's approved, I think that maybe you've lost the battle but not the war on the
                  issue, and I think that the process is there to try to resolve the issue as we move forward. It's a
                  first reading, and as --then at the end -- look, at the end of the day, you know, people are going
                  to use that hospital are the people from Coconut Grove, Little Havana, and you know what?
                  They're going to need those facilities. As we get older, we're going to need those facilities. My

City of Miami                                      Page 251                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  kids were all born there. My dad died in that hospital, all right. And when they told -- they were
                  going to take him to Jackson, the guy said, we'll never make it to Jackson, won't make it there,
                  but we're not going to get on that issue, but you know what? I hope that the day never comes --
                  and listen to me very carefully -- that you are in a situation that you have to go out to that
                  hospital and you regret, you regret that you did not support an issue that was going to make that
                  a world-class facility for people to have good healthcare and adequate healthcare. That's just
                  my opinion, and we might disagree on the issue, and the beauty of it is that we're out here. We're
                  all neighbors, and at the end of the day, we either go have a beer together, or we go somewhere
                  together, or we might not see each other ever again, but it is the entire community -- and let me
                  just say something for the record. I've been a Commissioner for nine years now, and let me just
                  tell this Commission, we better break the mentality of thinking within the four walls of our
                  districts because all we're doing is we're weakening a city when we do that. We have
                  responsibilities to our districts and we have responsibility to this city. I didn't get into the
                  benefits of the project, because if the project comes in front of me and I don't think it's a good
                  project, I'll vote it down, but if it's a good project, is it going to benefit the community and
                  everyone, then I would support it, so having made that argument -- Yes, sir. You're recognized.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Just -- I don't know. I am very, very uncomfortable with what you just
                  said because you're saying that someone who does not like or approve this project would
                  probably regret when we need the hospital. We all need the hospital, but the healthcare problem
                  in the United States is one that has to be addressed globally. Mercy Hospital is a not-for-profit
                  corporation; does not, as Jackson, receive money from the half a penny that we pay for Jackson
                  Memorial Hospital, like $78 million a year, and they do have problems, but the all -- they also
                  has the option of expanding because bonding -- and this Commission has approved some of the
                  bonds that Mercy Hospital has requested, so you just said it from the beginning. We're not
                  dealing here with Mercy Hospital. If we want to discuss Mercy Hospital, I will really want to
                  discuss Mercy Hospital because healthcare is the most serious crisis that we have in the United
                  States at this moment, and although here we consider insurance and taxes, but healthcare, and
                  the healthcare scenario for all us baby boomers and our children is something that we need to
                  address, and if the City needs to do anything and everything to support Mercy and to support
                  Coral Gables Hospital, which is a stone throw from the City of Miami or Cedars or help with the
                  Jackson Memorial Hospital, we should do it, but to condition the support of one project because
                  the hospital is going to get money, I think it's unfair to the people who are here only for the
                  change of zoning, and who -- we all love Mercy Hospital and this --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- is not the issue that we are discussing, and by the way, yes, LaSalle
                  could sell, and yes, the Archdiocese of Miami could sell Archbishop Carroll -- Monsignor
                  Coleman Carroll building, which is called Carroll Manor because that is a building that is more
                  than 35 years old, like the UTD (United Teachers of Dade) building that they want to run down
                  in Brickell so the union can sell. I will tell you that the next thing to be sold will be Carroll
                  Manors, God willing the --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: But ---

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- church will diminish, but because you said they're not going to sell
                  LaSalle, they're not going to sell Carroll Manor, yes, that's the possibility because --

                  Chairman González: Anything is --

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- the inventory of the church is there, and so I'm here just for the
                  change of zoning, but if we want to discuss healthcare --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No --

City of Miami                                     Page 252                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: No, no.

                  Commissioner Regalado: -- I am willing to do it.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- but Mercy Hospital owns the property. They could sell it, and the
                  bottom line, they could sell it to a developer or they could sell it to the Seminoles Hard Rock, or
                  they could sell it to anybody else, and you're still going to be here --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: No, you won't.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- with the same issues. Well, I disagree with you on that issue --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so let's --

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- vote on the issue.

                  Chairman González: I do have some questions. You know, it was said here early that there were
                  some intimidating tactics about Mercy being -- building an office building and trying to pressure
                  the Commission to vote against the project or in favor of the project. Well, you know, I have
                  seen many, many times here -- people here using intimidating tactics, and one that I don't really
                  appreciate is when we are told, or at least when I'm told that I might be violating a law. That I
                  don't really appreciate if it's not true. Is there any truth to the fact that if we vote in favor of this
                  application, we are violating the law?

                  Ms. Chiaro: No, sir. It was it's presented to you to exercise your discretion as the testimony -- it
                  wouldn't be on your agenda.

                  Chairman González: So we won't be --

                  Ms. Chiaro: You couldn't vote on it.

                  Chairman González: -- violating any laws? You are my attorney. You're responsible for the
                  advice that you're giving me because I have heard attorneys here saying that I might be violating
                  the law, so I want to be clear. I'm not violating any law.

                  Ms. Chiaro: An approval on this project would not be violating the law. Disapproving this
                  project would not be violating this -- the law.

                  Chairman González: Another question that I had was the G/I ordinance had me all confused at
                  one point. I'm glad that you clarify it, and let me tell you, I have to also congratulate everyone
                  that has been here today on both sides, and I really want to thank you for your corporation with
                  myself, that I have to run this meeting and keep control of the meeting and making sure that
                  everybody has an opportunity to talk on the issue and -- so I want to thank you. Representing the
                  district that I represent -- and you know, there is a saying that, “Not in my Backyard,” but
                  representing the district that I represent --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You should write a book about that.

                  Chairman González: -- and I should write a book about that, OK -- every single jail, every
                  single jail is in my district. Every single drug rehab program is in my district; three hospitals --

City of Miami                                       Page 253                                            Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Courthouse.

                  Chairman González: -- courthouse, Dade County jail. Every prisoner that is captured in the
                  entire county is taken to my district, and once they are released, they are released in my district,
                  OK, and everybody has been happy about it because, you know, it's not in my neighborhood; it's
                  in Allapattah, so you know, Allapattah. People have been crying in here a special interest,
                  special interest, people with a lot of money, with a lot of money, and I don't have anything
                  against people with money. Mr. Pérez, I don't have -- I don't take exception because you have
                  money, you know. I hope that I have the money that you have because some people tend to, you
                  know, hate people that have money. I don't know why. I mean, you know, I don't have anything
                  against anybody that is a millionaire. I hope I'll be one one day. That's why I play the Lotto
                  every Saturday, to see if I -- well, maybe one day, you know --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: You'll be buying the land.

                  Chairman González: If you don't see me here one day, you know, after the Lotto, say Angel is in
                  Tallahassee collecting money, but you know, we had the issue of Camillus House for more than
                  20 years. Mariano said it, more than 20 years. I opposed Camillus House right from the
                  beginning, and we look at different options. We look at Little Havana option. We look at
                  Commissioner Regalado's OP -- Commissioner Regalado don't mention Camillus House in his
                  district because there is no way. They will hang him. They will hang him in Coral Way, OK.
                  Coconut Grove, Upper Eastside, downtown, time out. Time out, not here, you know, trust.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So D -- District 5 got --

                  Chairman González: OK --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: --got it.

                  Chairman González: -- so where did it ended? Where was it proposed all the time? District 5
                  and District 1. It was -- you know, it was the right selection. I mean, the right place to be. They
                  have all the jails. They have all the hospitals. They have all the drug addict programs. They
                  have, you know, everything. Why not send Camillus House? It's the normal -- it's the logical
                  place to go, OK. Well, you know what? Commissioner Spence-Jones and I were conscious
                  enough to say, you know what? This problem needs to be solved for the entire -- for the benefit
                  of the entire City of Miami, and if we need to take it, we're going to take it with conditions, with
                  conditions; proper location, proper building, the right amount of people, right amount of -- right
                  quality of services, and so on and so on and so on, and you know what? We voted in favor of it,
                  and we took it because it's in her district and my district. It's in the borderline, so you know, so I
                  have different sentiments in reference to this. I have heard -- people spoke here today that does
                  a lot of beautiful things for this community, people that -- doctors that give their time to cure
                  other people that don't have resources. I have been working with the League Against Cancer for
                  many, many years, and many of these doctors that work at Mercy Hospital, I have seen them
                  work at the League Against Cancer and dedicating one day a week of their time, an entire day
                  and night to help people with -- without resources, and they don't look at the race. They don't
                  look at the ethnicity. They don't look -- no. They look at the human being that needs help and
                  doesn't have resources to pay medical care, OK. I have had to go to Mercy Hospital in three or
                  four occasions, in two occasions lately, so I know the services that they provide, and I know the
                  problems that they have at the hospital. I was a very good friend of Manolo Reyes, who used to
                  work at the hospital for many, many years, and we talk a lot about the needs of the hospital and
                  the problems that the hospital had. I also understand the concern of the residents and the
                  citizens, but we had residents here on both sides, you know, and no matter what I do, no matter
                  how I vote, one side is going to be mad at me. That's the way it is. I wish I had a way to make
                  everybody happy, but I -- that's something that I won't be able to do. The -- I think it was the -- a

City of Miami                                       Page 254                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007

                  gentleman from Related Group that said that they had proffer to revert the property to G/I after
                  the building is built. Well, I believe that is the solution for the concern, and I understand the
                  concern that this been given away piece by piece; now one piece, later another piece, and later
                  another piece, and later another piece, and then the entire property goes away to condominiums.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Becomes a G/I pizza.

                  Chairman González: Pardon me?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Becomes a G/I pizza.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: There you go.

                  Chairman González: The pizza, the pizza deal.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Sicilian or regular?

                  Chairman González: So you know, I think that's a solution. I really believe that that's a
                  solution. If -- you know, if there is a way that the property can revert back to G/I once the
                  project is done, that will solve the concerns of the residents, if the concern is all the property
                  being sold to condominiums. Now it now -- if we're going to go into the height of the prop -- of
                  the buildings and then we're talking two different issues, but that's not what we're discussing
                  here today, right? So was that what you proffer?

                  Ms. Dougherty: We did. We proffered a covenant to restrict the number of units to 300 and to
                  revert -- to apply to revert back to G/I after each CO for each of the buildings, and we would
                  proffer that to the City as well as our neighbors.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Mr. Goggins: May -- if I could speak to this issue, Mr. Chair. The proffer would -- as Ms.
                  Dougherty says, the property would revert back to G/I, but at that point, we would be exactly
                  where we are today. We would have -- the next property would be surrounded by G/I, and they
                  would say, all we need is a simple variance to go to R-4; we'll build up again, and then we'll
                  revert back to G/I, and then --

                  Chairman González: Yeah, but you know what?

                  Mr. Goggins: -- the next parcel.

                  Chairman González: They're talking about these buildings taking ten years to be built, right?

                  Mr. Goggins: Ten years is --

                  Chairman González: Did I hear correctly?

                  Mr. Goggins: -- a blink of an eye when it comes to the development of a neighborhood.

                  Chairman González: But that's crossing the bridge before I've gotten to the bridge, you know. I
                  mean -- well, you know, you have answered my concern, so --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Vote.

                  Chairman González: -- it's time to fish or cut bait --



City of Miami                                      Page 255                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                   January 25, 2007

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Or cut bait, as J. L. Plummer used to say.

                  Chairman González: -- so why don't you do a roll call. We have a motion -- pardon me?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's to deny.

                  Chairman González: We have a motion to deny.

                  Commissioner Regalado: You need to read the ordinance.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: No. It's a --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No, not if it's --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: -- motion to deny.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- to deny.

                  Ms. Chiaro: On a motion to deny --

                  Commissioner Regalado: Oh, it's a motion to deny.

                  Chairman González: Motion to deny.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Oh, OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: It's a motion to deny, so you don't read the ordinance --

                  Commissioner Regalado: OK, OK, OK.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- so roll call.

                  Commissioner Regalado: Roll call.

                  Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                  Ms. Burns: Roll call. Vice Chairman Sanchez?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: No.

                  Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado?

                  Commissioner Regalado: Yes.

                  Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence-Jones?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: No.

                  Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Yes.

                  Ms. Burns: Chairman González?

City of Miami                                     Page 256                                      Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: No.

                  Applause.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: All right. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa.

                  Chairman González: No clapping, no clapping --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

                  Chairman González: -- no clapping, no clapping, please.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: I will make a motion to approve.

                  Chairman González: All right. There's a motion to approve. Is there a second?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.

                  Chairman González: And there is a second. Roll call.

                  Ms. Chiaro: I need to read the ordinance.

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Chiaro: This is item 37.

                  The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                  Chiaro.

                  Chairman González: Roll call, please.

                  Ms. Burns: Roll call. Commissioner Sarnoff?

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: No.

                  Ms. Burns: Commissioner Regalado?

                  Commissioner Regalado: No.

                  Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence-Jones?

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                  Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez?

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes.

                  Ms. Burns: Chairman González?

                  Chairman González: I will vote yes, but I will -- would like to proffer an amendment to the
                  motion, and that is to accept the proffer to revert the property to GI.

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: Can't do --



City of Miami                                     Page 257                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                   Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yeah, but that would come later in the MUSP, right -- or the -- that
                   would come later?

                   Commissioner Sarnoff: Can't do it.

                   Ms. Chiaro: It come -- it comes with the MUSP on second reading.

                   Chairman González: On second reading with the MUSP? OK. Well, then, yes.

                   Ms. Burns: The ordinance is passed --

                   Applause.

                   Vice Chairman Sanchez: And listen, this is just the land change. This is not the project itself, so
                   people need to understand that on first reading.

PZ.38 06-01060zc   ORDINANCE                                                                        First Reading
                   AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
                   ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING PAGE NO. 44, OF THE ZONING ATLAS OF
                   ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
                   CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT
                   REGULATIONS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "G/I"
                   GOVERNMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL TO "R-4" MULTIFAMILY
                   HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                   APPROXIMATELY 3663 SOUTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
                   CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
                   EFFECTIVE DATE.
                   06-01060zc Analysis.pdf
                   06-01060zc Zoning Map.pdf
                   06-01060zc Aerial Map.pdf
                   06-01060zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
                   06-01060zc ZB Fact Sheet 07-10-06.pdf
                   06-01060zc ZB Fact Sheet 09-11-06.pdf
                   06-01060zc ZB Reso.PDF
                   06-01060zc CC Legislation (Version 2).pdf
                   06-01060lu & 06-01060zc CC Exhibit A.pdf
                   06-01060zc CC FR Fact Sheet.pdf

                   LOCATION: Approximately 3663 S Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc Sarnoff
                   - District 2]

                   APPLICANT(S): Iris V. Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of TRG MH Venture, Ltd.,
                   Contract Purchaser, and Mercy Hospital, Inc., Owner

                   FINDINGS:
                   PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
                   ZONING BOARD: Recommended denial to City Commission on September 11,
                   2006 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID 06-01060lu.

                   PURPOSE: This will change the above property to R-4 Multifamily
                   High-Density Residential for the proposed 300 Grove Bay Residences Major
                   Use Special Permit.

City of Miami                                       Page 258                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                     Meeting Minutes                                    January 25, 2007


                        Motion by Commissioner Spence-Jones, seconded by Vice-Chairman Sanchez, that this
                        matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
                  Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner González, Sanchez and Spence-Jones
                        Noes: 2 - Commissioner Sarnoff and Regalado
                        Maria J. Chiaro (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, we have item 30 --

                        Unidentified Speaker: 38.

                        Ms. Chiaro: -- 38.

                        Commissioner Regalado: 38.

                        Chairman González: Oh.

                        Ms. Chiaro: 38.

                        Unidentified Speaker: Item 38. You didn't vote on 38.

                        Chairman González: All right.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: We're not done.

                        Chairman González: All right. Item 38. 38 --

                        Ms. Chiaro: Motion.

                        Chairman González: it's an ordinance.

                        Ms. Chiaro: You need a motion --

                        Chairman González: Read the ordinance, please.

                        Ms. Chiaro: You have no motion or second.

                        Chairman González: Pardon me?

                        Ms. Chiaro: We need a motion and a second.

                        Commissioner Spence-Jones: So moved.

                        Chairman González: OK. We have a motion on 38 --

                        Vice Chairman Sanchez: Second.

                        Chairman González: -- and we have a second. Read the ordinance, please.

                        The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Assistant City Attorney Maria J.
                        Chiaro.

                        Chairman González: All right. This requires a public hearing. Anyone from the public that
                        wants to speak on the item? Counsel, do you want the -- what you proffer on the -- on item 37 to
                        be also on the record of 38 --

                        John Lukacs: I would reit --

City of Miami                                           Page 259                                        Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007


                     Chairman González: -- your objections?

                     Mr. Lukacs: Yes, I would. Thank you.

                     Chairman González: OK. We'll take your objections as part of the record on 38. Anyone else
                     from the public?

                     Jason Bloch: Yes, Commissioner. Jason Bloch. Also, we'd like to adopt our arguments and the
                     other arguments made by the other opponents for the previous item.

                     Chairman González: OK.

                     Mr. Bloch: Jason Bloch.

                     Chairman González: All right. Anyone else? Seeing none, hearing none, the public hearing is
                     closed. Roll call, please. Roll call.

                     Pamela E. Burns (Assistant City Clerk): Roll call. Commissioner Regalado?

                     Commissioner Regalado: No.

                     Ms. Burns: Commissioner Sarnoff?

                     Commissioner Sarnoff: No.

                     Ms. Burns: Vice Chairman Sanchez?

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Yes.

                     Ms. Burns: Commissioner Spence-Jones?

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yes.

                     Ms. Burns: Chairman González?

                     Chairman González: Yes, ma'am.

                     Ms. Burns: The ordinance has passed on first reading, 3/2.

                     Chairman González: Motion to adjourn.

                     Vice Chairman Sanchez: Always in order.

                     Unidentified Speaker: Second.

NA.1      07-00140   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION REGARDING COUNTYWIDE REFERENDUM IN
                     MIAMI-DADE COUNTY IN REFERENCE TO SLOT MACHINES.
                     DISCUSSED

                     Commissioner Regalado: There is a 90 percent probability that, in November, there will be a
                     countywide referendum regarding pari-mutuels and slot machines in Miami-Dade County. The
                     County will place that in the ballot, and it so happen that of the three sites that will be allowed to
                     have a slot machines, like Broward is having now, two of the three sites are located within the

City of Miami                                         Page 260                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                  Meeting Minutes                                         January 25, 2007

                     City of Miami, Miami Jai-Alai and Flagler Dog Track. The state statute allows the county and
                     the cities to enter into agreement with those entities for different taxes or license, and I will tell
                     you something. If this item comes back to the voters in Miami-Dade County -- last time it did; it
                     lost for 3,000 votes. This time the polls are showing that people would approve. The one in
                     Broward County, next to Miami-Dade County, in 90 days of -- in 30 days of operation, had
                     generated $3.5 million in taxes to the state of Florida, besides what they have generated for the
                     local governments. If we start working now, number one, working on the numbers, if the voters
                     were to pass this referendum in November, the City of Miami will have a lot of saying on the
                     Flagler Dog Track and Miami Jai-Alai income, and we could just think on ways of using that
                     money for special projects, social services, either not going into the general fund. I will tell you
                     that this portability issue and this reduction in taxes is something that is going to happen.
                     Commissioner Sarnoff is right, it is going to happen; you just have to look at the polls and the
                     people, and the way that the people will be voting and had voted in the past.

NA.2      07-00144   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A HOMEOWNERSHIP
                     ZONE IN DISTRICT 1.
                     DISCUSSED

                     Chairman González: All right. Now we're going to go into public hearings. We were supposed
                     to start at 10:30 in the morning. It's 11:30 in the morning, and before we go into public
                     hearings and Community Development, Barbara, I have a question. The homeownership zone in
                     my district, when is that going to happen? Is that ever going to happen, or it's going to happen
                     after I retire?

                     Barbara Gomez-Rodriguez (Director, Community Development): We had scheduled to start it
                     this year, so I will start working --

                     Chairman González: I hope so, because --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- yeah.

                     Chairman González: -- District 5 already had theirs, and I wonder how many millions of dollars
                     did they get?

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Well, when District 5 created the Model City Homeownership Zone, they
                     were awarded $12 million.

                     Chairman González: Twelve million dollars.

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Out of which -- as we all know, it didn't work, and all of that money was
                     reallocated to other projects. There was a disallowed cost of $4.1 million. Out of which, we
                     have reimbursed U.S. HUD (United States Department of Housing and Urban Development)
                     approximately $2 million; we owe another $2 million that we're in the process of doing a
                     payment plan with them, and basically, right now the Liberty City Trust do not receive any
                     funding from Community Development.

                     Chairman González: OK. No, I don't have a problem with that. I just want to know because,
                     you know, I've been waiting and waiting silent --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Right.

                     Chairman González: -- quiet to see where -- you know, when they were going to bury me, but --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Last year was --

City of Miami                                          Page 261                                           Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                      January 25, 2007


                  Chairman González: -- I mean, you know.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- the last year of Liberty -- of the Little Havana Homeownership Zone --

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- so this year is District 1.

                  Chairman González: OK. When did Little Havana had theirs?

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Liberty --

                  Chairman González: Two years ago.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- Little --

                  Chairman González: Two?

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- Havana Homeownership Zone was funded for the last five years. The
                  commitment of this City Commission was that each homeownership zone would receive $1.5
                  million --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Per year.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- for five years --

                  Chairman González: OK.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- for a total of 7.5 years --

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: -- so the last one was Little Havana Homeownership, which received
                  their last funding last year.

                  Chairman González: So this year is --

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: This year is District 1.

                  Chairman González: -- it will be the first year of funding for District 1?

                  Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: For District 1.

                  Chairman González: All right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: And Mr. Chairman --

                  Chairman González: Thank you.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- if I could just add real fast on the issue of the Model City Trust.
                  As you know, I inherited that issue --

                  Chairman González: I know, I know.



City of Miami                                      Page 262                                       Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- so I just want to --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Yeah.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- make sure that the folks watching Channel 77 and the folks that
                     are sitting in this audience today that they're very clear that --

                     Chairman González: Yeah.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I did not create that issue; I inherited that issue, and I can
                     honestly say our new director, with the help of Community Development and the Manager's
                     office, we're well on our way with getting things done within my district, and I appreciate the
                     support of my colleagues to make sure that we put the right resources in --

                     Ms. Gomez-Rodriguez: Right.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- District 5 to make sure that we get houses built, and in this last
                     year, we have built a lot of houses, so --

                     Chairman González: Definitely, definitely.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- I really appreciate your support.

                     Chairman González: And I have always been one of the biggest supporters of District 5, as far
                     as housing is concerned.

NA.3      07-00133   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE LACK OF HOUSING IN THE
                     OVERTOWN COMMUNITY, AND CRA-RELATED ISSUES REGARDING
                     THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, AFFORDABLE
                     HOUSING, PARKING, AND OTHER CRA-RELATED ISSUES.
                     DISCUSSED

                     Chairman González: Let me tell you. As a matter of fact, I have been very upset, and I'm still
                     very upset, to see that we have the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) in Overtown, and
                     years have gone by and years have gone by and we haven't built one single home for the people
                     of Overtown, you know. A lot of parties, a lot of, you know, roses and --

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Parking lots.

                     Chairman González: -- but factual, things that you can touch, you can say, you know -- people
                     that can move into a home, nothing of that, and I'm -- let me tell you, you know, I'm very upset
                     about it, and I don't know if you notice that I have missed a few meetings, and the reason is that,
                     you know, to continue going to those meetings to have no results, no real results for the people of
                     Overtown, I'd rather not go to the meeting.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right, and I just want to say to you, adding on that again, the
                     CRA is something that I inherited. It was not something --

                     Chairman González: You know, I mean --

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- that everything --

                     Chairman González: -- I was hoping -- when I became Commissioner and I became a member
                     of the CRA board, I was hoping that I would see new sidewalks, new streets, infrastructure
City of Miami                                         Page 263                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                               Meeting Minutes                                        January 25, 2007

                  improvement, drainage projects, housing much needed in that district, housing, affordable
                  housing, you know, all of this that you're trying to do now, rehab all of these buildings. This
                  should have been done a long time ago because the money's there, but we're using the money for
                  many other things. Now I hear about building a tunnel and about building a streetcar and about
                  building this and building a stadium and -- listen, you know.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Chairman --

                  Chairman González: I'm not going to say what my position is, but what I'm saying now, I think
                  you can understand that -- and you, Mr. Manager, are you listening to me?

                  Pedro G. Hernandez (City Manager): Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: Are you listening to me about CRA --

                  Mr. Hernandez: Yes, sir.

                  Chairman González: -- and a tunnel and a parking lot for the Performing Arts and a stadium,
                  and you know.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: So, I'm --

                  Chairman González: You know what we need to do? We need to rebuild Overtown, and once
                  we have people living in Overtown that have decent housing and decent jobs and all of that, then
                  we can build a tunnel so they can go under the tunnel in their new car and go to the port and,
                  you know --

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate you supporting my district
                  on that level because, again, I might have said to City staffers, to everybody that's been involved
                  in this issue regarding Overtown, the three priorities that I have for -- as the chairperson of the
                  CRA is housing, housing, housing --

                  Chairman González: Right.

                  Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- you know, and it's been very clear with the Administration there
                  that before I could even think about anything else or even hear anything else, that we need to
                  make sure that we deliver on the promises to the people that have been waiting for God knows
                  how long, so I think that in this last six months, actually, since I've been the chairperson of that,
                  the staff -- the new staff that we have over there, working along with CD (Community
                  Development) and our City Manager, you will definitely see some progress take place, and
                  you're right, those boarded up buildings, people need to be living in them. We need to be
                  building new units, and that's what we're going to do, and I hope that I will continue to have
                  your support, like I have it in Liberty City, and I hope that you continue to support me at the
                  CRA meetings because I can only do it with the support of my colleagues. I cannot do it by
                  myself, and I welcome your support, your advice, your direction, your opinions. You know,
                  that's what it's all about. I am not -- and I'll put it on the record, and I've been very clear -- I'm
                  not in support of any stadiums, I'm not in support of any streetcars, or any of those things that
                  are -- if that's going to come before what the people have been waiting for for a long time, so I
                  know that this is an issue that was going to come up later on the agenda, but I just want to make
                  sure that it's very clear that, from where I sit, I only support making sure that the people in
                  Overtown get what they deserve to have first.

                  Commissioner Regalado: I think we should invite --

                  Chairman González: All right.

City of Miami                                       Page 264                                          Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                                 Meeting Minutes                                       January 25, 2007


                     Commissioner Regalado: -- the people to be at the next CRA meeting. In the agenda, we have
                     the item placed by the chairperson regarding the announcement that it was made about the CRA
                     and the stadium without the knowledge of the chairperson and the members of the CRA, so it's
                     sort of a -- like a stealth project, but it would be very lively discussion, I imagine, because you
                     know, CRA -- the Chairman is right; CRA has been a piggybank. Hey, let's build a tunnel,
                     streetcar, performing art. I was hoping that the Chairman would have been there the day that
                     we voted on the gold pavement for the block -- the super block in front of the Performing Arts
                     that cost like several million dollars. With that money I would have done about 20 blocks of
                     curbs and sidewalks in District 4, but you know --

                     Chairman González: Yeah.

                     Commissioner Regalado: -- CRA is for redevelopment.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: Well, you'll see a change. You --

                     Chairman González: All right.

                     Commissioner Spence-Jones: -- definitely will see a change.

NA.4      07-00134   DISCUSSION ITEM
                     DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE SCHEDULING OF A SPECIAL
                     COMMISSION MEETING FOR ZONING-RELATED ITEMS.
                     DISCUSSED

                     Commissioner Regalado: Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper, nothing official, that on February,
                     we will have the issue of the Home Depot --

                     Chairman González: That's what I'm being told, too.

                     Commissioner Regalado: -- so if we have the Home Depot in February, there is going to be a lot
                     of people.

                     Chairman González: But let me tell you. I'm also being told that Home Depot doesn't want to
                     have a meeting, so I don't know who's pushing for the meeting. That's what I'm being told.

                     Commissioner Regalado: Well, regardless, but if we have the meeting, there's going to be a lot
                     of time that we have to spend. This is why I'm suggesting to you for you to pick up a day of the
                     week, maybe next week or the other week, to do a special Zoning so we can get items done. I
                     mean, I don't mind, for instance, like coming at 3 p.m. in the afternoon, staying 7 p.m. I don't
                     know --

                     Chairman González: Right.

                     Commissioner Regalado: -- and we get a lot of things out of the way, but it's up to --

                     Chairman González: Right.

                     Commissioner Regalado: -- you. It's --

                     Chairman González: Right now, as it is, we're going to have to schedule two special meetings;
                     one meeting to clean up all the items that they have pending, and then another meeting for the
                     Home Depot, if, in fact, we're going to have a meeting on Home Depot, then we need -- then I
                     suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Home Depot. I don't know how my colleagues --

City of Miami                                         Page 265                                         Printed on 2/12/2007
City Commission                              Meeting Minutes                                     January 25, 2007

                  if my colleagues agree with that --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Fine.

                  Commissioner Regalado: I don't have any problem.

                  Chairman González: -- but I think it would be crazy --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: Well --

                  Chairman González: -- to have a 20 -- a 30-item agenda and then include Home Depot in there
                  --

                  Commissioner Sarnoff: No. I agree.

                  Chairman González: -- when we know it's going to be --

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: That's --

                  Chairman González: -- another controversial item.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- you know, and that's a tremendous injustice to the public that shows
                  up --

                  Chairman González: Of course.

                  Vice Chairman Sanchez: -- for their items here, so I agree, and I'm available any time, as long
                  as you're able to work it out as a Chair with the Commissioners, and we'll have special meetings
                  for Planning and Zoning. I think that's a great idea.

                  Chairman González: All right.




City of Miami                                      Page 266                                      Printed on 2/12/2007

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:33
posted:8/10/2011
language:English
pages:266