Stern vs. City of Miami II - Public Records Action W/ Exhibits

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
GRANT STERN,
CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation

In the State of Florida, VICTORIA MENDEZ,
City Attorney, City of Miami, FRANCISCO J.
GARCIA, Director of Planning and Zoning,
City of Miami,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

TO ENFORCE FLORIDAS PUBLIC RECORDS & MEETINGS LAWS
Plaintiff, GRANT STERN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files his Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendants CITY OF MIAMI, VICTORIA MENDEZ,
and FRANCISCO J. GARCIA, to enforce the denial of his rights under Florida Sunshine Laws,
including its Public Records and Public Meeting Laws, and in support thereof, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action is brought for relief against the City of Miami, Florida, City Attorney Victoria
Mendez, and City Planning and Zoning Director Francisco J. Garcia pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. I
24, Fla. Stats. 119 et seq., Fla. Stat. 286.011, the Miami-Dade County, Fla. Home Rule
Charter Bill of Rights (Miami-Dade Bill of Rights), and the Miami, Fla. City Charter 52 et seq.
(City Charter).
2. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief pursuant to Fla. Stats.
86 et seq., Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, Miami-Dade County, Fla. Home Rule Charter Bill of Rights
(A)(2), and Miami, Fla. Code of Ordinances 52(C).
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

t.305.632.4002 | chris@plainviewlawfirm.com | f.786.204.0802
Page 1 of 38
3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. V 5(b), Fla. Stats. 26.012,
86.011, 119.11, and 286.011, and Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. L. R. R-1-3(12).
4. Venue is proper pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011.
5. This Complaint references the Plaintiffs Records Requests, City documents,
communications between City officials, other cases, and supplementary materials. Record
Requests relevant to this Complaint are attached as Exhibit A. City documents referenced in this
Complaint are itemized and attached as Exhibit B. Communications referenced in this Complaint
are itemized and attached as Exhibit C. Relevant court documents from other cases referenced
in this Complaint are itemized and attached as Exhibit D. Supplementary materials referenced in
this Complaint are itemized and attached as Exhibit E.
PARTIES
6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff Grant Stern (Stern) was and is a citizen and elector
of Miami-Dade County, Florida, and resident of the City of Miami. Stern works as a journalist,
radio broadcaster, mortgage broker, public advocate, and participates as an expert witness in real
estate actions. Stern writes columns for Occupy Democrats, and Photography is Not a Crime,
and a contributor to other publications, including Huffington Post and the Miami Herald.
7. Defendant City of Miami (City) is a municipal corporation located in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, and at all times relevant hereto, the employer of Defendants Victoria Mendez, and
Francisco J. Garcia.
8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Victoria Mendez (Mendez) was and is an agent,
servant, and employee of the City, and acting as its City Attorney.
9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Francisco J. Garcia (Garcia) was and is an agent,
servant, and employee of the City, and acting as its Director of Zoning and Planning.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 2 of 38
FACTS
01 Background
10. On August 21, 2012, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Walmart) submitted an application to
the Citys Department of Planning and Zoning (PZD) seeking administrative approval for a Class
II Special Permit to build a store located at 3055 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, FL. The proposed
location of Walmarts store is designated as Midtown Special District (SD-27) for zoning and
permitting purposes. See Miami, FL Zoning Code Miami 21 Appx. C. Walmart paid the City an
initial application fee of $9,219.00 for its Class II Warrant Planning Permit. Exhibit B-01. Garcia,
in his capacity as the Director of the PZD, possesses the sole authority to oversee all Class II
Permit applications, their compliance with the Citys zoning ordinances, and has sole authority to
issue the Final Approval of an application. See Miami, Fla. Zoning Ordinance 11000 (Ordinance
11000) 1301.2. All records pertaining to a Class II Special Permit are considered public records
under state law, and must be available to the public upon request. See Ordinance 11000 1307.1.
11. Director Garcia issued a Development Order, administratively approving Walmarts permit
on August 12, 2013. See Exhibit B-02. In the approval, Garcia expressly affirmed that he received
comments and recommendations from five (5) referral sources (mandatory under Ordinance
11000 1301.2), including the Zoning Section of the PZD, Department of Public Works, Office of
Transportation, Wynwood NET Office, and the Urban Development Review Board. See Exhibit
B-02. Walmarts permit was initially approved through August 12, 2014. See Exhibit B-07a.
12. Stern, and a group of other residents and citizens of the City, formally appealed the Citys
issuance of the Class II Special Permit to Walmart through the Citys Planning and Zoning Appeals
Board (PZAB). Stern and the other appellants paid the City a $500 appeal fee and contracted
with, and were represented by Mr. Paul C. Savage, Esq. (Savage) throughout their appeal to
the PZAB. See Exhibit B-03. Another appellant, Peter Ehrlich, was represented by Tucker Gibbs,
Esq. As part of the PZAB appeal, Stern was required to prepare and submit (within fifteen (15)
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 3 of 38
days of the permits approval)- at his own expense, and with the assistance of counsel- a lengthy
written document listing the permits non-conformities with City law.
13. Appeals to the PZAB are conducted under Miami 21 2.2.1.1 and must follow the Quasi-
Judicial procedures outlined in Miami 21 7.1.4.
14. The PZAB heard Sterns appeal at a public hearing held on October 02, 2013. At the
hearing, the PZAB denied Stern and the citizens appeal, and upheld Director Garcias decision
to issue the permit. Stern and the citizens then applied for the PZABs decision to be reviewed by
the City Commission, and in addition to preparing the required documents, paid another $500 fee
for the City Commissions review. See Exhibit B-04.
15. The City Commission reviews the PZABs decisions de novo, as a body of original
jurisdiction, and may receive new evidence or materials pertinent to the determination of the
appeal. The City Commission may also hear the testimony of witnesses and may receive
evidence offered by the appellants.
16. In advance of the City Commission hearing, Stern, the other appellants, and Savage
prepared materials related to the Walmart project and submitted them for presentation at the
hearing. See Exhibit B-17. The appellants also consulted an interdisciplinary planning expert, Mr.
Mark Alvarez (Alvarez), who reviewed the non-conformities in Walmarts original application,
and was scheduled to testify and submit competent substantial evidence on the record about why
Walmarts permit should be denied. See Exhibit B-17.
17. The night before the public meeting, Stern, along with other individuals, discovered that
Garcia was using his personal email account to conduct official business relating to Walmarts
permit, and immediately requested copies of Garcias personal emails that were relevant to
Walmarts permit, along with the opportunity to inspect them in person. Garcia expressly denied
the existence of other personal emails relevant to the permit, and refused to supply any additional
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 4 of 38
documents. Mendez also expressly denied access, referencing the upcoming meeting as the
reason to why access could not be granted.
18. On November 21, 2013, the City Commission held the hearing to review Stern and the
citizens appeal, wherein Alvarez presented testimony relating to the permit and submitted
competent substantial evidence as to why the permit did not conform to City law. The City
Commission nevertheless approved Resolution R-13-0471 (File No. 13-0103ii), which denied the
citizens appeal and affirmed the PZDs approval of Walmarts Class II Special Permit.
19. After the City Commission denied the appeal, some of the citizens- those who lived closest
to the permitted property- filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with this Court on January 02,
2014, asking this Court to quash Resolution R-13-0471 because, among other things, the Class
II Special Permit improperly granted Walmart a variance, which is subject to a stricter standard of
review, notice, and public hearings process for the permits final approval. See Exhibit D-01a.
Although Stern had undisputed standing to participate as an appellant to the PZAB and City
Commission appeals, he did not have standing to join as a party to the Certiorari Petition. See
Ordinance 11000 1311.
20. On July 15, 2014 Walmart sent Garcia (via U.S. Mail and Email) a written request for the
extension of Walmarts Class II Permit, along with a $225 check to cover the application fee for
the request. See Exhibit B-07a.
21. On the following day, the PZD purportedly submitted an Inter-Office Memorandum to the
City Attorneys Office informing it of Walmarts time extension request, and noting that the
extension will be processed under Miami 21 7.1.2.4(c), which states that a Warrant shall be
valid for two (2) years (during which a building permit or Certificate of Use must be obtained), and
that a onetime extension (not exceeding one year) may be obtained if approved by the Planning
Director. See Exhibit B-07b. The PZD informed the City Attorney that Miami 21 is silent on the
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 5 of 38
commencement date for an appealed permits time extension, and that legal advice was needed
on Miami 21s application to Walmarts Class II Special Permit. See Exhibit B-07b.
22. The City Attorney responded to the PZDs request for legal advice on August 12, 2014,
stating that both a minor modification and a non-minor modification (as determined by the
Planning Director) to a Class II Special Permit approved under Ordinance 11000, such as the
permit issued to Walmart, may be modified through the Warrant process. See Exhibit B-07.
23. Walmarts Class II Special Permit expired on August 12, 2014. Exhibit B08. However, on
August 25, 2014, thirteen (13) days after the permits expiration, Garcia approved Walmarts
request for a time extension, and extended the permits expiration date to August 12, 2015, albeit
under Miami 21 7.1.3.5.d.4(a). See Exhibit B-08.
24. Sometime between August 12, 2014 and September 16, 2014, the PZD purportedly
submitted additional questions to the City Attorneys Office, to which the City Attorney responded
in the form of a Supplemental Memorandum. See Exhibit B-09. The following day, Garcia issued
a revision to Walmarts Time Extension, which extended the permits expiration date to November
21, 2015. Exhibit B-10.
25. On October 15, 2014, this Court filed its Opinion on the Writ of Certiorari referenced above.
See Exhibit D-01b. In the Opinion, this Court noted that all provisions in the Citys previous Zoning
Code (Ordinance 11000) that were referenced in Miami 21 627 et seq. applied to SD-627,
including a Class II Special Permits administrative approval. See Exhibit D-01b. The Court also
noted that Miami 21s Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board and its procedures replaced
Ordinance 11000s Zoning Board and its appeals procedures for SD-627. See Exhibit D-01b.
26. In reviewing the decision of an administrative bodys quasi-judicial action, such as the
November 20, 2013 City Commission hearing, the circuit court must decide whether the decision
was supported by competent substantial evidence, whether the essential requirements of the law
had been observed, and whether due process had been accorded. See Exhibit D-01b (citing City
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 6 of 38
of Deerfield Beach v. Valiant, 419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Florida Power & Light Co. v. City
of Dania Beach, 761 So.2d 1089, 1092 (Fla. 2000); Broward Cnty. v. G.B.V. Intl, Ltd., 787 So.2d
838, 843 (Fla. 2001)).
27. This Court quashed the City Commissions denial of the citizens appeal in its 3-0 ruling
against the City and Walmart, because Miami 21 627.2.15 restricted loading berths to a total of
three (3), and Walmarts approved plans departed from the essential requirements of the law by
including five (5) loading berths. See Exhibit D-01b. To support its ruling, this Court reviewed
Blacks Law Dictionarys and its definition of the word total, defined as [w]hole, not divided,
lacking no part, entire, full, complete, the whole amount. See Exhibit D-01b. This Court held that
the plain meaning of total was not a minimum requirement, as the City contended, but a limitation
on the total amount of loading berths allowed by City law. See Exhibit D-01b.
28. As part of its ruling, this Court adhered to its own Opinion in an earlier case, which held
that the [f]ailure of an agency to adhere to its own regulations constitutes a departure from the
essential requirements of the law. Lucia Dougherty v. City of Miami and Morningside Civic
Assoc., Inc., 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 959a (Fla. 11th Cir. July 14, 2006); see also Combs v. State,
436 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983)1.
29. On October 15, 2014, the City held a staff meeting via email to review agenda items
(pending City Managers approval) for a November 20, 2014 meeting of the City Commission on
the Walmart permit. See Exhibit C-01. Defendants Garcia and Mendez were recipients to the
email. See Exhibit C-01.
30. On October 24, 2014, Defendant Mendez was quoted in the Miami Herald article as saying
that the City Commission will hold a public hearing limited to the issue of the loading berths. See
1 [T]he district courts of appeal should not be as concerned with the mere existence of legal error as much as with the
seriousness of the error. Although courts have a large degree of discretion in determining whether a departure from
the essential requirements of the law has occurred, they should exercise this discretion only when there has been
a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 7 of 38
Exhibit E-01. No formal hearing notice, hearing date, or meeting agenda was provided to Stern
the other appellants, other City residents, or members of the public at large. See Exhibit E-01.
31. It was not clear from Mendezs remarks to the Miami Herald whether the City Commission,
on remand, would review Walmarts original application (which contained the plans that included
five (5) loading berths, and was the subject matter of the PZAB and Commission appeals the
mandate referenced), whether the City Commission, on remand, would review a modified
application for a Class II Special Permit, or whether the City Commission, on remand, would
review a subsequent application by Walmart for a Major Use Permit or zoning variance. See
Exhibit E-01.
32. As stated earlier, Stern was a party to the original appeal to the PZAB, and he also actively
participated as an appellant at the November 21, 2013 hearing before the City Commission, when
it ultimately denied his appeal. Although Stern was not a party to the Petition for Certiorari, he
would still be appearing before the City Commission hearing as an appellant when it reheard the
appeal pursuant to the Courts Opinion and remand Order. Attorney Paul C. Savage continued to
represent Stern and the other appellants for the City Commissions review of Walmarts Class II
Special Permit.
02 Sterns Records Requests and Related Matters
33. Between October 24, 2014 and November 21, 2014, Stern made a series of public records
requests related to the Walmart project- and the upcoming City Commission hearing- via email to
multiple City employees, including Defendant Garcia, Defendant Mendez, and Assistant City
Attorney Barnaby Min (Min), who was previously employed as the Citys Zoning Director. See
generally Exhibit A. The initial request was sent on October 24, 2014, and pursuant to Mendezs
numerous responses, follow up requests were made on October 27, 2014, October 30, 2014,
November 04, 2014, November 07, 2014, November 10, 2014, and again on November 21, 2014.
See generally Exhibit A.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 8 of 38
34. Altogether, Stern requested the following items for production prior to the City
Commissions November 20, 2014 hearing:
a. Notice of the City Commissions hearing on Walmarts application;
b. Traffic Study related to Walmarts application;
c. Revisions to Walmarts application and plans;
d. Applications submitted to City by Walmart, including additional applications and
their location;
e. All information about the upcoming City Commission vote;
f. Legal opinions written by City officials relating to processing Walmarts application;
g. All emails pertinent to Walmarts appeal since January 01, 2014, including search
terms Walmart, Walmart Midtown, and @Walmart.com, along with other
search terms;
h. Emails by City officials related to the Walmart project sent or received on their
personal email accounts;
i. Records, including City ordinances, relating to the City Commissions hearing;
j. All documents, all written communications on 3055 N. Miami Ave., Walmart, and
all plans, notices of meetings, meeting notes, including copies of text messages,
emails, voicemails, pertaining to all requested items;
k. Direct access to materials concerning Walmarts application and the hearing at the
location where the records are kept;
See generally Exhibit A.
35. On October 24, 2014, shortly after Stern submitted his initial request, Mendez and Min
both acknowledged receiving the initial request, and affirmed that they would provide existing
records. Stern informed Mendez and the other request recipients that he would be updating his
request periodically, and Mendez acknowledged. Exhibit A at 3-8.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 9 of 38
36. On October 27, 2014, Stern resubmitted his request, noting that he would require the
records at least ten days before the referenced hearing, and asking for the expected date of
completion with the request. Exhibit A at 9-10. Stern also asked for a detailed reply regarding the
requested items. Exhibit A at 9-10. The Citys Office of Communications responded that it had
received and is processing the request, and that Stern would be notified of fees to acquire or
reproduce the information. Exhibit A at 11. Mendez responded two days later, on October 29,
2014, again acknowledging the request, and stating that her office will assist in responding to the
request. Exhibit A at 13. Mendez also, without citing any statute, said she does not have to provide
Stern with the City Ordinances related to Walmarts application. See Exhibit A at 13.
37. On October 27, 2014, journalist Erik Bojnansky (Bojnansky) of the Biscayne Times also
submitted a public records request via an email directed to Garcia, which requested staff reports
and attorney opinions related to the Walmart project, and asked when the hearing date would be.
See Exhibit C-02. Within seven (7) minutes of receiving Bojnanskys request, Garcia forwarded
the email to Mendez, Min, and other City employees. Exhibit C-02a.
38. On October 30, 2014, Min directed Garcia to provide any responsive documents to
Bojnansky. See Exhibit C-02b. On the following day, Garcia responded to Min and said that there
were no responsive documents. See Exhibit C-02c.
39. Stern also resubmitted his requests on October 30, 2014, which was acknowledged on
the same day by the Citys Office of Communication. Exhibit A at 15-16.
40. Stern again resubmitted his requests on November 04, 2014. Exhibit A at 18.
41. On November 05, 2014, the City certified Resolution R-13-0471, and certified the
November 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes for adoption at the upcoming City Commission meeting.
See Exhibits B-11-12.
42. On November 06, 2014, an unsigned version of Garcias Staff Analysis was prepared, and
included a placeholder for the name of the agent that would be providing plans on behalf of
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 10 of 38
Walmart, and a placeholder for the date of the revised plans. See Exhibit B-18a. Although Garcia
purportedly had not received or reviewed Walmarts revised plans, the document indicated they
would nevertheless be approved. See Exhibit B-18a.
43. Sometime between October 15, 2014 and November 06, 2014, the PZD submitted a
request for Walmart to provide revised plans reflecting a total of (3) loading berths. See Exhibits
B-18 & B-18a. Walmart finalized its revised plans on November 06, 2014. Exhibit B-13.
44. On November 07, 2014, the PZD prepared and postmarked a parcel of certified mail
addressed to Stern containing a document titled City of Miami Notice of Public Hearing which
stated a public hearing would be held before the City Commission on Thursday, November 20,
2014 at 02:00pm for Denying or Granting the Class II Special Permit Appeal to Allow New
Construction at 3055 N Miami Av. See Exhibit B-16. The Notice did not contain a meeting agenda
or any other substantive information or documents related to the meeting. Exhibit B-16.
45. Stern received a response from Mendez on November 07, 2014 where she stated that the
records were being searched for. Exhibit A at 19. Stern resubmitted his request that same day.
Exhibit A at 20.
46. On November 10, 2014, Defendant Mendez signed and approved two versions of a
Resolution related to the upcoming City Commission hearing, which would adopt by reference
and fully incorporate the recitals and findings contained in the preambles to the documents. See
Exhibits B-14 & B-15.
47. Stern resubmitted his requests again on November 10, 2014. See Exhibit A at 21.
48. The City finalized its Meeting Agenda for the November 20, 2017 City Commission hearing
sometime between October 15, 2017 and November 12, 2017. See Exhibit B-17. The finalized
Meeting Agenda, which included the items to be heard, was printed by the City on November 12,
2017, eight (8) days before the hearing. See Exhibit B-17.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 11 of 38
49. Walmart emailed Garcia a copy of its revised plans (with a November 06, 2014 certification
date) on November 13, 2014. See Exhibit B-13.
50. On Friday, November 14, 2014, Garcia sent emails discussing Walmarts application, the
Staff Analysis, and the upcoming meeting to multiple City employees, including Mendez and Min,
some as late as 10:00 PM. Exhibit C-03. The following day (on Saturday), Garcia signed off on
his final staff opinion and sent a series of emails with instructions to include his staff opinion in
the upcoming November 20, 2014 public meeting. Exhibit C-03.
51. On November 17, 2014, the City Manager purportedly circulated an Inter-Office
Memorandum advising Garcia and other City officials that a place holder was included in the
original Meeting Agenda and that the placeholder Analysis was being replaced by a document
titled Analysis for Modifications to Loading Berths for Class II Special Permit, and the
placeholder Supporting Docs was being replaced by the document titled Class II Special Permit/
Wal-Mart Midtown. Exhibit B-19. In the same Memorandum, the City Manager tells Garcia that
the documents have been posted for public view on the PZDs website and is providing them to
be submitted into the public record at the meeting. See Exhibit B-19.
52. The hearing on the appeal before the commission was held on November 20, 2014 at
02:00pm. Stern was not provided copies of- or directed access to- any of the records he requested
for production in advance of the City Commission hearing wherein he was a named appellant,
and the existence of the requested records had not been confirmed, denied, or cited as exempt.
See generally Exhibit A. The Defendants refusal to provide Stern with the requested records
limited the information relevant to his appeal, and impacted his ability to present competent
substantial evidence as a designated appellant at the hearing.
53. Stern resubmitted the request on November 21, 2014, after the hearing. Exhibit A at 23.
54. Stern did not receive any communications from Mendez, Garcia, or any other City
employee regarding his request between the November 10, 2014 resubmission and an email on
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 12 of 38
December 03, 2014 asking if he received requested documents that were not posted on Legistar.
See Exhibit A at 22-24. Stern informed Mendez that her December 03, 2017 email was the first
communication he received regarding his requests since November 07, 2014, and that no
documents have been provided. Exhibit A at 25.
55. On December 04, 2014, two weeks after the City Commission hearing, Mendez informed
Stern that the completed record was now available in Legistar, that the traffic study was pending,
that he received the modified plans at the hearing, and that he had also received any Opinions
issued from Mendezs office. See Exhibit A at 26. Mendez also acknowledged the emails were
still pending. Exhibit A at 26.
56. The documents available in Legistar after the meeting included:
a. Undated City Commission Fact Sheet referencing upcoming November 20, 2014
meeting;
b. October 15, 2014 Eleventh Circuit Opinion for Case No. 14-004 AP;
c. November 05, 2014 Certification of City Commissions November 29, 2013
Resolution;
d. November 05, 2014 Certification of November 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes;
e. Undated PZD Analysis for Modifications to Class II Special Permit stating the
analysis is in progress and the analysis and other supporting documentation would
be available at the PZD webpage as soon as available;
f. Undated PZD notice stating PZD will post supporting documents at the PZD
webpage as soon as they become available;
g. November 10, 2014 draft v2 of City Resolution submitted by Mendez stating that
PZD had approved a Class II Special Permit Application on August 12, 2013, and
on November 20, 2014 the City Commission ruled against the application;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 13 of 38
h. November 10, 2014 draft v3 of City Resolution submitted by Mendez stating that
PZD had approved a Class II Special Permit application on August 12, 2013, and
on November 20, 2014 the City Commission ruled in favor of the application;
i. March 06, 2012 Exhibit by Stewart Title Guaranty Company regarding the site of
the Walmart project;
j. Eight documents referenced in the Meeting Agenda for the City Commissions
November 21, 2013 hearing, incorporated into the November 20, 2014 Agenda,
titled (1) Class II Approved by PZ Dept.pdf; (2) PZAB Supporting Docs.pdf; (3)
Appeal to PZAB.pdf; (4) Appeal to CC.pdf; (5) Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf; (6)
Legislation (Version 3).pdf; (7) Legislation (Version 4).pdf; (8) ExhibitA.pdf;
k. Six documents submitted for presentation at the City Commissions November 21,
2013 hearing, previously unavailable on Legistar or the City Citizens website, and
incorporated into the November 20, 2014 Agenda, titled (1) Submittals-Emails-
Midtown Walmart.pdf; (2) Submittal Peter Ehrlich.pdf; (3) Submittal- Mark
Alvarez Presentation Midtown Walmart Class II; (4) Submittal Paul C. Savage
Powerpoint Presentation Appeal of; (5) Submittal North Miami Elevation.pdf;
(6) Submittal Projection-WalMart in Midtown.pdf; (7) Submittal-Presentation-
Background.pdf;
See Exhibit B-17.
57. Stern responded in his December 03, 2014 email, and informed Mendez that numerous
documents in Legistar were missing, referenced only by URL, and that the available documents
were available in Legistar only after the meeting had commenced. See Exhibit A at 28-30. He
had only received Walmarts revised plans at the start of the hearing, and was not given the
requested access to certified copies of the full-size plans, or an opportunity for in-person
inspection of those plans or other hearing documents in order to view and copy them. See Exhibit
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 14 of 38
A at 28-30. He also stated that none of the opinions requested from Mendezs office had been
supplied, and that he had not received any of emails requested. Exhibit A at 28-30.
58. On December 04, 2014 Mendezs assistant emails Stern two memoranda her office
prepared regarding the project. Exhibit A at 31 (memoranda attached as Exhibits B-07 & B-09).
59. Between November 20, 2014 and December 05, 2014, the City finalized its Marked
Agenda on the November 20, 2014 City Commission hearing, and printed it on December 05,
2014, which included additional documents. See Exhibit B-20.
60. On December 22, 2014, the Office of Communication finally emailed Stern a list of email
search terms and an invoice with a quote for reproducing the email records. Exhibit A at 35-41.
61. In his requests, Stern expressly informed the Citys staff, including Garcia and Mendez,
that the requests related to the City Commissions upcoming hearing, that he be provided access
before the meeting, and that time was of the essence. See generally Exhibit A.
62. Although the City and Mendez acknowledged the requests, the only record produced
between the October 24, 2014 initial request and the start of the November 20, 2014 City
Commission hearing was the Notice the PZD postmarked on November 07, 2014.
63. Stern was able to secure a letter-sized copy (but not the full-sized plans Stern requested
access to of Walmarts amended plans) at the start of the hearing, but access to the partial
production on Legistar was not granted until after the meeting. Likewise, the City Attorney
memoranda, and the invoice for the requested emails were not provided until two weeks after the
meeting. See Exhibit A at 35-41. The invoice stated that it would cost $100 for running two (2)
search criteria with up to forty (40) specific key words or phrases, and for creating Outlook PST
files with the output and save them onto a CD/DVD or HD, (depending on the volume). See Exhibit
A at 35-41. It would also take four (4) days to create the storage media after approval of payment.
See Exhibit A at 35-41. There was no estimate as to how many pages the search would produce,
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 15 of 38
purportedly because the search would not be initiated until after payment was processed. See
Exhibit A at 35-41.
64. Neither the City, Mendez or Garcia provided additional records to Stern within the time-
period he requested them, did not provide Stern the opportunity to inspect the records before the
meeting, and did not deny or affirm the existence of the records Stern requested. See generally
Exhibit A. They did not cite to any statute exempting production of the records, and delayed
making some of the requested records available- including the item to be heard- until after the
public hearing- at which Stern was listed as an appellant, and represented by counsel- had
commenced. See Exhibit A.
65. Garcia, director of the PZD, and the custodian for most of the requested records did not
respond at all to Sterns written requests, even though emails recovered in a subsequent public
records action indicate that the PZD knew that the public records requests had been made. See
generally Exhibit A. On December 05, 2014 Garcia denied the existence of the traffic study to
Mendez and Min, but excluded Stern from his response. See Exhibit A at 52. Although Garcia
stated that Walmarts plans were posted on the Citys website well in advance of the City
Commission hearing, neither Mendez or Garcia referred Stern to the plans purportedly posted
on the City website in advance of the hearing. See Exhibit A at 52; see also Exhibit A generally.
Neither City, Garcia, or Mendez referred Stern to Legistar before the start of the meeting. See
generally Exhibit A.
04 Additional Facts
66. A majority of the same individuals that filed the January 02, 2014 Certiorari Action (Case
No. 14-0004 AP) filed another Petition for Certiorari with this Court on December 16, 2014 to
review City Commissions November 20, 2014 decision granting Walmarts application. See
Exhibit D-02a (Pfeffer II). The Petitioners in Pfeffer II later sought second-tier review with the 3d
DCA, filing their Petition on September 24, 2015. See Exhibit D-03a.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 16 of 38
67. On September 03, 2015, Stern made a separate public records request in person at the
City Attorneys Office (received by Assistant City Attorney Xavier Alban), for information that
would be helpful to the Pfeffer II Petitioners and their upcoming appeal to the 3d DCA, including
a request for a copy of and direct access to the PZDs complete file for the Walmart project, and
emails sent between October 15, 2014 and December 04, 2014. See generally Exhibit D-04a.
68. Eighteen days later, on September 21, 2015, the City sent Stern access to an electronic
file with an incomplete production of records relating to Walmarts project. See Exhibit E-04.
69. As part of its filings for the 3d DCA Petition, Walmart submitted the Time Extension
approved by the PZD in 2014, which had not been previously referenced or produced by the City,
Mendez or Garcia to Stern. The City, for the first time since Walmart submitted its application,
admitted in its response to Pfeffer II, that Garcia had only completed three (3) of the five (5)2
necessary and required referrals referenced in Paragraph 11 above, despite representations to
the contrary at every prior level of review concerning Walmarts application, including the
affirmations Garcia made in his final approval of Walmarts permit.
70. On November 13, 2015, Stern filed a public records enforcement action with this Court to
compel production of the documents that had been unproduced per his September 03, 2015
public records request. See Exhibit D-04a.
71. During that enforcement action, the City produced, for the first time, thousands of records
responsive to Sterns October 24, 2014 requests. See Exhibits E-04-07. Although those records
existed and although many were responsive to the 2014 requests, they were not provided or
referenced at the time the 2014 requests were made, and their existence was discovered between
2 The Citys interpretation of the required referral process is essentially the logical inverse of its interpretation of the
loading berth issue referenced earlier. In regard to the loading berths, the City argued, contrary to the plain meaning of
City law, that requirement of three (3) total loading berths was in fact a minimum requirement. Here, the City interpreted
the five (5) legally necessary and required referrals related to Walmarts Class II Special Permit as a maximum and
discretionary requirement.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 17 of 38
2015 and 2016, incidental to Sterns November 9, 2015 enforcement action and subsequent
requests. See generally Exhibits D04a & E-04-07.
72. On March 21, 2016, the City Attorneys Office admitted in Court that two of the necessary
and required referral documents- the initial referrals to and from the Citys Public Works and
Transportation Department- did not exist, despite affirming that they existed for years in prior
proceedings. On the same day, this Court ordered that Garcia turn over his personal emails
relating to the Walmart project. See Exhibit D04a. Two days after the Court order Stern submitted
a request for emails, designated by the City as PRR 16-107, Stern was not charged for production
of these emails. See generally Exhibits E-04-07.
73. The City complied with production of Garcias personal emails (those referencing Walmart)
on April 1, 2016. See Exhibits E-04-07. Stern later made another public records request to obtain
communications between Garcia and other City employees involving Garcias personal email
account. See Exhibit C04. The Citys invoice stated that it would cost $787 for running two (2)
search criteria and one (01) specific key words or phrases, and for creating Outlook PST files with
the output and save them onto a CD/DVD or HD, (depending on the volume). See Exhibit C-04.
It would also take four (4) days to create the storage media after approval of payment. See Exhibit
C-04. There was no estimate as to how many pages the search would produce. See Exhibit C-
04.
74. On April 16, 2016, this Court held that the City and Garcia had unlawfully denied Stern
access to the public records requested on September 09, 2015, and issued judgment in his favor.
See Exhibit D-04a.
75. Since then, Stern has found additional records through internet searches as yet
unproduced by City, that existed and were responsive to Sterns October 24, 2014 -November
21, 2014 requests.
76. Walmarts permit remains active.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 18 of 38
77. Plaintiff- as part of his occupation as a journalist, as a local activist, as a resident of the
City, and as a member of the general public- has made and will continue to make public records
to the City, its employees, and its custodians for records related to permit applications, City
Commission hearings, and other City business.
78. The City continues to employ and pay both Defendant Mendez as its City Attorney, and
Defendant Garcia as its Director of Planning and Zoning, and Defendants Mendez and Garcia
continue to act as custodians to the Citys records.
05 Responsive Records That Remain Unacknowledged or Unproduced
79. The following responsive records have been referenced either by the City and its
employees, in the Citys laws, and/or in available records, and remain unacknowledged or
unproduced:
a. Zoning Interpretation 10-0003 and other zoning interpretations and legal
memorandum;
b. Citys bank deposit statement for Walmarts $225 extension fee;
c. Communications relating to the Walmart project, including emails, text
messages,and voicemails;
d. Unaltered Emails and other communications records between the PZD and City
Attorneys Office including and/or referencing Exhibits B-07-10;
e. Supplemental Questions by PZD to City Attorney regarding the Miami 21 Warrant
process and its relation to Class II Permit Extensions;
f. Emails and communications by and between Garcia, Mendez, Min, and other City
employees acknowledging, referencing, responding to, and complying with
Bojnanskys request related to the Walmart project;
g. PZD request to Walmart that it modify its plans to reflect three loading berths;
h. Transaction Statement for fee to modify Walmarts Class II Special Permit;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 19 of 38
i. Citys bank deposit statement for fee related to Walmarts modified application for
its revised plans;
j. Walmarts request for a fee waiver for fee to modify its Class II Special permit;
k. PZDs approval of a fee waiver for Walmarts modification;
l. Referral of Walmarts revised plans to the Citys Transportation Office;
m. Referral of Walmarts revised plans to the Citys Public Works Department;
n. Documents and communications created, made, and/or received by the Citys
Transportation Office when conducting its expert review of Walmarts revised
plans;
o. Documents and communications created, made, and/or received by the Citys
Public Works Department when conducting its expert review of Walmarts revised
plans;
p. Traffic impact analysis for Walmarts revised plans by the Citys Transportation
Office;
q. Traffic impact analysis for Walmarts revised plans by the Citys Public Works
Department;
r. Recommendation of approval of Walmarts revised plans by the Citys
Transportation office;
s. Recommendation of approval of Walmarts revised plans by the Citys Public
Works Department;
t. Email from Julia D. Hernandez with Attachment link and Attachment (Oct. 15,
2014);
u. Stamped Certified Mail Receipts for November 20, 2014 Notice of Hearing mailing;
v. Return of Service for November 20, 2014 Notice of Hearing mailing;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 20 of 38
w. Unaltered Emails and other communications records between City Manager, the
PZD, Mendez, and other City employees including and/or referencing Exhibit B-
19.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS
DEFENDANTS CITY, MENDEZ, & GARCIA
80. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 79 above, and incorporates them by
reference herein.
81. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fla. Stats. 86 et seq.,
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, and Fla. Stats. 119 et seq.
82. Plaintiff seeks an accelerated hearing under Fla. Stat. 119.11(1).
83. This action is brought to afford the Plaintiff relief from the insecurity and uncertainty with
respect to his rights, status, and other equitable and legal relations resulting from the Defendants
refusal and/or delay in providing public records that Defendants knew existed, that were in their
custody at the time they were requested, and that were available within the period they were
requested.
84. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have an actual, present, and adverse interest concerning
the Defendants obligations to properly acknowledge, respond to, locate, and produce in full all
non-exempt public records upon request, and to do so in good faith, without delay, without
omission, without misrepresentation, and without alteration.
85. Public records include all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs,
films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical
form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance,
or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Fla. Stat. 119.011(12).
86. An agency is any state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department,
division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 21 of 38
by law, and any other public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity
acting on behalf of any public agency. Fla. Stat. 119.011(2).
87. All audits, reports, minutes, documents and other public records of the County and
municipalities and their boards, agencies, departments, and authorities shall be open for
inspection at reasonable times and places convenient to the public. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights
(A)(3). Furthermore, no County or municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false
information on any public matter, or knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested
information to members of the public. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(2). Any public official, or
employee who is found to have willfully violated the provisions of the City Charter or Miami-Dade
County Bill of Rights shall forthwith forfeit his or her employment. City Charter 52(C).
88. Some of the types of record series that Plaintiff requested are designated by the Florida
Department of States Division of Library and Information Services current General Record
Schedule (GS1-SL) as having limited retention schedules, including, but not limited to:
a. Administrator Records: Agency Director/Program Manager (GS1-SL, Item #122,
at 1) are retained for ten (10) years, and include various types of records, such as
correspondence (including electronic communications), memoranda, statements
prepared for delivery at meetings, interviews, and reports concerning agency
program development and implementation;
b. Correspondence and Memoranda: Program and Policy Development (GS1-SL,
Item #338, at 11) are retained for five (5) years, and include correspondence and
memoranda documenting policy development, decision-making, or substantive
programmatic issues, procedures, or activities;
c. Directives/Policies/Procedures (GS1-SL, Item #186, at 11) are retained for two
(2) years after being superseded or becoming obsolete, and include official
management statements of policy for the organization, supporting documents, and
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 22 of 38
the operating procedures that outline the methods for accomplishing the functions
and activities assigned to the agency. The series may include, but is not limited to,
such materials as employee handbooks, standard operating procedures,
management approval documentation, and correspondence and memoranda
stating the policies and procedures to be followed by employees;
d. Inventory: Agency Records (GS1-SL, Item #319, at 22) are retained until
obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost, and include inventory of
agency records providing information such as record series title, inclusive dates,
and quantity, whether records are active, inactive, or closed, whether records are
exempt from public inspection, the format of records (paper, electronic, microform,
etc.), name of custodial agency and official, records retention requirements, and
record locations, including documentation of transmittal of records to an offsite
storage facility;
e. Permits: Building (GS1-SL, Item #286, at 30) are retained for ten (10) years, and
include permits issued by a governing authority for performance of construction
and their supporting documentation;
f. Public Records Exempt Status Notifications and Redaction Requests (GS1-SL,
Item #392) are retained until disposition of records to which notification or request
relates or until request is withdrawn or exemption no longer applies, whichever is
applicable, and consist of general exemptions from inspection or copying of public
records;
g. Receipt/Revenue Records: Detail (GS1-SL, Item #365, at 35) are retained for five
(5) years after the transaction, and consist of records documenting specific
receipts/revenues collected by an agency through cash, checks, electronic fund
transfers (EFT), credit and debit cards, or other methods, and may include, but is
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 23 of 38
not limited to, records such as cash collection records and reports, cash receipt
books, cash register tapes, deposit/transfer slips, EFT notices, credit and debit
card records, receipt ledgers, receipt journal transactions and vouchers, refund
records, bad check records, and other accounts receivable and related
documentation;
h. Registration/Permit/License/Certification Records: Required by City or County
Code/Ordinance (Permitting Fee) (GS1-SL, Item #428, at 36-37) are retained for
five (5) fiscal years after denial or expiration of
registration/permit/license/certification or withdrawal/abandonment of application,
and include application files for registrations, permits, licenses or certifications as
required by city or county code/ordinances requiring a permitting fee;
i. Resolutions: Supporting Documents (GS1-SL, Item #143, at 37) are retained for
three (3) years after date of resolution, and consist of documentation used in
formulating resolutions of a governing body, including, but not limited to
correspondence, memoranda, public requests, drafts and working papers, letters
of support from civic and political bodies, and samples of similar resolutions from
other bodies.
89. As stated above, Plaintiff made a valid request to Defendants City, Mendez, and Garcia
to inspect and copy public records in their custody before the November 20, 2014 City
Commission hearing. Defendants were made aware that time was of the essence. All of the
records requested were kept and available in electronic format, and were being circulated among
the Defendants during the period Plaintiff requested them. In addition to copies of the records,
the Plaintiff requested to inspect the records in person.
90. Plaintiff has a clear legal and constitutional right to inspect and receive copies of all public
records to which no statutory exemption applies. Fla. Const. Art. I, 24(a); Fla. Stat.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 24 of 38
119.07(1)(a). Additionally, an agency shall state in writing and with particularity the reasons for
the conclusion that a record is exempt or confidential. Fla. Stat. 119(1)(f).
91. As custodians of public records, the Defendants have a mandatory and non-discretionary
duty to permit the Plaintiff to inspect and copy all public records. Fla. Stat. 119.07(1)(a).
92. The Defendants are required to acknowledge requests to inspect or copy public records
promptly and to respond to such requests in good faith. Fla. Stat. 119.07(1)(c). The only delay
in producing records permitted under Chapter 119 is the limited reasonable time allowed for the
custodian to retrieve the record and delete those portions of the record the custodian asserts are
exempt. Tribune Company v. Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075, 1079 (Fla. 1984).
93. The requested records are not subject to any statutory exemption, and to date, the
Defendants have not properly asserted or cited any statutory exemption in writing as required by
Fla. Stats. 119.07(1)(e)-(f).
94. Plaintiff provided multiple written notices to the Defendants relating to the records requests
between October 24, 2014 and December 04, 2014.
95. The Defendants failed to comply with the Plaintiffs request before the November 20, 2014
City Commission meeting. After the meeting, the still Defendants failed to produce all requested
records. Plaintiff later discovered additional records responsive to the request that remained
unproduced by Defendants for up to and over a year after they were requested, and City
documents reference even more records that remain unacknowledged or unproduced.
96. The impermissible withholding of documents otherwise required to be disclosed
constitutes, in and of itself, irreparable injury to the person making the public records request. See
Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Failing to produce public records for
inspection and copying in a reasonable amount of time, and impermissibly withholding and
delaying the release of records until after the hearing at which they would be relevant, constitutes
a severe disadvantage to an appellant at a City Commission hearing, especially when the records
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 25 of 38
were readily available to the appellees and Defendants. Very few remedies exist to relieve this
irreparable injury.
97. A good faith dispute exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the
Plaintiffs right to access public records related to a City Commission hearing at which he was
named an appellant, and the Plaintiff has a justiciable question regarding his rights and status as
a requestor of public records. The records existed at the time they were requested, and the
Defendants, as custodians of the records, knew that they existed. Plaintiff is in doubt regarding
his rights and status to request public records, and in doubt regarding the Defendants obligation
to properly respond to his public records requests in full, in good faith, and without unjustifiable
delay.
98. An actual, present, and practical need for the declaration exists. Plaintiffs records request
related to the Walmart project, and included requests for several records types, some of which
have limited retention schedules. Additionally, Plaintiff is a resident of the City and lives near the
site of the Walmart project for which the permit was issued. Walmarts Class II Special Permit has
not expired. The Plaintiff actively opposes the issuance of the permit, and the manner it was
issued. He continues to advocate against the Walmart project on the news and in social media,
and administers an active social media site documenting the project. Plaintiff- whether as a
resident of the City, as a local advocate, as an appellant to the PZAB and City Commission, and
as part of his occupation as a journalist- has made and expects to make similar requests to the
Defendants regarding zoning department records, records of Citys public meetings, and records
relating to City business, and Defendant employees continue to be employed by the City, and
continue to act as custodians to City records.
99. The Defendants compliance with Floridas Public Records Act is mandatory, and the
burden of compliance, especially in the circumstances described here, is minimal. Nevertheless
the course and conduct of the Defendants demonstrate that the Defendants have treated a
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 26 of 38
mandatory constitutional duty as a mere suggestion, and have mustered a dedicated effort to
avoid compliance as required by the law, including making knowing and willing
misrepresentations to the Plaintiff about the existence of public records, refusing to deny the
existence of records or claim exemption to their production, using the requested records to their
procedural advantage while delaying their access to a legally recognized adversary in a quasi-
judicial proceeding, along with other examples of unlawful and unjustifiable denial. The aggressive
prosecution of these constitutional violations by Mendez and Garcia have not only unnecessarily
depleted a considerable amount of public resources to perpetuate, but have exposed the City to
unnecessary liability and potentially costly litigation, in addition to placing public confidence in the
Citys actions at risk, especially those of the department heads named herein, who are
compensated handsomely to perpetuate this misconduct.
100. These violations of Floridas Public Records Act, if not enjoined, will have immediate and
harmful consequences to those very affected City residents, namely those who invest time and
expenses preparing to attend and participate in the Citys public meetings on issues affecting their
immediate community, especially those citizens recognized as appellants to the Citys zoning
decisions.
101. Plaintiff has no other remedy at law.
102. Plaintiff has retained an attorney and is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and
costs incurred in bringing this action.
103. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court issue an order granting the following relief:
A. Order the Defendants to preserve all evidence related to the Plaintiffs records
requests and the requested documents, including, but not limited to (1) all records,
documents, memoranda, communications, applicable to and relating to the Walmart
project, (2) employment and personnel records of all City personnel that came into contact
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 27 of 38
with the records identified here and elsewhere in this Complaint, the (3) Citys systems
administration logs, access logs, deletion logs, and sunset logs for each record type and
for each location where the records are maintained;
B. Order the Defendants to preserve all records referenced in this Complaint in their
unaltered form and all modified forms, and in their present and/or customary location,
including an instruction that they are not to be transferred, altered or destroyed;
C. Order that all relevant records and record types referenced in this Complaint, be
produced for in-camera inspection with the Court;
D. Order Defendants to produce all remaining responsive records, or show cause as
to why they are exempt;
E. Order Defendants to provide Plaintiff direct access to all the requested records;
F. Declare that Defendants must promptly admit and/or deny in writing the existence
of the requested records and where they are located;
G. Declare that the Defendants failed to comply with their constitutional, statutory, and
municipal duties to properly respond to and produce public records requested by the
Plaintiff, including a finding that:
a. Defendants delay was unreasonable and unlawful; and/or
b. Defendants knowingly delayed and/or withheld production of all existing records,
and knowingly refused to affirm and/or deny existence of requested records; and/or
c. Defendants willfully delayed and/or withheld production of all existing records.
H. Declare that Respondents refusal to produce the records Stern requested before
the City Commission hearing caused him irreparable harm;
I. Enjoin Mendez from representing the City and/or Garcia in this action;
J. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in all matters concerning the
Walmart project for the complete duration of this action;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 28 of 38
K. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in and/or directing City
employees in all matters concerning the Walmart project, and/or this action, for the
complete duration of this action;
L. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from accessing, modifying, and/or deleting all records
related to this action;
M. Permanently enjoin Defendants from any further unlawful denials and/or
misrepresentations- constructive or otherwise, related to Plaintiffs rights to inspect and
copy requested public records, including, but not limited to denying access by charging
the Plaintiff arbitrary, unreasonable, and/or inconsistent fees for the records requested;
N. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from serving as custodians of
public records in Miami-Dade County;
O. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from continuing their
employment with the City or any public agency in Miami-Dade County;
P. Award attorneys fees and costs; and
Q. Any other such relief available by Florida law County and/or City ordinance that
may be just and proper.
COUNT II
FLORIDA PUBLIC MEETINGS LAWS
DEFENDANTS CITY, MENDEZ, & GARCIA
104. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 79 above, and incorporates them by
reference herein.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, Fla. Const. Art. I 24(a), and Fla. Stat. 286.011.
106. This action is brought to afford the Plaintiff relief from the insecurity and uncertainty with
respect to his rights, status, and other equitable and legal relations resulting from the Defendants
refusal and/or delay in providing the Plaintiff with public records related to the Walmart project,
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 29 of 38
some of which would be specifically adopted by the City Commission at a quasi-judicial public
hearing in which the Plaintiff was to attend as a named appellant.
107. All meetings of any board or commission of a municipal corporation, or political subdivision
at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all
times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken at
such meeting. Fla. Stat. 286.011.
108. Floridas Sunshine Law should be construed broadly enough as to frustrate all evasive
devices, and to effect its remedial and protective purpose of protecting the public from closed
door politics. See Brown v. Denton, 152 So.3d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Pinellas County
School Board v. Suncam, Inc., 829 So.2d 989 (Dla. 2d DCA 2002).
109. The application of Floridas Sunshine Law does not depend on a defendants intentions,
sincerity of purpose, or noble motives. See National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Fee,
2017 WL 1908370 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
110. Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in relation
to the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, counties,
municipalities, and districts. Fla. Const. Art. I 24(a). Accordingly, records relating to the Citys
public meetings must be available for public inspection and copying by any person, and every
custodian of a public record must permit inspection and copying in a timely manner, under
reasonable conditions, and subject to supervision. See Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So.3d 193,
197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
111. Persons entitled to notice of a County or municipal hearing shall be timely informed as to
the time, place, and nature of the hearing and the legal authority pursuant to which the hearing is
to be held. Copies of proposed ordinances or resolutions shall be made at a reasonable time prior
to the hearing. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(6).
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 30 of 38
112. No County or municipal officer or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on
any public matter, nor knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to
members of the public. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(2). Any public official, or employee who is
found to have willfully violated the provisions of the City Charter or Miami-Dade County Bill of
Rights shall forthwith forfeit his or her employment. City Charter 52(C).
113. A good faith dispute exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the
Plaintiffs rights relating to quasi-judicial hearings before the City Commission in which he is
named as an appellant, and the Plaintiff has a justiciable question regarding his status as a
resident and citizen of the City and the scope of his right to appeal PZD decisions before the City
Commission. The Plaintiff is in doubt that the Defendants are respecting and honoring his rights
to be properly informed of, access public records related to, prepare for, attend, and participate
as an appellant at quasi-judicial City Commission hearings.
114. The Defendants, particularly Mendez and Garcia- whose position at the quasi-judicial
hearing was adverse to the Plaintiff and other appellants- misrepresented critical information on
and denied them access to the public records it would present at and have the City Commission
adopt at the hearing- while openly exchanging the information and records with Walmart and
other City employees.
115. As an appellant, Sterns interest in the proceeding were affected in a manner greater than
those of the general public. Stern is a resident and citizen of the City, and had participated in the
initial appeal to both the PZAB and City Commission, for which he paid application fees, retained
an attorney, and hired an expert. Stern was recognized as an appellant by the City Commission,
and being recognized as such, had the right to call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits,
cross-examine opposing witnesses on any relevant matter, and to rebut evidence.
116. An actual, present, and practical need for the declaration exist. Plaintiff is a resident of the
City and lives near the site of the Walmart project for which the permit was issued. Walmarts
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 31 of 38
Class II Special Permit has not expired. The Plaintiff actively opposes the issuance of the permit
and the manner by which it was issued. He continues to advocate against the Walmart project on
the news and through social media, and administers an active social media site documenting the
project. Plaintiff- whether as a resident of the City, as a local advocate, as an appellant to the
PZAB and City Commission, and as part of his occupation as a journalist- has attended and
participated, and expects to continue attending and participating in City Commission hearings,
and in connection thereto, expects to continue making similar public records requests to the City,
the City Attorney, and the PZD relating to City business. The Defendants continue to be employed
by the City, and organize, participate in, and preside over its public meetings.
117. Defendants violated both the language and purpose of Fla. Stat. 286.011(2) by denying
Stern access to its meeting records until after the records would have been useful to him. These
records included, among other relevant records, a certified copy of the November 21, 2013 City
Commission hearing, which were certified on November 05, 2014 to be adopted at the November
20, 2014 City Commission hearing, along with denial of the proposed ordinances or resolutions,
which were also certified on November 05, 2014, and access to Walmarts full architectural plans
(the item to be heard). Defendants also refused to provide the appellants to all of the five (5)
necessary and required referrals which they claimed existed at the time (and used as basis for
issuing the contested final approval), and which were an essential prerequisite to initial approval
of the permit at issue. Also, the Plaintiff requested in person inspection multiple times, which the
City never arranged direct access for at either reasonable time or place, in direct contravention to
the requirements afforded to an appellant at a quasi-judicial.
118. As an appellant, Stern was caused irreparable harm by being denied access to relevant
records and information that was being circulated exclusively between the Defendants and
Walmart.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 32 of 38
119. The Defendants compliance with Floridas Sunshine Act is mandatory, and the burden of
compliance, especially in the circumstances described here, is minimal. Nevertheless the course
and conduct of the Defendants demonstrate that the Defendants have treated a mandatory
constitutional duty as a suggestion, and have made a dedicated effort available to avoid
compliance as required by the law- in making knowing misrepresentations to the Plaintiff about
the existence of public records and critical information related to a quasi-judicial proceeding-
including the minutes and resolutions they intend to present to the City for adoption- in which
Plaintiff is a named appellant. The execution of these constitutional violations by Mendez and
Garcia have not only depleted a considerable amount of public resources to perpetuate, but have
exposed the City to unnecessary liability and potentially costly litigation. These acts have also
placed public confidence of the Citys public meetings and related procedural rights at risk
especially those of the department heads named herein, who are, in essence, being compensated
handsomely for their attempts to eclipse the sunshine demanded by Floridas constitution.
120. These violations of Floridas Public Meetings Act, if not enjoined, will have immediate and
harmful consequences to those very affected City residents, namely those who have the right to
and invest time and expenses preparing to attend and participate at the Citys public meetings on
issues affecting their immediate community, especially those citizens recognized as appellants to
the Citys zoning decisions.
121. A mere showing that the government has violated the sunshine law constitutes an
irreparable public injury. Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So.2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974). Even
an unintended violation of the public meeting law will negate an action taken by the City
Commission. Id. at 477-78.
122. Plaintiff has no other remedy at law.
123. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing this
action.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 33 of 38
124. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
A. Order the Defendants to preserve all evidence related to the Plaintiffs records
requests and the requested documents, including, but not limited to (1) all records,
documents, memoranda, communications, applicable to and relating to the Walmart
project, (2) employment and personnel records of all City personnel that came into contact
with the records identified here and elsewhere in this Complaint, the (3) Citys systems
administration logs, access logs, deletion logs, and sunset logs for each record type and
for each location where the records are maintained;
B. Order the Defendants to preserve all records referenced in this Complaint in their
unaltered form and all modified forms, and in their present and/or customary location,
including an instruction that they are not to be transferred, altered, or destroyed;
C. Declare the Plaintiff, as a named appellant to the Citys quasi-judicial hearing, has
interests who are adversely affected in a manner greater than the general public;
D. Declare that Respondents refusal to produce the records Plaintiff requested
before and pertaining to the City Commission hearing caused him irreparable harm;
E. Declare that the Defendants willfully delayed and/or withheld production of all
existing records, knowing that the request related to quasi-judicial hearing for which they
were requested;
F. Declare that the Defendants knowingly furnished the Plaintiff with false information
on the Walmart project and/or omitted significant facts when requested by the Plaintiff;
G. Declare that Defendants denied Plaintiff his right to be informed, without
misrepresentation, of the nature of the quasi-judicial hearing before the City Commission,
and the legal authority pursuant to which the meeting was held;
H. Declare that Defendants caused Plaintiff irreparable harm;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 34 of 38
I. Declare that all formal actions relating to the Walmart project taken at the
November 20, 2014 City Commission hearing are null and void ab initio;
J. Enjoin Mendez from representing the City and/or Garcia in this action;
K. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in all matters concerning the
L. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in and/or directing City
M. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from accessing, modifying, and/or deleting all records
related to this action;
N. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from preparing for,
organizing, or participating at the Citys public meetings on behalf of the City, and/or
representing the City at the Citys public meetings;
O. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from continuing their
employment with the City and/or any public agency in Miami-Dade County;
P. Order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff all costs and fees associated with his
appeal to the City Commission;
Q. Award attorneys fees and costs; and
R. Any other such relief available by Florida law, County and/or City ordinance that
COUNT III
COUNTY BILL OF RIGHTS & CITY CHARTER
DEFENDANTS MENDEZ, & GARCIA
125. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 124 above, and incorporates them
by reference herein.
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 35 of 38
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610, the Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(2)-(3), (A)(6), (C), & (D), and City Code
52(A)-(D).
127. All audits, reports, minutes, documents and other public records of the County and
municipalities and their boards, agencies, departments, and authorities shall be open for
inspection at reasonable times and places convenient to the public. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights
(A)(3).
128. No County or municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on
any public matter, or knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to
members of the public. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(2).
129. Any public official, or employee who is found to have willfully violated the provisions of the
City Charter or Miami-Dade County Bill of Rights shall forthwith forfeit his or her employment. City
Charter 52(C).
130. Persons entitled to notice of a municipal hearing shall be timely informed as to the time,
place, and nature of the hearing, and the legal authority pursuant to which the hearing is to be
held. Miami-Dade Bill of Rights (A)(6).
A. Declare that the Defendants knowingly delayed and/or withheld production of all
existing public records requested by the Plaintiff;
B. Declare that Defendants knowingly furnished false information regarding the City
Commission hearing to Plaintiff, and/or knowingly omitted significant facts requested by
the Plaintiff;
C. Declare that the Defendants knowingly furnished the Plaintiff with false information
on the Walmart project and/or omitted significant facts when requested by the Plaintiff;
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 36 of 38
D. Order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff all costs and fees associated with his
appeal to the City Commission;
E. Enjoin Mendez from representing the City and/or Garcia in this action;
F. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in all matters concerning the
G. Enjoin Mendez and Garcia from actively participating in and/or directing City
H. Enjoin Defendants from denying Plaintiffs rights to inspect and copy public records
when requested for production in regards and prior to the Citys public hearings;
I. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from organizing, participating
in, or representing the City in the Citys public meetings;
J. Permanently enjoin Defendants Mendez and Garcia from continuing their
employment with the City or any public agency in Miami-Dade County;
K. Award costs; and
L. Any other such relief available by Florida law, County and/or City ordinance that
DATED: September 27, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Christopher A. Fleites

Christopher Andrew Fleites
FLBN 118197
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc
2103 Coral Way, STE 202
Miami, FL 33145
chris@plainviewlawfirm.com
t.305.632.4002
f.786.204.0802
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 37 of 38
VERIFICATION OF TRUTH
Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that- to
the best of my knowledge and belief- the facts stated in it are true.
BY /s/ Grant Stern______

GRANT STERN, PLAINTIFF
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 38 of 38
Re: Midtown Walmart Project EX A
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:32 AM
To: "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com>
Cc: "Min, Barnaby" <bmin@miamigov.com>, "Mendez, Victoria" <vmendez@miamigov.com>, Peter Ehrlich
<petersobe@aol.com>, Jacob Pfeffer <jacob.pfeffer@gmail.com>, Paul Savage <paul@savagelegal.com>, Msarnoff
<msarnoff@salawmiami.com>, "Tregalado@miamigov.com" <TRegalado@miamigov.com>, Angel Zayon
<Communications@miamigov.com>
Bcc: "Smiley, David" <dsmiley@miamiherald.com>, "Streitfeld, David" <streitfeld@nytimes.com>, Peter Zalewski - Condo
Vultures <peter@condovultures.com>, Erik Bojmansky <erikbojnan@live.com>, Eleazar Melendez
<emelendez@alm.com>, Rick - Miami Hirsch <RHirsch@miamiherald.com>
Dear Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Mendez and Mr. Min,
Re: 11th District Court Opinion
Now that the Walmart Midtown project's approval has been nullified by the court order to Quash, we are left to
oversee the court's Remand into the Variance process.
In Midtown Miami the variance process requires a Major Use Special Permit which in turn requires a public hearing
and a traffic study and the rest of the city's published regulations as you know.
The judges explained what plaintiffs requested during oral arguments, which I know you were unable to attend.
Therefore, I have included a link to the audio segment containing oral arguments, further reflected on Page 7 of the
judge's decision as "remedies consistent herein" here:
https://soundcloud.com/grantstern/judges-rule-against-walmart-in-midtown-miami-but-what-does-quash-and-remand-
mean
The eyes of the world are on Miami now that Walmart's permit has been rent asunder, and more than ever, we need of
all of our public institutions a legitimate and strict adherence to published zoning regulations in the Midtown Miami
district.
Re: Public Records Request under Chapter 119
Please be advised that I am formally requesting notice of any and all future matters having to do with any action on
the Midtown Walmart permit application whose former approval was quashed in a court of law last week under Case
No: 14-004 AP Jacob Pfeffer, Catalina Gutierrez et al vs City of Miami and Walmart Stores East, LP
I also formally request a copy of Walmart's traffic study if it has been submitted at this time.
I would like notification if there are any scheduled meetings, public meetings, public hearings, or any other business to
be conducted by the City.
This request further includes copies of any revised plans, any new permits issued, and request for ALL EMAILS by
city attorney pertinent to Walmart's appeal written since January 1st 2014 including all those containing the words
Walmart and/or Walmart+Midtown and/or any emails between staff and Lydecker Diaz or any other emails between
any and all of those who registered as lobbyist for Walmart.
Furthermore, I request any emails to or from *@walmart.com ie. any emails to or from the Walmart corporation -
including those sent from personal emails.
I also request copies of any official any legal opinions written by Mr. Min, Mrs. Mendez or any of the city's attorney's in
any form indicating the future direction of Walmart's existing application should they choose to proceed under the
court's order with the current application.
Lastly, I request to be advised if there is a new application submitted for that Midtown Walmart site bounded by
Midtown Blvd and N. Miami Avenue, NE 31st Street as well.
001
I'd like to thank the city for it's expeditious service of these types of requests in the past, and hope we enjoy the
similar treatment today.
Thank you,
Grant Stern
--
Grant Stern
President
Morningside Mortgage Corporation
9630 E. Bay Harbor Drive
Bay Harbor Islands, Fl. 33154
786-220-0117 office
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
002
Re: Midtown Walmart Project
Min, Barnaby <bmin@miamigov.com> Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM
To: Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com>, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com>
Cc: "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>, Peter Ehrlich <petersobe@aol.com>, Jacob Pfeffer
<jacob.pfeffer@gmail.com>, Paul Savage <paul@savagelegal.com>, Msarnoff <msarnoff@salawmiami.com>, "Regalado,
Tomas (Mayor)" <TRegalado@miamigov.com>, "Office of Communications, City of Miami"
<Communications@miamigov.com>
Mr. Stern,
We acknowledge your public records request and will respond accordingly with any currently exis<ng records.
Thank you,
Barnaby L. Min
Deputy City Attorney
City of Miami Office of the City

Attorney
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This electronic mail is intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. This electronic mail may contain
legally privileged and con8idential information. If you properly received this electronic mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in
con8idence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another
person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti8ied that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so may constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error, we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the
original message. Nothing in this electronic mail shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-
mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic
mail to this entity. Instead, contact this of8ice by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this electronic mail.

From: Grant Stern [mailto:grantstern@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:33 AM
To: Garcia, Francisco
Cc: Min, Barnaby; Mendez, Victoria; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeffer; Paul Savage; Msarnoff; Regalado, Tomas (Mayor);
Office of Communications, City of Miami
Subject: Re: Midtown Walmart Project
003
[Quoted text hidden]
004
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:11 PM
To: "Min, Barnaby" <bmin@miamigov.com>
Cc: Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com>, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com>, Peter Ehrlich
<msarnoff@salawmiami.com>, "Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)" <TRegalado@miamigov.com>, "Office of Communications,
City of Miami" <Communications@miamigov.com>, "Gonzalez, Luciana L." <lgonzalez@miamigov.com>, "Garcia-Pons,
Cesar" <cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>
With that said, there is nothing in the public records law that allows for a standing public records request or a future
request. You will receive that which is on file now or exists now. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 24, 2014, at 5:07 PM, "Min, Barnaby" <bmin@miamigov.com> wrote:
Mr. Stern,
We acknowledge your public records request and will respond accordingly with any currently
exis<ng records.
Thank you,
Barnaby L. Min

Attorney
<image001.jpg> Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This electronic mail is intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. This electronic mail
may contain legally privileged and con8idential information. If you properly received this electronic mail as a client or retained
expert, please hold it in con8idence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient
forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client
privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby noti8ied that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited by
the sender and to do so may constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521. If
this communication was received in error, we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original
message. Nothing in this electronic mail shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under
Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this of8ice by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this electronic mail.<image002.gif>
005
2 attachments
image001.jpg
2K
image002.gif
2K
006
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:50 PM
To: "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>
Cc: "Min, Barnaby" <bmin@miamigov.com>, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com>, Peter Ehrlich
Dear Mrs. Mendez,
That's a reasonable caveat, you may however see repeat copies of this email to refresh the request periodically
which I will commence via regular reminders. Please don't think me a bother seeing those additional messages, but
we want to be the first to know in any and all cases of novation in the matter below referenced.
Thank you,
Grant
007
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM
To: Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com>
Understood
Sent from my iPhone

008
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:28 AM
Bcc: Rick - Miami Hirsch <RHirsch@miamiherald.com>, "Smiley, David" <dsmiley@miamiherald.com>, TOLUSE
OLORUNNIPA <tolorunnipa@bloomberg.net>, "Streitfeld, David" <streitfeld@nytimes.com>, Erik Bojmansky
<erikbojnan@live.com>, Peter Zalewski - Condo Vultures <peter@condovultures.com>
Dear Mrs. Mendez,
Please again consider this request under Chapter 119. Please consider the text at the bottom of this email with the
original request repeated and refreshed to today. Please consider the below memo under the same provision of the
Sunshine Act.
You told the Miami Herald your decisions made last week in this article which was released 31 minutes after your
prior email to me in this chain Friday evening:
Miami City Attorney Victoria Mendez said this week that the city commission will now reconsider the appeal, but only
on the narrow issue of the number of loading berths.
It will be a hearing limited to that issue, Mendez wrote in an email.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article3356081.html#storylink=cpy
I respectfully re-submit my prior information request and desire all of the written communications leading to your
opinion. I further request that you provide to me the city ordinance(s) upon which you are relying to make said
opinion. Is there a reason the court's Remand into a variance process (appropriate for an application containing
variances) is not being followed? What is your legal reasoning that a hearing should be single issue where the court
found that all reviews of Class II Special Permits to be in a De Novo setting (as per plaintiff's allegations).
While the appeals court found against the City and Walmart on 1 of 3 design issues, that doesn't mean there's not
additional variances which we can prove in court down the road but until the court ruled on the "De Novo" nature of
the Commission's review of the Planning Director, we decided to focus on issues brought before PZAB the last time at
Commission
Has Walmart submitted any revisions to the city? Any applications? Is Walmart's new application in zoning as we
speak? You guys can tell me now, I'll be trekking to the MRC soon.
Since you announced a City Commission vote in the Miami Herald, I request to know all information (time, place,
date, empowering ordinance, etc. ad infinitum) about said upcoming vote.
Again, I'd like to thank you and city staff for their professionalism and respectfully request a timeline of a) when the
city commission intends to meet, b) when our request will be fulfilled and c) request that under no circumstances our
request be filled less than 10 business days prior to the city commission meeting.
I am just trying to avoid a situation where we request a continuance at commission thereby wasting precious time on
the dais arguing, or the city's time and money fighting in court over simple matters of process and procedure.
********
Just as a reminder, since we did find that Mr. Garcia was using his personal email account, if there are ANY
personal emails about this city business, I request respectfully that you share them as well from any and all city
staffers, lawyers and/or elected officials about Walmart or Midtown Walmart.
009
If any City of Miami staff - to your knowledge, Francisco Garcia being one of them - have used personal
communications regarding Walmart, Midtown, DDR, or any of the related matters, I would respectfully at this time
request that those known parties be instructed to submit to a supervised search of their email accounts with myself
and counsel present.
This would go a long way towards satisfying your constituency that we are getting the full picture of government
communications from the city employee "Solely Responsible" for compliance review who the courts have ruled failed
in his efforts. In light of recent court rulings restricting the Governor of the State of Florida from blocking properly
authorized access to these accounts under Chapter 119 once discovered. The good news (or so say one of my
lawyers) is that should it become a court case, he'd be entitled to attorneys fees if we win.
I'm sure Francisco has nothing untoward to hide regarding this or any other matter and would prefer to dispel with our
private speculation about why he sent work directives from his personal email to subordinates during the working day
in our last 119 request.
As per our discussion, I will continue to repeat my original request - and from time to time I may add additional items
to the request like this. A reply in detail would be much appreciated, since I respectfully take the time to place the
entirety of such requests in writing, even if it is by one of your assistants.
Thank you,
Grant Stern
010
Office of Communications, City of Miami <Communications@miamigov.com> Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM
Cc: "Zayon, Angel" <azayon@miamigov.com>, "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>, "Garcia, Francisco"
<fgarcia@miamigov.com>, "Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)" <TRegalado@miamigov.com>, "Gonzalez, Luciana L."
<lgonzalez@miamigov.com>, "Garcia-Pons, Cesar" <cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace"
<GCarby@miamigov.com>
Good Morning,
Your public records request has been received and is being processed. You will be notified with the cost, if any, to
acquire/reproduce the information.
Office of Communications
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue - 9th Floor

Miami, Florida 33130
Office: 305- 416-1440
Fax: 305-400-5158
Email:communications@miamigov.com
Website: www.miamigov.com
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and
confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this en<ty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in wri<ng
011
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Mendez, Victoria
Cc: Min, Barnaby; Garcia, Francisco; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeffer; Paul Savage; Msarnoff; Regalado, Tomas (Mayor);
Office of Communications, City of Miami; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Carby, Grace
012
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:19 PM
Your PR request is acknowledged. Our oce will assist communica9ons in responding to your request. Please
note that I do not need to provide you with ordinances that I relied on, I only need to provide you with the
records that exist that are responsive to your public records request. Thank you.

Victoria Mndez, City A3orney
Board Cer9ed, City, County and
Local Government
City of Miami Oce of the City AKorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
victoriamendez@miamigov.com
Assistant: Marta Gomez (305) 416-1844
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or en9ty(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally
privileged and conden9al informa9on. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in condence to
protect the aKorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that ac9on could cons9tute a waiver of the aKorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby no9ed that any review, dissemina9on, distribu9on or copying
of this communica9on is prohibited by the sender and to do so might cons9tute a viola9on of the Electronic Communica9ons Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. sec9on 2510-2521. If this communica9on was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please no9fy us by reply e-mail
and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an aKorney-client rela9onship with the
sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this enFty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in wriFng.
Please consider the environment before prin9ng this e-mail.

Office of Communications, City of Miami; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Carby, Grace
013
014
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:24 PM
Please accept this email as a repeat of the original request up to the minute.
Thank you,
Grant
015
Office of Communications, City of Miami <Communications@miamigov.com> Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:08 PM
To: Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com>, "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>
Good Afternoon,
Your public records request has been received and is being processed. You will be notified with the cost, if any, to
acquire/reproduce the information.

Office: 305- 416-1440
Fax: 305-400-5158
016
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:24 PM
017
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:12 PM
I am re-requesting the below information up to the present date. Please advise.

018
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM
Your records are being searched for. Thank you

Local Government
City of Miami Oce of the City ADorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
protect the aDorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that ac7on could cons7tute a waiver of the aDorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an aDorney-client rela7onship with the

Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 12:12 PM
019
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:59 PM
Dear Ms. Mendez,
Thank you for the update.
Mr. Garcia: Has Walmart submitted their application for a MUSP or any application related documents yet? I'm certain
those could be found first.
Please update my original request to include present time and prior to today. These requests are all subject to Florida
Chapter 119.
Yours,
Grant
020
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:51 PM
Cc: Peter Ehrlich <petersobe@aol.com>, Barnaby Min <bmin@miamigov.com>, Paul Savage <paul@savagelegal.com>,
"Gonzalez, Luciana L." <lgonzalez@miamigov.com>, Jacob Pfeffer <jacob.pfeffer@gmail.com>, "Garcia-Pons, Cesar"
<cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Office of Communications, City of Miami" <Communications@miamigov.com>, Msarnoff
<msarnoff@salawmiami.com>, "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>, "Regalado, Tomas (Mayor)"
<TRegalado@miamigov.com>, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com>
Did you find the records before or after sending notice of hearing on the matter?
021
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM
Cesar" <cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>, gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com,
vcain@oboylelawfirm.com
I reaffirm this request and ask that all gathered materials generated up to date be presented at noon on Wednesday at
the Miami River Center as Time is of the essence now that you've called a City Commission hearing on the topic on
November 20th. I still wish all of the below specified items.
Please note this includes all documents, all written communications on 3055 N Miami Avenue, Walmart, and all plans,
notices of meeting, meeting notes, as well as copies of all text messages, emails, voicemails pertaining to such items
as referred above and below or in their many forms as any reasonable person might indicate.
This is a Chapter 119 request
I request at least 30 days to prepare for an appeals hearing in front of the full City Commission on this matter from the
time of receiving these documents.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> wrote:
022
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM
Cesar" <cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>, gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com, Vrenda
Cain <vcain@oboylelawfirm.com>
I re-affirm the below requests and request all similar documents from today and prior leading up to last night's
hearing.
Please notify me separately and immediately when I will be given access to the Walmart Traffic Study for 3055 N.
Miami Avenue mentioned in last night's hearing.
Thank you,
Grant
023
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM
Cc: "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>
Have you received the documents that you requested that were not already on legistar?

Local Government
City of Miami Oce of the City ACorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
protect the aCorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that ac9on could cons9tute a waiver of the aCorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an aCorney-client rela9onship with the

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 2:17 PM
Office of Communications, City of Miami; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Carby, Grace;
gmesa@oboylelawfirm.com; Vrenda Cain
024
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM
Cc: "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>
This is the first communication I have received regarding my requests since your prior response on November 7th. No
documents of any sort have been provided.
G
025
Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:40 PM
Cc: "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>, "Min, Barnaby" <bmin@miamigov.com>, "Garcia, Francisco"
<fgarcia@miamigov.com>, "Gonzalez, Luciana L." <lgonzalez@miamigov.com>, "Burns, Kevin"
<KBurns@miamigov.com>, "Ramirez, Desiree" <dramirez@miamigov.com>, "Office of Communications, City of Miami"
<Communications@miamigov.com>, "Suarez-Rivas, Rafael" <RSuarez-Rivas@miamigov.com>, "Garcia-Pons, Cesar"
<cgarcia-pons@miamigov.com>, "Paul Savage (paul@savagelegal.com)" <paul@savagelegal.com>, "Menendez, Kirk R"
<KRMenendez@miamigov.com>, "Haber, Matthew S." <MSHaber@miamigov.com>
I apologize. I had told you at the hearing in response to a renewed PR request that the complete record was in
legistar, but I guess I was not clear. What may be pending was your request of supposed trac study/or
planning review that you menAoned based on something Francisco said on the record. But I am not sure. I am
copying Planning to see if there are any addiAonal records as to trac.
Planning can also assist with any modied applicaAon/plans (but I believe that is already in the backup from
legistar that you must have received as you menAoned it on the record at the hearing).
Any Opinions from my oce you already received I believe. Grace or RSR please conrm.
Emails should sAll be pending. CommunicaAons and Desiree or Kevin from IT can assist with that by advising
the search terms based on the below. IT please let our oce review for exempAons based on liAgaAon.
Thanks to all.

Board CerAed, City, County and
Local Government
026
City of Miami Oce of the City ATorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or enAty(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally
privileged and condenAal informaAon. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in condence to
protect the aTorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that acAon could consAtute a waiver of the aTorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or
the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noAed that any review, disseminaAon, distribuAon or copying
of this communicaAon is prohibited by the sender and to do so might consAtute a violaAon of the Electronic CommunicaAons Privacy Act,
18 U.S.C. secAon 2510-2521. If this communicaAon was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please noAfy us by reply e-mail
and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an aTorney-client relaAonship with the
Please consider the environment before prinAng this e-mail.

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:39 PM
Cc: Carby, Grace
027
Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM
Cc: Barnaby Min <bmin@miamigov.com>, "Haber, Matthew S." <MSHaber@miamigov.com>, Rafael Suarez-Rivas
<RSuarez-Rivas@miamigov.com>, "Burns, Kevin" <KBurns@miamigov.com>, "Luciana L. Gonzalez"
<lgonzalez@miamigov.com>, "Menendez, Kirk R" <KRMenendez@miamigov.com>, Cesar Garcia-Pons <cgarcia-
pons@miamigov.com>, "Office of Communications, City of Miami" <Communications@miamigov.com>, Paul Savage
<paul@savagelegal.com>, "Ramirez, Desiree" <dramirez@miamigov.com>, Grace Carby <GCarby@miamigov.com>,
Francisco Garcia <fgarcia@miamigov.com>, Vrenda Cain <vcain@oboylelawfirm.com>
On Dec 4, 2014 2:40 PM, "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com> wrote:

>
> I apologize. I had told you at the hearing in response to a renewed PR request that the complete record was in
legistar, but I guess I was not clear.
Legislar had numerous missing documents referenced only by URL and the documents for the hearing were posted
after 3pm the day of the hearing. We got Walmart's plans and revision after the start of the hearing.
What may be pending was your request of supposed traffic study/or planning review that you mentioned based on
something Francisco said on the record. But I am not sure. I am copying Planning to see if there are any additional
records as to traffic.
>
Mr. Garcia did say that a planning study on traffic exists, but in 3 years none has been provided in the face of multiple
public records (PR) requests under chapter 119.
>
>
> Planning can also assist with any modified application/plans (but I believe that is already in the backup from legistar
that you must have received as you mentioned it on the record at the hearing).
>
>
We were never given access to certified copies on the full sized plans.
>
> Any Opinions from my office you already received I believe. Grace or RSR please confirm.
>
>
No opinions supplied. None.
>
> Emails should still be pending.
None received.
Communications and Desiree or Kevin from IT can assist with that by advising the search terms based on the below.
IT please let our office review for exemptions based on litigation.
>
>
>
> Thanks to all.
>
>
028
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Victoria Mndez, City Attorney
>
> Board Certified, City, County and
>
> Local Government
>
> City of Miami Office of the City Attorney
>
> Telephone: 305-416-1832
>
> Facsimile: 305-416-1801
>
> victoriamendez@miamigov.com
>
> Assistant: Marta Gomez (305) 416-1844
>
> Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained
expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended
recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.
Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself,
create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you
do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
>
> From: Grant Stern [mailto:grantstern@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 5:39 PM
> To: Mendez, Victoria
> Cc: Carby, Grace
>
> Subject: Re: Midtown Walmart Project
>
>
>
> This is the first communication I have received regarding my requests since your prior response on November 7th.
No documents of any sort have been provided.
>
>
029
>
>G
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> wrote:
>
> Have you received the documents that you requested that were not already on legistar?
>
>
>
> Victoria Mndez, City Attorney
>
> Board Certified, City, County and
>
> Local Government
>
> City of Miami Office of the City Attorney
>
> Telephone: 305-416-1832
>
> Facsimile: 305-416-1801
>
> victoriamendez@miamigov.com
>
> Assistant: Marta Gomez (305) 416-1844
>
> Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained
expert, please hold it in confidence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended
recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the
attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver
it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion.
Please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself,
create an attorney-client relationship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you
do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this
entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
>
030
Public Records Re: Midtown Walmart Project
Carby, Grace <GCarby@miamigov.com> Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:46 PM
To: "grantstern@gmail.com" <grantstern@gmail.com>
Cc: "Office of Communications, City of Miami" <Communications@miamigov.com>, "Mendez, Victoria"
<VMendez@miamigov.com>, "Suarez-Rivas, Rafael" <RSuarez-Rivas@miamigov.com>
Good evening Mr. Stern:
Attached please find the two Informal Memorandums prepared by the City Attorneys Office in regards to your public
records request.
Thank you.
Grace Carby, Paralegal

Attorney
Telephone: 305-416-1831
Facsimile: 305-416-1803
gcarby@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally
privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to
protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and
delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address, or the
contents of the e-mail, released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office
by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
2 attachments
031
MX-M623N_20141204_164602.pdf
156K
MX-M623N_20141204_164716.pdf
192K
032
Midtown Walmart Project
Office of Communications, City of Miami <Communications@miamigov.com> Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Cc: "Zayon, Angel" <azayon@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace" <GCarby@miamigov.com>, "Mendez, Victoria"
<VMendez@miamigov.com>, "Haber, Matthew S." <MSHaber@miamigov.com>, "Menendez, Kirk R"
<KRMenendez@miamigov.com>
Good Afternoon,
Attached please find information provided to us in regards to your public records request.

Office: 305- 416-1440
Fax: 305-400-5158
confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Under Florida law, e-mail
addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,
do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing
Midtown Wal-Mart Traffic Study.pdf
033
1247K
034
Office of Communications, City of Miami <Communications@miamigov.com> Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:57 AM
Cc: "Zayon, Angel" <azayon@miamigov.com>, "Mendez, Victoria" <VMendez@miamigov.com>, "Carby, Grace"
<GCarby@miamigov.com>, "Menendez, Kirk R" <KRMenendez@miamigov.com>, "Haber, Matthew S."
<MSHaber@miamigov.com>
Good Morning,
Below please find the response from our IT Department regarding the cost of retrieving the information indicated
within your public records request.
If you approve the cost, please provide payment by check to the City of Miami so we may move forward with the
request.

Office: 305- 416-1440
Fax: 305-400-5158
035

From: Ramirez, Desiree

Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 10:04 AM
To: Mendez, Victoria; Office of Communications, City of Miami
Cc: Carby, Grace; Min, Barnaby; Garcia, Francisco; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia, Francisco; Burns, Kevin; Suarez-
Rivas, Rafael; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Menendez, Kirk R; Haber, Matthew S.; Johnson, Latanya; Pontillo, Joseph
Subject: RE: Midtown Walmart Project
Please advise on ,me frame and criteria of the search. Based on the chain below this is the suggested criteria.
Should this be the correct criteria, please send the quota,on below to the requestor.
===========================================================================
The total cost to run the queries to retrieve emails which t suggested criteria below, to create Outlook PST les
with querys output and to save the output to a media (CD, DVD or hard disk depending on the volume) is
$100.00. The electronic media to save the data is included in the es,mate.
The process to create the storage media will take approximately 4 business days aNer receiving the approval
and payment. The costs includes searches for Civilian mailboxes. Police mailboxes are not included.
If the request is related to a law maPer case or may include any other exempted emails then a review of the
results may be required before being released and this may add more delivery ,me and cost.
If the suggested criteria and es,mate are accepted, a payment for the quan,ty above needs to be made to
City of Miami and delivered to Ms. Latanya Johnson at 444 SW 2nd Avenue, cubicle 515, Miami, FL 33130.
Payment can be done in check or cash.
Results are based on suggested criteria and may contain emails not related to requestors desire. If the
requestors are not agreed with suggested criteria, they can change it before making the payment. Once the
payment is received and the query is executed, a change in criteria may require addi,onal charges
Suggested Criteria:
Search 1:
Criteria Type Search criteria
Start Date 1/1/14
036
End Date 12/15/14
To or From *@walmart.com
Search 2:
Criteria Type Search criteria
Start Date 1/1/14
End Date 12/15/14
Key words / Phrases "14-004 AP"
OR
"trac study" AND Walmart
OR
"3055 N Miami Av"
OR
"3055 N Miami Ave"
OR
"3055 N Miami Avenue"
OR
"3055 N. Miami Av"
OR
"3055 N. Miami Ave"
OR
"3055 N. Miami Avenue"
OR
"3055 North Miami Av"
OR
"3055 North Miami Ave"
037
OR
"3055 North Miami Avenue"
OR
"Midtown Blvd" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Midtown Boulevard" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N Miami Av" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N Miami Ave" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N Miami Avenue" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N. Miami Av" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N. Miami Ave" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N. Miami Avenue" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North Miami Av" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North Miami Ave" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North Miami Avenue" AND "Walmart"
OR
"NE 31st Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"NE 31 Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"NE 31st St" AND "Walmart"

038
OR
"NE 31 St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N.E. 31st Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N.E. 31 Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N.E. 31st St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"N.E. 31 St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Northeast 31st Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Northeast 31 Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Northeast 31st St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Northeast 31 St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North East 31st Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North East 31 Street" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North East 31st St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"North East 31 St" AND "Walmart"
OR
"Walmart" AND "applica,on"
OR
039
"Walmart" AND "Midtown"
OR
"Lydecker Diaz" AND "Walmart"
Requestor Criteria:
Please be advised that I am formally requesting notice of any and all future matters having to do with any action on
the Midtown Walmart permit application whose former approval was quashed in a court of law last week under Case
No: 14-004 AP Jacob Pfeffer, Catalina Gutierrez et al vs City of Miami and Walmart Stores East, LP
I also formally request a copy of Walmart's traffic study if it has been submitted at this time.
I would like notification if there are any scheduled meetings, public meetings, public hearings, or any other business to
be conducted by the City.
This request further includes copies of any revised plans, any new permits issued, and request for ALL EMAILS by
city attorney pertinent to Walmart's appeal written since January 1st 2014 including all those containing the words
Walmart and/or Walmart+Midtown and/or any emails between staff and Lydecker Diaz or any other emails between
any and all of those who registered as lobbyist for Walmart.
Furthermore, I request any emails to or from *@walmart.com ie. any emails to or from the Walmart corporation -
including those sent from personal emails.
I also request copies of any official any legal opinions written by Mr. Min, Mrs. Mendez or any of the city's attorney's in
any form indicating the future direction of Walmart's existing application should they choose to proceed under the
court's order with the current application.
Lastly, I request to be advised if there is a new application submitted for that Midtown Walmart site bounded by
Midtown Blvd and N. Miami Avenue, NE 31st Street as well.
Addi@onal Requestor Criteria:

I reaffirm this request and ask that all gathered materials generated up to date be presented at noon on Wednesday at
the Miami River Center as Time is of the essence now that you've called a City Commission hearing on the topic on
November 20th. I still wish all of the below specified items.
Please note this includes all documents, all written communications on 3055 N Miami Avenue, Walmart, and all plans,
notices of meeting, meeting notes, as well as copies of all text messages, emails, voicemails pertaining to such items
as referred above and below or in their many forms as any reasonable person might indicate.
===========================================================================
040

Thank you,
Desiree Ramirez
IT Technician I, Informa,on Technology Department
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Avenue 5th Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Work Phone: 305.416.1076

Unless noted as Florida Statute:119 Exempt, All emails sent and received through the City of Miamis email system are considered public
record. The Florida Public Records Act (FPRA) requires the City to make all public records available for inspecGon and to provide copies upon
request. Please govern yourself accordingly.
From: Mendez, Victoria

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 2:40 PM
To: Grant Stern
Cc: Carby, Grace; Min, Barnaby; Garcia, Francisco; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia, Francisco; Burns, Kevin; Ramirez,
Desiree; Oce of Communica,ons, City of Miami; Suarez-Rivas, Rafael; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Paul Savage
(paul@savagelegal.com); Menendez, Kirk R; Haber, MaPhew S.
legistar, but I guess I was not clear. What may be pending was your request of supposed trac study/or
planning review that you men,oned based on something Francisco said on the record. But I am not sure. I am
copying Planning to see if there are any addi,onal records as to trac.
041
Wednesday, November 2 5, 2 015 at 1 1:27:17 A M Eastern Standard Time

Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 4:49:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Garcia, Francisco
To: Mendez, Victoria, Min, Barnaby, Cruz-Casas, Carlos, Rodrigues, Thomas, Perez, Antonio, Gonzalez,
Luciana L.
CC: Suarez-Rivas, Rafael, Haber, MaRhew S., Ramirez, Desiree, Otero, Manny, Oce of
CommunicaUons, City of Miami, Spanioli, Mark, Garcia-Pons, Cesar
Dear all,
Regarding the statement below which reads: Mr. Garcia did say that a planning study on trac exists, but in 3 years
none has been provided in the face of mulUple public records (PR) requests under chapter 119
Please know that I have stated numerous Umes, and I am certain the record on various public hearings including the
City Commission hearing of November 20th, 2014 reect it, that:
The Class II Special Permit for the subject project was referred to all the departments and agencies qualied to
conduct the relevant analyses regarding trac impact including the transportaUon oce of the City of Miamis capital
improvements and transportaUon program and the public works department and it is they who worked with the
applicants professional trac management consultants to revise and modify the plans various Umes, as needed,
unUl a saUsfactory result was submiRed which merited their recommendaUon of approval.
We are thus relying on these agencies expert review and advise to determine that the proposal is properly designed
and congured to address any addiUonal generaUon of trac so as to minimize potenUal adverse impacts.
Regarding the statement below which reads: We were never given access to cerUed copies on the full sized plans.
The plans submiRed were made available electronically via the City of Miamis website well in advance of the City
Commission hearing of November 20th, 2014. They are presently available electronically in legistar and the
planning and zoning departments page of the City of Miamis Website. Copies are on le with the City of Miamis
planning and zoning department and available upon request.
Please advise if addiUonal informaUon is needed or can be provided regarding this maRer.
Kind regards,
Francisco
Francisco J. Garcia, Director
Planning and Zoning Department

City of Miami
042Page 1 of 10
305.416.1470

Cc: Min, Barnaby; Haber, MaRhew S.; Suarez-Rivas, Rafael; Burns, Kevin; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Menendez, Kirk R;
Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami; Paul Savage; Ramirez, Desiree; Carby, Grace; Garcia,
Francisco; Vrenda Cain
arer 3pm the day of the hearing. We got Walmart's plans and revision arer the start of the hearing.
What may be pending was your request of supposed trac study/or planning review that you menUoned based on
something Francisco said on the record. But I am not sure. I am copying Planning to see if there are any addiUonal
records as to trac.
Mr. Garcia did say that a planning study on trac exists, but in 3 years none has been provided in the face of mulUple
Planning can also assist with any modied applicaUon/plans (but I believe that is already in the backup from
legistar that you must have received as you menUoned it on the record at the hearing).
We were never given access to cerUed copies on the full sized plans.
Emails should sUll be pending.
None received.
043Page 2 of 10
CommunicaUons and Desiree or Kevin from IT can assist with that by advising the search terms based on the
below. IT please let our oce review for exempUons based on liUgaUon.
Thanks to all.
Victoria Mndez, City ARorney
Board CerUed, City, County and
Local Government
City of Miami Oce of the City ARorney
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or enUty(s) named within the message. This e-mail
might contain legally privileged and condenUal informaUon. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or
retained expert, please hold it in condence to protect the aRorney-client or work product privileges. Should the
intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or party, that acUon could consUtute a
waiver of the aRorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noUed that any review, disseminaUon,
distribuUon or copying of this communicaUon is prohibited by the sender and to do so might consUtute a violaUon
of the Electronic CommunicaUons Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. secUon 2510-2521. If this communicaUon was received in
error we apologize for the intrusion. Please noUfy us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in
this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an aRorney-client relaUonship with the sender. Under Florida law,
e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public
records request, do not send electronic mail to this enUty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in wriUng.
Please consider the environment before prinUng this e-mail.
044Page 3 of 10


Cc: Carby, Grace
This is the rst communicaUon I have received regarding my requests since your prior response on November 7th.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> wrote:
Local Government
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
045Page 4 of 10

Cc: Min, Barnaby; Garcia, Francisco; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeer; Paul Savage; Msarno; Regalado, Tomas (Mayor);
Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Carby, Grace;
gmesa@oboylelawrm.com; Vrenda Cain
I re-arm the below requests and request all similar documents from today and prior leading up to last night's
hearing.
Please noUfy me separately and immediately when I will be given access to the Walmart Trac Study for 3055 N.
Miami Avenue menUoned in last night's hearing.
Thank you,
Grant
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> wrote:
I rearm this request and ask that all gathered materials generated up to date be presented at noon on
Wednesday at the Miami River Center as Time is of the essence now that you've called a City Commission hearing
on the topic on November 20th. I sUll wish all of the below specied items.
Please note this includes all documents, all wriRen communicaUons on 3055 N Miami Avenue, Walmart, and all
plans, noUces of meeUng, meeUng notes, as well as copies of all text messages, emails, voicemails pertaining to
such items as referred above and below or in their many forms as any reasonable person might indicate.
I request at least 30 days to prepare for an appeals hearing in front of the full City Commission on this maRer from
the Ume of receiving these documents.
046Page 5 of 10

With that said, there is nothing in the public records law that allows for a standing public records request or a
future request. You will receive that which is on le now or exists now. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Mr. Stern,
We acknowledge your public records request and will respond accordingly with any currently exisUng records.
Thank you,
Barnaby L. Min
Deputy City ARorney
<image001.jpg>
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This electronic mail is intended only for the individual or enUty named within the message. This
electronic mail may contain legally privileged and condenUal informaUon. If you properly received this
electronic mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in condence to protect the aRorney-client or
work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that acUon could consUtute a waiver of the aRorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
noUed that any review, disseminaUon, distribuUon, or copying of this communicaUon is prohibited by the
sender and to do so may consUtute a violaUon of the Electronic CommunicaUons Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
SecUon 2510-2521. If this communicaUon was received in error, we apologize for the intrusion. Please noUfy
us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this electronic mail shall, in and of itself,
create an aRorney-client relaUonship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records.
If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this enUty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in wriUng.
Please consider the environment before prinUng this electronic mail.<image002.gif>
047Page 6 of 10


Cc: Min, Barnaby; Mendez, Victoria; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeer; Paul Savage; Msarno; Regalado, Tomas
(Mayor); Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami
Now that the Walmart Midtown project's approval has been nullied by the court order to Quash, we are
ler to oversee the court's Remand into the Variance process.
In Midtown Miami the variance process requires a Major Use Special Permit which in turn requires a public
hearing and a trac study and the rest of the city's published regulaUons as you know.
The judges explained what plainUs requested during oral arguments, which I know you were unable to
aRend. Therefore, I have included a link to the audio segment containing oral arguments, further reected on
Page 7 of the judge's decision as "remedies consistent herein" here:
hRps://soundcloud.com/grantstern/judges-rule-against-walmart-in-midtown-miami-but-what-does-quash-
and-remand-mean
The eyes of the world are on Miami now that Walmart's permit has been rent asunder, and more than ever,
we need of all of our public insUtuUons a legiUmate and strict adherence to published zoning regulaUons in
the Midtown Miami district.
Please be advised that I am formally requesUng noUce of any and all future maRers having to do with any
acUon on the Midtown Walmart permit applicaUon whose former approval was quashed in a court of law last
week under Case No: 14-004 AP Jacob Pfeer, Catalina GuUerrez et al vs City of Miami and Walmart Stores
048Page 7 of 10
East, LP
I also formally request a copy of Walmart's trac study if it has been submiRed at this Ume.
I would like noUcaUon if there are any scheduled meeUngs, public meeUngs, public hearings, or any other
business to be conducted by the City.
This request further includes copies of any revised plans, any new permits issued, and request for ALL EMAILS
by city aRorney perUnent to Walmart's appeal wriRen since January 1st 2014 including all those containing
the words Walmart and/or Walmart+Midtown and/or any emails between sta and Lydecker Diaz or any
other emails between any and all of those who registered as lobbyist for Walmart.
Furthermore, I request any emails to or from *@walmart.com ie. any emails to or from the Walmart
corporaUon - including those sent from personal emails.
I also request copies of any ocial any legal opinions wriRen by Mr. Min, Mrs. Mendez or any of the city's
aRorney's in any form indicaUng the future direcUon of Walmart's exisUng applicaUon should they choose to
proceed under the court's order with the current applicaUon.
Lastly, I request to be advised if there is a new applicaUon submiRed for that Midtown Walmart site
bounded by Midtown Blvd and N. Miami Avenue, NE 31st Street as well.
I'd like to thank the city for it's expediUous service of these types of requests in the past, and hope we enjoy
the similar treatment today.
Thank you,
Grant Stern
--
Grant Stern
President
Morningside Mortgage CorporaUon
049Page 8 of 10
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
050Page 9 of 10
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
Page 1 0 of 1 0
051

Date: Thursday, December 4, 2014 at 4:49:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Mendez, Victoria, Min, Barnaby, Cruz-Casas, Carlos, Rodrigues, Thomas, Perez, Antonio, Gonzalez,
Luciana L.
CC: Suarez-Rivas, Rafael, Haber, MaRhew S., Ramirez, Desiree, Otero, Manny, Oce of
CommunicaUons, City of Miami, Spanioli, Mark, Garcia-Pons, Cesar
Dear all,
Regarding the statement below which reads: Mr. Garcia did say that a planning study on trac exists, but in 3 years
none has been provided in the face of mulUple public records (PR) requests under chapter 119
Please know that I have stated numerous Umes, and I am certain the record on various public hearings including the
City Commission hearing of November 20th, 2014 reect it, that:
The Class II Special Permit for the subject project was referred to all the departments and agencies qualied to
conduct the relevant analyses regarding trac impact including the transportaUon oce of the City of Miamis capital
improvements and transportaUon program and the public works department and it is they who worked with the
applicants professional trac management consultants to revise and modify the plans various Umes, as needed,
unUl a saUsfactory result was submiRed which merited their recommendaUon of approval.
We are thus relying on these agencies expert review and advise to determine that the proposal is properly designed
and congured to address any addiUonal generaUon of trac so as to minimize potenUal adverse impacts.
Regarding the statement below which reads: We were never given access to cerUed copies on the full sized plans.
The plans submiRed were made available electronically via the City of Miamis website well in advance of the City
Commission hearing of November 20th, 2014. They are presently available electronically in legistar and the
planning and zoning departments page of the City of Miamis Website. Copies are on le with the City of Miamis
planning and zoning department and available upon request.
Please advise if addiUonal informaUon is needed or can be provided regarding this maRer.
Kind regards,
Francisco

City of Miami
052Page 1 of 10
305.416.1470

Cc: Min, Barnaby; Haber, MaRhew S.; Suarez-Rivas, Rafael; Burns, Kevin; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Menendez, Kirk R;
Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami; Paul Savage; Ramirez, Desiree; Carby, Grace; Garcia,
Francisco; Vrenda Cain
arer 3pm the day of the hearing. We got Walmart's plans and revision arer the start of the hearing.
What may be pending was your request of supposed trac study/or planning review that you menUoned based on
something Francisco said on the record. But I am not sure. I am copying Planning to see if there are any addiUonal
records as to trac.
Mr. Garcia did say that a planning study on trac exists, but in 3 years none has been provided in the face of mulUple
Planning can also assist with any modied applicaUon/plans (but I believe that is already in the backup from
legistar that you must have received as you menUoned it on the record at the hearing).
We were never given access to cerUed copies on the full sized plans.
Emails should sUll be pending.
None received.
053Page 2 of 10
CommunicaUons and Desiree or Kevin from IT can assist with that by advising the search terms based on the
below. IT please let our oce review for exempUons based on liUgaUon.
Thanks to all.
Local Government
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
054Page 3 of 10


Cc: Carby, Grace
This is the rst communicaUon I have received regarding my requests since your prior response on November 7th.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> wrote:
Local Government
Telephone: 305-416-1832
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
055Page 4 of 10

Cc: Min, Barnaby; Garcia, Francisco; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeer; Paul Savage; Msarno; Regalado, Tomas (Mayor);
Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami; Gonzalez, Luciana L.; Garcia-Pons, Cesar; Carby, Grace;
gmesa@oboylelawrm.com; Vrenda Cain
I re-arm the below requests and request all similar documents from today and prior leading up to last night's
hearing.
Please noUfy me separately and immediately when I will be given access to the Walmart Trac Study for 3055 N.
Miami Avenue menUoned in last night's hearing.
Thank you,
Grant
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Grant Stern <grantstern@gmail.com> wrote:
I rearm this request and ask that all gathered materials generated up to date be presented at noon on
Wednesday at the Miami River Center as Time is of the essence now that you've called a City Commission hearing
on the topic on November 20th. I sUll wish all of the below specied items.
Please note this includes all documents, all wriRen communicaUons on 3055 N Miami Avenue, Walmart, and all
plans, noUces of meeUng, meeUng notes, as well as copies of all text messages, emails, voicemails pertaining to
such items as referred above and below or in their many forms as any reasonable person might indicate.
I request at least 30 days to prepare for an appeals hearing in front of the full City Commission on this maRer from
the Ume of receiving these documents.
056Page 5 of 10

With that said, there is nothing in the public records law that allows for a standing public records request or a
future request. You will receive that which is on le now or exists now. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
Mr. Stern,
We acknowledge your public records request and will respond accordingly with any currently exisUng records.
Thank you,
Barnaby L. Min
Deputy City ARorney
<image001.jpg>
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This electronic mail is intended only for the individual or enUty named within the message. This
electronic mail may contain legally privileged and condenUal informaUon. If you properly received this
electronic mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in condence to protect the aRorney-client or
work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that acUon could consUtute a waiver of the aRorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is
not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
noUed that any review, disseminaUon, distribuUon, or copying of this communicaUon is prohibited by the
sender and to do so may consUtute a violaUon of the Electronic CommunicaUons Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
SecUon 2510-2521. If this communicaUon was received in error, we apologize for the intrusion. Please noUfy
us by reply e-mail and delete the original message. Nothing in this electronic mail shall, in and of itself,
create an aRorney-client relaUonship with the sender. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records.
If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send
electronic mail to this enUty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in wriUng.
Please consider the environment before prinUng this electronic mail.<image002.gif>
057Page 6 of 10


Cc: Min, Barnaby; Mendez, Victoria; Peter Ehrlich; Jacob Pfeer; Paul Savage; Msarno; Regalado, Tomas
(Mayor); Oce of CommunicaUons, City of Miami
Now that the Walmart Midtown project's approval has been nullied by the court order to Quash, we are
ler to oversee the court's Remand into the Variance process.
In Midtown Miami the variance process requires a Major Use Special Permit which in turn requires a public
hearing and a trac study and the rest of the city's published regulaUons as you know.
The judges explained what plainUs requested during oral arguments, which I know you were unable to
aRend. Therefore, I have included a link to the audio segment containing oral arguments, further reected on
Page 7 of the judge's decision as "remedies consistent herein" here:
hRps://soundcloud.com/grantstern/judges-rule-against-walmart-in-midtown-miami-but-what-does-quash-
and-remand-mean
The eyes of the world are on Miami now that Walmart's permit has been rent asunder, and more than ever,
we need of all of our public insUtuUons a legiUmate and strict adherence to published zoning regulaUons in
the Midtown Miami district.
Please be advised that I am formally requesUng noUce of any and all future maRers having to do with any
acUon on the Midtown Walmart permit applicaUon whose former approval was quashed in a court of law last
week under Case No: 14-004 AP Jacob Pfeer, Catalina GuUerrez et al vs City of Miami and Walmart Stores
058Page 7 of 10
East, LP
I also formally request a copy of Walmart's trac study if it has been submiRed at this Ume.
I would like noUcaUon if there are any scheduled meeUngs, public meeUngs, public hearings, or any other
business to be conducted by the City.
This request further includes copies of any revised plans, any new permits issued, and request for ALL EMAILS
by city aRorney perUnent to Walmart's appeal wriRen since January 1st 2014 including all those containing
the words Walmart and/or Walmart+Midtown and/or any emails between sta and Lydecker Diaz or any
other emails between any and all of those who registered as lobbyist for Walmart.
Furthermore, I request any emails to or from *@walmart.com ie. any emails to or from the Walmart
corporaUon - including those sent from personal emails.
I also request copies of any ocial any legal opinions wriRen by Mr. Min, Mrs. Mendez or any of the city's
aRorney's in any form indicaUng the future direcUon of Walmart's exisUng applicaUon should they choose to
proceed under the court's order with the current applicaUon.
Lastly, I request to be advised if there is a new applicaUon submiRed for that Midtown Walmart site
bounded by Midtown Blvd and N. Miami Avenue, NE 31st Street as well.
I'd like to thank the city for it's expediUous service of these types of requests in the past, and hope we enjoy
the similar treatment today.
Thank you,
Grant Stern
--
Grant Stern
President
059Page 8 of 10
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
--
Grant Stern
President
060Page 9 of 10
786-220-0117 oce
305-219-0326 mobile
305-675-3392 efax
Page 1 0 of 1 0
061
EX B
CITY DOCUMENTS
1. Transaction Statement, Walmart Warrant Planning Permit Class II 2012-0054 (Sept. 20, 2012).
BN EXB 001
2. Final Decision, File 12-0054 (Aug. 12, 2013).
BN EXB 002
3. Transaction Statement, Appeal to PZAB (Sept. 09, 2013).
BN EXB 006
4. Transaction Statement, Appeal to City Commission (Oct. 21, 2013).
BN EXB 008
5. Meeting Agenda, Nov. 21, 2013 City Commission Hearing (Nov. 13, 2013) (available at
http://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1289&Inline=True) (captured on
Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXB 010
6. Meeting Minutes, Nov. 21, 2013 City Commission Hearing (Dec. 18, 2013) (available at
Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXB 062
7. City Attorney Memorandum, Matter No. 14-1798 (Aug. 12, 2014).
a. Walmart Extension Request (July 15, 2014) (enclosed as an attachment to the City
Attorney Memorandum, where it appears as pg. 4, but is labelled as pg. 3).
b. Interoffice Memorandum (July 16, 2014) (enclosed as an attachment to the City Attorney
Memorandum, where it appears as pg. 3, but is labelled as pg. 4).
BN EXB 194
8. Time Extension, File 12-0054 (Aug. 25, 2014).
BN EXB 198
9. Supplement to City Attorney Memorandum, Matter No. 14-1790 (Sept. 16, 2014).
BN EXB 200
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 1 of 3
10. Revised Time Extension, File 12-0054 (Sept. 17, 2014).
BN EXB 202
11. Certified Resolution, R-13-0471 (Nov. 05, 2014) (available at

http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/legistarweb/attachments/77924.pdf) (linked to Nov. 12, 2014 Meeting
Agenda, and Dec. 05, 2014 Marked Agenda).
BN EXB 204
12. Certified Meeting Minutes, Nov. 21, 2013 City Commission Meeting (Nov. 05, 2014) (available at
BN EXB 209
13. Walmarts Revised Plans (Nov. 06, 2014) (available at

http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/legistarweb/attachments/78148.pdf) (linked to Dec. 05, 2014 Marked
Agenda).
BN EXB 225
14. Legislation (Version 2) (Nov. 10, 2014) (available at

BN EXB 231
15. Legislation (Version 3) (Nov. 10, 2014) (Nov. 10, 2014) (available at
BN EXB 233
16. Notice of Public Hearing, Nov. 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting (Postmarked Nov. 07, 2014).
BN EXB 235
17. Meeting Agenda, Nov. 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting (Nov. 12, 2014) (available at
Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXB 236
18. Analysis for Modifications to Loading Berths for Class II Special Permit, File ID No. 13-01030iia
(Nov. 15, 2014) (available at http://egov.ci.miami.fl.us/legistarweb/attachments/78143.pdf) (linked
to Dec. 05, 2014 Marked Agenda).
BN EXB 253
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 2 of 3
a. Analysis for Modifications to Loading Berths for Class II Special Permit, File ID No. 13-
01030iia (Nov. 06. 2014) (unsigned copy with placeholders).
BN EXB 257
19. Inter-Office Memorandum, RE Nov. 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting Agenda - PZ. 10 (Nov.
17, 2014).
BN EXB 259
20. Marked Agenda, Nov. 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting (Dec. 05, 2014) (available at
Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXB 263
21. Meeting Minutes, Nov. 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting (Jan. 15, 2015) (available at
Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXB 274
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 3 of 3
EXB 001
CITY OF MIAMI
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT
FINAL DECISION
, " " File No. 12-0064
To: Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a Delaware L.P.

c/o Alfredo L, Gonzalez
Genovese Joblove & Battista PA
100 Southeast Second Street 44th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
From: Francisco J. Garcia, Director

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT AN FINAL DECISION HAS BEEN REACHED ON THE FOLLOWING MATTER:
Title: New Construction (Wal-Mart Store)

Address: 3055 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, FI. Wynwood Net (Allapattah NET Office)
Final Decision:
D Approval
o Approval with conditions
D Denial
'1
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS:
1. The subject proposal has been reviewed for a Class II Special Permit pursuant to Sections
609.3, and 1512 of Zoning Ordinance 11000 and Miami 21 Code, Appendix C: Midtown Overlay
District 6.27.2, Midtown Miami West, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami,
Florida.
2. Section 6.27.2,3 requires a Class II Special Permit prior to approval of any permit for the
construction of a new building,
3. Pursuant to Section 1301.2 of ZO 11000, as applicable, the Planning and Zoning Department
has made referrals to the following Departments and Boards:
Zoning Section of the IJlanning & Zoning Department

Department of Public Works
Office of Transportation
Wynwood NET Office, Neighborhood Enhancement Team
Urban Development Review Board
Comments and recommendations received from Departments and Boards have been duly
considered In this final decision. In reviewing this application, pursuant to Section 1305 of ZO
11000, as applicable, and Miami 21 Code Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown
Miami West the following findings have been made:
EXB 002
12-0054
Page A-2 of2
FINDINGS
The proposed new construction project consists of 203,277 square foot building which
includes a 158,322 sq. ft. Wal-Mart store containing general retail, full service grocery and
vision center. The building will also include double volume retail liner use space fronting
Midtown Boulevard and liner space for retail support or other permitted uses on North Miami
Avenue. The project will also provide approximately 577 new off-street parking spaces above
the second and third level of the ground-floor retail.
The proposed project will be beneficial to the surrounding area by providing new retail and
service facilities while creating jobs for the area
The proposed project, as presented reflects revisions and refinements made based on
comments from reviewing Departments and the Urban Development Review Board, and is
appropriate in scale and size pursuant to the Section 1305 and the Midtown Overlay District
6.27.2 Midtown Miami West.
The proposed project is in compliance with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan in
that it promotes good urban infill and is consistent with the Buena Vista East Regional Activity
Center (RAC), designation as applied to this property.
This application has been reviewed pursuant to Section 1305 of ZO 11,000 and the Miami 21
Code, Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West and found to be
sufficient.
Based on the above findings and the considered advice of the officers and agencies consulted on
this matter and pursuant to Section 1306 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, as applicable, and the
Miami 21 Code Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West, the subject
application is hereby approved subject to the plans and supplementary materials submitted by the
applicant and on file with the Planning and Zoning Department and the conditions listed in Exhibit
"A": (attached hereto and made a part thereof) entitled "Class II Special Permit No. 12-0054
DEVELOPMENT ORDER."
NOTICE
The final decision of the Director may be appealed to the Planning Zoning and Appeals
Board by any aggrieved party, within fifteen (15) days of the date of issuance by filing a
written appeal and appropriate fee with the Hearing Boards Section of the Planning and
Zoning Department located at 4445.5. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami, Fl. 33130. Telephone
number (305) 416-2030
Signature ...,L..c.~~~~~2:!::::::=-_ _ _ _ _ Date 12 !4wM"" 2#>13
Page 2 of4
EXB 003
12-0054
Page A-2 of2
EXHIBIT "A"
Class II Special Permit

No. 12-0054
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed new construction project ("PROJECT") consists of 203,277 square foot building
which includes a 158,322 sq. ft. Wal-Mart store containing general retail, full service grocery
and vision center. Additionally, the building will include double volume retail liner use space
fronting Midtown Boulevard and liner space on the second level for retail support or other
permitted uses on North Miami Avenue. The project also provides approximately 577 new off-
street parking spaces above the second and third level of the ground-floor retail.
The PROJECT shall be constructed substantially in accordance with plans and design
schematics on file prepared by Gensler, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and Zyschovich
Architects, dated 3/14/13; all modifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Director of the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
FINDINGS:
The PROJECT conforms to the requirements of Section 1305 of ZO 11000, as applicable,

and Miami 21 Code Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami. The
existing comprehensive plan 'future land use d.esignation on the subject property allows the
proposed uses.
The RROJECT-, proposed by the AfJPlICANT, -complies with the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami,
and complies with local land development regulations.
Pursuant to Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, as applicable, and the Miami 21 Code
Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West, the specific site plan
aspects of the PROJECT have been considered and will be further considered
administratively during the process of issuing individual building permits and certificates of
occupancy, as may be required.
CONDITIONS:
1. Final construction plans prior to issuance of any building permit
2. Review and approve relocation, or mitigation of any trees that may be in conflict with the
proposed development.
st
3. Use of NE 31 right turn exit shall be limited to visitors. No commercial delivery vehicles
st
shall be permitted a right turn on NE 31 Street to access Midtown Boulevard. Install sign
st st
and headache bar at exit ramp on NE 31 Street advising "No Right Turn on 31 Street"
for delivery vehicles.
Page 3 of4
EXB 004
12-0054
Page A-2 of2
4. Install sign and headache bar at entrance and exit on North Miami Avenue to prevent
ingress and egress by commercial delivery vehicles.
5. Compliance with approved adjustments to design standards concerning the maximum

width of driveway approaches. (February 15, 2013 Public Works Approval).
6. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Use for the liner building portion of the project
subject to this Class II Special Permit and its corresponding Development Order it is
required that all visible areas of unimproved interiors of the liner building facing Midtown
Boulevard shall be covered with non-commercial graphics, as approved by the Director of
Planning & Zoning until initial build-out and occupancy of the liner building space(s).
7. Prior to issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Occupancy,

for the liner space, submit revised "Zyscovich" floor plan and detail floor plan for liner units
on the east side of the project to show an internalized delivery corridor from the loading
elevator. Compliance with this condition is the responsibility of the owner/tenant of the
liner building facing Midtown Boulevard and shall not prevent the owners/tenant of the
large scale retailer facing Miami Avenue from obtaining building permits, Temporary
Certificates of Occupancy and Certificates of Occupancy as required to build-out and
occupy the large scale retail space.
Page 4 of4
EXB 005
EXB 006
EXB 007
EXB 008
EXB 009
City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Agenda
Thursday, November 21, 2013
9:00 AM
REGULAR
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Toms Regalado, Mayor

Marc David Sarnoff, Chair
Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Vice Chair
Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three
Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four
Michelle Spence-Jones, Commissioner District Five
Johnny Martinez, P.E., City Manager
Victoria Mndez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
EXB 010
City Commission Meeting Agenda November 21, 2013
ANY PERSON WHO ACTS AS A LOBBYIST PURSUANT TO CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO.
11469, CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VI OF THE CITY CODE, MUST REGISTER WITH THE
CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS,
AND COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL.
ANY PERSON OR ENTITY REQUESTING APPROVAL, RELIEF OR OTHER ACTION FROM THE
CITY COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS BOARDS, AUTHORITIES, AGENCIES, COUNCILS OR
COMMITTEES CONCERNING ANY ISSUE, SHALL DISCLOSE IN WRITING, AT THE
COMMENCEMENT (OR CONTINUANCE) OF THE HEARING(S) ON THE ISSUE THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION:
1. WHETHER ANY CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR COMMITTED, DIRECTLY, OR

ON ITS BEHALF, TO ANY ENTITY OR PERSON FOR AN AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT OR
WITHHOLD OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTED APPROVAL, RELIEF OR ACTION;
2. TO WHOM THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR COMMITTED;
3. THE NATURE OF THE CONSIDERATION, AND
4. A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
CONSIDERATION.
THE DISCLOSURE FORM WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY CLERK MUST BE READ INTO
THE RECORD BY THE REQUESTING PERSON OR ENTITY PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE
SECRETARY/CLERK OF THE RESPECTIVE BOARD.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4(g)(5) OF THE CHARTER OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, THE MAYOR MAY
VETO CERTAIN ITEMS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS
FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION ACTION. THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER THE VETO
OCCURS, OVERRIDE SUCH VETO BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THEN
PRESENT.
ANY PERSON MAKING IMPERTINENT OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS OR WHO BECOMES

BOISTEROUS WHILE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE BARRED FROM FURTHER
AUDIENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNLESS PERMISSION
TO CONTINUE OR AGAIN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION BE GRANTED BY THE MAJORITY
VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT. NO CLAPPING, APPLAUDING, HECKLING
OR VERBAL OUTBURSTS IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A SPEAKER OR HIS OR HER
REMARKS SHALL BE PERMITTED. NO SIGNS OR PLACARDS SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
COMMISSION CHAMBERS. PERSONS EXITING THE COMMISSION CHAMBER SHALL DO SO
QUIETLY.
THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, AND
THE MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK IN CITY HALL, AT AGENDA OFFICE/MIAMI RIVERSIDE CENTER, OR ON-LINE AT
WWW.MIAMIGOV.COM.
ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION ON ANY PROPOSITION
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION IS INVITED TO DO SO AND SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
INFORM THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER
NAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE
City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 11/13/2013
EXB 011
MICROPHONE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this Agenda. Any person, or
persons, wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any
matter considered at this meeting or hearing, will require a verbatim record of the proceeding
upon which the appeal is based. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and
services for meetings may call the City Clerk's Office, 250-5360, with requests at least two
business days before the meeting date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The City Commission has established a policy that the lunch recess will begin at the
conclusion of deliberations of the agenda item being considered at Noon; further, that
Commission meetings shall adjourn (a) at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item
being considered at 10:00 p.m., unless the time is extended by unanimous agreement of the
members of the City Commission then present or (b) at the conclusion of the regularly
scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. This rule does not apply when the City
Commission is engaged in its annual budget hearings (Ordinance 12586).
EXB 012
CONTENTS
Items may be heard in the numbered

sequence or as announced by the Commission
PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
AM - APPROVING MINUTES
MV - MAYORAL VETOES
CA - CONSENT AGENDA
Item 1 which is comprised of items CA.1 through CA.7 may be heard

in the number sequence or as announced by the Commission
PA - PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES
FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RE - RESOLUTIONS
BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BI - BUDGET
DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
M - MAYOR'S ITEMS
D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS
EXB 013
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
PR.1 PRESENTATION
13-01350
Honoree Presenter Protocol Item
Chief Maurice Kemp Commissioner Certificates/

Major Craig McQueen Spence-Jones Appreciation
Major Dennis Jackson II
Angela Thomas Dupree
13-01350 Protocol Item.pdf
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING:
Regular Meeting of October 10, 2013
END OF APPROVING MINUTES
MAYORAL VETOES
(Pursuant to Section 4(g)(5) of the charter of Miami, Florida, Item(s) vetoed by the Mayor shall be
placed by the city clerk as the first substantive item(s) for the commission consideration.)
EXB 014
CONSENT AGENDA
Unless a member of the City Commission wishes to remove a specific item from this portion of the
agenda, Items CA.1 through CA.7 constitute the Consent Agenda. These resolutions are
self-explanatory and are not expected to require additional review or discussion. Each item will be
recorded as individually numbered resolutions, adopted unanimously by the following motion.
"...that the Consent Agenda comprised of items CA.1 through CA.7 be adopted..."
The Presiding Officer or City Clerk shall state the following: "Before the vote on adopting items
included in the Consent Agenda is taken, is there anyone present who is an objector or proponent that
wishes to speak on any item in the Consent Agenda. Hearing none, the vote on the adoption of the
Consent Agenda will now be taken.
CA.1 RESOLUTION
13-01224 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
Department of Capital AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWAGE SERVICES WITH
Improvements MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, IN
Program SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE DINNER KEY MARINA
DOCKMASTER BUILDING PROJECT, B-60464; ALLOCATING FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,572.32, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. B-60464, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
13-01224 Summary Form.pdf
13-01224 Legislation.pdf
13-01224 Exhibit.pdf
CA.2 RESOLUTION

Department of Capital AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWAGE SERVICES WITH
Improvements MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, IN
Program SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE WEST END PARK
NEW COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT, B-30690; ALLOCATING FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,816.54, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. B-30690, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
CA.3 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE PROJECT
Department of Police ENTITLED: "RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,745.00, CONSISTING
OF A GRANT FROM THE MIAMI-DADE OFFICE OF GRANTS
COORDINATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE
ACCEPTANCE AND ADMINISTRATION OF SAID GRANT.
EXB 015

13-01228 Grant Letter.pdf
EXB 016
CA.4 RESOLUTION

Department of Police ENTITLED: "SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROJECT" AND
COORDINATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
CA.5 RESOLUTION
13-01231 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID

RECEIVED AUGUST 7, 2013, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO.
Department of 368343, FROM GRAPHIC DESIGNS INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR THE
General Services PROVISION OF VEHICLE DECALS AND STRIPING FOR THE
Administration DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ON AN
AS-NEEDED, CONTRACTUAL BASIS, FOR AN INITIAL CONTRACT
PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR THREE
(3) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM
THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT(S),
SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY
APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED.
13-01231 Award Recommendation Form.pdf
13-01231 Bid Tabulation.pdf
13-01231 Invitation for Bid.pdf
CA.6 RESOLUTION

Office of the City AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN
Attorney THE CITY OF MIAMI AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA ("STATE"), OFFICE OF
THE STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
FLORIDA, TO REIMBURSE THE STATE FOR THE COST OF STATE
ATTORNEY PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED.
13-01329 Memo - Office of the City Attorney.pdf
CA.7 RESOLUTION
EXB 017
Office of the City ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN

Attorney AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH WEST,
A THOMSON BUSINESS, FOR WESTLAW, A COMPUTER ASSISTED
LEGAL RESEARCH SERVICE, FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD, IN A FIRST-YEAR AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $35,510.40, WITH THE SECOND YEAR INCREASING
THE AMOUNT BY ONE PERCENT, AND THE THIRD YEAR BY THREE
PERCENT, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $108,317.40, PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $11,201.46 FOR CLEAR PLUS WEB
ANALYTICS (PUBLIC RECORDS) FOR A FINAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$119,578.86.
13-01328 Memo-Office of the City Attorney.pdf
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
EXB 018
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
Note: Legislation may result from City Commission consideration of any personal appearance.
PA.1 PRESENTATION
13-01307 REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO

ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S NEW PARKING STRUCTURE.
SPONSOR: HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO

CO-SPONSOR: CHAIRMAN MARC D. SARNOFF
13-01307 Letter - Florida Dept. of Health.pdf
END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
EXB 019
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9:00 A.M.
PH.1 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION
Department of PROGRAM MAXIMUM SUBSIDY AMOUNT TO CHANGE FROM AN
Community and AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $35,000.00 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
Economic $50,000.00, AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND
Development INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
13-01233 Pre-Legislation.pdf
13-01233 Exhibit A.pdf
PH.2 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "MIAMI HEIGHTS
Department of Public SEWER PUMP STATION", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI OF
Works THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1", SUBJECT TO THE
SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND
STREET COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND
INCORPORATED, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
THE PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
13-01106 Notice to the Public.pdf
13-01106 Exhibits.pdf
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2013

MOVER: COMMISSIONER SPENCE-JONES
SECONDER: COMMISSIONER CAROLLO
VOTE: AYES: 4 - COMMISSIONER(S) SARNOFF, CAROLLO,
SUAREZ AND SPENCE-JONES
ABSENT: 1 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT
ACTION: DEFERRED--PASSED
PH.3 RESOLUTION
13-01234 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THAT AN

EXISTING, PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED FENCE, BE PERMITTED TO BE
Department of Public REPLACED WITH A WALL TO BE REINSTALLED AND REMAIN IN THE
Works DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MAIN HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO
THE MOORINGS SUBDIVISION, MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN.
EXB 020

13-01234 Back-up Documents.pdf
EXB 021
PH.4 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
Department of Public PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-92 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
Works FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING,
RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S
FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND APPROVING THE
UTILIZATION OF THE SCAVENGER 2000 DECONTAMINATION BOAT,
FOR SURFACE CLEANING FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S WATERFRONT,
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, UTILIZING A UNIQUE
PROPRIETARY PROCESS, FROM WATER MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, IN A TOTAL
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS,
IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00, FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS BUDGET, ACCOUNT
NUMBER 00001.208000.534000.0.0; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR A ONE (1) YEAR PERIOD,
WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1)
YEAR PERIODS, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
13-01287 Memo - Scavenger 2000 Depollution Boat.pdf
13-01287 Memos - Sole Source Finding.pdf
13-01287 Letter - Water Management Technologies.pdf
13-01287 Back-Up Documents.pdf
EXB 022
5:00 P.M.
PH.5 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), DESIGNATING AS A BROWNFIELD AREA, OR FINDING
Office of Grants THAT THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A BROWNFIELD AREA
Administration DOES NOT EXIST, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144 AND 152
SOUTHWEST 8TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WEST BRICKELL VIEW, A MULTI-LEVEL
APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SIXTY FOUR (64), ONE AND TWO
BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)(1-5); AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE MIAMI-DADE DEPARTMENT
OF REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE EXPANSION
TO THE EXISTING BROWNFIELD AREA BOUNDARY IF THE PROPERTY
IS DESIGNATED, AND TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER NECESSARY
RELATED PROCEDURES, NOTICES, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID
DESIGNATION.
13-00713 Legislation Title - Version A or B.pdf
13-00713 Legislation - Version A.pdf
13-00713 Exhibit 1 - Version A.pdf
13-00713 Legislation - Version B.pdf
DATE: JULY 11, 2013

MOVER: VICE CHAIR GORT
SECONDER: COMMISSIONER SPENCE-JONES
VOTE: AYES: 5 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT, SARNOFF,
CAROLLO, SUAREZ AND SPENCE-JONES
DATE: JULY 25, 2013

VOTE: AYES: 3 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT, SARNOFF AND
CAROLLO
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) SUAREZ AND
SPENCE-JONES
EXB 023
DATE: SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

MOVER: COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
ACTION: CONTINUED--PASSED

SECONDER: VICE CHAIR GORT
EXB 024
PH.6 RESOLUTION

Administration DOES NOT EXIST, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1026
SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF WEST BRICKELL TOWER, A MULTI-LEVEL
APARTMENT BUILDING WITH THIRTY TWO (32), ONE AND TWO
BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)(1-5); AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE MIAMI-DADE DEPARTMENT
OF REGULATORY AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE EXPANSION
TO THE EXISTING BROWNFIELD AREA BOUNDARY IF THE PROPERTY
IS DESIGNATED, AND TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER NECESSARY
RELATED PROCEDURES, NOTICES, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID
DESIGNATION.
DATE: JULY 11, 2013

DATE: JULY 25, 2013

CAROLLO
SPENCE-JONES
EXB 025


EXB 026
PH.7 RESOLUTION

Administration DOES NOT EXIST, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 850 SOUTHWEST
2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF VISTA GRANDE APARTMENTS, A MULTI-LEVEL APARTMENT
BUILDING WITH EIGHTY NINE (89), ONE AND TWO BEDROOM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA
STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)(1-5); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AND THE MIAMI-DADE DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY
AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING
BROWNFIELD AREA BOUNDARY IF THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED,
AND TO UNDERTAKE ANY OTHER NECESSARY RELATED
PROCEDURES, NOTICES, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID
DESIGNATION.

13-00722 Legislation Title- Version A or B.pdf
DATE: JULY 11, 2013

DATE: JULY 25, 2013

CAROLLO
SPENCE-JONES
EXB 027


EXB 028
ORDINANCES - SECOND READINGS
Note: Any proposed ordinance listed as an item for second reading in this section may be adopted
as an emergency measure upon being so determined by the City Commission.
SR.1 ORDINANCE SECOND READING
13-01095 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING

CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE IX OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
District 2- FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/CITY-OWNED
Commissioner Marc PROPERTY", MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 2-780
David Sarnoff TO REQUIRE ALL PROSPECTIVE LEASES OR LEASE MODIFICATIONS
OF CITY OF MIAMI OWNED PROPERTY TO CONTAIN LANGUAGE
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING GAMBLING ACTIVITIES; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE
EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01095 Legislation (Version 2) SR.pdf

ACTION: PASSED ON FIRST READING--PASSED
SR.2 ORDINANCE SECOND READING
13-00745 ITEM TO BE CONTINUED
District 2- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING

Commissioner Marc CHAPTER 35/ARTICLE VII, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES/ PRIVATE
David Sarnoff PARKING LOTS", MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING NEW PARKING LOT
REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, USES AND REVOCATIONS
OF PERMITS AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 35-288 THROUGH 35-291
TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT OF NON-COMPLIANT PARKING LOTS;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
DATE: JUNE 27, 2013

EXB 029
MOVER: COMMISSIONER CAROLLO

SECONDER: COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
CAROLLO AND SUAREZ
ABSENT: 1 - COMMISSIONER(S) SPENCE-JONES
END OF ORDINANCES - SECOND READINGS
EXB 030
ORDINANCES - FIRST READINGS
Note: Any proposed ordinance listed as an item for first reading in this section may be adopted as an
emergency measure upon being so determined by the City Commission.
FR.1 ORDINANCE FIRST READING

CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
Department of Capital MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS,
Improvements COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/STANDARDS FOR CREATION AND
Program REVIEW OF BOARDS GENERALLY," MORE PARTICULARLY BE
AMENDING SECTION 2-892(4)(G)(1) TO REVISE THE SUNSET DATE FOR
THE HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND
PROGRAM OVERSIGHT BOARD; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01238 Summary Form FR.pdf
13-01238 Back-Up FR - Code Sec. 2-892.pdf
13-01238 Legislation FR.pdf

CHAPTER 54/ARTICLE V/SECTION 54-190 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
Department of Public OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS AND
Works SIDEWALKS/BASE BUILDING LINES/NONSTANDARD STREET WIDTHS",
BY MODIFYING THE WIDTH OF NORTH MIAMI AVENUE FROM NORTH
5TH STREET TO NORTH 8TH STREET AND FROM NORTH 9TH STREET
TO NORTH 11TH TERRACE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01235 Pre-Legislation FR.pdf
13-01235 Memo-Reduction of Zoned Street FR.pdf
13-01235 Notice to the Public FR.pdf
13-01237 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' RELIEF AND
Office of Management PENSION FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 6432,
and Budget ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2, 1959, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, TO
ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS INCLUDING
CHAPTER 175, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
AND THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE
EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01237 Exhibit A FR.pdf
EXB 031
Office of the City CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
Attorney AMENDED, ENTITLED "BUILDINGS", MORE PARTICULARLY BY
AMENDING ARTICLE VI, ENTITLED "UNSAFE STRUCTURES", BY
PROVIDING FOR THE MAXIMUM STATUTORY INTEREST RATE;
AMENDING THE ROLE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH THE
UNSAFE STRUCTURE PANEL; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01313 Memo - Office of the City Attorney FR.pdf
EXB 032

CHAPTER 62/ARTICLE VII/SECTION 62-32 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PLANNING AND
ZONING/HISTORIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION
BOARD/SCHEDULE OF FEES", BY REMOVING THE $50.00
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE RELATED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

END OF ORDINANCES - FIRST READINGS
EXB 033
RESOLUTIONS
RE.1 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), OFFICIALLY ACCEPTING THE ATTACHED CITY
Office of the City CLERK'S CERTIFICATION OF THE CANVASS AND DECLARATION OF
Clerk THE RESULTS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2013, FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR,
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 5 AND THE
REFERENDUM SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2013.
13-01239 Unofficial Results.pdf
13-01239 Official Results.pdf
RE.2 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), ELECTING AND REAPPOINTING TODD B. HANNON AS
City Commission CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO HOLD OFFICE AS
PROVIDED FOR IN THE CITY CHARTER; APPROVING THE SALARY AND
BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK TODD B. HANNON.
13-01244 Attachment No. 1.pdf
RE.3 RESOLUTION
13-01100 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING GRANT

FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $238,000.00, CONSISTING OF A GRANT
Department of AWARDED FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Fire-Rescue BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ("EMS"), ENTITLED:
"EMS MATCHING GRANT AWARD-M2035-FISCAL YEAR 2012", WITH THE
CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY'S") REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED, $79,333.00, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$317,333.00, FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JUNE 14, 2013 THROUGH
JUNE 30, 2014; ALLOCATING THE CITY'S MATCHING FUNDS FROM
CAPITAL ACCOUNT NO. 32000.181000.896000.0000.00000;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD
AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO ACCEPT,
IMPLEMENT AND COMPLY WITH SAID GRANT.
13-01100 Grant Application.pdf
RE.4 RESOLUTION

Department of Public AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN
Facilities THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND PINNACLE GROUP INTERNATIONAL,
LLC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING ACCESS TO CERTAIN
CITY-OWNED PROPERTY SITUATED NEAR BRICKELL KEY SHOAL
EXB 034
WITHIN BISCAYNE BAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PERFORM THE WORK

SPECIFIED HEREIN, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MORE
PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN SAID AGREEMENT.
EXB 035
RE.5 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
Department of Public MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION
Facilities COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO.
369316, THAT THE PROPOSER, NAI MIAMI, IS RESPONSIVE TO THE
RFP REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF REAL ESTATE LEASING
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH NAI MIAMI, FOR A
PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR, WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR FOUR (4)
ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE
VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT
TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE
TIME OF NEED.
13-01077 Memo - Recommendation of Evaluation Comm..pdf
13-01077 RFP Master Evaluation Form.pdf
RE.6 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT,
Department of Public PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, THE DONATION OF TWO
Facilities (2) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 7890 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE
COURT AND 7889 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOLIO
NUMBERS 01-3208-008-0520 AND 01-3208-008-0530 COLLECTIVELY
("PROPERTY"), FROM UPPER EAST SIDE MIAMI, LLC, A FLORIDA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("GRANTOR") TO THE CITY OF MIAMI
("CITY") AND THE GRANTOR WILL COVER ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE SURVEY, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, TITLE
INSURANCE AND CLOSING COSTS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE
SAID CONVEYANCE.

EXB 036
RE.7 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
Department of Public REVOCABLE LICENSE ("LICENSE"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED
Facilities FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND UPPER EAST SIDE
MIAMI, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("LICENSEE"),
FOR THE USE OF TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 7890
NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT AND 7889 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE,
MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOLIO NUMBERS 01-3208-008-0520 AND
01-3208-008-0530, RESPECTIVELY (COLLECTIVELY, "PROPERTY"), TO
BE USED AS A CONSTRUCTION STAGING SITE, FOR THE STORAGE OF
MATERIALS AND VEHICULAR PARKING, IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE OASIS CONDO PROJECT, AND LICENSEE
WILL PAY A USE FEE OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) IN EXCHANGE FOR
LICENSEE'S LAND CONVEYANCE, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN THE LICENSE; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE NON-SUBSTANTIVE
AMENDMENTS TO SUCH LICENSE AS NEEDED, SUBJECT TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL.
13-00775 Legislation (Version 2).pdf
13-00775 Exhibit A (Version 2).pdf

RE.8 RESOLUTION
13-01277 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE

EXPENDITURE OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE
Office of the City ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW FIRM OF ALLEN NORTON AND BLUE, P.A.,
Attorney AS OUTSIDE CONFLICT COUNSEL FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF MATTHEW HALL VS. CITY OF MIAMI,
PENDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION
SERVICE, GRIEVANCE NO. 12-13; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON
DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT NO. 00001.980000.531010.0000.00000.
RE.9 RESOLUTION

CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF SABINE RAYMONVIL VS. CITY OF
MIAMI, PENDING BEFORE THE CITY OF MIAMI CIVIL SERVICE BOARD,
EXB 037
CASE NO. 13-16D; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON

EXB 038
RE.10 RESOLUTION

CITY OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF JEANPAUL GUILLOT VS. CITY OF
MIAMI, PENDING BEFORE THE CITY OF MIAMI CIVIL SERVICE BOARD,
CASE NO. 13-32D; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON
RE.11 RESOLUTION

Department of Capital INTERLOCAL MASTER AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
Improvements ATTACHED FORM, WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("COUNTY"), TO
Program PROVIDE UTILITY WORK FOR THE COUNTY, ESTABLISHING THE
PROCEDURE FOR THE PERFORMANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
UTILITY WORK, INCLUDING THE UTILITY DESIGN WORK TO BE
PERFORMED AND THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BE
CARRIED OUT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM AS "EXHIBIT A", WITHOUT
REQUIRING FURTHER CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL.
RE.12 RESOLUTION
13-01251 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MAKING

AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL AND
Office of Management BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
and Budget 30, 2013.

13-01251 Memo - Year End Amendment.pdf
RE.13 RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL 30, 2013,
Department of Public PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 12-13-033, FROM H & R
Works PAVING, INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER,
FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE PAVEMENT RESURFACING
CONTRACT, M-0098", IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$1,201,812.00, WITH FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR OPTIONS TO
RENEW, IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,201,812.00;
ALLOCATING SAID FUNDS, FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY
EXB 039
APPROVAL; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

CONTRACT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID
PURPOSE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID OPTIONS TO RENEW SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDING AND THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE.
EXB 040
RE.14 RESOLUTION

City Manager's Office MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION
COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO.
272271, THAT VAN WAGNER MIAMI, LLC IS RESPONSIVE TO THE RFP
FOR THE PROVISION OF TROLLEY ADVERTISEMENT PROGRAM
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH VAN WAGNER MIAMI,
LLC, FOR SAID PURPOSE, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, WITH
OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR
PERIODS.
13-01227 Trolley Revenue.pdf
13-01227 Daily Trolley Inventory.pdf
13-01227 Memo-Recommendation of Eval. Comm..pdf
13-01227 RFP Eval. Comm. Summary Sheet.pdf
13-01227 Corporation Detail.pdf
RE.15 RESOLUTION

Department of Risk MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION
Management COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO.
369325 FOR THE PROVISION OF A GROUP BENEFIT HEALTH PLAN,
THAT CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE CO., IS THE TOP-RANKED
FIRM, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT("RISK
MANAGEMENT"); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE
AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("PSA"), IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM,
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE CO., FOR RISK MANAGEMENT,
FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR
TWO (2) ADDITIONAL THREE (3) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS
FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER
DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND
BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL
WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PSA
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW
FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL THREE (3) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER
DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND
BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM, TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS AND
ISSUE A NEW RFP SOLICITATION.
EXB 041

13-01078 RFP Evaluation Sheets.pdf
END OF RESOLUTIONS
EXB 042
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BC.1 RESOLUTION
13-01134 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE ARTS AND
Office of the City ENTERTAINMENT COUNCIL FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
APPOINTEES: NOMINATED BY:
Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort
Commissioner Frank Carollo
13-01134 Arts CCMemo.pdf

13-01134 Arts Current_Board_Members.pdf

ACTION: NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.2 RESOLUTION
13-01242 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING A

CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY
Office of the City COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
APPOINTEE: NOMINATED BY:
Chair Marc David Sarnoff
13-01242 Audit CCMemo.pdf

13-01242 Audit Current_Board_Members.pdf
BC.3 RESOLUTION
13-01243
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
Office of the City CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE BAYFRONT PARK
Clerk
MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-01243 Bayfront CCMemo.pdf

13-01243 Bayfront Current_Board_Members.pdf
EXB 043
BC.4 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
Office of the City FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
Commission-At-Large
13-00501 Civil Service CCMemo.pdf

13-00501 Civil Service Current_Board_Members.pdf
13-00501 Civil Service Exec Sec Memo.pdf
DATE: MAY 9, 2013

DATE: JUNE 13, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013



BC.5 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Office of the City BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
Commission-At-Large
(Alternate Member)
13-01136 CEB CCMemo.pdf

13-01136 CEB Current_Board_Members.pdf

EXB 044
BC.6 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
Office of the City RELATIONS BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
Commissioner Francis Suarez
13-01298 CRB CCMemo.pdf

13-01298 CRB Current_Board_Members.pdf
13-01298 CRB Memo and Resumes.pdf
BC.7 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE
Office of the City STATUS OF WOMEN FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
13-01245 CSW CCMemo.pdf

13-01245 CSW Current_Board_Members.pdf
BC.8 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
Office of the City TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED
Clerk HEREIN.
13-01246 CTAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01246 CTAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
EXB 045
BC.9 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION
Office of the City ADVISORY BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
City Manager Johnny Martinez

(Ex-Officio Non Voting Youth Member)
13-01248 EAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01248 EAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
BC.10 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
Clerk
FOP
IAFF
AFSCME 871
13-01249 EOAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01249 EOAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
BC.11 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
Office of the City FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
EXB 046
13-01250 Finance CCMemo.pdf

13-01250 Finance Current_Board_Members.pdf
EXB 047
BC.12 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE HOMELAND
Office of the City DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND PROGRAM
Clerk OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01140 Homeland CCMemo.pdf

13-01140 Homeland Current_Board_Members.pdf

BC.13 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S
Office of the City INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
Mayor Toms Regalado
Mayor Toms Regalado
Mayor Toms Regalado
Mayor Toms Regalado
Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01252 MIC CCMemo.pdf

13-01252 MIC Current_Board_Members.pdf
EXB 048
BC.14 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI SPORTS AND
Office of the City EXHIBITION AUTHORITY FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Clerk
13-00504 MSEA CCMemo.pdf

13-00504 MSEA Current_Board_Members.pdf
DATE: MAY 9, 2013

DATE: JUNE 13, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013



BC.15 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS AND
Office of the City RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED
Clerk HEREIN.
13-01142 PRAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01142 PRAB Current_Board_Members.pdf

EXB 049
BC.16 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE URBAN
Office of the City DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD (UDRB) FOR TERMS AS
Clerk DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-00373 UDRB CCMemo.pdf

13-00373 UDRB Current_Board_Members.pdf
DATE: APRIL 11, 2013

DATE: MAY 9, 2013

DATE: JUNE 13, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013



EXB 050
BC.17 RESOLUTION

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT
Clerk
Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01143 WAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01143 WAB Current_Board_Members.pdf

END OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
EXB 051
BUDGET
BI.1 DISCUSSION ITEM
13-01240 STATUS (SEC.18-542(B) CITY CODE)

I. 2013-2014 BUDGET
Office of Management II. PROPOSED 2014-2015 BUDGET
and Budget
END OF BUDGET
EXB 052
DISCUSSION ITEMS
NOTE: Legislation may result from City Commission consideration of any Commission Discussion
item.
This portion of the agenda is separately designated as being available for the purpose of providing
and securing City Commission information, direction, and guidance in significant pending and
concluded matters, including matters not specifically set forth in this section.
It is anticipated that no input from anyone other than the City personnel is needed or expected while
the City Commission is considering any matter in this portion of the Agenda ; accordingly, no member
of the public may address the City Commission during this time.
DI.1 DISCUSSION ITEM
13-00500 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY.
District 2-
Commissioner Marc
David Sarnoff
13-00500 Email - Department of Information Technology.pdf

DATE: MAY 23, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013

DATE: JULY 25, 2013

EXB 053
13-00814 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
District 2-
Commissioner Marc
David Sarnoff
13-00814 Email - City's Website.pdf
DATE: JULY 25, 2013



STATUS OF HIRING POLICE OFFICERS.
13-01179
City Commission
13-01179 Cover Page.pdf

END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
EXB 054
CITYWIDE
HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS
EXB 055
DISTRICT 1
VICE CHAIR WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT
D1.1 DISCUSSION ITEM
13-01283 STATUS REPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE PILOT PROGRAM

TO OPERATE CODE COMPLIANCE FROM THE ALLAPATTAH NET AND
FLAGAMI NET OFFICES.
13-01283 E-Mail - Status Report on Pilot Program.pdf
END OF DISTRICT 1
EXB 056
DISTRICT 2
CHAIR MARC DAVID SARNOFF
13-01076 DISCUSSION REGARDING DOUBLE POLES AND PROBLEMS WITH

COMCAST.
13-01076 E-Mail-Double Poles and Comcast.pdf
END OF DISTRICT 2
EXB 057
DISTRICT 3
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO
13-00723 FOLLOW UP ON RECRUITING.
13-00723 Email - Recruiting.pdf
DATE: JUNE 27, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013

DATE: JULY 25, 2013


ACTION: DEFERRED



13-00753 UPDATE REGARDING THE CIP PROCESS.
13-00753 Update - CIP Process.pdf
DATE: JUNE 27, 2013

DATE: JULY 11, 2013

DATE: JULY 25, 2013


ACTION: DEFERRED

EXB 058


13-01107 FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES
ORDINANCE.
13-01107 Email - Compliance with Financial Integrity Ord.pdf



13-01203 FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING ILLEGAL

BILLBOARD.
13-01203 E-Mail - Illegal Billboard.pdf

13-01204 FOLLOW UP REGARDING ISSUANCE OF 2013 AUDITED FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS.
13-01204 E-Mail - Audited Financial Statements.pdf

END OF DISTRICT 3
EXB 059
DISTRICT 4
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
END OF DISTRICT 4
EXB 060
DISTRICT 5
COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES
END OF DISTRICT 5
EXB 061
City of Miami
City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
9:00 AM
REGULAR
City Commission
Marc David Sarnoff, Chair
Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Vice Chair
Michelle Spence-Jones, Commissioner District Five
EXB 062
City Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 2013
CONTENTS
PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
AM - APPROVING MINUTES
MV - MAYORAL VETOES
CA - CONSENT AGENDA
PA - PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES
FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RE - RESOLUTIONS
BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BI - BUDGET
DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS
M - MAYOR'S ITEMS
EXB 063
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Vice Chair Gort, Chair Sarnoff, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Spence-Jones and
Commissioner Spence-Jones
Absent: Commissioner Suarez
On the 21st day of November 2013, 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 Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Sarnoff at 9:31a.m., recessed at
10:48 a.m., reconvened at 11:03 a.m., recessed at 12:13 p.m., reconvened at 3:38 p.m., recessed
at 4:19 p.m., reconvened at 4:32 p.m., recessed at 5:08 p.m., reconvened at 5:09 p.m., recessed
at 6:24 pm., reconvened and adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chambers at 9:35 a.m.
ALSO PRESENT:

Chair Sarnoff: The meeting will be opened with a prayer by none other than our newly and
freshly minted Mayor of the City of Miami, Tomas Regalado; and the pledge of allegiance by
Commissioner Spence-Jones.
Mayor Toms Regalado: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
PR.1 PRESENTATION
13-01350
Honoree Presenter Protocol Item
Chief Maurice Kemp Commissioner Certificates/

Major Craig McQueen Spence-Jones Appreciation
Major Dennis Jackson II
Angela Thomas Dupree
13-01350 Protocol Item.pdf
PRESENTED
Commissioner Spence-Jones presented Certificates of Appreciation to Chief Maurice Kemp of

the Fire Department and Major Dennis Jackson, II of the Police Department for their
outstanding leadership, dedication, responsiveness and wonderful commitment to workplace
efficiency. In addition, a Certificate of Recognition was presented to Dr. Angela E.
Thomas-Dupree for her hard work and dedication as the principal of D.A. Dorsey Educational
Center.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we'll now make the presentations and proclamations. Commissioner
Spence-Jones is recognized for the record.
EXB 064
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Good morning.
The Audience: Good morning.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: This is the last time you're going to hear me say good morning.
To God be the glory; to God be the glory. It is a pleasure -- I thought I did my official good-bye
already. Johnny, I had to come back again, yeah? Well, I'm glad you came back for my final
good-bye.
Presentations made.
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETING:
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, to APPROVE PASSED by

the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Spence-Jones
Chair Sarnoff: And do we need to approve any minutes?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, sir. I have for Commission consideration and approval the
regular meeting minutes of the October 10, 2013 Miami City Commission meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: Is there a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: So move.
Vice Chair Gort: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort; any

discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
END OF APPROVING MINUTES
MAYORAL VETOES
NO MAYORAL VETOES
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, PH.1. Oh, I -- before I do that, I apologize. The Clerk has alerted me that
I did not ask -- Mr. Clerk, are there any mayoral vetoes?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes.
ORDER OF THE DAY
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we'll now begin the regular meeting. The City Attorney will state the
procedures to be followed during the meeting.
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Thank you, Chairman. Any person who is a lobbyist must
register with the City Clerk before appearing before the City Commission. A copy of the Code
section about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office. The material for each item on the
agenda is available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office and online 24 hours a day at
wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. Any person may be heard by the City Commission for not more than
two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission. If the proposition is being
continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later dates before the City
Commission takes action on such proposition. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by
EXB 065
the City Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the
item. A video of this meeting may be requested at the Office of Communications or viewed online
at wwwmiamigov.com [sic]. No cell phones or other noise-making devices are permitted in the
Commission chambers. Please silence those devices now. Any person making offensive remarks
or who becomes unruly in the Commission chambers will be barred from further attending
Commission meetings. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids and
services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. 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. Commissioners have generally been
briefed by City staff and the City Attorney on items on the agenda today. At this time, the
Chairman or the Administration will announce any items, if any, that are being withdrawn,
deferred, or substituted. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Manager, do you have any from the Administration side, anything you wish
to defer or --?
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): Yes, sir, we have one item that we'd like to continue, RE.14 --
Chair Sarnoff: Okay.
Mr. Martinez: -- to continue to December 12.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Does any Commissioner have anything they want to modify, continue,
or defer?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, give me a second. I thought there was more items in my
agenda that the Administration had mentioned that were going to be deferred, so let me just
verify. I was told that SR.2 --
Chair Sarnoff: Sorry?
Commissioner Carollo: I was told that SR.2 was going to be continued in our meeting. I'm not
sure if it's going to be by -- who's going to be requesting that, but during our briefing, I was told
that SR.2 was going to be continued.
Vice Chair Gort: SR.2?
Commissioner Carollo: I was told that -- yeah -- during our briefing, I was told that SR.2 was --
Mr. Martinez: That's fine, that's fine.
Commissioner Carollo: So I'm just --
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah, if you weren't briefed on it -- and I think it was advertised as deferred.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm not sure, but when I only hear that only one item --
Chair Sarnoff: That's fine.
Commissioner Carollo: And I was told that RE.14 was going to be continued.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: What about RE.1 and 2 -- 1 and 3 -- 2 and

3(UININTELLIGIBLE)?
EXB 066
Chair Sarnoff: Let me just see what -- let's go to RE.14. RE.14 was which issue?
Commissioner Carollo: And I guess what I'm saying is during my briefing, we go by each item,
and I was told that certain items were going to be continued; however, I hear that only one now
is being, you know, proffered for continuance, so I'm saying, whoa, wait a second --
Chair Sarnoff: I heard R --
Vice Chair Gort: Two and three?
Commissioner Carollo: -- what --
Chair Sarnoff: I heard that --
Commissioner Carollo: -- about all these other ones?
Chair Sarnoff: So RE.14, RE (Resolution) --
Mr. Martinez: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: And then Commissioner Spence-Jones, you said RE.2 and RE.3. Right, that's
correct. I heard RE.2 was being deferred as well.
Mr. Martinez: RE.2, yes.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Two --
Mr. Martinez: That's the appointment of the --
Chair Sarnoff: I hadn't heard about RE.3, but do you want to defer that?
Mr. Martinez: RE.3, which one is that?
Commissioner Carollo: I don't have a problem with RE.3.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Okay, that's fine, just cross it out.
Chair Sarnoff: So what I have right now is RE.14, SR.2, RE -- and RE.2. Does anybody have
anything else they want to consider?
Commissioner Carollo: There is one that I'm considering; however, before I request a referral, I
would like to discuss it further with staff. It deals with Water and Sewer, so before I actually
proffer a deferral for my colleagues to entertain, I would like to, you know, have additional time
with staff, so at this time, at this moment, I do not want to defer it, but I'm just giving you a heads
up.
Vice Chair Gort: Is that the pump station?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, yes.
Chair Sarnoff: I also want to defer to the next Commission meeting D2.1.
Commissioner Carollo: D2.1.
EXB 067
Chair Sarnoff: D2.1 is the double pole issue, and the reason I'm deferring it, I'm going to read it
into the record. It's a letter from Comcast, and I'm going to read the relevant portion. It says:
As promised, we at Comcast are committed to providing additional resources and will regroup
in the coming weeks to provide updates on our progress. In the meantime, we will continue to
coordinate all our efforts with FP&L (Florida Power & Light), AT&T (American Telephone &
Telegraph), and the City to ensure active communication and timely completion. If you all
remember, this was the double pole issue.
Vice Chair Gort: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, since that occurred, I have some
addresses that have double poles, and absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: And I will make sure you get a copy of this letter so you can --
Commissioner Carollo: Please.
Chair Sarnoff: -- speak to her, because we determined the major problem is Comcast.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, and I think you're probably right, because I have seen that FPL
has actually transferred their wires from one pole to the other; however, there's still for some
reason a double pole and some wiring, so you may be correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, so I'm going to defer D2.1, as well, for the next Commission meeting. Is
there a motion on -- as stated on -- as stated subjects?
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort. Any

discussion? Hearing no discussion; all in favor, please say aye.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, so now we are up to --
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to request from you and my
colleagues a time certain -- I know I sent an e-mail (electronic) -- with regards to a pocket item
that did not print at the same time as the agenda; however, it was passed out with all
documentation at the same time as the agenda, so it's within the five-day rule, but I just want to
make sure that at 4:30, we could have a time certain.
Chair Sarnoff: We have that.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Later...
Chair Sarnoff: Are you going to be in a position, you think, to decide on PH.3 or --? Tell me --
EXB 068
Commissioner Carollo: I --
Chair Sarnoff: -- 'cause otherwise, I'll pass the gavel to you and I'll make a motion.
Commissioner Carollo: -- haven't met with them.
Chair Sarnoff: Sorry?
Commissioner Carollo: I haven't met with the Administration on it.
Chair Sarnoff: Who in the Administration needs to meet with Commissioner Carollo? Mr.
Ihekwaba, before 7 o'clock tonight, would you make sure you make yourself available to him?
Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Director, Public Works): Yeah. For your information, Commissioner, the
information you requested has been transmitted to your staff.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. I -- like I said, I haven't had a chance to look at it, I haven't met
with you on it, so nothing has changed.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. At 7 o'clock I'll call the question so -- and you can vote against it, if you
need to. All right, PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda. Are we there?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, if you would like to move on to the PZ agenda, we'll just
need like two minutes to flip the tape.
Mr. Hannon: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: I know there's quite a few deferrals and continuances.
Mr. Hannon: So then, Chair, did you want to recess your regular meeting?
Chair Sarnoff: I guess we will be in recess. Is there anything left on that meeting? I guess the
tabling, yes.
Commissioner Carollo: At 4:30 we have --
Chair Sarnoff: And you're right, there is --
Mr. Hannon: And the brownfields, as well.
Chair Sarnoff: Right, so we'll be in recess.
Commissioner Carollo: Until 4:30?
Chair Sarnoff: You want a ten-minute recess?
Commissioner Carollo: I don't care. I mean, if you give -- if you allow --
Chair Sarnoff: You can get a one-minute or two-minute -- yeah, you want to go -- you want to
see if you could go meet with him?
Ms. Mndez: We -- I think we also have our discussion items from -- as well, if --
EXB 069
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. I --
Commissioner Carollo: The only discussion item that I have, I'm not -- I'm going to defer all of
them. The only one that I need to make sure that I discuss, once again, is the audited financial
statements to make sure that we're on time. I will need our financial staff to be here and make
sure that interim work has begun already on next year's audit.
EXB 070
CONSENT AGENDA
CA.1 RESOLUTION
13-01224
Department of Capital A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Improvements ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
Program AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWAGE SERVICES WITH
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE DINNER KEY MARINA
DOCKMASTER BUILDING PROJECT, B-60464; ALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,572.32, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
B-60464, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo and Spence-Jones

Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-13-0441
CA.2 RESOLUTION
13-01225
Program AGREEMENT FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWAGE SERVICES WITH
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR THE WEST END PARK NEW
COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT, B-30690; ALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,816.54, FROM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
B-30690, FOR SAID PURPOSE.

R-13-0442
CA.3 RESOLUTION
13-01228
Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ENTITLED: "RECORDS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,745.00, CONSISTING OF A GRANT FROM
THE MIAMI-DADE OFFICE OF GRANTS COORDINATION, FOR THE
EXB 071
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AND
ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE ACCEPTANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION OF SAID GRANT.

R-13-0443
CA.4 RESOLUTION
13-01229
Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ENTITLED: "SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROJECT" AND
COORDINATION, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, AND ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM

R-13-0444
CA.5 RESOLUTION
13-01231
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID
General Services RECEIVED AUGUST 7, 2013, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO.
Administration 368343, FROM GRAPHIC DESIGNS INTERNATIONAL, INC., FOR THE
PROVISION OF VEHICLE DECALS AND STRIPING FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ON AN AS-NEEDED,
CONTRACTUAL BASIS, FOR AN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF ONE (1)
YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR THREE (3) ADDITIONAL ONE
(1) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES
OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT(S), SUBJECT TO THE
EXB 072
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF

NEED.
13-01231 Award Recommendation Form.pdf
13-01231 Bid Tabulation.pdf
13-01231 Invitation for Bid.pdf

R-13-0445
CA.6 RESOLUTION
13-01329
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Attorney ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MIAMI AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA ("STATE"), OFFICE OF THE
STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
TO REIMBURSE THE STATE FOR THE COST OF STATE ATTORNEY
PROSECUTION OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED.

R-13-0446
CA.7 RESOLUTION
13-01328
Attorney ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH WEST, A
THOMSON BUSINESS, FOR WESTLAW, A COMPUTER ASSISTED LEGAL
RESEARCH SERVICE, FOR THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR A
THREE-YEAR PERIOD, IN A FIRST-YEAR AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$35,510.40, WITH THE SECOND YEAR INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY ONE
PERCENT, AND THE THIRD YEAR BY THREE PERCENT, FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $108,317.40, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
OF $11,201.46 FOR CLEAR PLUS WEB ANALYTICS (PUBLIC RECORDS)
FOR A FINAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF $119,578.86.
13-01328 Memo-Office of the City Attorney.pdf
EXB 073

R-13-0447
Adopted the Consent Agenda
Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Vice Chair Spence-Jones, including all the
preceding items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion
carried by the following vote:
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so now we're starting on the CAs (Consent Agendas). Does anybody
wish to pull any of the CAs for comment, or do they wish to make a motion on the entirety?
Vice Chair Gort: Move it.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner

Spence-Jones. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion; all in favor, please say aye.
EXB 074
PERSONAL APPEARANCE
PA.1 PRESENTATION
13-01307
REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO
ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S NEW PARKING STRUCTURE.
13-01307 Letter - Florida Dept. of Health.pdf
13-01307-Submittal-Florida Dept. of Health.pdf

PRESENTED
(PA.1) RESOLUTION
13-01307a
City Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WAIVING, PURSUANT
TO SECTION 17-4 (F) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
FEES, IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000.00 FOR THE COST OF PERMITS FOR
THE REMOVAL AND PLANTING OF TREES BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH FOR THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S
NEW PARKING STRUCTURE.
13-01307a-Submittal-Florida Dept. of Health.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
R-13-0477
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a personal appearance, I understand, from the Florida
Department of Health. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Toms Regalado: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman, Commissioners. This
is an item that is sponsored by Chair Sarnoff and myself, and it's a presentation about the new
parking structure of the Miami-Dade Health Department in District 1. I am sure that everyone
has been briefed. I just want to mention that throughout the last month, we had had a very good
relationship and cooperation from the Department of Health, especially in the issue of the parks,
and Dr. Lillian Rivera has been extremely helpful in organizing seminars and doing the
laboratory tests and all that, so I just want to thank publicly the Miami-Dade County Public
Health Department for the cooperation with the City of Miami, and I'm sure that what you will
hear, it's important for all Miami-Dade County, but especially for the City of Miami and
especially for the Health District, Commissioner Gort, so thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: You're part of the Department of Health, right?
Heather Beaton: Yes. My name is --
Chair Sarnoff: Would you state your name for the record?
EXB 075
Ms. Beaton: Sure. My name is Heather Beaton, and I am -- I work for the Florida Department
of Health in Miami-Dade County, and I'm here to request via resolution a waiver of the tree
mitigation requirements and fine for tree removal at our parking garage being constructed . It's
in the area of Jackson Memorial Hospital. The DOH (Department of Health) is obviously a State
agency dedicated to the provision of public health services to the underserved populations. The
parking lots -- garage's sole purpose is to provide free parking for clients and for our employees.
There will be no charge for the parking. The garage is State-owned and operated, and there's
obviously no profit that is going to be given to the Department of Health. The permit fees and
fines that we're discussing here today were an unplanned expense, and we have -- it greatly
impacts our very tight budget that we have for the building that was given to us through a State
appropriation. In addition, the space is very limited, and we're having difficulty finding spaces
for those trees that are required under the code section. We ask for your assistance and
understanding in this matter, and thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this morning. And
I have some other representatives if you have any questions specifically to this item.
Chair Sarnoff: Commissioner Gort is recognized.
Vice Chair Gort: You built a new facility on 14th Street and 14th Avenue, and I have to tell you,
you did a beautiful job there. That was a benefit for the community, for that area there. I don't
have a problem with the facility you would like to build. We are working very close with the
Health District and you all to try to improve that, and try to create a -- some kind of a campus
atmosphere where people feel comfortable when they go there, especially with the project that's
going to come right across the street from you all. So I don't have any problem in making a
motion, but if you can in the future put some other landscaping like you did on that corner -- you
did a beautiful job, I mean, that -- I commend you on that. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Carollo: Second for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Carollo. He's recognized for the record.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. And I want to -- I just want to verify exactly what the motion
is; for them not to pay the fees, but then the trees are going to be removed, they're not going to be
supplemented or actually planted somewhere else, or they're not going to plant additional trees,
so --?
Vice Chair Gort: That's their request, but my understanding is anyones [sic] that want them,
they probably want -- they're willing to give it to them. If anybody wants the trees, you can --
Commissioner Carollo: So in other words -- well, hold on, because relocation of trees, I know,
all goes through a process, so I don't know if that's up in the table.
Vice Chair Gort: Uh-uh.
Commissioner Carollo: It's not relocation of trees, so it would be planting or the cost of
planting, you know, the requirements for whenever you remove a tree, I think you have to plant
two --
Vice Chair Gort: That is correct.
EXB 076
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Orlando Diaz: Good morning. Orlando Diaz, director of code compliance. Section 17 of our
code, landscaping, required by table that based on the trees you're going to remove and based on
the tree that going to be planted. After they planted the tree that was required by the code, based
on that table, they have to provide to the Tree Trust Fund an amount of $50,000. As per Section
17(f), the City Commission is the one can be have exempt-- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for permit of
government agencies, and that's basically -- but they're going to plant the new tree also on the
project.
Commissioner Carollo: So it's either -- so is it both? They have to plant --
Mr. Diaz: It's both.
Commissioner Carollo: -- a new tree, and at the same time, they have to pay --
Mr. Diaz: That is correct.
Chair Sarnoff: And we're waiving the payment part.
Vice Chair Gort: No, no, we're waiving that. That's a resolution.
Chair Sarnoff: Right, waiving the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Carollo: We're waiving the payment --
Mr. Diaz: The plant is not waived. It's just the amount, the fee of --
Chair Sarnoff: Right.
Mr. Diaz: -- the tree fund.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, 'cause I think I would have had a problem with waiving them
replanting. I do believe that we should have tree canopy, and I do believe that if a tree is
removed, that we should plant somewhere else, you know, something that is sufficed so we
continue to have our tree canopy. So what you're actually -- and I want to verify -- what you're
asking, Commissioner Gort, is to waive the $50,000 --
Vice Chair Gort: That's correct.
Commissioner Carollo: -- to the Trust --
Vice Chair Gort: And one of the reasons that I use is if you go by the corner, what used to be
there, an old building that was built maybe 40 years ago, it was replaced by a modern new
building, a lot of landscaping and beautiful parking spaces with lots of landscaping. That's why
I made the motion.
Chair Sarnoff: And if I could just say something, I want to thank the Florida Department of
Health for all the work you've been doing with regard to the contamination of the parks and the
testing, and you've been a great partner, as has DERM (Department of Environmental Resource
Management), in helping us get through -- and I think we're not even halfway through the
process, so I think we're going to be long-termers, so to speak, and we're going to be dealing
with this for quite a while, but I just want to thank you for everything you've done with regard to
even volunteering to test for two exposed parks, so thank you for that.
EXB 077
Ms. Beaton: Very happy to do so. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so we have a motion, and we have a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor, then please say "aye."
END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
EXB 078
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9:00 A.M.
PH.1 RESOLUTION
13-01233
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Community and ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION
Economic PROGRAM MAXIMUM SUBSIDY AMOUNT TO CHANGE FROM AN AMOUNT
Development NOT TO EXCEED $35,000.00 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00,
AS INDICATED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
13-01233 Exhibit A.pdf
R-13-0448
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, PH.1.
George Mensah: Good morning, Commissioners. George Mensah, director, Community

Development. PH.1 is a resolution authorizing the increase in the maximum subsidy amount for
a single-family rehabilitation program from $35,000 to a maximum of $50,000.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Carollo; any discussion? It's a public hearing.
Anybody wishing to be heard on PH.1, PH.1, please step up. Hearing none, seeing none, the
public hearing is now closed; coming back to this Commission. Commissioner Gort is
recognized for the record.
Vice Chair Gort: Let me ask you a question. My understanding is that Code Enforcement a lot
of times fines people that have -- they're not -- in noncompliance with a lot of the requirements
for the code. My understanding is we still have funds to help those people to -- there's money to
allow them to -- and this will be used for that, also.
Mr. Mensah: Yes, exactly. Typically, when Code Enforcement goes out, they have a flyer. When
they cite any single-family owner, what they do, they give them the flyer, and then they call us,
and they see -- put an application together, and we (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Gort: I just want to make sure that communication continues --
EXB 079
Mr. Mensah: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: -- which is very important.
Mr. Mensah: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, any further discussion? All in favor, then please say aye.
PH.2 RESOLUTION
13-01106
Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "MIAMI HEIGHTS
SEWER PUMP STATION", A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1", SUBJECT TO THE
SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND
STREET COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND
INCORPORATED, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
PLAT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Gort, that this matter be
R-13-0468
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, PH.2.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, if we could table --
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, that's the one you want to table; not a problem.
Commissioner Carollo: -- PH.2, please?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, sir. So we will table this until you're ready.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, sometime in the afternoon.
Later...
Chair Sarnoff: So do you -- are you -- would you consider, Commissioner Carollo, going to the
EXB 080
tabled items?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. I was able to discuss with Water and Sewer and our
Administration, so I think I'm able to take 2. There's still one, the PH.3, I'm still -- I still haven't
been able to meet with them, but definitely, we could take PH.2, if possible, and there is another
one, PH (Public Hearing) --
Chair Sarnoff: We had tabled RE.11.
Commissioner Carollo: And RE.11, you're right.
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. So let's take PH.2, which is the sewer pump replat [sic]. Mr. Ihekwaba,
you're recognized for the record.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba: Yes. Good afternoon. Zerry Ihekwaba, Public Works director. PH.2 is a
resolution of Miami City Commission to accept the final plat of Miami Heights Sewer Pump
Station from Miami-Dade County and to authorize the City Manager to secure the related
documents for the recordation and approving the same in the public records of Miami -Dade
County.
Mr. Ihekwaba: Any question?
Chair Sarnoff: Do we have a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: Move it.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort.

This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on PH.2, PH.2, please step up. Hearing
none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission; any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all
in favor, please say aye.
Vice Chair Gort: I have a question.
Vice Chair Gort: Let me ask you a question. I have a call from someone that owns property in
Allapattah. They had a vacant store. Somebody approached them; they want to rent the store,
and I understand DERM (Department of Environmental Research Management) says they can't
do it, because they don't have the facility. What are we doing about those pumps?
Mr. Ihekwaba: The pumps in --
Alice Bravo (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): Yeah, there are certain areas
where there's a sewer moratorium, and so what we're working with the Department of Health is
that -- with that letter saying that there isn't sufficient sewer capacity; they'll be allowed to put in
a septic tank.
Vice Chair Gort: But the question is it's an existing facility that closed down and somebody else
is coming in at the same facility that's being used. I don't see any additional use of it.
EXB 081
Ms. Bravo: I'd have to check on the specific site as to what occurred with the sewer allocation
capacity.
Vice Chair Gort: That's keeping a lot of people -- now they're beginning to rent spaces in their
building and so on that they can't open businesses.
Ms. Bravo: Right. And this is --
Vice Chair Gort: I mean, we're pushing for economic development, and then when we're trying
to get someone to open up an office or something, they can't.
Ms. Bravo: We have our representative from WASA (Water & Sewer Authority) that can speak
about their remediation plans.
Eduardo Vega: Good afternoon. I'm Ed Vega, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer, assistant director
for engineering. If the -- I believe if you're talking about same use in the property --
Mr. Vega: -- it -- I don't think it would be an issue. You will have to tell me exactly the location.
And it's exactly the same use that it was before, I don't think it will be an issue in approving the
Vice Chair Gort: You have his information, right?
Ms. Bravo: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: We'll get you an e-mail (electronic). Thank you.
Mr. Vega: All right.
Chair Sarnoff: Can you stay up there? 'Cause I understand that Pump Station 9, Pump Station
11 are now operational.
Mr. Vega: Absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: And is the moratorium in the Grove lifted?
Mr. Vega: Absolutely. It was --
Vice Chair Gort: Yes.
Mr. Vega: -- lifted, I think, about a few days ago.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. And I thought so too, but I'd love to hear it from Miami-Dade officially.
Mr. Vega: Right.
Chair Sarnoff: And just for Commissioner -- is the same type of moratorium that went on the
Grove now being visited upon Allapattah?
Mr. Vega: May be. There are some areas that are on the moratorium because the pump station
already reach capacity, but I not sure exactly which pump station we talking about.
Vice Chair Gort: But it's not a new business.
EXB 082
Mr. Vega: No, I understand.
Vice Chair Gort: It's not a new facility. It's an existing --
Mr. Vega: I understand.
Vice Chair Gort: -- facility.
Mr. Vega: If it's the same use, same flow, it won't have any problems.
Chair Sarnoff: So, as you guys like to express it, No net new?
Mr. Vega: Exactly.
Chair Sarnoff: So if it's net/net the same --
Mr. Vega: If the net flow continues to be the same, it is.
Mr. Vega: All right.
Chair Sarnoff: Having gone through that moratorium for two years, I --
Vice Chair Gort: I know. I know you have.
Chair Sarnoff: -- feel like I could give you some expressions on how to do things.
PH.3 RESOLUTION
13-01234
Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THAT AN
Works EXISTING, PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED FENCE, BE PERMITTED TO BE
REPLACED WITH A WALL TO BE REINSTALLED AND REMAIN IN THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MAIN HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO
THE MOORINGS SUBDIVISION, MIAMI, FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN.
13-01234 Back-up Documents.pdf
13-01234-Submittal-Petitions of Support.pdf
13-01234-Submittal-Ben Fernandez.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item PH.3 was continued to the
December 12, 2013, Regular Commission Meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, PH.3. Mr. Ihekwaba, you're recognized for the record.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Director, Public Works): Good morning. Zerry Ihekwaba. PH.3 is a reso --
is a public hearing directing the existing previously permitted fence along Main Highway for the
EXB 083
Moorings Subdivision to be reinstalled and remain in the dedicated portion of the public
right-of-way. Back in 1991, the applicant had approached the City for permission to encroach
into the dedicated public right-of-way, and that permission was granted back in 1991. Pursuant
to Section 54-191 of the City Code, any type of relocation, repaves, replacement of the same wall
requires approval of the City Commission, subject to posting of a covenant to run with the land
and naming the City as an additional insured.
Ben Fernandez: Good morning.
Chair Sarnoff: You wish to be heard, Mr. Fernandez?
Mr. Fernandez: We have a brief presentation; that'd be fine, but if not, that's fine as well. I'd
like to submit for the record a substitution, Exhibit B, which is a revision to the wall. It lowers
the height of the wall to six feet, and I have a copy of that here.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, let me open up a public hearing. Does anybody wish to be heard on
PH.3, PH.3? Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission, is there a motion?
I'll move it.
Vice Chair Gort: Is there a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: I have reservations with something like this because of another issue
that we're dealing with in District 3. It's similar -- it's a similar scenario, and for some reason, it
just -- it doesn't get -- you know, I just keep seeing, you know, how these -- I don't know if you
want to call it waivers or whatever -- keep coming to the Commission, and it keeps getting done.
Yet, for our residents that may not have the, you know, high-powered attorneys and so forth, it
cannot get done. And again, I have reservations --
Chair Sarnoff: You should feel good 'cause I hired Ben Fernandez, not a high-powered lawyer.
Commissioner Carollo: Well, I guess whether high-powered or not, that depends on -- you know,
it's relative. It depends on who's paying for it or not or who -- whose opinion it is. Let me ask
you something. You're saying that the City is insured, so --
Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Well, they're going to proffer a covenant naming the City as an additional
insured, holding the City harmless for any type of liability issues.
Commissioner Carollo: Do you know who the insurance carrier is, just out of curiosity?
Because apparently, in this case, the insurance company will not do it, so I want to be -- in the
case in District 3 -- so I want to know, do you know who the insurance carrier is?
Mr. Fernandez: I'm being told that the carrier is -- we don't know who the carrier is. The agent
is Brown and Brown, and they've already accepted the condition.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, if we may, can we table this also at the same time that
we take up PH.2, so I could speak to the Administration about this a little bit?
Mr. Ihekwaba: Sure.
Chair Sarnoff: Sure.
Mr. Fernandez: May I? Mr. Chair, for the record, I also submit a petition signed by all of the
owners within the Moorings Subdivision, just for the record.
EXB 084
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: We'll table this, and we'll take it up in the afternoon at the same time as
PH.2.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. Now that medium-priced lawyer just continues to accrue his fees. That's
fine.
Vice Chair Gort: The only thing is --
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, I -- look, this is -- what they have is a cyclone fence which was once pretty
well covered by fichus. You know that the white fly epidemic has hit Coconut Grove pretty hard.
Once the epidemic hit and hit this fichus hedge pretty well, what was a reasonably durable -- and
let me be clear. My wife once lived in the Moorings, so I know the Moorings extremely well.
And once this hedge was de-neutered, I guess is the right word, they've had quite a few thefts
in the Moorings, and it's a pretty substantial community that pays -- if you -- you'd be shocked to
see the amount of taxes they pay to the City of Miami, and they've had a number of burglaries, a
number of thefts from people's homes. And if you've been down Main Highway -- I know you
have --
Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: Certainly, Plymouth Congregational Church; certainly, the Kampong; certainly,
the Vanguard School are similarly situated and similarly have the exact same type of structures
built; Kampong, much higher; candidly, the Plymouth Church much higher; candidly, Carrolton
School may be lower; Ransom Everglades, higher. So it's in conformity with what the
neighborhood has seen and expected. Six feet is probably a good deterrent, though, as you
would probably say, not an exact fix, but a good deterrent. I wholeheartedly support this. I
know the Mooring community very well. They have been hit by a number of -- not substantial
crimes, but I don't think anybody wants their bike stolen or their lawnmowers or other things
stolen, so I hope once you get briefed, you can support it. It's always difficult when you think
your issue is similar and it's not moving forward, because you always want to find a grappling
foot, if you will, to move your issue along. I certainly appreciate and understand that, but I
would hope by the afternoon, you would not hold up the Moorings from achieving what they're
trying to achieve, and if I can help you achieve what you want to achieve, I would certainly
support that.
Mr. Fernandez: Commissioner Carollo, and I'd be happy to meet with you as well on the other
issue and the similarities, et cetera.
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you get that medium-priced attorney to go out there and
help support. I'm just teasing with you, Ben. We all know you're a high-priced lawyer.
Vice Chair Gort: Okay, so --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, let's just table it and --
Vice Chair Gort: We'll table it until this afternoon.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And by all means, it's not my intention to hold any item hostage
or anything. Let's, you know -- but at the same time, I want to be further briefed on this to make
sure that I understand all the intricacies with --
EXB 085
Commissioner Carollo: -- regard to this.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, and I think PH.4 -- thank you, Mr. Fernandez.
Mr. Fernandez: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: And if I ever suggested you're a medium, you're not a medium guy at all.
PH.4 RESOLUTION
13-01287
Works ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-92 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING,
RATIFYING, APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S
FINDING OF A SOLE SOURCE; WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING PROCEDURES, AND APPROVING THE
UTILIZATION OF THE SCAVENGER 2000 DECONTAMINATION BOAT, FOR
SURFACE CLEANING FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S WATERFRONT, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, UTILIZING A UNIQUE PROPRIETARY
PROCESS, FROM WATER MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE
SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER, IN A TOTAL ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $200,000.00; ALLOCATING FUNDS, IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $200,000.00, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS OPERATIONS BUDGET, ACCOUNT NUMBER
00001.208000.534000.0.0; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR A ONE (1) YEAR PERIOD, WITH THE OPTION
TO EXTEND FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS, FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
13-01287 Memo - Scavenger 2000 Depollution Boat.pdf
13-01287 Memos - Sole Source Finding.pdf
13-01287 Letter - Water Management Technologies.pdf
13-01287 Back-Up Documents.pdf
13-01287-Submittal-Letters-Scavenger 2000.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Gort, seconded by Vice Chair Spence-Jones, that this matter be
R-13-0449
EXB 086
Attorney? We do not have enough Commissioners sitting here for that?
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. So now we go to PH.5, which is the brownfield issue, so I think PH.5 --
Vice Chair Gort: Wait, wait, wait.
Chair Sarnoff: No? We got Commissioner Spence-Jones. Here we go, PH.4. Mr. Ihekwaba.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba: Good morning. Zerry Ihekwaba, Public Works director. PH.4 is a
resolution of Miami City Commission by a 4/5ths affirmative vote, after an advertised public
hearing, to confirm the City Manager's finding of a sole source; waiving the requirements for
competitive bidding procedures and approving the utilization of Scavenger 2000 Depollution
boat, for surface cleaning of all the City of Miami's waterfront areas and canals; utilizing a
unique proprietary process for Water Management Technologies, for a one-year contract, with
an option to renew for two additional one-year periods, for a contract value of $200,000 per
year.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, let me open up a public hearing. Does anybody wish to be heard on
PH.4, PH.4, the Scavenger Boat? Mr. Aguirre, you're recognized for the record.
Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Horacio Stuart Aguirre, as
chairman of the Miami River Commission, with Mr. Brett Bibeau, managing director. We
strongly support the efforts of the company that sponsors the Scavenger Boat . They are the only
boat that does waterfront cleanup, not only for all of the Bayfront property of the City of Miami,
but also the tributaries in the City of Miami, and that includes Little River Canal, Miami River,
and any other tributaries. So I think we're getting a bargain, and as staff also will acknowledge,
we get a lot free time from them as well, don't we?
Mr. Ihekwaba: Yeah, we do.
Mr. Aguirre: Yeah.
Mr. Ihekwaba: If I may, Zerry Ihekwaba. The contract provides us with 50 weeks of continuous,
consistent cleaning of the waterways, plus an additional free period of one week on Miami River.
And also, once a year, they go over to the Blue Lagoon --
Mr. Aguirre: Yeah.
Mr. Ihekwaba: -- to clean the Blue Lagoon area as well.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on PH.4? Hearing none,
seeing none, coming back to this Commission; is there a motion?
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Second.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner

Spence-Jones. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
EXB 087
5:00 P.M.
PH.5 RESOLUTION
13-00713
Office of Grants A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE
Administration CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A BROWNFIELD AREA DOES NOT EXIST
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 144 AND 152 SOUTHWEST 8TH
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
WEST BRICKELL VIEW, A MULTI-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH
SIXTY FOUR (64), ONE AND TWO BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)
(1-5).
13-00713-Submittal-Maggie Knowles, etc. v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., etc..pdf
13-00713-Submittal-Downrite Engineering Corp. Change Order.pdf
13-00713-Submittal-URS Technical Memorandum.pdf
R-13-0474
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we're going to take PH.5, PH.6, and PH.7. Madam City Attorney, can
we open up a public hearing simultaneous?
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Yes. Now we're back -- we're still on the regular agenda,
right?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes, ma'am. And I do --
Ms. Mndez: Okay.
Mr. Hannon: -- need to administer the oath.
Ms. Mndez: Okay.
Mr. Hannon: Excuse me, Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: I'm sorry. I'll -- I do need -- this is a quasi-judicial -- these three items are
EXB 088
quasi-judicial, so I will need to administer the oath before we begin any public input.
Chair Sarnoff: Go ahead.
Mr. Hannon: May I proceed, sir?
Commissioner Carollo: I'm going to go to my office while you're doing that, and I'll be right
back within two minutes, but we're not taking a vote right now, so you can proceed and I'll come
back for quorum, okay, but just proceed. I will be right back.
Mr. Hannon: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Anyone speaking on PH.5, 6, and 7, the
brownfield items, may I please have you stand and raise your right hand?
The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those giving
testimony on zoning issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Whoever needs to set up, please set up. Is the Administration ready to proceed?
Ms. Mndez: Actually, Chairman, the applicant would go first.
Ms. Mndez: And we need to figure out the time allotment that you want to give at this time.
Chair Sarnoff: How long does the applicant think his presentation is going to take?
Unidentified Speaker: Forty-five minutes.
Chair Sarnoff: Forty-five minutes?
Commissioner Carollo: There goes your hour. I told you to do PZs (Planning and Zoning).
Chair Sarnoff: I'll give you 30 minutes. Start clocking it now.
Mr. Hannon: Chair, there are some additional consultants that need to be sworn in and I need
to administer the oath.
Mr. Hannon: Gentlemen, can you raise your right hand?
The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those giving
testimony on zoning issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: You are --
Michael Goldstein: Mr. Chairman, may I begin?
Chair Sarnoff: -- great. Are you ready?
EXB 089
Mr. Goldstein: Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you so much. My name is Michael
Goldstein. I am the managing partner of the Goldstein Environmental law firm. We're here on
behalf of three applicants in connection with three consecutive items, seeking a brownfield area
designation pursuant to State statute. We have submitted applications to the City Manager, and
through the City Manager, the City staff. Those applications were submitted at the end of last
year. We submitted supplemental responses to requests for information in February, and in the
ensuing months, we had several meetings with City staff. We're here today to present our case in
support of the applications to present testimony, to hear the City's position, to cross-examine the
City's witnesses, and then to respond to any questions that this Commission may have and , Mr.
Chairman, that you may have. We would like to reserve whatever time is necessary for those
follow-up questions in cross-examination, if we may. I've also been advised by the Assistant City
Attorney, whom we have met with on several occasions for the City, that this is a quasi-judicial
proceeding, and so in support of the record, we're going to be -- attempt to be very detailed, and
we apologize in advance for some of the tedium that it may result in, but it's important because
there's a lot at stake here, and there's a lot at risk for the City, unfortunately, based on where we
are today with the City's recommendation, and there's a lot at risk not only in connection with
our client, with the applications before you, but with respect to the City's exposure potentially to
damages for potentially failure to follow a very clear criterion in State law. And there's also a
precedent that this Board needs to be aware of in connection with forthcoming applications
under this statute which are designed to take advantage of State-based economic incentives to
allow important projects to go forward, to fill critical funding gaps, to allow for better and more
housing throughout the City in all of its districts, to provide for job creation, to provide for more
tax revenues to the City, and so that the City can provide for more services. All of this is at stake.
And let me say before I do some preliminary introductions that this isn't just theoretical when I
speak about the precedential effect that this application has, because this issues that we're going
to discuss are the very same issues with respect to several other applications we have coming
before you, Mr. Chairman, in your district, very same type of application; and Commissioner
Gort, we have another application that's going to be coming to you, as well. So these -- the legal
issues we'll be discussing here are similar, and not just with respect to our clients, but with
respect to other clients who want to create new jobs, create more economic activity, and engage
in smart and sustainable land development patterns and actives. I have with me today my
associate, Elena Tillman. She'll be assisting me in my presentation. And my expert, who I'll
qualify at the appropriate time, is Craig Clevenger. He's a professional geologist with the firm
of EE&G Environmental Services, LLC (Limited Liability Company). I'll also point out that he
worked for the City as its in-house environmental expert at one point in time and was the City's
own brownfields coordinator, and was responsible for the most recent expansion of the City of
Miami's brownfield areas. I'll also note, in terms of my bona fides in speaking to those issues,
I've been involved in the Florida Brownfields program even before there was a Florida
Brownfield's program, before the Legislature created the statute that we're going to be talking
about today. In 1996 I participated in a drafting. I went to Tallahassee. I participated in the
committee meetings. Even before that, the Dade County Commission appointed me to chair the
Miami-Dade County Task Force, and the City of Miami over the years has hired me to be their
environmental lawyer. They've relied on my judgment and my analysis in connection with
environmental redevelopment generally and brownfields specifically. And in fact, the City hired
me as their brownfields consultant to draft their brownfields strategic plan , so that's some
background about who we are and why we're here. What I want to start talking about today is,
before I get into the specifics of this application, why brownfields is so important generally. The
brownfields program is so important generally because it allows both the private sector and
public sector to develop confidence -- financial confidence, legal confidence -- in acquiring,
cleaning up, reusing sites that have environmental challenges. Part of our presentation today
EXB 090
and part of our task here today is to demonstrate to this Commission that environmental
challenges can exist at a site, can lock up the value and use of a site not just when you have
actual onsite contamination, but when you have contamination relatively adjacent to the subject
property such that construction or development activities could draw contamination onto your
property, creating exposure to unnecessary legal liability, and unbudgeted construction costs,
and unplanned for health risks. So in light of all of this, the Florida Brownfields program has
created economic incentives and liability incentives to allow these challenged sites to be
addressed in a timely fashion, creating better and more sustainable land-use patterns and, to
some extent, alleviating the pressure to engage in scrawl development. In other words, it
encourages developers to address, to voluntarily embrace and not run away from those infill
sites that are marginalized and sitting on the sidelines due to environmental concerns , either real
or perceived. And let me -- I'll say this about that: Your own website, the City's Economic
Development website recognizes the risk posed by both actual and perceived contamination. So
there's an institutional recognition by this City that onsite actual contamination isn 't needed for a
brownfields designation. The first exhibit that we have before you represents all of the current
designated brownfield areas in the City of Miami. The City actually has 9,000 acres that are
already designated as brownfields, okay. The reason for that is because, again, it provides a
very important and meaningful economic incentive to smart and sustainable growth by providing
limited State-based subsidies, no impact, no negative impact, only positive impact to the City's
bottom line, as well as liability relief. And what you see, if you look at the map on the exhibit,
there are some areas of the City that are not considered economically marginalized per se. For
example, Midtown, which is subject to hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is a
designated brownfield area. The port of Miami, where Flagstone will be building, is a
designated brownfield area. We see this all over the State. Developers who are spending lots of
money on redevelopment and development, embracing the designation, not concerned about
stigma or property value diminution because it doesn't exist. The brownfields designation
creates value. It unlocks value. We recently represented a party in the City of North Miami
Beach that built on an abandoned landfill ten years ago. That site had been marginalized for 50
years. This gentleman came in, secured the designation, took advantage of the incentives, and
recently sold that project for $50 million to a real estate investment trust, which is a very
conservative entity. So you can see how the designation lifts value; it doesn't diminish value,
which takes us to our next slide. This is a brief compilation of academic studies.
Chair Sarnoff: Could I make a recommendation to you? I know I can't see it.
Chair Sarnoff: If you want me to see that, would you hold it up?
Mr. Goldstein: Sure. Craig, could you help us? So this is just a brief compilation of third-party,
peer reviewed academic studies that empirically demonstrate the increase in value as a result of
a brownfields designation. This is across the country, okay. And then I want to go to the next
slide, if I may, the next exhibit, because this -- and we're about to get into the specifics of this
application, but this is all necessary pretext. This exhibit is a representation of the incentive that
will likely enure to the developer as a result of this project. The way in which the incentive works
for affordable housing, if you are in a designated brownfield area and you're building affordable
housing, the State wants to reward you for taking that risk, and as a result, you're entitled to a
100 percent sales tax rebate on construction materials. The typical sales tax rebate -- the typical
percentage of eligible building materials on a capital construction project is about 30 percent.
And so, you see we've modeled several construction budgets from $10 million on the low end to
$75 million on the high end, and we discount the sales tax to 6 percent. We don't include the
local increment, to be very conservative. So when you look through that spread sheet that we've
prepared, you can see that the potential rebate can be very significant, and it acts as a mini tax
increment financing district, because those sales taxes go to the State, not to the City. They're
dispersed to the four corners of the State. Through this program, we capture that sales tax and
EXB 091
we put it right back into the property. The total capital cost for these three projects is in excess
of $107 million that we are spending in your city. The construction budget is just over $37
million, which means that the -- for eligible building materials -- what is at stake here is almost
$2 million cash that the developer will get back from the State, not from the City, to put back into
its projects. It is a very significant incentive to us, and that's why I urge you to, as we go through
this, pay attention closely to what the law requires. You're going to hear from your own staff a
lot of concerns that have nothing to do with what the statute requires. And it pains us to say this,
but we find ourself in this position 11 months after filing the application having to say this, that if
the City doesn't comply with the law and designate this site a brownfield, which we think is
required, the City is going to be exposed to a claim for damages in at least the amount of the
refund that would otherwise be due to us. Now, ultimately, this Commission decides whether or
not we have complied with the statutory criteria, so let's get into that right now, if we can. That
takes us to the next slide. Let me take a quick look at that, Craig. Okay, so there are two ways in
which an area, or a site, or a corridor can become a brownfield. There are two sets of criteria,
and that's not in debate. We had a discussion with your excellent Assistant City Attorney, and
even your staff agrees with the criteria that are applicable. There are criteria that are applicable
when the City wants to designate a brownfield area, like it's done here to the tune of 9,000 acres.
We're not talking about that. We're talking about these five criteria in Section 376.80(2)(b), and I
want you to note one thing that we've highlighted in that exhibit. The statute says shall. In
other words, when and if an applicant demonstrates compliance with these five statutory criteria,
the law becomes mechanical. The local government is without discretion to deny the
designation. We feel that we have done that with respect to all three of our applications. Your
staff has agreed that we have done so with respect to all three applications. In the staff analysis,
prepared by your staff for all three applications, they stipulate to the fact that we meet each and
every one of these criteria. The first criteria -- and, again, this is going to get a little tedious.
I'm going to try and race through it -- is that we own or control the site where we're requesting a
designation, and we agree to rehabilitate and redevelop it. We've done that with respect to --
we've demonstrated compliance with respect to that criterion. All three times, your staff agrees.
The second criterion is economic productivity and the creation of at least five new jobs, unless
it's affordable housing; in which case, new jobs aren't required, but just economic productivity.
We presented a detailed showing with respect to all three projects, and I've referenced that in
passing with the $107 million that we're spending. Your City staff has agreed that we met that
criteria on all three projects. The third criteria is that we're consistent with a local comp plan,
and that we're permitable under the local land development regulations. Well, that criteria
speaks for itself because the projects are now almost all built.
Chair Sarnoff: Can I just ask a question?
Chair Sarnoff: Are you affordable housing or are you creating five jobs?
Mr. Goldstein: We are affordable housing, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: And under that requirement, you don't need to have any additional jobs,
correct? You just --
Mr. Goldstein: No, sir. No, sir, not required.
Vice Chair Gort: Depends on the project.
EXB 092
Mr. Goldstein: The fourth criteria is public notice and comment. The statute prescribes how we
have to give public notice and comment. Not only did we comply with that; we went above and
beyond what the statute requires. The statute simply requires posting at the property and
advertising in the newspaper. We held a community meeting. It's not required. We did it
because it's the right thing to do. And even though not a -- very few people, except your staff, for
I think 30 minutes of the meeting, if that, showed up at the public meeting. I personally received
a number of calls from neighbors who wanted to know when these projects were going to be
built, because they couldn't wait to lease. We also received comments from -- questions from two
property owners who wanted to know about the designation and what it meant. Not only were
they satisfied with our responses, but they are also looking into the designation to see how they
can also facilitate, and encourage, and accelerate investment of private capital to create better
projects for the City, and more jobs, and more tax revenues. And then the final criterion is that
we are to demonstrate reasonable financial assurances that we have the capacity to get all of this
done, and we feel we've done that. The City feels that we have done that. They've stimulate --
they've stipulated to that as well. So from our perspective, from a legal perspective -- and I urge
you to hear this very clearly -- this is all that the statute requires. It's very clear. It's there in
black and white. It's in your materials, in your briefing packages. Demonstrate those five
criteria. The City shall -- the local governmental jurisdiction shall designate a brownfield area.
Done. That's not to say that there's not some confusion about what's going on here, which I
understand. Part of the confusion comes from the difference between the definition of a
brownfield site and a brownfield area, okay. Unfortunately, when the Legislature put together
the statute, they mixed and matched these terms. There's nothing in the statute -- and I'm sitting
here as a lawyer under oath telling you this -- that requires -- that expressly requires that you
demonstrate compliance with those definitions. But having said that, I can understand why City
staff and why you, as Commissioners, would wonder why a program was created that allows for
designation without at least some discussion of environmental issues, if these incentives are
based in environmental concerns, so let's go through that. And the definition of brownfield site is
before you. Craig, you want to turn it to me so I can read it? Real property, the expansion or
redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by actual or perceived environmental
contamination. We need to break that down very quickly. There are three elements to it. The
first element is expansion, redevelopment or reuse. Well, we have that clearly. We are
redeveloping property. We're expanding it and we're reusing it. The second component is
nuance, and we're going to discuss that. May be complicated. Unfortunately, the statute doesn't
discuss complicated, but it's like Justice Brennan says or said, We know it when we see it.
And when we explain it to you, you'll know it as well. And then finally, note that the statute
speaks to -- the definition of brownfield sites, speaks to either actual or perceived contamination.
That's the very same construct that you have on your own Economic Development website in
talking about brownfield sites. The City want to -- wanting to facilitate redevelopment where
there's either actual or perceived contamination. And when I stop to take a breath, I will submit
to the Clerk a screen shot demonstrating that that's actually the case. The -- so we've got
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse, which may be complicated by actual or perceived
environmental contamination. The other point here that I want to emphasize is that there's
nothing even in the definition -- there's nothing in the definition that requires actual or perceived
contamination to be at the subject property, itself. It's nowhere in the statute, because it makes
sense. If there are environmental issues that are impacting or complicating redevelopment
wherever they are, if they're legitimate, then we want to incentivize developers to confront these
issues head on, not turn away from these sites but turn toward them, roll their sleeves up and
figure the problem out, and the State says We're going to help you do that by giving you limited
State subsidy; won't impact negatively, only positively on a local government. We're going to
give you some liability protection as well, okay. So what we're going to do now, as we close
our case in chief, is I'm going to walk you through the geography and the hydrology of our three
sites relative to the statute, and then I'm going to provide some testimony from our expert
witness, and all of that will go into helping you understand why even though it' s not required as
a matter of law to demonstrate that we are a brownfield site, 'cause these definitions were set up
poorly, we want you to understand why it's still good public policy and why we are rooted, this
EXB 093
request -- why this request is rooted in an environmental concern. I'll also note this There's an
error, one of many, in the staff report here. In referencing the brownfield's definition, the staff
report indicates that this is an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) definition. This is not an
EPA definition. This is a definition that is incorporated and codified in State law, drafted by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. There is -- there's a similar definition under
federal law as promulgated by the EPA, but it's -- that distinction is important because it reflects
a critical lack of precision and kind of a fast and loose play with the facts and the law here that
create confusion for you as a board, okay. So what I want to do now is I want to show you where
these sites are. We've got three sites. These sites are -- two of the sites are generally located at
the intersection of Southwest 8th Street and Southeast 2nd Avenue, okay. We have one site, Vista
Grande -- I'm sorry; Brickell View, which is located directly east of a highly contaminated gas
station. Craig, do you want to point that out? We are hard up against a highly contaminated
gas station that has never had any actual cleanup, but has demonstrated contamination at
exceedingly high levels.
Vice Chair Gort: You're talking about 8th Street and --
Mr. Goldstein: Second Avenue.
Vice Chair Gort: -- Southwest 2nd Avenue, not southeast.
Mr. Goldstein: I'm sorry.
Vice Chair Gort: Southwest.
Mr. Goldstein: Thank you. Yes, correct.
Chair Sarnoff: What did you call that one? That's Brickell what?
Mr. Goldstein: That's Brickell View.
Chair Sarnoff: View.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay?
Chair Sarnoff: That's the one just east, west, south of where we're --
Mr. Goldstein: It is just east of the gas station on Southwest 8th Street, okay? Then we've got
another project that's also practically adjacent to the contaminated gas stationsite. It's right
across the street, although contamination doesn't respect property boundaries or rights-of-way.
That is Vista Grande. That's located just south of the Wendy's and just east and southeast -- I'm
sorry; west and southwest of the gas station, okay?
Commissioner Carollo: These are all affordable housing, correct?
Mr. Goldstein: Everything is affordable housing, Commissioner. Okay. Yes. I've been
instructed to clarify that all projects are affordable housing for seniors . You want to tilt that my
way just for a second? Okay. So this is another shot of our site showing the distance between
Vista Grande, right across the street from the contaminated gas station site, less than 100 feet,
okay?
Vice Chair Gort: Next to Wendy's.
Commissioner Carollo: And you're saying the contamination is the gas station?
EXB 094
Mr. Goldstein: Yes, Commissioner. And this next board shows the actual contamination, as of
1991 when it was discovered. It has not been cleaned up. It has not been fully assessed. It is
languishing. I don't know if you saw the article in Miami Today yesterday and the excellent
newspaper, the Miami Today, where Wilbur Mayorga, the chief of formerly DERM (Department
of Environmental Research Management) and now RERS [sic], Environmental Restoration and
Monitoring Session -- Section, where he was discussing the dry cleaning cleanup program, which
is not much of a cleanup program. It's a warehousing program, severely underfunded, lots of
sites are languishing. It's the same thing with this site. The State has a petroleum cleanup
program. Once you're in it, you don't have to clean anything up. You can wait for the State to
fund. There are over 10,000 unfunded gas station sites in that program. This is one of them.
Contamination was discovered in the late '80s, early '90s. There's been no cleanup whatsoever.
What you see on this exhibit is a -- are contours or lines showing the inferred extent of
contamination in ground water at very, very high levels. Just to give you one example -- and
then, Commissioner, I think you may have a question. There is a category of contamination in
gasoline called BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene , and Xylenes). That's an acronym.
Environmental lawyers and consultants love acronyms. BTEX stands for benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene. The B -- or the benzene is regulated at a very low level, because it's
highly carcinogenic, one part per billion. As of 1991, we had concentrations at that site of up to
1,500 parts per billion or 1,500 times the one in a million cancer risks. No cleanup has been
done there, whatsoever. Needless to say, building at a site adjacent to that site complicates
redevelopment. It complicates redevelopment, because if we don't do things the way we're
supposed to do them during construction, we will draw contamination onto our property, causing
liability for ourselves where none has existed, and we could even be required not only to clean up
our -- the contamination we've brought onto our site, but contamination that exists on the source
site, because now we've changed the plume. I'm telling you this as a lawyer, someone who's
been practicing environmental law for 22 years. We deal with this concern all the time. This
complicates redevelopment, because now, both at the Brickell View site and at the Vista Grande
site which both, for all intents and purposes, are adjacent to the uncontrolled contamination,
we're now concerned about doing construction improperly, drawing down on ground water
during construction dewatering, the way that moves the plume, pulling in perhaps chemical
vapors and impacting future residents. Now, we did comprehensive Phase II testing on all of our
properties. We spent a lot of money on our environmental consultants, which, in and of itself, is
a complication. We didn't identify any contamination during our due diligence.
Commissioner Carollo: You did not?
Mr. Goldstein: We absolutely did not, but that doesn't go to the essence of the definition, which
is the mere existence of actual or perceived contamination complicating redevelopment. So our
redevelopment and reuse was complicated and continues to be complicated by the additional
money that the developer spent on consultants and engineers and lawyers to design a proper
construction to ensure that going forward, the construction and/or the gas station won't result in
chemical vapors migrating offsite, and beneath the building, and up into the building through
preferential pathways, and there are other technical aspects to this that I'm going to have my
expert speak to as a matter of proof, because this is a quasi-judicial hearing.
Chair Sarnoff: Can I ask a question?
Chair Sarnoff: Why doesn't CITGO remediate the site?
Mr. Goldstein: CITGO doesn't remediate the site because, by law, Commissioner -- Mr.
Chairman, it doesn't have to. As part of this awful cleanup program created by the State
Legislature many, many years ago, the State said We are going to take this as a public burden.
We're going to take this over. There are too many gas stations operated by mom-and-pops to
EXB 095
allow for cleanups on a timely basis, so the State's going to take care of it. But the State ran out
of money, because we've got 20,000 gas stations that are in the program. There's an absolute
exemption from liability --
Chair Sarnoff: And there was no strict liability for polluting --?
Mr. Goldstein: Yes, sir. There is absolute strict liability for causing the pollution, but there's an
absolute exemption, which puts us in an interesting bind and further evidences the complication
here, because we could find ourselves in a strange situation where the party that caused the
contamination isn't liable. But if we move that plume during construction, because we haven't
properly engineered for it, now we're going to be responsible to clean it up.
Chair Sarnoff: And this is not eligible for any kind of federal Superfund cleanup.
Mr. Goldstein: No, sir, absolutely not. First of all, the Superfund program has exclusion for
petroleum, so that's out completely on day one. If there is availability for publicly funded
cleanup, it's through the State petroleum program, which is underfunded, which is why nothing
has happened here in over two decades, which is one of the reasons why you have a lot of
underuse here, and we're willing to come along and take on this risk and it's real risk. This is
real liability that we're exposed to, regulatory liability, third-party liability, construction cost
liability, tort liability, but through the brownfield's program, which we are eligible for as of right
by statute, we get to manage our risk. So those are two out of the three sites, and I'm going to
come back to Craig when we talk about our third site and the -- how that location of the third site
relative to some other facilities complicates redevelopment for us, and then I'll probably wrap
up, if I may, Mr. Chairman, in ten minutes?
Chair Sarnoff: I'm going to give you two more minutes 'cause your time's expired, but I'm going
to give you two more minutes.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. So our third site, this is Brickell Tower, West
Brickell Tower. It is midway between the contaminated gas station on Southwest 2nd and
Southwest 8th Street, and the gas station at the other end of Southwest 2nd, the Brickell Trading
Post, which was a former B -- is a BP, but was another flag when the contamination occurred on
15th and 2nd, and it's not even 100 feet away from a City-owned fire station with a 1,000 gallon
diesel underground storage tank with a history of enforcement for failure to properly monitor
leak detection, a demonstrated history of enforcement for failure to properly monitor leak
detection. So by virtue of the fact that we are equidistant between two contaminated gas stations
with petroleum plumes that have the potential to migrate at least 750 feet -- that's kind of
industry state-of-the-art -- and by virtue of being less than 100 feet away from a facility that has
a 1,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank with a history of enforcement, we are dealing
with both actual and perceived contamination that complicate redevelopment. We've got the
same issues. Are we -- where are we going to find contamination when we put a hole in the
ground and started to develop our site? If we were going to conduct construction dewatering,
would we pull a plume under our property? And even if we didn't have any ground water
contamination issues, what about petroleum chemical vapors? How will that impact on our
development currently and in the future? But again, these are all sidelight issues, because from
my perspective as a legal matter, you are not required to consider the definition of a brownfield
site as part of the designation criteria. That's not in it. You've got five criteria. We've
demonstrated those criteria. Your staff agrees that we demonstrated those criteria. And having
said that, I wanted to put all three sites in a larger environmental context, because this makes
good --
Chair Sarnoff: You need to conclude.
Mr. Goldstein: Yes, sir. Thirty seconds. This makes good public policy sense. We are taking
EXB 096
advantage of a program that the State created to incentivize developers to undertake risky
development in necessary areas, and that's what we have done. I'd like to reserve some time for
putting my expert on and then cross-examining the City's experts. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Who's presenting for the City? You want those taken down? Are you
okay with them up there?
Alice Bravo (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): I prefer if they're taken --
Chair Sarnoff: Taken down?
Ms. Bravo: Yeah.
Chair Sarnoff: Could you stack up your stuff again? How much time will you need, Ms. Bravo?
Ms. Bravo: The same, maybe less.
Chair Sarnoff: Thirty minutes? Let's put 15 minutes on the board.
Ms. Bravo: Good afternoon. Alice Bravo, Assistant City Manager. With regards to items --
Public Hearing 5, 6, and 7, at this time the Administration is recommending denial of these
requests. These applications are for three affordable housing projects. The applications for this
incentive to develop was received by the City after construction had commenced on all three
projects. With us today we have some of our expert consultants. We have --
Chair Sarnoff: Is that a conceded point? Is that a point that's conceded, that they' re seeking
reimbursement post-construction commencement?
Ms. Bravo: Yes.
Ms. Bravo: With us today, we have Mr. Dan Levy and Mr. Vik Kamath with URS Consultants,
both experts in the environmental field, and I'll let each one of them introduce themselves and
provide their credentials.
Daniel Levy: Thank you. My name's Dan Levy. I'm a registered geologist in the State of
Florida. I've been practicing for 28 years. During that time, I've spent most of my work down
here in South Florida, and I've investigated numerous, if not hundreds, of gasoline sites. With me
here today is Vik Kamath. He's a registered engineer in the State of Florida. Mr. Kamath, prior
to joining our corporation, was a regulator with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, at which time, he oversaw a lot of the State's brownfield programs. In addition, when
the brownfield program was started, I served as a task force member for the City of Opa-Locka
and assisted them in their designation of their brownfield areas. With that, let me go ahead and
start the presentation a little bit, and for the essence of time, we will forego some of the same
information that we talked -- that the previous presentation went forward with. I think everybody
now understands what a brownfield is. We went through that in -- or the previous presentation
went through that in pretty good depth. Next slide. The Redevelopment Act that was set up in
Florida was really -- and I'll just summarize this a little bit -- was to create a financial and
regulatory incentive to clean up contaminated sites or perceive to be contaminated areas to spur
economic growth. Next slide. And as was pointed out, there is incentive for that, and again, this
was to entice development in what we considered to be blighted areas. And as was pointed out,
the definitions, I think we're all in agreement of what a brownfield site is and as well as a
brownfield area, which is just a contiguous area of one or more brownfield sites. What we're
looking at here today is where the City has done, I think, a phenomenal job at designating a
EXB 097
tremendous amount of the City land as a brownfield area. These are areas where the City is
looking to inspur [sic] growth. The area right below that, in a darker orange, is the location
where the three parcels are located. Could everybody see the map?
Commissioner Carollo: Could we go back?
Mr. Levy: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: So right now everything that's -- that yellow color is a brownfield
designation?
Mr. Levy: That is correct. And just south of that in that area in that little bit darker orange are
where the three parcels are in question.
Mr. Levy: The orange area also in that includes the City's enterprise zone and empowerment
zones for redevelopment. Next slide. The designation process that was spoke about includes
this, but I think more importantly, what the Act does, it also goes to the legislative intent. Go on
to the next slide. When this was put forward, the legislator [sic] intent was to develop
underutilized properties, blighted areas. How to entice a developer to come in there and take on
a site that wouldn't be as attractive as a green field. So I'm going to go through that, each one of
these, we can kind of set up a bit of a summary here, so we don't take up too much of everybody's
time. One of them was to reduce the environmental hazards on any existing property, industrial.
It was also to develop abandoned or underutilized blighted properties . It was also to provide
regulatory and financial incentives to encourage an environmental cleanup and to provide
cooperation from all the stakeholders during the development process to, again, entice the
developer to come in prior to any work being taken place. Go on to the next slide. This is a bit
of a close-up of the previous map. Again, just the area north, shaded in yellow, is the designated
brownfield area, and every dot below that, and in various stages of work, either they're being
built or planned to be built. The three square boxes in red are the locations of these apartment
complexes that were just talked about, and you can kind of see there is a lot of development
going on now without any incentives. Next slide. Here's again the picture of the site and how it
looked yesterday, and it was pointed out that the permit was filed December of 2012, and then
the application was put in December 28. It was pointed out there is a gasoline station there, and
you can see it from the photo. It's a CITGO gasoline site. And we just wanted to, again, point
out that even though the local regulatory agency has not commented on the property that was
there, and it was my understanding today listening that the Phase II did not show that there was
anything on that piece of property; that the permit that was issued by the RER (Regulatory and
Economic Resources) indicated that they needed to advise them of their stormwater issue, which
we found to be relatively standard for similar type developments in urban areas.
Commissioner Carollo: Quick question. So according to your slide here, they purchased the
property, they requested building permits, and actually had inspections all before they applied
for the brownfield designation. Correct?
Mr. Levy: Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Mndez: And just to be clear -- I'm sorry -- for the record, what property are you --? You're
discussing one -- each one at a time?
EXB 098
Mr. Levy: That is correct. This property is 144-152 Southwest 8th Street, known as West Brickell
View Apartments.
Ms. Mndez: Thank you.
Mr. Levy: The next property, known as -- or on 1026 Southwest 2nd Avenue, again this one, the
permit was issued September 5, 2012, and the brownfield designation request was received by
the City December 28, 2012. At this point, we're unaware of any problems on the site on a
contamination issue, and again, it appears that incentives were not needed to move this project
forward. And then the third site, very similar to what we have here, there was a demolition
permit that was issued September 28, 2012, and again, as you can tell, it appears that no
incentives were needed to move this project forward.
Commissioner Carollo: And I want to be clear and make sure that I understand your slides. So
in each one of these, the property was purchased, the permits were issued, and contamination, I
guess, testing was done prior, which, by the way, no contamination was found prior to them
requesting this brownfield designation?
Mr. Levy: I'm not sure on all three properties. I do know on the first property there was a Phase
I, and I found out today that there was also a Phase II that did not show that there was anything
on that property. I'm not aware -- I would imagine it would make sense that they would have
done a due diligence Phase I on the other properties, but I've not seen any documentation to
indicate that -- them having a problem, a contamination problem.
Commissioner Carollo: And the Miami- Dade Department of Regulatory and Economic
Resource did not acknowledge any contamination issues during permitting process?
Mr. Levy: That is correct. They did recognize it on the first property, and it's their standard
protocol to mandate that stormwater be monitored or implemented in a way not to impact a
contaminated site.
Mr. Levy: In conclusion, when we looked at this, we feel is does not meet the legislative intent,
per Section 376.78. These facilities, we don't believe, were abandoned or underutilized, nor do
they present any blight to the local area. Yeah, just to back up just a little bit. Prior to the
legislative intent, when we talked about the designation of a brownfield under the Florida
Statute, 376.8, Section 2, a local government shall designate a brownfield area under the
provisions of this Act, which includes these five items that were talked about, but also must meet
the legislative intent, and the legislative intent is where we feel that these properties do not meet.
Chair Sarnoff: Sorry. Where does it say that?
Mr. Levy: Back up a little bit.
Chair Sarnoff: Show me where your language you're reading from.
Commissioner Carollo: I think our City Attorney --
Unidentified Speaker: It's line number 7.
Mr. Levy: It would be on slide 6.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry. Where's --? Gotcha. I have the slide.
EXB 099
Mr. Levy: Or possibly slide 7.
Chair Sarnoff: So -- I'm sorry; one more time. Where does it say it must meet the legislative
intent?
Vice Chair Gort: It didn't.
Mr. Levy: It doesn't state that. The legislative intent in all statutes are the preamble to the
document itself, but when the brownfield programs were developed, the intent was to develop
underutilized or blighted areas. Just to be abundantly clear, it must meet the provisions of this
act, plus the intent.
Chair Sarnoff: Madam City Attorney, if I were to find that the language of the statute was not
ambiguous, would I get into the legislative intent?
Ms. Mndez: The legislative intent and the provisions of the Act are one in the same. It's at the
beginning of the Act. And from my understanding of what the City's position is, is that it is not
just certain provisions of the Act, but the Act as a whole that you have to take into account, so
you have to look at the legislative intent and the sections, as well and take it completely as a
whole and not parse out certain sections.
Chair Sarnoff: So we were shown a slide of five criteria; am I right?
Mr. Levy: That is correct.
Chair Sarnoff: And you do not want us just to read those five criteria; you want us to read the
entire Act? That's your instruction to this Commission?
Ms. Mndez: That is what the City's position is at this time. And what I am advising this Board,
based on the sections of the Florida Statute, it says that the local government shall designate a
brownfields area under the provisions of this Act, provided that -- and then it has certain criteria,
but you have to see the Act as a whole so you take into account the legislative intent --
Chair Sarnoff: Look, I'm going to --
Ms. Mndez: -- the definitions.
Chair Sarnoff: -- say, 376.80(2)(b), you want us not just to read the five criteria. You want us to
go beyond that -- or instructing us to go beyond that and to consider the legislative intent and
any other definitional sections of the Act?
Ms. Mndez: Right, in conjunction, all together, yes.
Chair Sarnoff: And that is your instruction to us in terms of reading this Act?
Ms. Mndez: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. You guys done?
Vice Chair Gort: Look at page 5, just on the left.
Mr. Levy: Aslo, we have Vik Kamath here, who I mentioned earlier, is a professional engineer
EXB 100
and former regulator with the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). I'd like to see if
Vik can comment on a couple of the regulatory issues regarding the gas station.
Vivek Kamath: Yes. Again, my name is Vik Kamath. I'm a professional engineer with URS
Corporation. Prior to that, I was the waste program administrator for the regional office of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and one of the programs under my jurisdiction
was the brownfield programs, and I was one of the senior regulatory administrators in the local
DEP office who was instrumental during the passage of the Florida Redevelopment Act. I think
-- as Mr. Goldstein pointed out, I think these applications, they do meet the criteria for, you
know, the designation process. But if you look at the legislative intent, as Mr. Levy pointed out, I
think the intent was to really look at blighted properties which need some incentive to --
regulatory as well as financial -- to stir some development so you could get these properties back
on the tax rolls. And based on what we are seeing in the Brickell West, you know, I don't believe
you're seeing any conditions like that which need any financial incentives or, you know, are
blighted, so that's basically, I think, our position on this. Any questions?
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Carollo: I think, from what I've heard already, I'm pretty clear. I mean, I think
you and I have discussed not this issue, but we've discussed that area, how it's just growing and
all the development that's going in there and, you know, market rate, so it's -- I mean --
Chair Sarnoff: Let me --
Commissioner Carollo: -- if the intent is to develop, you know, underutilized properties --
Chair Sarnoff: Since we're quasi-judicial, let me at least allow him -- Are we done with our
presentation?
Mr. Martinez: Mr. Chair, may I ask Mr. Goldstein one question?
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah, let him (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I'm sorry?
Mr. Martinez: May I ask Mr. Goldstein one question?
Chair Sarnoff: I want the Administration to do whatever the Administration wants to do.
Mr. Martinez: I want to ask Mr. Goldstein --
Chair Sarnoff: And Mr. Manager, you feel free.
Mr. Martinez: Mr. Goldstein, one of your central themes is the environmental challenges are
either actual or perceived. Actual was zero, so your basis is perceived based on the gas station
across the street; correct?
Mr. Goldstein: No, sir.
Mr. Martinez: No?
Mr. Goldstein: The statute doesn't say -- it's a very -- well, first of all, we're going to get into this
in a second, if the Chairman allows me, with respect to legislative intent, which has no role here,
whatsoever, and I have a Florida Supreme Court case that I want to cite to and hand to the
Board and the Clerk. But the definition of brownfield site, which is not part of the statute's
designation criteria -- it's very clear -- it speaks to actual or perceived contamination, period. It
doesn't say at the subject property. It just says, the existence of actual or perceived
EXB 101
contamination that complicates redevelopment, reuse, or expansion. We have, in each and

every instance, both actual and perceived contamination that have complicated reuse of the
property, of each of the three properties, subject to our three applications.
Mr. Martinez: Okay. Based on your perceived, possible -- what extraordinary construction
measures did your client take to stop the pollution of (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Mr. Goldstein: That's a great question, and it's not just construction, because the definition --
Mr. Martinez: Incident reports.
Mr. Goldstein: -- doesn't say only -- that you only have to demonstrate additional construction
or extraordinary construction measures. It says complicate --
Vice Chair Gort: Complicate (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Goldstein: -- expansion, redevelopment, or reuse, and that's a very precise term. It's
precise, because there are a variety of ways and there are a variety of risks that can befall a
developer looking to reuse sites just like these three. There are legal risks. There are regulatory
risks. There are public health risks. And there are construction risks. But with respect to your
question, the construction issue, let's start with Brickell View. On Brickell View we had a report,
Phase II report, from our consultant that said, You're next to a severely contaminated gas
station with an uncontrolled plume, with free products still in the ground water, and if you do --
if you don't take the proper measures during dewatering to prevent drawdown, you're going to
have a liability, you're going to have a problem. So instead of running away from the site, our
guy said, All right, let's figure out how to do this. So we spent additional money with our
engineers and our consultants to address the dewatering measures. We had -- we have a letter
from DERM that I'm going to introduce. Delayne, we're going to go -- will you find that letter?
There's a letter from -- it's a dewatering letter from the County to the applicant saying, If you
don't pay proper attention to dewatering, you're going to have a problem, you're going to have
liability. In addition to that, we spent money both at Brickell View and Vista Grande on
additional construction equipment -- the trade name escapes me. The name of the special
material we used for the piping, the subsurface piping. Yeah, we -- I have it here in my materials
-- spent additional money, at the direction of the County and pursuant to Code, to ensure that the
subsurface piping we constructed wouldn't be degraded in a petroleum-saturated environment.
So that's one concrete example of -- from a construction -- two concrete examples -- perspective
on how actual contamination conditions complicated redevelopment, reuse, and expansion. The
two ways being the additional money and time we spent on consultants and engineers to develop
an appropriate dewatering plan, as well as the additional money we spent on physical materials
to construct in a petroleum-saturated environment. So that's with respect to two out of the three
sites. On the third site, the complication didn't ultimately require the changing of any actual
construction activity, but it did require spending more money on consultants and lawyers to
evaluate the risk of exposure to liability as it stands today and liability as it stands in a month or
in two months or in three months if, for example, the City continues its practice of not properly
complying with leak detection rules and a release occurs. A release may have occurred, for all
that we know, due to the City's failure to properly monitor leak detection at that 1,000 gallon
underground storage tank, or the plume that exists at the BP (British Petroleum) station on the
corner of 15th and 2nd could ultimately move towards our property, whether in ground water or
chemical vapors. I just participated in a meeting yesterday with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and about 50 other environmental professionals across the State where
this issue was discussed, the emerging science of chemical vapor intrusion, and what type of
protocol should be implemented to evaluate how far chemical vapors can move and in what
subsurfaces. The state-of-the-art, EPA has determined that currently chemical vapors typically
move 100 feet, unless they are underneath asphalt, because asphalt creates certain pressures that
allows chemicals to travel even further, which is what we have here, okay. So I think that's a
EXB 102
comprehensive response to your question. Mr. Chairman, if I may, with respect to the question
of legislative intent, the Florida Supreme Court has spoken to this issue clearly, and I'm glad you
brought it up. In the case of Knowles v. Beverly Hills -- and Delayne is going to hand copies to
everyone; they're flagged. The citations are flagged -- and to the Clerk. The Florida Supreme
Court has said when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear
and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation
and construction. The statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning. In determining
intent, we have explained we first looked to the statute's plain meaning, okay. That's in the
Florida Supreme Court case, the Seminole case on legislative intent, Knowles v. Beverly
Enterprises, Florida. And the reason for that is because the Florida Supreme Court doesn't want
a court, or a legislator, or any third party to second guess what's very clear in the statute.
What's clear in -- what's in the statute is clear. There are five designation criteria. We meet it.
City staff has said we meet it. Even the City's consultant, who, by the way, calls me fairly
constantly to ask for brownfields designation work and has represented clients of ours that are
seeking designation and incentives for sites that also don't necessarily need the incentive like this
one; has also conceded that we meet the designation criteria. One last point in rebuttal, if I may,
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. There's nothing in the statute that says that you cannot
apply for a designation after you start construction. That's not part of the criteria. It happens
all the time. Your excellent City Attorney -- Assistant City Attorney asked that question of me six
months ago, and said to me, Michael, have you ever done this before? Have you ever -- in your
32 times successfully designated brownfield areas all across the State in 80 brownfield projects
that you've worked on, have you ever gone before a local government to get the designation after
construction has started? And the answer is yes. We sent them four examples in South Florida
where we've done that successfully. We did it in Miami-Dade County. We did it in Broward
County. And we also did it, I believe, in the City of Hallandale Beach.
Chair Sarnoff: Is there any law on point on that?
Mr. Goldstein: Well, there's -- what's on point is the absence of any provision, whatsoever, to the
contrary.
Chair Sarnoff: In the interpretive process of this particular statute, is there any law on point of
an after-the-fact request for a brownfield designation after commencement of construction?
Mr. Goldstein: There's no case law. We're going to make case law, Mr. Commissioner -- Mr.
Chairman.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm ready to make a motion.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. If -- you done?
Mr. Goldstein: I -- because it's a quasi-judicial hearing, for the record, I would like to put on the
testimony of my expert.
Chair Sarnoff: In rebuttal to what they had to say?
Mr. Goldstein: It is in rebuttal, yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Can you tell me what you would be rebutting?
Mr. Goldstein: Yes. We would be rebutting the notion that the gas station site at the corner of
EXB 103
Southwest 2nd and Southwest 8th Street doesn't present an existing environmental concern; that
there are no contamination issues, material contamination issues that complicate redevelopment.
Chair Sarnoff: How long will that take?
Mr. Goldstein: I would say three minutes.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay. For the record, Mr. Clevenger, would you introduce yourself?
Craig Clevenger: Yes. My name is Craig Clevenger. I'm a professional geologist. I work with
the firm EE&G Environmental. I've been practicing for 23 years in Miami, and also, I took a
hiatus from EE&G for one year in the mid-2000s. I worked for the City of Miami. I was your
brownfields coordinator, during which, we designated the expansion of the brownfields area, and
encouraged the redevelopment, and really brought the program to the point it is now, and what
you're seeing on the website, and where the brownfields is.
Mr. Goldstein: Mr. Clevenger, have you investigated contamination gas stations before?
Mr. Clevenger: Yes, for 23 years I have.
Mr. Goldstein: How many would you say you've investigated?
Mr. Clevenger: Thousands.
Mr. Goldstein: Have you looked at the file for this particular site?
Mr. Clevenger: For the one on 8th Street and 2nd Avenue --
Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
Mr. Clevenger: -- yes, sir, I have.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay. What is your professional opinion regarding the state of contamination at
this site?
Mr. Clevenger: This site is severely contaminated.
Mr. Goldstein: And in your opinion, has there been any cleanup at this site, any material
remediation of contamination?
Mr. Clevenger: There was some initial cleanup before the funding went out decades ago, but
since the mid-90s, no cleanup has occurred at this site.
Mr. Goldstein: And is it your professional opinion that contamination has likely migrated offsite
based on the plume map that we proffered to the Commission earlier?
Mr. Clevenger: Yes. The plume map shows that there is migration off the property boundary,
yes.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay. And that actually, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, is contrary to the
position that your staff took, who, by the way, is not here, the staff individual who wrote the
opinion, at least, and he hasn't been proffered for cross-examination. And Mr. Clevenger, is it
your opinion that the existing contamination that has likely migrated offsite complicates reuse ,
EXB 104
redevelopment, and/or expansion?
Mr. Clevenger: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm sorry. Did he testify -- I'm sorry -- that there is migration?
Mr. Goldstein: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Clevenger: Off the property boundary.
Chair Sarnoff: You testified there is migration?
Mr. Clevenger: Off the property boundary was the question.
Chair Sarnoff: And you've done testing to determine that, or is that your professional opinion?
Mr. Clevenger: No. That's the opinion based on the review of the file.
Mr. Goldstein: And that's what I asked him, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Sarnoff: So you -- wait, wait, wait, wait. You're going to put your professional reputation
on the line here, and you're going to say affirmatively, there has been migration?
Commissioner Carollo: What he said.
Mr. Clevenger: Yes, sir. I've got -- we -- there's a map that shows you that it's extended off the
property boundaries.
Chair Sarnoff: No, no, no. Has it migrated to the areas where you're building?
Mr. Clevenger: That's not the question that was asked.
Mr. Goldstein: Okay. And in what way -- in your opinion, in what way has the existence and the
migration of contamination -- let me rephrase that. Has the existence and migration of onsite
contamination, in your professional opinion, complicated redevelopment, expansion, and reuse?
Mr. Clevenger: Yes.
Mr. Goldstein: In what way?
Mr. Clevenger: In what way? The potential for the plume to be drawn onto our property --
because as we showed in the exhibit before, it's a large area of petroleum-affected ground water,
and as demonstrated by the Miami-Dade County DERM, they even advise to be careful when you
were doing dewatering, because you had the potential to pull that petroleum-affected water onto
your property and that would create the liability there. Also, there was a waste oil tank that was
in the southeast corner of that gas station that had been removed and not properly assessed , so
there's a potential for petroleum, or heavy metals, or solvents in that area that also could migrate
and create complications on our property.
Vice Chair Gort: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah, please do.
EXB 105
Vice Chair Gort: Is it all right to --? 'Cause I don't understand this, judges and whether --
Chair Sarnoff: I think you're fine; we can, I think.
Vice Chair Gort: We can ask a question? Okay. My understanding is you the one that did the
research and the work for the City of Miami to determine the brownfield target areas; am I
correct?
Mr. Clevenger: I worked and we expanded the brownfields designation area under -- when I was
working with you.
Vice Chair Gort: Okay. How come if this area is so bad, you did not expand it to this area?
Mr. Clevenger: That's a good question. I'm glad you asked. Because I wanted to expand -- you
know, as the brownfields coordinator, I promoted brownfields redevelopment, and I wanted to
expand to larger areas, even into this area and even into the Mary Brickell Village, even into the
Grove where we see Old Smokey and now you're seeing the incineration debris sites. Those are
not in the designated area. I wanted to go into those areas, but the director of Economic
Development at that time, Keith Carswell, he did not want to tackle that. He said, We will go to
the Empowerment Zone boundaries only, and I supported that at that point.
Vice Chair Gort: That's why you supported that point.
Mr. Clevenger: Yeah. Well, I --
Vice Chair Gort: Okay.
Mr. Clevenger: -- was --
Vice Chair Gort: I gotcha.
Mr. Clevenger: -- a simple employee; I didn't have a choice --
Vice Chair Gort: I gotcha.
Mr. Clevenger: -- to do anything other, so I did everything I could to promote brownfields.
Mr. Goldstein: Mr. Chairman, may I supplement that answer to the Commissioner?
Mr. Goldstein: Thirty seconds. Thank you. State statute provide -- allows for this dichotomy
and encourages it. It has one set of criteria, very broad and permissive for local governments,
and then others on a site-specific basis when the facts and circumstances justify it. That's what
we have here. The other submittal I'd like to make at this point, the question that came, I believe
from the Chair -- or through the Chair -- through -- actually from -- through the Chair from the
City Manager was what did we do actually onsite physically. The construction material that we
had to put in place, acquire, put in place at both the West Brickell View site and the Vista Grande
site, it's called a Viton gasket, and it's -- again, it's utilized in subsurface piping to resist the
degradation in a petroleum-saturated environment. We're going to submit these documents to the
Clerk.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. All right, I think we're done.
EXB 106
Vice Chair Gort: One more question.
Vice Chair Gort: My understanding, you stated that this will complicate the reuse or the
expansion of the property.
Mr. Clevenger: Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Gort: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion that a designation as a brownfield
area does not exist for PH.5.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Is there a second?
Chair Sarnoff: All right, any discussion? Oh, I'm sorry. Anybody from the public wishing to be
heard on PH.5, 6, and 7; wish to come up and speak? Hearing none, seeing none, coming back
to this Commission. You mind if I say something that might help? I think it's -- I think the statute
is reasonably clear on that 376.80(2)(b)(1-5); talks about potential brownfield site, yet there's no
definition of what a brownfield site until and unless you get to 367.79(b) -- Subsection 3,
Brownfield Site, which shows that the potential site may be complicated by actual or perceived
environmental contamination. I would additionally say, in accordance with Commissioner
Carollo's motion, that there is no evidence that there is any complication or any potential for
complication with regard to the development of these sites, because there's no evidence before us.
It is a barren record to show that there's a perceived environmental contamination when they
actually commenced construction prior to the application. So I want the record to reflect that
based upon my reading of 376.80(2)(b)(1-5) and the need to look to the definitional section of
brownfield at 367.79(3), that I find no record evidence of perceived environmental contamination
based on the record presented before this Commission. So we have a motion. We have a second.
Any further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, please say "aye."
PH.6 RESOLUTION
13-00721
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1026 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE,
MIAMI, FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WEST
BRICKELL TOWER, A MULTI-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH THIRTY
TWO (32), ONE AND TWO BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)(1-5).
EXB 107

R-13-0475
Note for the Record: Please see Item PH.5 for minutes referencing Item PH.6.
Commissioner Carollo: I make a motion that a designation as a brownfield area does not exist
for PH.6.
Chair Sarnoff: Is there a second?
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Any discussion? I do not need a public hearing on that, right? Right.
All in favor, please say aye.
PH.7 RESOLUTION
13-00722
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 850 SOUTHWEST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA ("PROPERTY"), FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF VISTA GRANDE
APARTMENTS, A MULTI-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH EIGHTY NINE
(89), ONE AND TWO BEDROOM AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 376.80 SECTION 2(B)(1-5).
EXB 108

13-00722 Legislation Title- Version A or B.pdf
R-13-0476
Note for the Record: Please see Item PH.5 for minutes referencing Item PH.7.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Carollo: I make a motion that a designation as a brownfield area does not exist
for PH.7.
Chair Sarnoff: There's a motion. Is there a second?
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say
aye.
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Now, Mr. Chairman, just to be clear for the record, I wanted to
make sure -- there are two -- there is an Option A and an Option B in your packet, one
designating and one not designating. I wanted to make sure that the resolutions, as drafted for
each of the items for not designating the brownsfield [sic] is the one that we will be using in the
record, that you are all familiar with in your packet.
Vice Chair Gort: It's a resolution.
Chair Sarnoff: I thought Commissioner Carollo was pretty clear on that.
Ms. Mndez: Okay. And then the second thing, any findings that you used for PH.5, will you be
using the same for 6 and 7?
Chair Sarnoff: I thought we opened up the hearings together, so that was my understanding.
EXB 109
Ms. Mndez: We did, we did. But in the motion, just to be clear for the record, the same findings
that you used for the first we can use for the other two items.
Chair Sarnoff: I would just suggest for the record that any findings I made with regard to any of
these statements that I've made concerning the statute would be has verba with regard to the
entire public hearing. Thank you.
Ms. Mndez: Thank you, Chairman.
Unidentified Speaker: Thank you, Commissioners.
Commissioner Carollo: Two-minute recess.
Commissioner Carollo: Two minutes.
Chair Sarnoff: We're in recess for -- we'll give us five.
ORDINANCES - SECOND READINGS
SR.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading

13-01095
District 2- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Commissioner Marc 2/ARTICLE IX OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
David Sarnoff AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/CITY-OWNED PROPERTY",
MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 2-780 TO REQUIRE
ALL PROSPECTIVE LEASES OR LEASE MODIFICATIONS OF CITY OF
MIAMI OWNED PROPERTY TO CONTAIN LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY
PROHIBITING GAMBLING ACTIVITIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
13417
Chair Sarnoff: I may have said in error that we're going to take up the brownfield. Apparently,
that's a time certain at 5 o'clock, so I guess we now move to the SRs (Second Readings).
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: So SR.1 is the gambling ordinance. I guess I'm the sponsor of this.
Vice Chair Gort: How about the --
Chair Sarnoff: I missed something?
EXB 110
Vice Chair Gort: Five, six, seven.
Chair Sarnoff: Five, six, seven, that's the brownfields, and apparently --
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Those are the --
Chair Sarnoff: -- they're after 5, so 5 o'clock.
Vice Chair Gort: That's the brownfields. Okay, gotcha.
Ms. Mndez: Well, they shall not be considered before 5 p.m.
Ms. Mndez: Any time after 5 p.m.
Vice Chair Gort: All right.
Chair Sarnoff: So I was -- I misspoke when I said we could table, 'cause we're going to take
those up. So based on my agenda reading, the next thing up is SR.1. SR.1 is my suggested
ordinance to the City Commission, which is regarding gambling on City-owned property, and I
again state to my fellow Commissioners, you can't retroactively do anything because of Florida
Constitution on impairment of contract. You can't take away what we've already done, but what
we can do is plan for the future, and what I'm suggesting is that in the future, you know, we could
say, as a policy statement, we don't think we should gamble -- I guess you're not saying in
general, but you're saying gamble on City-owned property, and that's what this ordinance does,
and that's my suggestion. I don't think this needs a long, protracted conversation. I think
everybody has their own feelings and issues on it. Again, if I could go backwards in time and I
could undo some things, I would.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. And I don't have a problem moving this. The only thing I
want to verify from you is that at any time -- let's say we have a long-term lease and they want
some type of gaming, that they have the ability to come back to the City Commission, and I just
want to verify that that's in there. However, I am in favor of this ordinance.
Chair Sarnoff: I guess the best way to express that, Commissioner Carollo, is obviously, we as a
Commission, as a juridic body can change a policy that we state any time we want and cull out
what you would deem to be appropriate leasehold interest maybe for a length of time, area of
property or issues pertinent to that. What we recently saw is we had the Grove Harbor issue, and
we were actually going to have a lease that didn't have that expressed language that says, In
the event --
Chair Sarnoff: -- gambling ever becomes legal, you have the right to come back to the
Commission and ask that gambling go on there. And that creates a certain stir in the
community that I think is reasonably unjustified. And interestingly enough, that clause came
from not policymakers, but from the -- and I'm not criticizing Madam City Attorney -- but it came
EXB 111
from the City Attorney's Office, and the City Attorney's Office is not a policymaking body. This
juridic body is the policymaking body, and all I'm saying is, generally speaking, as a policy, we
should not gamble on our own property. And if you want to say, well -- and I think I know -- I
might know what you have in mind -- certain parts of the City may be amenable to it. Gambling
becomes legal, you wish to revisit that, you would then carve out --
Vice Chair Gort: Yeah.
Chair Sarnoff: -- from this ordinance an exception, so.
Vice Chair Gort: You can always change it as a policy.
Vice Chair Gort: I'll second.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort. It's
a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on SR.1, SR.1? Hearing no -- you're just
waving, right? Okay.
Vice Chair Gort: Yeah, he's --
Chair Sarnoff: Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission. Madam City
Attorney, it is an ordinance.
Ms. Mndez: To clarify, is there a modification that a -- based on the motion that the
Commission may consider -- add something between now and -- first and second reading that the
Commission may consider that in the future or --
Chair Sarnoff: Second reading. This is second reading.
Ms. Mndez: Yes, of course, it's second reading now, but I'm saying, is there a modification now,
wording as discussed by Commissioner Carollo, or as passed?
Chair Sarnoff: I would just say as passed, 'cause any Commissioner can then say, I want to
revisit --
Chair Sarnoff: -- I don't know -- SR whatever it was, and I wish to make the following
modifications. Any -- I wish to accept any City property of two acres or more or five acres
or more that has a lease of 50 years or more, and that then becomes an exception to the
ordinance. Or you could even withdraw the ordinance.
Commissioner Carollo: Right, but I guess what I'm saying is that from your ordinance, as it is
right now, we do not accept gaming in City property.
Chair Sarnoff: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: However, there should be some stipulation on -- otherwise come before
the Commission and -- you know, on a case-by-case basis and, you know -- in other words, you
have an avenue to make the request to the City Commission. However, if you don't come to the
City Commission and make that request, gaming is not allowed in City property. You understand
what I'm saying?
EXB 112
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah. If you want -- you're making a legislative history of sorts. You want to say,
Historically, I may have voted for this, but it was always intended that you could come back
and --
Ms. Mndez: It doesn't --
Commissioner Carollo: Not intended, but what I'm saying is I think we're setting policy that
on City properties, we do not allow gaming.
Commissioner Carollo: Right?
Chair Sarnoff: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And I have a feeling it won't be me who, in the near future, will be
proposing, hey, this property, you know, should allow gaming or not. I have a feeling it's not
going to be me. However, I do believe that we should make a policy that there is no gaming on
City property. However, if -- on a case by case, they want to appear before the Commission and,
you know, make a presentation or their case, so to speak, on why on that location, it should be
allowed, you know -- and again, we're going beyond -- you know, the State needs to pass
legislation and all that stuff, but should in the future that occur, I think that, you know, whoever
the owners are or the leasehold -- because I would assume that we'll probably lease out the
property, and that's how, you know, a company would want to come before us. I think they
should be allowed to come before us and ask for some type of waiver.
Vice Chair Gort: My understanding is in the past, we've had that happen. People have come up
in front of us and amended the lease and amended the contracts, and I think they can come -- I
know this is an ordinance.
Commissioner Carollo: This is an ordinance.
Vice Chair Gort: And they can come to the Commission, and the Commission can make the
changes to the ordinance at that time.
Ms. Mndez: The only thing I want --
Vice Chair Gort: I don't know. What kind of amendment would you put to this ordinance then?
Ms. Mndez: Well, I just want to advise that this ordinance saying that the City Commission is
prohibited from favorably considering any lease -- you know, obviously, except the ones that --
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Ms. Mndez: -- already have some sort of provision that it could come before you and then you
consider it at that time. For the ones in the future, if -- and that's why I asked, just based on
Commissioner Carollo's statement that, maybe something could be added that says the
Commission may reconsider a particular property, or something like that. Because if not, it can't
-- future properties cannot come before you unless you do another ordinance change. That's
what I'm just trying to clarify.
Chair Sarnoff: You're just changing the mechanism. So let's assume Commissioner Carollo's
scenario. What would happen is a Commissioner would sponsor an amendment to this
ordinance, whatever we number it, and would say, I either want to do away with the
ordinance, or I want to modify the ordinance that any property, five acres or larger, 50-year
EXB 113
lease or longer can do that. Then that opening occurs again; two public hearings, which I
think what he wants would be two public hearings so that he'd have debate, and then, as a
prophylactic measure, that person comes in and wants to insert that in a leasehold interest, they
have another public hearing on that issue.
Commissioner Carollo: So what you're saying is you actually -- from what you're saying is you
actually want to make it harder, so you will have to pass an ordinance overriding this ordinance,
saying --
Vice Chair Gort: Amending.
Chair Sarnoff: Modifying. Amending or modifying, yeah.
Vice Chair Gort: Modifying, amending.
Commissioner Carollo: Modifying.
Chair Sarnoff: And what you get is you get the debate, which is, I think, what you always like.
Vice Chair Gort: See, I can understand where you're coming from, but if we put something now,
people will speculate with that.
Vice Chair Gort: Well, wait a minute, they passed this, but I understand I'll be able to come back
and change it later on.
Ms. Mndez: I just wanted everybody to be clear based on the -- so we're fine. We'll pass it as
stated then.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. So in the future, if we do have some type of long-term lease and
gambling becomes legal and they want to somehow incorporate gaming within their properties ,
they will have to come before us, and then some Commissioner will have to actually propose --
Ms. Mndez: An ordinance.
Commissioner Carollo: -- an ordinance --
Ms. Mndez: Amending this.
Vice Chair Gort: Amending.
Commissioner Carollo: -- amending this ordinance.
Ms. Mndez: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And then what you're saying is you'll have a additional debate.
Chair Sarnoff: You'll have debate on that ordinance; then you'll have debate on the lease. You'd
have at least two hearings, because, theoretically, in one of those hearings, you'd have --
Commissioner Carollo: Understood, understood.
EXB 114
Chair Sarnoff: -- to read the modifications.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, I could go along (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Mndez: I just wanted to clarify that for the record.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by City Attorney.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item SR.1
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 3-0.
SR.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading

13-00745
District 2- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Commissioner Marc 35/ARTICLE VII, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES/ PRIVATE PARKING LOTS",
David Sarnoff MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING NEW PARKING LOT REQUIREMENTS
FOR LIGHTING, SIGNAGE, USES AND REVOCATIONS OF PERMITS AND
ADDING NEW SECTIONS 35-288 THROUGH 35-291 TO CLARIFY
ENFORCEMENT OF NON-COMPLIANT PARKING LOTS; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
13-00745 Legislation SR (Version 2).pdf
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Note for the Record: Item SR.2 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Regular Commission
Meeting.
END OF ORDINANCES - SECOND READINGS
ORDINANCES - FIRST READINGS
FR.1 ORDINANCE First Reading

13-01238
Department of Capital AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Improvements 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 2, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
Program FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS,
COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/STANDARDS FOR CREATION AND REVIEW
OF BOARDS GENERALLY," MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING
SECTION 2-892(4)(G)(1) TO REVISE THE SUNSET DATE FOR THE
HOMELAND DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND
PROGRAM OVERSIGHT BOARD; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
13-01238 Summary Form SR.pdf
13-01238 Back-Up FR/SR - Code Sec. 2-892.pdf
EXB 115
PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, I believe we are on FRs (First Readings). FR.1 is where I think we are.
Mark Spanioli: Good morning, Commissioners. Mark Spanioli, director of Capital

Improvements and Transportation. FR.1 is an ordinance to extend the sunset date of the
Homeland Defense/Bond Oversight Board to December 31 of 2014.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort. I --
Vice Chair Gort: Second for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: And Commissioner Gort's recognized for the record.
Vice Chair Gort: Do we still have funds in there?
Mr. Spanioli: There are some remaining funds that are allocated to projects that just need to be
completed and closed out. The Bond Oversight Board was meant to stay in place until all the
projects are completed and closed out --
Mr. Spanioli: -- so we can give them their final updates and so forth.
Vice Chair Gort: Okay, thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: FR.1 is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on FR.1, please step up.
Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission. Hearing no further discussion,
Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.1.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 3-0.

13-01235
Department of Public AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Works 54/ARTICLE V/SECTION 54-190 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "STREETS AND SIDEWALKS/BASE
BUILDING LINES/NONSTANDARD STREET WIDTHS", BY MODIFYING THE
WIDTH OF NORTH MIAMI AVENUE FROM NORTH 5TH STREET TO NORTH
8TH STREET AND FROM NORTH 9TH STREET TO NORTH 11TH TERRACE,
MIAMI, FLORIDA; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
EXB 116

13-01235 Pre-Legislation FR/SR.pdf
13-01235 Memo-Reduction of Zoned Street FR/SR.pdf
13-01235 Notice to the Public FR.pdf
13-01235 Legislation FR/SR.pdf
Chair Sarnoff: FR.2.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Director, Public Works): Good morning. Zerry Ihekwaba. FR.2 is an
ordinance amending Chapter 54 of the City Code, entitled Streets and Sidewalks, by amending
Section 54-9 [sic] for the nonstandard street widths of Miami Avenue from North of 5th Street to
8th Street and from 9th Street to 11th Terrace. Chapter 54-186 established the base building
lines for the purpose of assuring setbacks. And the City, prior to this date, had in 1996, I
believe, done some amendments of the right-of-way by increasing it from 70 feet to 95. I repeat,
in 1986 -- correction, 1986 -- the adjustments of the zoned right-of-way which was made from 70
to 95. And in year 2000, the City rezoned the middle segment of 9th Street to 8th Street for the
NAP (Network Access Point) Project, which is currently the Verizon facility on Miami Avenue.
What is required today is to rezone this back to the original zone right -of-way of 70 feet in order
to allow for a number of purposes. One, as of today, there has (UNINTELLIGIBLE) any
impediments and there has not been any type of dedication on adjourning property owners , so
there's no impediment to their rights as property owners of the adjourning properties . Two, there
is a fiscal impact in terms of there's an increase in property rolls if the City were to take this
action today. Any question?
Commissioner Carollo: I think the City Manager wants to speak.
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, I'm sorry.
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): Question: Zerry, do we have to do any replatting or anything
to do this?
Mr. Ihekwaba: No. The beauty of it is that there has not been any dedication done as of today,
so no replatting is going to be done. There's no action to be taken by any of the property owners.
It's simply -- and there's no construction or encroachment in any of these areas. It's simply a
virgin area in terms of infrastructural improvements.
Chair Sarnoff: Anything else, Mr. Manager?
Mr. Martinez: That was it. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: It gets you more taxable value. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Does it give you more taxable value?
Chair Sarnoff: Absolutely does.
EXB 117
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, I want to hear it from them also 'cause --
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. --
Mr. Ihekwaba: Yes. Currently, the zoned right-of-way, which is 95, so it puts back to the
property owners an additional 25 square feet -- 25 feet of property value.
Commissioner Carollo: And who's going to follow up to make sure that it is additional property
--?
Mr. Ihekwaba: This is automatic. It gets registered in the clerk of the courts in official record
books, so the adjourning properties, their limits and their boundaries are adjusted automatically.
Commissioner Carollo: I understood that, but who's going to follow up from our Finance
Department or from Budgeting that next year around when the tax roll comes around, that it
actually -- it's --?
Chair Sarnoff: Should be your appointment. You appoint to make sure it happens.
Commissioner Carollo: Would someone?
Christopher Rose (Director, Office of Management & Budget): Chris Rose.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Rose will --
Vice Chair Gort: Turn on the mike.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Rose has agreed that he will follow up and make sure that the tax appraiser
is aware that there's more taxable volume to tax.
Mr. Rose: Yes, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Gort: If not, I can assure you, my office will follow up; we have someone inspect this,
particularly, the issue -- and looking at those issues, like the parking lots, that they don't pay and
there are fees and so on. We got a few of them.
Chair Sarnoff: And I will make sure my office follows up.
Vice Chair Gort: And I know you will follow up too.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. Do I take that as a second?
Chair Sarnoff: All right, second. It's a public hearing on FR.2. Anyone from the public wishing
to be heard? Mr. Cruz, you're recognized for the record.
Mariano Cruz: Sure. Mariano Cruz, 1227 Northwest 26th Street. It sounds pretty good, and
anyway, coming from a civil engineer and I as a fellow electrical engineer, I agree, because we
need more engineers in government and that's good, 'cause, you know, to be an engineer, you
have to study real hard. It doesn't come easy. You can be a Bohemian to become an engineer.
Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to be heard on FR.2? All right,
EXB 118
hearing none, seeing none, coming back this Commission. Madam City Attorney, it is an
ordinance.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.2. Commissioner Carollo?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, on first reading.
Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair Gort?
Mr. Hannon: Chair Sarnoff.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance --
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) be yes on second reading too.
Mr. Hannon: -- passes on first reading, 3-0.

13-01237
Office of Management AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
and Budget ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' RELIEF AND
PENSION FUND ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 6432,
ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2, 1959, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, TO
ENSURE CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS INCLUDING
CHAPTER 175, FLORIDA STATUTES, THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE,
AND THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE
DATE.
13-01237 Exhibit A FR/SR.pdf
Chair Sarnoff: All right, FR.3.
Christopher Rose: Good morning, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management &
Budget. FR.3 is a first reading for some ministerial changes to the FIPO (Firefighters & Police
Officers) ordinance. You may remember, the union president asked about this a few meetings
ago. It has been agreed upon between the City Attorney, the retirement funds counsel and our
outside counsel. It has no fiscal impact. All it does is bring our ordinance into line with IRS
(Internal Revenue Service) code of regulations.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, is there a motion?
EXB 119
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. Mr. Suarez,
you're recognized for the record.
Robert Suarez: Robert Suarez, Miami Association of Firefighters. Just for a little clarification,
it's not FIPO, but it's the Firefighters' Defined Contribution Plan.
Mr. Suarez: The -- our 175 fund, which works together with FIPO. As you know, the past two
years, we've worked with Budget and the Administration, and you approved to bring budgetary
relief to the City in transferring funds out of this fund to reduce the City's pension contribution.
At those times, we should have been making some compliance changes, but because of the
budgetary process, we were in a hurry. Now this allows us to comply with IRS, the Pension
Protection Act, Florida Statute 175, and we appreciate you helping us with this so the IRS
doesn't give us a hard time.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, anyone else from the public wishing to be heard on FR.3, FR.3?
Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to this Commission. Any discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Only that I want a full briefing on this. I think I already requested that
from the Administration. I will be voting yes on first reading and -- however, I do want
follow-up from the Administration before second reading.
Mr. Rose: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.3.

13-01313
Office of the City AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Attorney 10 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
ENTITLED "BUILDINGS", MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE
VI, ENTITLED "UNSAFE STRUCTURES", BY PROVIDING FOR THE
MAXIMUM STATUTORY INTEREST RATE; AMENDING THE ROLE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WITH THE UNSAFE STRUCTURE PANEL; AND
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
13-01313 Memo - Office of the City Attorney SR.pdf
13-01313-Submittal-Administration.pdf
EXB 120

Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): This is a request from the City Attorney's Office in order to
have an attorney assigned to the Unsafe Structures panel. At this time, the City Attorney's Office
advises the panel, but sometimes assists the Administration in reviewing files, and in order to
make sure that there is no conflict with regard to the role of the City Attorney's Office, it's
requested that an attorney be assigned to the board. The board meets approximately six times a
year, and that would be for a few hours at a rate of about 150 an hour. There is a fiscal impact,
but unfortunately, it's something that I cannot control based on conflict and Florida Bar rules .
The other amendment would be to change the interest rate to the statutory maximum instead of
saying that it is 12 percent, because that fluctuates depending on the years. And also, something
else to consider for the future, in order to have a minimal fiscal impact, would be to change the
panel to an actual special master, and that would increase the cost totally, but that is a policy
decision at that point. Right now, the change that I am requesting is that the role of the City
Attorney not be as prosecutor and advisor, but just as advisor to the board in order to have
another attorney to handle the -- I'm sorry -- as prosecutor, not as advisor to the board.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, is there a motion?
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. It's
a public hearing. Anybody wishing to be heard on FR.4, please step up. Hearing none, seeing
none, coming back to this Commission. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, Madam City
Attorney, it is an ordinance.
Mr. Hannon: Chair Sarnoff?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes --
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance pass --
Chair Sarnoff: -- on first reading.
Mr. Hannon: -- passes on first reading, 3-0.

13-01306
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
62/ARTICLE VII/SECTION 62-32 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
EXB 121
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "PLANNING AND ZONING/HISTORIC

AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD/SCHEDULE OF FEES", BY
REMOVING THE $50.00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE RELATED TO THE
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Votes: Ayes: 2 - Commissioner(s) Sarnoff and Carollo
Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Gort
Commissioner Carollo: He must be following a smart person.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Francisco
Garcia --
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, sir. -- Planning & Zoning director. This is a request to strike the
charge that we presently assign to certificates of appropriateness for historic districts , removing
the fee to be paid for those. We find that, as it is, to have the extra review on those plans is
typically enough of a burden, and we'd like to facilitate these processes by virtue of removing the
fee for it.
Commissioner Carollo: Second for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Carollo. Let me open a public hearing. Does anyone
from the public wishing to be heard on FR.5, FR.5? Hearing none, seeing none, coming back to
this Commission. Commissioner Carollo is recognized for the record.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Director, Mr. Garcia, what's the total fiscal impact per year on the
City?
Mr. Garcia: We are advised that it's --
Commissioner Carollo: Approximate.
Mr. Garcia: About -- rough number is 10,000. That has just been confirmed.
Vice Chair Gort: What was it?
Mr. Garcia: Ten thousand.
EXB 122
Commissioner Carollo: Ten thousand. I mean, relatively -- it's relatively small compared to the
overall budget, but -- I mean, this first meeting -- well, first meeting since I got re-elected, we
waived a $50,000 fee. We are going -- I would suspect we're going to now pass this. That's
going to reduce another $10,000. We had a pocket item come right between our meeting, you
know, so I just want to caution everyone, because I'm starting to get concerned. Now, believe
me, I don't want to sound like I'm unsympathetic and that I don't believe that these are good
causes, but at the same time, I also think that Police, Fire, our general employees, Public Works,
Solid Waste are also very important. So I just want to caution everyone that in my first meeting
since I've been re-elected, I mean, within the first couple of hours, we've waived $50,000 fee.
We're now going to, you know, I would suspect, vote to reduce this. It's going to be 10,000, you
know, dollars a year. And again, I just -- I'm seeing a pattern now, and I'm just cautioning
everybody, because I don't think we should continue in this pattern. The waiver of the fee, by the
way, and I'm sure you all know, I'm not -- I'm usually not a proponent of waiving fees, but I
understand that recently, we've worked very close in hand with this other agency, and I do
believe that governmental agencies should work together. We had a big issue that no one saw
coming, or at least most people didn't see coming, and it was very important that they work with
us, so I did believe that it was appropriate to waive the fee then. But again, I just want to
caution everybody, because I'm seeing this trend, and I'm just hoping that it's not going to be a
continuous trend, because I do believe that Police, Fire, and I could say all the other services
that we provide are also very important.
Chair Sarnoff: And let me just say, I share Commissioner Carollo's concern, but we actually did
the analysis as to what the service is with regard to the Florida Department of Health --
Vice Chair Gort: Sure.
Chair Sarnoff: -- were valued at versus the waiver of the fee, and I think it was either double the
amount of money that they would be spending versus the $50,000, so from a cost benefit
analysis, I think the City net gained $50,000. I do share your concern, though. You know, a
pocket item, 10,000 here, 10,000 there, I do agree with you, and you can nickel and dime
yourself to hundreds of thousands of dollars, so I do share that concern. With regard to this --
Vice Chair Gort: I agree with you, Commissioner Carollo, being on top of that always and
financially responsible, but the reason I made the motion is because if you look at that corner
before the new building was built there on 14th Avenue and 14th Street, it was a disaster area.
They had a new building, which is a beautiful building. They did a lot of landscaping, and I
know they're going to do additional landscaping, so that's why I voted for it. But my question is,
What is the motive behind this?
Mr. Garcia: Well, what we have found, Commissioner -- and certainly, the points are well taken
-- is that to have the extra process of a certificate of appropriateness for historic areas , although
necessary to maintain the quality --
Vice Chair Gort: Put the mike up, please.
Mr. Garcia: I'm sorry, yes. So what we have found is that in order to maintain the quality of
these historic districts, that extra review is necessary, quite frankly, so it adds value to the
process. However, by virtue of assigning an additional fee, it serves as discouragement for many
of the property owners to actually come in and pull the permit. So what I would respond
respectfully to your comments is that this can be seen as a way to encourage property owners in
historic districts, and these tend to be higher-valued properties, generally, to come in, pull the
permits; there is a revenue stream that is associated with that as well and, by the way, make sure
that the quality of what is being done is good. So in the balance, we think it' s a good proposal.
EXB 123
Chair Sarnoff: All right, you're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And by the way, everybody knows how much I respect Mr.
Garcia, but something he said, These are usually higher-valued properties. Usually
higher-valued properties do not have a problem paying the fee, so --
Mr. Garcia: That is correct.
Commissioner Carollo: I mean, you know -- and I want -- to a certain degree, I'm arguing
different from what you're saying or I'm playing devil's advocate. You could say it one way or
the other. But again, you can't have it both ways. If they want more historic or it would
preclude someone -- but they're higher-valued properties; usually, they can pay the fee. So
again, I'm just cautioning everybody because -- and like I said, I understood the $50,000, and,
like I said, you know, I'm working with them, I understood that, but this is coming in. It's not so
much now this other 10,000. I'm starting to wonder, okay, how many more are coming?
Because I think attorneys would say we're starting to set precedent, so that's where I want to
caution everybody, because I don't want to go down this road of, you know, waivers and
reducing, you know, what's already there, only because I do believe that, you know, Fire, Police,
and all the other services we provide are also very important. That's all.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. So, Madam City Attorney, it is an ordinance.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, on first reading.
Vice Chair Gort: No.
Mr. Hannon: Chair Sarnoff?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, let's take five minutes 'cause I -- we only have three Commissioners up
here, and I'm going to take breaks every so often. Five-minute recess.
END OF ORDINANCES - FIRST READINGS
RESOLUTIONS
RE.1 RESOLUTION
13-01239
Clerk ATTACHMENT(S), OFFICIALLY ACCEPTING THE ATTACHED CITY CLERK'S
CERTIFICATION OF THE CANVASS AND DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON
NOVEMBER 5, 2013, FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR, COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT 3, COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 5 AND THE REFERENDUM
SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2013.
EXB 124
13-01239 Unofficial Results.pdf

13-01239 Official Results.pdf
13-01239-Exhibit-SUB.pdf
ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
R-13-0450
Chair Sarnoff: All right, RE.1.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Good morning, Commissioners. RE.1 is a resolution officially
accepting the City Clerk's certification of the canvass and declaration of the results of the City of
Miami general municipal election held on November 5, 2013 for the election of Mayor,
Commissioner District 3, Commissioner District 5, and the referendum special election held on
November 5, 2013. And Commissioners, for the record, I am submitting into the record the
certification and declaration of results.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Gort. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in
favor, please say aye.
RE.2 RESOLUTION
13-01244
City Commission A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), ELECTING AND REAPPOINTING TODD B. HANNON AS
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO HOLD OFFICE AS
PROVIDED FOR IN THE CITY CHARTER; APPROVING THE SALARY AND
BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED BY CITY CLERK TODD B. HANNON.
13-01244 Attachment No. 1.pdf
Note for the Record: Item RE.2 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Regular Commission
Meeting.
RE.3 RESOLUTION
13-01100
EXB 125
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING GRANT

Fire-Rescue FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $238,000.00, CONSISTING OF A GRANT
AWARDED FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ("EMS"), ENTITLED: "EMS
MATCHING GRANT AWARD-M2035-FISCAL YEAR 2012", WITH THE CITY
OF MIAMI'S ("CITY'S") REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED, $79,333.00, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $317,333.00, FOR THE
PERIOD BEGINNING JUNE 14, 2013 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014;
ALLOCATING THE CITY'S MATCHING FUNDS FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT
NO. 32000.181000.896000.0000.00000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN
ORDER TO ACCEPT, IMPLEMENT AND COMPLY WITH SAID GRANT.
13-01100 Grant Application.pdf
R-13-0451
Chair Sarnoff: RE.3.
Maurice Kemp: Good morning. Maurice Kemp, Fire Chief. RE.3 is a resolution of the Miami
City Commission accepting grant funds in the amount of $238,000, consisting of a grant award
from the State of Florida Department of Health, Bureau of EMS (Emergency Medical Services),
and it includes a match of $79,333, for a total amount of 317,333.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Carollo. Any discussion? Recognized for the record.
Vice Chair Gort: Could you put in the record what kind of equipment you can purchase with
those funds?
Chief Kemp: Yes, sir. These funds will be used to replace current cardiac monitors. They're
nearing end of life. The total purchase will cost about $800,000. This is a good start towards
something we need to do anyway.
Chief Kemp: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All in favor, please say aye.
EXB 126
RE.4 RESOLUTION
13-01247
Facilities ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND PINNACLE GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC.,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING ACCESS TO CERTAIN CITY-OWNED
PROPERTY SITUATED NEAR BRICKELL KEY SHOAL WITHIN BISCAYNE
BAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO PERFORM THE WORK SPECIFIED HEREIN,
WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH IN
SAID AGREEMENT.
R-13-0452
Henry Torre: RE.4. Good morning, Commissioners. Henry Torre, director of Public Facilities.
RE.4 is a resolution granting access to Pinnacle Group International on City-owned property
situated near Brickell Key Shoal within Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Carollo.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Gort. Public -- it's not a public hearing, but somebody
has requested to speak on RE.4. Is it --? All right, so RE.4, is Azaya (phonetic) Mosley here? Is
Janice Taylor here? Do you wish to speak on this item? Okay. All right, so RE.4, we have a
motion; we have a second. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all in favor, please say
aye.
RE.5 RESOLUTION
13-01077
Facilities ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION
EXB 127

369316, THAT THE PROPOSER, NAI MIAMI, IS RESPONSIVE TO THE RFP
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF REAL ESTATE LEASING
THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH NAI MIAMI, FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1)
YEAR, WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE (1)
YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF
FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED.
13-01077 Memo - Recommendation of Evaluation Comm..pdf
13-01077 RFP Master Evaluation Form.pdf
R-13-0453
Henry Torre (Director, Public Facilities): RE.5, Commissioners, is a resolution accepting the
recommendation of the City Manager approving the findings of the evaluation committee,
pursuant to Request for Proposals 369316, to provide real estate leasing services; further
authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with NAI Miami for a
one-year period, with option to renew for four additional one-year periods.
Commissioner Carollo: Move it; discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner --
Chair Sarnoff: -- Gort. Commissioner Carollo is recognized for the record.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. My amendment would be that after the one year, any
additional years comes back to this City Commission for approval, and that after the first year or
within the first year, it comes back to this City Commission for approval of any additional years
within the time period that we could go to RFP (Request for Proposals) again, should this
Commission decide to go to RFP again.
Mr. Torre: Commissioner, I don't have any objection to that. The only thing I do want to do,
and I perhaps defer to Ken, I'm -- he can let us know exactly what the process would be, how
many months that would take.
Kenneth Robertson: Good morning, Commissioners. Kenneth Robertson, Procurement director.

We could do that within the first year of the contract term. We would be bringing the renewal
item back in approximately six months, because we would want to allow a time frame of at least
three to six months to reprocure, should that be the desire of the Commission.
Commissioner Carollo: Sure.

EXB 128
Vice Chair Gort: And this is specific for?
Mr. Torre: This is for the Marlins Garage Retail.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a motion; we have a second. Any further discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor, please say aye.
RE.6 RESOLUTION
13-00774
Facilities ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT,
PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, THE DONATION OF TWO (2)
PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 7890 NORTHEAST BAYSHORE COURT
AND 7889 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FOLIO NUMBERS
01-3208-008-0520 AND 01-3208-008-0530 COLLECTIVELY ("PROPERTY"),
FROM UPPER EAST SIDE MIAMI, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY ("GRANTOR") TO THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND THE
GRANTOR WILL COVER ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRANSFER
OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SURVEY,
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, TITLE INSURANCE AND CLOSING COSTS;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE SAID CONVEYANCE.
R-13-0454
Note for the Record: Please see Item RE.7 for minutes referencing Item RE.6
Henry Torre (Director, Public Facilities): Commissioners, RE.6 and 7 are companion items.
RE.6 is a resolution accepting properties to be conveyed to the City of Miami by Upper East Side
Miami, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), located at 7890 Northeast Bayshore Court and
7889 North Bayshore Drive.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort. Second --
EXB 129
Chair Sarnoff: -- by Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: And I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the last --
RE.5 was as amended --
Mr. Torre: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and we passed it.
Mr. Torre: Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: So I just want --
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Yes (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Carollo: -- Confirm.
Iris Escarra: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: So RE.6 and 7, we have a person that wants to speak; Iris Escarra.
Ms. Escarra: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners. Iris Escarra with offices at 333
Avenue of the Americas. The deed before you today is actually many years in the making. It was
actually part of Oasis on Biscayne Bay Park that was actually approved back in 2008. The
current owners, the Adler Group -- and I'm joined today by David Adler -- are deeding to the
City the commitment that we had in connection with the road closure, which is a park across the
street.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. I understand David Adler wishes to speak. No? Okay.
Ms. Escarra: Unless you have any questions, no.
Chair Sarnoff: No, no questions, I don't think. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion then on
RE.6, all in favor, please say aye.
RE.7 RESOLUTION
13-00775
Facilities ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
REVOCABLE LICENSE ("LICENSE"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED
FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND UPPER EAST SIDE
MIAMI, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ("LICENSEE"), FOR
THE USE OF TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED AT 7890 NORTHEAST
BAYSHORE COURT AND 7889 NORTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FOLIO NUMBERS 01-3208-008-0520 AND 01-3208-008-0530,
RESPECTIVELY (COLLECTIVELY, "PROPERTY"), TO BE USED AS A
EXB 130
CONSTRUCTION STAGING SITE, FOR THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND

VEHICULAR PARKING, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE OASIS CONDO PROJECT, AND LICENSEE WILL PAY A USE FEE OF
ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) IN EXCHANGE FOR LICENSEE'S LAND
CONVEYANCE, WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE PARTICULARLY
SET FORTH IN THE LICENSE; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO MAKE NON-SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS TO SUCH
LICENSE AS NEEDED, SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL.
13-00775 Legislation (Version 2).pdf
13-00775 Exhibit A (Version 2).pdf
R-13-0455
Note for the Record: Please see Item RE.6 for minutes referencing Item RE.7
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, RE.7.
Henry Torre (Director, Public Facilities): RE.7, Commissioner, is a resolution authorizing the
City Manager to execute a revocable license -- excuse me -- between the City of Miami and
Upper East Side, LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) for the use of those two parcels as a
staging area.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Gort.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Carollo. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, all
RE.8 RESOLUTION
13-01277
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Attorney EXPENDITURE OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE
ENGAGEMENT OF THE LAW FIRM OF ALLEN NORTON AND BLUE, P.A., AS
OUTSIDE CONFLICT COUNSEL FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF MATTHEW HALL VS. CITY OF MIAMI, PENDING
BEFORE THE FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE,
GRIEVANCE NO. 12-13; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON
EXB 131

R-13-0456
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Commissioners, this is the request of the City Attorney's Office
to retain conflict counsel in the case of Matthew Hall versus City of Miami. In this case, the City
is requesting conflict counsel for mediation services in a grievance due to a conflict.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. Any

RE.9 RESOLUTION
13-01278
OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF SABINE RAYMONVIL VS. CITY OF MIAMI,
PENDING BEFORE THE CITY OF MIAMI CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, CASE NO.
13-16D; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT
NO. 00001.980000.531010.0000.00000.
R-13-0457
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): RE.9, Commissioners, this is also the retention of conflict
counsel in the case of Sabine Raymonvil versus the City of Miami, and the City Attorney's Office
needs conflict counsel for the case that is before the Civil Service Board.

EXB 132
RE.10 RESOLUTION
13-01300
OF MIAMI IN THE CASE OF JEANPAUL GUILLOT VS. CITY OF MIAMI,
PENDING BEFORE THE CITY OF MIAMI CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, CASE NO.
13-32D; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE NON DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT
NO. 00001.980000.531010.0000.00000.
R-13-0458
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): And the last request of conflict counsel for today is the -- in the
case of Jeanpaul Guillot versus the City of Miami, also a Civil Service case, and the City is
requesting conflict counsel for this case.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort.
Vice Chair Gort: Second. Can we hear an opinion from the high-powered attorney?
Chair Sarnoff: Is the --
Vice Chair Gort: You.
Chair Sarnoff: -- high-powered attorneys --
Vice Chair Gort: You.
Chair Sarnoff: -- here? Where are they? Where is Allen Blue? Come on, we need conflict
counsel. We have a conflict; we need counsel, right? Isn't that about it, Ms. Mndez?
Ms. Mndez: Yes. Unfortunately, it's nothing that I can control. It's based on the Florida Bar
rules. It is to protect our office and the client -- I mean, and the City --
EXB 133
Ms. Mndez: -- as the client.
Vice Chair Gort: But I think it's important that you explain so the people listening and viewing
this meeting understand the reason why it's being done.
Ms. Mndez: Yes. Basically --
Vice Chair Gort: I mean, we understand; you briefed us and all that, but it's important for the
people to know also.
Ms. Mndez: -- the situation arises that under the Florida Bar rules, the City Attorney cannot
represent a person and prosecute that same person, and for these reasons, in these cases, the
City Attorney's Office needs to be conflicted out of the lesser case.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. All right, all in favor, please say aye.
RE.11 RESOLUTION
13-01281
Program INTERLOCAL MASTER AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED
FORM, WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ("COUNTY"), TO PROVIDE UTILITY
WORK FOR THE COUNTY, ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE
PERFORMANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE UTILITY WORK,
INCLUDING THE UTILITY DESIGN WORK TO BE PERFORMED AND THE
UTILITY CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM
AS "EXHIBIT A", WITHOUT REQUIRING FURTHER CITY COMMISSION
APPROVAL.
R-13-0469
Mark Spanioli: Good morning, Commissioners. Mark Spanioli, director of Capital

Improvements and Transportation. RE.11 is a resolution for an interlocal master agreement with
Miami-Dade Water & Sewer. This agreement will help us coordinate CIP (Capital Improvements
Program) projects with Miami-Dade Water & Sewer and allow us to install water and sewer lines
together with our capital projects and have them funded by Miami-Dade Water & Sewer.
EXB 134
Chair Sarnoff: All right, do we have a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: Since this deals with Water and Sewer, can we just table it also so we
take all the Water and Sewer issues together? Is that an issue?
Chair Sarnoff: No problem.
Commissioner Carollo: No.
Chair Sarnoff: So we'll table this until we take up --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, the other items with the water -- the pump station and --
Chair Sarnoff: Right, PH.4.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Chair Sarnoff: PH.2, excuse me.
Commissioner Carollo: We'll take them all at the same time.
Later...
Chair Sarnoff: All right, and you still want to be -- no, I'm sorry. You have PH (Public
Hearing) --
Chair Sarnoff: -- RE.11.
Commissioner Carollo: RE.11.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Manager, RE.11.
Vice Chair Gort: Did we voted on this?
Chair Sarnoff: Not on RE.11.
Commissioner Carollo: RE.11.
Alice Bravo (Assistant City Manager/Chief of Infrastructure): RE.11 --
Chair Sarnoff: Is one we've been waiting on.
Ms. Bravo: -- is an interlocal agreement with Miami-Dade County. This is an instrument that
FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) has in place. Up to now, when we're planning a
EXB 135
roadway project, WASA (Water & Sewer Authority) has to coordinate improvements to their
facilities as one project, and then we come later with our roadway project, so this will allow
WASA to provide us the funding so that our contractor will do their infrastructure work and the
roadway work at the same time, so one maintenance of traffic.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, is there a motion?
Commissioner Carollo: Second. Discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. Commissioner

Carollo recognized for the record.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. And I wanted to add to what was said, and even put it for
the record and make sure everyone understands. This will not slow down any City projects,
correct?
Ms. Bravo: The purpose of this is to accelerate the projects.
Commissioner Carollo: To accelerate the project. But at the same time, work hand in hand with
Water & Sewer so that we don't do a project and then, two months down the line, they come and
they do the project and just tear up the streets that we just fixed and so forth; correct?
Ms. Bravo: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: In that way, we will have meetings with them -- and I forgot what was
the time frame -- but meetings with them to make sure that any projects or -- in November --
every November we will show what our two-year plan is so that we could coordinate with them,
various meetings, in order to make sure that we're on the same page and that work is not
duplicated, like I mentioned before; that we do a project and then two months later, they come
and tear up the street again.
Ms. Bravo: Correct. And the goal is to minimize impact to the public.
Commissioner Carollo: And this will not have any additional expense or funding --
Ms. Bravo: No.
Commissioner Carollo: -- other than work that we agreed with WASA, correct?
Ms. Bravo: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. One thing that concerns me whenever I see that no other --
further Commission action is necessary, that always worries me a little bit, so how long would
this be in place without the Commission being able to see --? It's -- some -- it stipulates that
once we approve this, there is no further Commission action, so I just want to make sure that --
Vice Chair Gort: Let me tell you my experience. We approve this, and if we have any problem
within my neighborhood in the district, I'm sure going to bring it right back.
Vice Chair Gort: And I'm glad this is taking place, because right now we -- in Allapattah, we are
going through some infrastructure improvement, we build a lot of new streets, and we have the
EXB 136
same problem now. So this is going to be very helpful to everyone.
Ms. Bravo: If I can add, when we have an individual agreement for a project where WASA's
going to provide us funds for the infrastructure work, we can notify the Commission of each one
of those, but --
Eduardo Vega: But -- no, just to clarify this, the agreement will not be into effect until we take it
in front of our own Commission, and we are planning to do that in January next year. So once it
gets approved by our own Commission, we're going to have like a -- we call it a massive
agreement. This is the same type of agreement that exists between Miami-Dade, Water &
Sewer, and the Florida Department of Transportation.
Vice Chair Gort: And that would have to come back to us.
Mr. Vega: No, it don't --
Vice Chair Gort: It has the agreement --
Mr. Vega: -- it won't.
Vice Chair Gort: No? Okay.
Mr. Vega: It won't. It won't.
Ms. Bravo: All right. Individual project agreements won't come back to the Commission, but we
can certainly notify the Commission as we enter into one and, through e-mail (electronic)
distribution, provide a report.
Chair Sarnoff: Thought the whole point of this was so that everybody gets coordinated with
regard to if we're going to open up a street, we only open it up once.
Vice Chair Gort: Once.
Ms. Bravo: Right. The public sees a single project --
Ms. Bravo: -- instead of a WASA project followed by a City project.
Chair Sarnoff: So if WASA were going to be doing a Water & Sewer project and we were going
to do a street pavement project, we would coordinate and have only one project done?
Ms. Bravo: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Something I was told almost five years ago we were doing.
Ms. Bravo: Well, with -- this agreement needed to be put in place before that could happen.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. So I don't understand, coming back to the Commission, what the issue
is.
Ms. Bravo: Well, now under this master agreement --
EXB 137
Ms. Bravo: -- let's say we plan a project for a certain street --
Ms. Bravo: -- then we'll work out, you know, what plans WASA had for that street for their
infrastructure. They'll say, if we were planning to spend, say, $50,000 on improvements, they
will transfer those funds to us --
Ms. Bravo: -- and we'll have one project that includes that in the scope of work.
Chair Sarnoff: So --
Ms. Bravo: So --
Chair Sarnoff: -- Commissioner Carollo just did 17th -- you did 17th and --
Commissioner Carollo: It was 17th, but that was different. That was --
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, that was a joint project.
Commissioner Carollo: That was a joint project between the City and the County.
Chair Sarnoff: But I guess the point is because this agreement wasn't in place, in theory, WASA
could come back in a year's time and say, Oh, by the way, we have to do a water project.
Mr. Vega: Right.
Ms. Bravo: Or WASA would have done a water project, and the pavement project would have
had to be delayed a year so that the WASA's contractor could come in first, put in new pipes,
patch it all up, and then our contractor would come to do the road work.
Chair Sarnoff: Isn't all this is is a forced coordination of five-year plans?
Ms. Bravo: This is, again, creating -- right now WASA's contractor does a project, improves the
pipes. They schedule that ahead of our project, so oftentimes, our project has to be delayed.
Mr. Vega: Yeah.
Ms. Bravo: And then we come with a second project, a second maintenance of traffic, a second
interruption to the public, and then come and do our roadway work. So now, in the future, after
this master agreement's in place, then we'll have individual JPAs (Joint Participation
Agreements) for projects that wouldn't have to come Commission, by which WASA gives us the
funding and now instead of two separate projects, like two separate contractors, one contractor
would go out --
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): Mr. Chair.
Ms. Bravo: -- and build the infrastructure and then the pavement.
Chair Sarnoff: Go ahead, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Martinez: Excuse the pun, but we're not breaking new ground. We did this very successfully
at FDOT, in conjunction with WASA.
EXB 138
Chair Sarnoff: All it is to me is forced coordination of five-year plans.
Mr. Martinez: Yes, it -- yeah, and when we do our CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) plan,
we'll annotate and tell you --
Mr. Martinez: -- it include the -- this estimate includes the WASA work.
Mr. Martinez: But we only hit the public once; one maintenance of traffic for the whole thing.
Commissioner Carollo: And my point was I wanted some type of communications back to the
Commission so when you say --
Mr. Martinez: Through the CIP plan, we'll annotate it and say this project includes the WASA
work, per the master agreement that we're doing.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood. And before you get into any joint participation agreement
--
Mr. Martinez: We'll coordinate with the district Commissioner.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you will coordinate with the district Commissioner, okay. And then
each joint participation agreement will be on a case-by-case basis, project by project, correct?
Mr. Martinez: Right.
Ms. Bravo: Correct.
Mr. Martinez: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so RE.11, all in favor then, please say aye.
Mr. Vega: Thank you.
RE.12 RESOLUTION
13-01251
Office of Management A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION MAKING AMENDMENTS
and Budget TO APPROPRIATIONS RELATING TO OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY
REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013.

13-01251 Memo - Year End Amendment.pdf
EXB 139

R-13-0459
Christopher Rose: Good morning, Commissioners. Chris Rose, Office of Management and
Budget. RE.12 is the year-end budget amendment. This is the earliest we've brought it to you in
several years. It's been normally later on in the year, but since we've closed the books, we've got
it all in place. The details are in the item, and I'm scrolling there now; give me just a moment.
They're largely ministerial, and they've been things that we've been telling you about for the last
several months, each month in the budget process. The first two are amendments that we're
requesting for 175 and 185 money, which are pass-through from the State. We recognize them at
the end of each year. Next up is Civil Service, and a small amount; was also something we've
been telling you about. There's an amendment for Capital Improvements associated with
red-light cameras and payments to the vendor. Parks and Information Technology are all
associated with cost accounting that was applied to the department, not actual expenditures
associated with those departments. Solid Waste is due to higher-than-expected tipping fees:
payment to the County for waste disposal and then two special revenue funds, one debt service
and one grant. Just so you know, we have finished last year. We've closed the books last time I
was here, and I've got another item coming for the monthly budget report, but I can hit it now.
We closed last year with a surplus of 17 and a half million. The books are closed, but the audit is
ongoing, so I still have to say these are unaudited numbers. That's going to bring our -- inside
that is the $2 million associated with the Fraternal Order of Police that will likely be coming
before you in the near future. That would bring our fund balance from 57 and a half up to 75
million with all that. So I'll entertain any questions you may have on this item.
Chair Sarnoff: Then that is a -- this has to be a resolution, so is there a motion?
Chair Sarnoff: Motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort. Any

RE.13 RESOLUTION
13-01282
Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE BID RECEIVED APRIL 30, 2013,
PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BIDS NO. 12-13-033, FROM H & R PAVING,
INC., THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE
PROJECT ENTITLED "CITYWIDE PAVEMENT RESURFACING CONTRACT,
M-0098", IN AN ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,201,812.00, WITH
FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR OPTIONS TO RENEW, IN AN
ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,201,812.00; ALLOCATING SAID
FUNDS, FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID OPTIONS TO
EXB 140
RENEW SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDING AND THE

CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE.
R-13-0467
Christopher Rose (Director, Office of Management & Budget): Thank you.
Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Director, Public Works): Good morning. Zerry Ihekwaba. RE.13 is a
resolution to award a contract to H&R Paving for a one-year period, in an annual amount not to
exceed $1,201,812, for the project entitled Citywide Pavement Resurfacing Contract, M-0098;
further authorizing four additional one-year options to renew in the same amount, subject to
availability of funding and contractor's performance. Now, this is a push-button contract that
has been put together, subsequent to a citywide street audit conducted by staff, to identify and
categorize the pavement conditions of City streets according to the condition of severity, and
most of those will qualify for street resurfacing. This contract is subject to use by both Public
Works and CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) in order to expedite all pavement resurfacing
contracts citywide. It's not fully funded as of today, which is available for mid-year budgetary
amendment and further CIP appropriations. Any question?
Chair Sarnoff: Any Commissioners have any --?
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by --
Chair Sarnoff: -- Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. Hearing -- any

RE.14 RESOLUTION
13-01227
City Manager's Office A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
272271, THAT VAN WAGNER MIAMI, LLC IS RESPONSIVE TO THE RFP
FOR THE PROVISION OF TROLLEY ADVERTISEMENT PROGRAM
THE ATTACHED FORM, WITH VAN WAGNER MIAMI, LLC, FOR SAID
PURPOSE, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS, WITH OPTIONS TO
EXB 141
RENEW FOR FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS.

13-01227 Trolley Revenue.pdf
13-01227 Daily Trolley Inventory.pdf
13-01227 RFP Eval. Comm. Summary Sheet.pdf
13-01227 Corporation Detail.pdf
Note for the Record: Item RE.14 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Regular Commission
Meeting.
RE.15 RESOLUTION
13-01078
Department of Risk A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Management ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
369325 FOR THE PROVISION OF A GROUP BENEFIT HEALTH PLAN, THAT
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE CO., IS THE TOP-RANKED FIRM,
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT("RISK MANAGEMENT");
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ("PSA"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, CIGNA HEALTH AND
LIFE INSURANCE CO., FOR RISK MANAGEMENT, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE
(5) YEARS, WITH OPTIONS TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL THREE
(3) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES
OF FUNDS OF THE USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS
FAIL WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A PSA
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM, UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC., FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW
FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL THREE (3) YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING
FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE USER
DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND
BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER, SHOULD NEGOTIATIONS FAIL WITH THE
SECOND-RANKED FIRM, TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS AND ISSUE A NEW
RFP SOLICITATION.
13-01078 RFP Evaluation Sheets.pdf
EXB 142
R-13-0460
Calvin Ellis: Good morning, Commissioners. Calvin Ellis, director of Risk Management. RE.15
regards the administration of the City's group benefits program. RE.15 is a resolution of the
Miami City Commission accepting the recommendation of the City Manager approving the
findings of the evaluation committee for RFP (Request for Proposals) Number 369325 for the
provision of a group benefits health plan that identifies Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company as the top-ranked firm. It also authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
professional services agreement. Should negotiations fail with the top-ranked firm to negotiate
and execute a PSA (Professional Services Agreement) with the second-ranked firm, United
Healthcare Services, for initial period of five years, with the option to renew for two additional
periods of three years each.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, is there --
Chair Sarnoff: -- a motion?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): And Chair, excuse me. Just for the record, the agreement was
distributed physically with the agenda; however, it was not published on the web, so I just
wanted to place this item into the record.
Mr. Ellis: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: It looks like we are up --
Commissioner Carollo: Any reason that it was not published in the web?
Mr. Ellis: There was a request by the City Attorney's Office to include a definition of the term --
some of the terms, like runoff, to fully define that term. While it is defined in the RFP response
EXB 143
and in the administrative services document, it was not defined in the contract, so we're adding
that into the contract.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, but -- so that was a clause? Was that a clause? Was that a
section? Was that a sentence?
Mr. Ellis: Yeah, it was a definition that was referred to in the default terms.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, so for that one clause, one definition, I don't think it should have
precluded the whole document from being, you know, on the web. I think we need to be
transparent, and we should show all of our residents, whoever wants to be able to look it up,
exactly what we have. So I really hope that in the future, it does not happen again, because it's
part of being transparent, and I don't want the perception that, for some reason, they didn't want
this document being on the web.
Mr. Ellis: We will make sure that the correct amended document is reflected.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. And that whole document will be placed in the web?
Mr. Ellis: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ellis: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we took a vote, right?
END OF RESOLUTIONS
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BC.1 RESOLUTION
13-01134
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING A
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE ARTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT COUNCIL FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Eliana Ramos Vice Chair Wifredo (Willy) Gort
13-01134 Arts CCMemo.pdf

13-01134 Arts Current_Board_Members.pdf
EXB 144
R-13-0461
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, Department of IT (Information Technology), with some enthusiasm and
some chutzpah, as we say.
Vice Chair Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chair Gort: If I may, I have an appointment for the Arts and Council.
Chair Sarnoff: Let's go back --
Vice Chair Gort: The board.
Chair Sarnoff: Arts and Entertainment Council?
Chair Sarnoff: Can we go back to that, Mr. Hannon?
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Yes, Chair.
Chair Sarnoff: I will -- this will not count towards your time, I promise you.
Ms. Ewan: Thank you, Chair.
Vice Chair Gort: Right. It was my mistake, so it's not your time.
Chair Sarnoff: And Commissioner Gort will be buying lunch for you exclusively for this mistake.
Ms. Ewan: Okay, thank you.
Vice Chair Gort: Art [sic] and Council, Ileana Ramos.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Gort; second by Commissioner Carollo. All
Ms. Ewan: Thank you. That concludes --
Chair Sarnoff: I'll make sure that you collect, okay?
BC.2 RESOLUTION
13-01242
EXB 145

Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-01242 Audit CCMemo.pdf

13-01242 Audit Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item BC.2 was continued to the
BC.3 RESOLUTION
13-01243
Office of the City
Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE BAYFRONT PARK
MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-01243 Bayfront CCMemo.pdf

13-01243 Bayfront Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.4 RESOLUTION
13-00501
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Commission-At-Large
EXB 146
13-00501 Civil Service CCMemo.pdf

13-00501 Civil Service Current_Board_Members.pdf
13-00501 Civil Service Exec Sec Memo.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.5 RESOLUTION
13-01136
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Adam Gersten Chair Marc David Sarnoff
13-01136 CEB CCMemo.pdf

13-01136 CEB Current_Board_Members.pdf
R-13-0462
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we are now up to boards.
Commissioner Carollo: Boards. Let's knock 'em out.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Hannon.
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Good morning, Chair and Commissioners.
Chair Sarnoff: What's our time frame?
Ms. Ewan: Two minutes.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Wait a minute.
Vice Chair Gort: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Commissioner Carollo: No, we have timed it.
Chair Sarnoff: She's beat me before.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, but we have time this time.
Chair Sarnoff: I know, but it's just fun to watch her go.
EXB 147
Ms. Ewan: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, you're recognized.
Ms. Ewan: Thank you. BC.5, Code Enforcement Board, Chair Sarnoff will be appointing Adam
Gerstein.
Commissioner Carollo: Motion.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Or move it.
Chair Sarnoff: Say second.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. All in favor, please say aye.
BC.6 RESOLUTION
13-01298
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS
BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Adriana Oliva Commissioner Francis Suarez
13-01298 CRB CCMemo.pdf

13-01298 CRB Current_Board_Members.pdf
13-01298 CRB Memo and Resumes.pdf
R-13-0463
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.6, Community Relations Board, Commissioner
Suarez has requested to appoint Adriana Oliva.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion by Commissioner Carollo; second by Commissioner Gort. All
EXB 148
BC.7 RESOLUTION
13-01245
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-01245 CSW CCMemo.pdf

13-01245 CSW Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.8 RESOLUTION
13-01246
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED
HEREIN.
13-01246 CTAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01246 CTAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.9 RESOLUTION
13-01248
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION ADVISORY
BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
EXB 149
City Manager Johnny Martinez

(Ex-Officio Non Voting Youth Member)
13-01248 EAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01248 EAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.10 RESOLUTION
13-01249
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING CERTAIN
Clerk INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ADVISORY
BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
FOP
IAFF
AFSCME 871
13-01249 EOAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01249 EOAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.11 RESOLUTION
13-01250
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
EXB 150
13-01250 Finance CCMemo.pdf

13-01250 Finance Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.12 RESOLUTION
13-01140
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE HOMELAND
DEFENSE/NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT BOND PROGRAM
OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Albena Sumner Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01140 Homeland CCMemo.pdf

13-01140 Homeland Current_Board_Members.pdf
R-13-0464
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.12, Homeland Defense/Neighborhood Improvement

Bond Program Oversight Board, Mayor Regalado will be appointing Albena Sumner.
Chair Sarnoff: Second by Commissioner Gort. All in favor, please say aye.
BC.13 RESOLUTION
13-01252
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S
EXB 151
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Armando Rodriguez Mayor Toms Regalado
Barry Johnson Mayor Toms Regalado
Jose Fuentes Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01252 MIC CCMemo.pdf

13-01252 MIC Current_Board_Members.pdf
R-13-0465
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Mayor's International Council, Mayor Regalado will be
appointing Armando Rodriguez, Barry Johnson, and Jose Fuentes.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm sorry, which one is this?
Ms. Ewan: Mayor's International Council.
Vice Chair Gort: Mayor's --
Commissioner Carollo: Which -- what's the item, BC (Boards and Committees) --?
Ms. Ewan: BC. 13.
Commissioner Carollo: There you go.
BC.14 RESOLUTION
13-00504
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI SPORTS AND
EXHIBITION AUTHORITY FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
EXB 152
13-00504 MSEA CCMemo.pdf

13-00504 MSEA Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.15 RESOLUTION
13-01142
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
13-01142 PRAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01142 PRAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.16 RESOLUTION
13-00373
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD (UDRB) FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
EXB 153
13-00373 UDRB CCMemo.pdf

13-00373 UDRB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.17 RESOLUTION
13-01143
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE WATERFRONT
ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Lucia Perez Mayor Toms Regalado
13-01143 WAB CCMemo.pdf

13-01143 WAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
R-13-0466
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.17, Waterfront Advisory Board, Mayor Regalado will
be appointing Lucia Perez.
Ms. Ewan: And that concludes your board and committees. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: One minute and five seconds.
Commissioner Carollo: There you go.
Chair Sarnoff: We'll be taking you to lunch at your choice.
END OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
EXB 154
BUDGET
BI.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

13-01240
Office of Management STATUS (SEC.18-542(B) CITY CODE)
and Budget I. 2013-2014 BUDGET
II. PROPOSED 2014-2015 BUDGET
DISCUSSED
Chair Sarnoff: All right, Department of IT (Information Technology) I think is next. Oh, budget
update. I apologize. Budget update.
Christopher Rose (Director, Office of Management & Budget): Good morning again,
Commissioners. We're 30 days into the fiscal year. We closed the books this past Tuesday on
October. There's not a whole lot to say, and I said the main thing two items ago, so we have
overall revenues in the general fund of 25 million, which is higher than last October.
Expenditures were 14 million, which is lower than last October, so we're starting off on a good
(UNINTELLIGIBLE). We have not gotten the major revenues in yet because they're property
taxes, and they come in in December, so we're really watching for that. And we made the
pension payments in full out of the internal service fund in October, which is going to save us
about $700,000 worth of interest by making the payment in full at the time, so that's really about
all that there is to report in the month of October.
Chair Sarnoff: Any questions from the Commission?
Commissioner Carollo: No.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you very much.
Mr. Rose: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Very nice job.
Commissioner Carollo: Ideal.
Chair Sarnoff: As Commissioner Carollo would say, what was once our weakness appears to be
our strength.
Commissioner Carollo: I wouldn't go as far as our strength yet, but we're getting there.
Vice Chair Gort: We're getting there, we're getting there.
Commissioner Carollo: I wouldn't go that far yet, but --
Unidentified Speaker: We'll take it.
EXB 155
Commissioner Carollo: -- slowly, we're getting there.
Chair Sarnoff: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Gort: We have to be very conservative.
Commissioner Carollo: It's definitely being noticed.
Chair Sarnoff: When you have no questions from Commissioner Carollo, that's as good a day as
you're going to get.
END OF BUDGET
DISCUSSION ITEMS

13-00500
District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION
Commissioner Marc TECHNOLOGY.
David Sarnoff
13-00500 Email - Department of Information Technology.pdf
13-00500-Submittal-City of Miami Information Technology Strategic Plan.pdf
DISCUSSED
Direction by Chair Sarnoff to the City Manager for the Information Technology Director to
perform an analysis on the capabilities of software programs used by City of Miami employees ,
and compare it to the capabilities and knowledge of the City of Miami employee using that
software program.
Commissioner Carollo: IT (Information Technology).
Chair Sarnoff: IT is now.
Commissioner Carollo: This is your time, IT.
Conrad Cross: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Conrad Cross. I'm the IT director
for the City of Miami. This morning I'd like to talk to you about the state of IT and where we'd
like to go from a strategic point of view. I gave some of you Commissioners a presentation
already. If you don't have it, I will be more than happy to provide you a hard copy, and I think
it's coming, as we speak. In looking at IT, we took into consideration where we were. In other
words, we did a situation summary. I came onboard five -- approximately six months ago, and I
got a department that was hit by a lot of things over the years; cuts, budget cuts, people leaving,
that kind of stuff. And my boss said, Look, I need you to do an assessment and give me a plan
going forward as to what we're going to do with the department. So when the -- we summed up
the situation. We took into consideration that the services for IT have increased over the last five
years. If you look at the world today, information is driving just about everything that we do,
and the City of Miami is no different. So we took into account where we were and the complexity
of the requests we have been getting over the last five years. Our base services that we provide
to you have pretty much stabilized, but what we needed to do was start planning on how we
would grow to the next level; how we would be a strategic department as opposed to just keeping
the lights on. We realized that there were several challenges that we would be faced with and
EXB 156
these challenges were varied. It had to do with the political -- not your politics, but our politics
as how we related to our different departments; our social impact, economic, the cuts; all of the
things that we face as cities across the country. And when we took those into consideration, we
also looked at what resources we had to meet the challenge that was ahead of us, providing
services, so we could support the entire City. There were pressures and uncertainty with respect
to funding, and we took all of that under consideration, and as a result of looking at those
situations, we were able to define a strategy moving forward. Some of the guiding principles that
we used in this was: Did we have a portfolio? Do we know what those services are that we
needed? Do we have a government -- governance team in play? Is there somebody who was
giving us the direction as to what gets prioritized and what doesn't? What were the strategic
projects that we looked -- we needed to be looking at? And we came to the conclusion that there
were several things that were impacting the way we do business in the City that needed to be
continued, two of those being I-Build and Miami -Biz; two applications that we were developing
in-house that immediately impacted our citizens and needed to be continued. So we pretty much
determined that those resources that we had would be put towards continuing those two primary
goals, and there was a third one, which was integrating a lot of the systems that we had in place,
because the way we grew up over the years, we had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) five operations and we
needed to bring them all together. So having the right resources was crucial, and we needed to
be able to meet our timelines on our project requirements. Now, an optimized IT model would
look pretty much like that colored chart that we have up there where IT being in the middle, we
needed to have all of these qualities: We needed to be accessible, we need to have well-trained
staff, we need to be innovative, we need to be able to solve problems, strong communications, we
need to be stable, and I could pause and elaborate on some of this, but I hope that in the
questioning -- the question and answer period, we could address stability and some of those
things. I pause on stable, and I can go back and talk to any of these, but this one, IT has seen
a change in its leadership over the past four years of maybe three or four different leaders . We
need to stabilize. The right skills are essential, and it's essential to the technology industry,
especially when the technology churns the way it does. So if we look at all of these qualities,
then we could put a composite or picture together of what a optimized IT model would look like .
Now, there were challenges to meet in these models, and that is on the left side where prioritizing
projects, as we know them, wasn't very much in existence, and we need to make sure that that
was there. Defining the organization support model was necessary in respect to applications ,
whether we were going to be distributive in the way we do things or we going to be centralized.
So these and others were some of the challenges that we see -- we saw, tying the resource plan to
the prioritized list of projects, assuming we had one. So without going through each and every
one of these in the interest of time -- and I can come back to any one that you may have questions
on -- I will move to the next slide where we looked at our objectives. The resolution was that
where City's IT needs to provide a business strategy that would give focus on innovation and
make sure that the business needs were being met. For citizens, we thought service excellence
was key. Quality and efficiency is key, and for the citizens, that's something that we would
provide. We have put several things in play right now that will help us get there. We have
I-Build, like I mentioned before, Miami-Biz, that there's a Fire CAD and other applications that
will allow us to be more efficient and more effective when we talk back and forth with our
citizens. They may be able to go online and, through interactive applications, get the kind of
help they needed. For our employees, we needed to make sure that we had the right people and
the right skill sets. Education. Training is essential for employees, and that's something that we
addressed. How can IT help that process, making sure that the competencies -- this being a
mobile world, we were providing those things for IT and for the employees. And then we have
the business portion. The businesses on the outside, our vendors, or the people who -- our
suppliers that we had to take under consideration; what it is that they would need from the City
that would make them more helpful to us. Now, here's where we are today with our strategy. We
think, like I mentioned before, that the applications we had in the pipeline, Miami-Biz, I-Build,
were two of the key strategic applications that needed to be continued. We believe that
integrating the different disparate systems and making sure that we could get information from
all the different areas of the City and bring them together was essential, and that would be one of
EXB 157
our key strategic plans. We believe that the IT infrastructure needs to be fed. We need to do
better than keep the lights on, but we can't ignore that piece. We need to move ahead and make
sure that the networks are up, the applications are available, and all the other things that
comprise keeping the City working. The internet and the intranet are essential to making sure
that business is done in a modernized way, and education, I believe, is a big part of what's
missing as a corporate cultural for this organization. My contention is that if we spent, I would
say, a few -- if we gave the education portion in training our employees to use the tools that we
currently have, we could increase our productivity by maybe 20 to 25 percent. On the right of
this diagram, you have some of the details that supports the strategy that I've just mentioned.
And if I jump to, for example, the IT infrastructure, there are things like upgrades to our phone
system that needs to happen, and some of that is happening as we speak, because the
communications internally is just as important as anything else; upgrading our servers; making
sure that our applications are user friendly. As far as the education is concerned, making sure
that we follow best practices, and a lot of those things are things that we've been working on
internally and things that you will see us pursuing as the months go by. This is just another
representation of the key strategic goals and that central piece, keeping the lights on, is very
essential. We can't, at the expense of keeping things up and running, pursue a objective and
neglect that, so that is the common thread throughout all of this. Now, just so we get a flavor for
what IT does, here is a sample of some of the applications that we support on a day-to-day basis.
You will notice that on the first column, it says Fire at the top, and then there is a -- all this
column has is some of the Fire applications that we support. In the second column, these are
some of the applications that we support for the Police Department. Now, in red, I have the
applications that we use in our ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) application, and I'll talk to
that on the next slide. And then in the last column on the right are yet more applications that our
IT Department support on a day-to-day basis. This is sometimes the elephant in the room, and it
needs to be addressed. Oracle is our enterprise resource planning act, and Oracle is like an
octopus. It has tentacles in just about every department within the City. We interact through
Oracle to our collection agency, to our banks, PayPal, Kronos, GIS (Geographic Information
System), and you can see, based on this graphic, all the things that Oracle touches. Internally,
Oracle supports the Purchasing Department or the purchasing processes, HR (Human
Resources) processes, receivables, payments, treasury, cash management. So Oracle is a ERP or
that solution that helps us in the day-to-day running of the City. We have invested quite a lot in
Oracle. We're starting to stabilize this platform, and we're now starting to see some of the
benefits from using Oracle. It has been a long time coming, but in my opinion, it's getting there.
On a graphical scale, I would say this is what growing IT mandates -- growing IT, what we
would look like. We want to make sure that we do not crash. If we look at the bottom, we want
to make sure that we don't embarrass, we keep our systems up and running. We want to make
sure that we're appropriately costive, we keep the business happy, we decrease cost; increase in
efficiency. The key to this chart is that somewhere along this chart, our City of Miami IT
organization is positioned, and I would think we are about -- just about where we appropriately
costive and we're keeping the business happy. But at the same point, we need to take it to the
next level, and we will talk about what it takes to get us to that next level a little -- in a little
while. If you ask me, in my opinion, that red dot there is where we think we are, which I alluded
to. We're supporting the business, but we could be a little more strategic.
Vice Chair Gort: We got a long way to go.
Mr. Cross: We got a long way to go. I recall one -- Commissioner Sarnoff asking me, On a
scale of 'A' to 'F,' where are we? And I said, a C-plus. And we -- I don't know how much he
believed that was where we are, but that's my opinion of where we are. We still have quite a way
to go. Now, the organizational challenges that we have with respect to IT, and I won't belabor
any of these. It's there for us to see. On the data side, we've got a lot of data in the City of
Miami, a lot of data, but we're really not -- we're data-rich, information-poor because we, as a
government, collect a lot of information about a lot of things, but we don't have that analytic tool
that sits on top of this data and make us use the data to do things. We react. We're not proactive.
EXB 158
Mr. Cross: That is part of why we have a lot -- a far way to go. As far as the culture is
concerned, there are a lot of things between the departments that makes us not as effective as we
can be. The communications sometime is not there. One department may have information
that's not shared with another department. We need to break down those walls, and we need to
make sure that the communication, the willingness to collaborate and participate is there
between all these departments. I must say to you, since I've come onboard, I've sat down with
quite a few of the different directors, and we've had some good conversations, and I feel
confident that there's a willingness to collaborate and make things better. So as the months go
by, we should start seeing some of these challenges go away. Maybe new challenges will come
up, but we will be able to resolve some of those. As far as the projects and governance is
concerned, at this point in time, with the way we have our departments set up, those things are
absent. They were here at one point in time, but over the last few years, it has disintegrated. So
a governance committee, nonexistent, and we do need that because there needs to be a body in
the City that helps us to prioritize what's most important for the benefit of the City. It's not who
has the most money or who has the guns or the fire hoses that gets the projects. It's a committee
saying to us, This is where the City would benefit the most. And having that structure would
help us make that determination. I could go on. It's our vendors and how well we relate to our
vendors. I do have one vendor here with us from Esri, and she's here because she was
instrumental in helping us get our Parks' Internet site to that next level. So collaborating with
vendors, irregardless of whether they're Esri, IBM (International Business Machines), Microsoft,
or whoever, it's very important in making us move ahead, and we're starting to reach out to our
vendors and say, Hey, help us get there. And it sometimes doesn't have to be a lot of monies
or a lot of software or hardware that we're buying from them; it just -- they could use us and we
could use them, but there needs to be that collaboration. Organization, you know, having the
right people in the right position and doing the right job is very important. We talked about
collaboration between the directors. We also need to talk about collaboration that should occur
naturally; it should flow. It shouldn't be me having to go and sit down with Public Works every
time they need something done. What I'm planning to do to make this even better is to put what
we call business analysts into each of these different departments. We don't have the luxury of
doing a one-to-one in that we have 20-some departments, but maybe we would group the
departments that have similar needs, put a business analyst who would know their processes and
also know the technology and be able to translate that need back to IT so we can find the right
solution for them. So we do have challenges with respect to IT, but we are working feverishly to
get some of those challenges resolved. My focus, since I've come onboard, has been to see if we
can re-establish that leadership that's necessary. I've looked at personnel. I've looked at our
platform. I've looked at our processes. I've looked at our policy or lack of policy as it relates to
IT and the other departments, and, of course, there's the politics. Last night I got home and I
was going through my mail, and I saw where somebody placed a call to our help desk and had to
wait 40 minutes on the phone for a response. Now, do we have an escalation process in place to
handle that kind of stuff? When I looked around, I -- there was a semblance of one, but it wasn't
quite there. These are some of the things that have broken down over the years that we need to
put back in play. I responded to the person who made the complaint, and I said, Look, we're
upgrading the phone systems. We're getting better servers in place. We've hired a new
administrator for the call center, so there are things that we're starting to do to help you so that
you don't have to wait 40 minutes before you get a response. And those are some of the things
that I've seen that we're starting to address. I have started the process of reorganizing the
department. And every person who comes onboard thinks that the first thing they should do is
reorganize. That wasn't the case here. I mean, that wasn't why I did what I did. The reason I
went for the reorganization, we had some legacy stuff that needed to go out the door. We had
mainframe operators, but we didn't -- we got rid of our mainframe. So now we want to convert
those positions into mobile support people. The big machines are gone out the door or going out
the door. We have these little devices that we use now that are just as powerful in some case, but
EXB 159
we need some people to support those. I mentioned the governance process, but we need people
who will help us prioritize. Talked about identifying cost. If you should ask me or any of my
managers today what does it cost the City to provide e-mail or Office or whatever per person, I
don't know that we could put our finger on a number and say it's $16 per user per month. We
need to identify our cost so we can know exactly what we should do next. When are we getting to
that sweet spot where we know we're paying the right amount for the right services? We talked
about -- one part of focus was on collaboration; collaboration I mentioned with our vendors,
with our different departments. I won't belabor that point. What we're trying to do here is
develop a strategic plan, a strategic plan that's not static, a strategic plan that we can grow into.
It's an evolutionary plan, so things will come onboard and then things will come off the list of
strategic planning. Training. I'm passionate about training because what I've seen after doing
an assessment of what we've got is that we've got some good tools in play, but we have a lot of
people who don't know how to use the tools. Now, the analogy I would use, you could give a
skilled craftsman a chisel, and he can give you any piece of furniture or sculpture. And you
could give somebody else a power tool or someone a chisel, and they wouldn't know what to do
because they don't know what they're doing. So my contention is if we spend a little bit and make
as part of our culture training for the City of Miami, as far as technology is concerned, we would
see some big gains in productivity. One of the other reasons why this is critical is that over the
next few years -- and we've started to see happen because of the DROP (Deferred Retirement
Option Plan) Program -- we're going to lose about 30 percent of our staff. Now, I may be
playing with the numbers a little loosely there. It may not be exactly 30, but we're starting to see
a churn in our workforce. Institutional knowledge is going out the door, and we need to find a
way to capture that so we can use that to our advantage. One of the things that we don't do good
as an IT organization is tell you, Commissioners, tell our managers our accomplishments. We do
a lot of things sometimes that's not communicated in an effective manner so you can know what
it is that we're doing. I've started to put some processes in place to help that. I've brought a
vendor in to talk to us about business analytics so the managers can be educated as to how to
use the data that they have using analytic tools. We need to optimize our current technology, and
that's a broad term, and I can delve into it, but I will give you a chance to tell me what exactly
your interest is and I'll bring this to a close real soon.
Chair Sarnoff: Have you ever done an analysis as to what the capabilities are of a given
software program versus what the capability is of the person using that software program and his
or her knowledge?
Mr. Cross: As it relates -- since I've been here at the City, have I done that, or have I ever done
that?
Chair Sarnoff: Well, we'll start with have you ever done it and then have you done it here?
Mr. Cross: No, I have not done it here. It's not one of the things that were a priority on my list.
It's -- there's a large list and I'm get -- but we have done it, and we -- I have done it in other jobs
that I have had, and we've seen where if we improved on the whole education process, from the
cradle to the grave, in terms of while the person is doing it, how to do it properly, training them
and keeping them updated where the productivity has gone up significantly. It's been done, and
there's a big -- I'll get back to you if you need to see a case study or something like -- regarding
that as to how that works, how well it works.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, I'd like to see that, 'cause I could tell you that when my office has gone
through training in, I assume, your department or a department associated with you, they come
back fully understanding the capabilities of Microsoft, Microsoft Office, things that even I don't
know how or -- you know, my premise is that most of us walk around with these devices or any
other device and we know 10 percent of what it can do.
Mr. Cross: Yes.
EXB 160
Chair Sarnoff: And 90 percent goes unused.
Mr. Cross: That is true. And you know when we try to use the other 90 percent? When we're in
trouble. Now, I have a vendor here who will tell you that when I came onboard -- and I still do it
to this day -- they come in and one of the first things they do is they hand me a business card.
And I look at them and I say, do you bump? And they look at me and, What do you mean by 'do
I bump?' There's an application out there when you set it up once and you put your profile in ,
all you have to do if the other person has a Smartphone device is touch them together. And I
guess I could bump with the Commissioner. He's shaking his head. But what that does -- and I'll
tell you exactly why that's very effective just from (UNINTELLIGIBLE). You had set up a
meeting with the Police Department to look at some crime analytics. On that day, I was a
newbie in town. I didn't know the City very well. And I shouldn't call the vendor's name, but a
vendor came in and they handed me their card. They were part of the meeting, but they had
Braille on the card. On one of the numbers that I was supposed to transpose from the card into
my phone, there was a bubble, and so I didn't know if it was a 6 or a 9 or what the number was.
So I guessed at the number and I put it in my phone. Because The Heat had a parade that day,
things changed. So I was at your office waiting for the meeting to start and there was nobody
else around. I took out my phone and I dialed the number. It was the wrong number. I didn't
have a card to say which one of these numbers are wrong. Now, if that person had put that in
their phone at the point in time, it would have -- them entering it and it would be correct. All we
had to do was do this, and I would have had the right number. I wouldn't have to had
transposed the number and gotten it wrong. So whenever vendors come in now and I say do you
bump?, it's -- if it's already electronic or you can do it one time and then pass it on that way ,
why aren't we doing it? You're the vendor. Be -- act like a technology vendor and let us do that.
Now, if we put that as part of our culture in the City, over a period of time, we may not need to
have business cards, because I can tell you this: Every kid out there now has a Smartphone. My
mother may be one of the last remnants of people without a Smartphone, but then she doesn't get
a lot of business cards. But -- so you see what I'm saying when you say, We can do things more
effectively, but we have to make it a part of our culture. I look around, then I look at the
podium, and I go into the agenda review meeting and I see these large folders with all this paper .
We now have the ability to put -- use those in a different -- we can put it as a PDF (Portable
Document Format) file on which we can annotate; we can search and find the document we're
looking much fast and so on. But part of the culture has to come from the top -- the
Commissioners, the managers, and so on, and it ripples down. It's not going to happen
overnight where everybody can be that effective, but it has to start somewhere. So when we talk
about organizational culture and technology, if you want to be the technology capital of
southeast of the -- South America or whatever the case may be, it has to start somewhere. And
my challenge to you guys is whether you lay the mandate down or it's the Manager who says this
is the way we're going to do business, at least that statement needs to be made, and then we will
fall in line. A simple example to your point, only 10 percent of this tool is used, and you can
imagine what happens with the bigger systems that we have. I know I'm taking up quite a bit of
your time and I will bring this to a close. We have not ignored the fact that there's a lot of new
technologies out there that can get us -- or take us a little further a little faster. There's Cloud
Technologies [sic], and I am not quite sure how knowledgeable the panel is about Cloud
Technologies [sic], and that's another story for maybe another day, unless you want to go there.
Their mobility -- I was having a conversation with the Fire chief. I was having a conversation
this morning with the Building inspectors. We now see where the permit inspectors are taking
around tablets. The tablet has a camera on it so a violation can be recorded and sent in realtime
back to our computers here. It now has pre-filled out forms that you can just check things off.
We can get voice or phone calls to our tablets. It's portable. It's -- you know, I'm up here with a
piece of paper, and I could very well have made this presentation using my I-Pad or my
Microsoft device (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- but I went to old reliable here -- paper. But we need to
start looking at -- if you want to be the top city in the country or get in that top 10, what is it that
we need to do to get there? And part of it is going to come from your leadership and your telling
EXB 161
us, This is a mandate, this is how we want to go there, and then we can figure out what it's
going to take in terms of dollars and resources and so on and so forth .
Chair Sarnoff: So can I ask a favor of you?
Mr. Cross: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: Can you get me competent enough that I can not come up here with a piece of
paper in January for a Commission meeting?
Mr. Cross: I'm not a miracle worker, sir, but I --
Commissioner Carollo: Good answer.
Mr. Cross: No, no --
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) talking to Carollo lately?
Mr. Cross: -- disrespect here, but it is going to take a little time. It's not going to happen
overnight, but at least we -- if you tell me that's what you want to do, January may be a little
aggressive, but we could work on it. The last slide I have -- I came onboard approximately five,
six months ago -- in June, actually -- and I have to tell you that I thought my career in IT had
ended because I did 20-some -- 11 and a half years of CIO (Chief Information Officer), City of
Orlando, and when I left, I was like, I'm finished with government. I'm not interested in it. But
when I came to do the interview and I sat down and I talked to my boss, Ms. Bravo, I got the
sense that I had a challenge ahead of me, and it was a challenge I'd take on because I like a
challenge. She has been nothing but supportive over the last six months, and whenever things
get down, I could expect to see a text from her, and she said, How you doing? And, you know
-- so I-- the support that I've gotten from my management has been nothing but top notch, but I
would be remiss if I ended this without mentioning some key people within my department. When
I started, I didn't have a directory to show me who was who in my department. It existed, but
there are no real photographs there of these people. But I had the opportunity to talk to some of
the directors one on one before even meeting all of my staff on a one-to-one basis, and there was
one name that kept coming up, and they would say Ileana Oliver, Ileana Oliver. And I'm like,
Who is this Ileana Oliver? So I went back and I started asking, Who is Ileana Oliver? And it so
happened that she was on a cruise. She was on vacation, so I didn't get to meet her, but I kept
hearing about how good she was and whatever. I finally met her. And even to this day, even this
morning, I was still hearing about Ile. We've got some star people. And how did I know she was
a star? Not by talking to her, but I was in my apartment at 10 o'clock one night, and I saw an
e-mail come in. All my devices are right on my bed. I mean, my family is not here, so I'm alone
here and I'm -- my devices are my companion. One of them started vibrating, Picked it up, and
at 10 o'clock, we had a City employee send in a response to an e-mail to her supervisor. That, I
think, is dedication. And I pick her out, and I could do the same for quite a few others. I have
some other names in here; Duque, Alcala, Johnson. These are dedicated employees. We've got
some good people in place. We need to help them get to that next level, and I think we are
getting there. There's a lot more to be said. I realize I have -- even though you have not tell me
to shut up yet, I have a lot of time, but I'll leave it for your questions.
Chair Sarnoff: Any questions?
Commissioner Carollo: No, at the present time.
Chair Sarnoff: Do you have a recommendation, or will you be formulating a strategy so that we
EXB 162
could see this, I would say, by March of next year to better understand what you're going to
come to us in terms of budgetary requirements to implement what you think is our strategy?
Mr. Cross: Yes, I will. As a matter of fact, we've started with a portfolio of the different
applications and the needs going online. Six months was just too narrow a window for me to
bring that to you, and I wouldn't want to do it and not do it right, but by March, I definitely will
have a good feel for the apps (applications) based on sitting down with the managers and
deciding where the priorities are. We will have that portfolio ready for you by March.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: I do respectfully request that before March that IT, along with the
Manager, meets with my office so they can go over, you know, the various issues, so by the time
the March meeting comes about, you know, we are fully briefed. I do have questions; I just don't
want to pose them right now. I would prefer to have a dialogue with you so, you know, it be back
and forth instead of doing it now in front of everybody where it might be, you know, somewhat
mundane on everybody.
Mr. Cross: Okay.
Vice Chair Gort: I have to tell you, we have some great, good discussions with IT. I think he has
the right idea; that we have a lot of the tools, but we need to train the people to know how to use
the tools.
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Vice Chair Gort: And communication is one of the things we lack quite a bit in here. We have
transactions. It takes three different departments to participate in that transaction because it's
not communication between those departments, so this is something we really need here, so I'm
looking forward to it. And you can show me how to use the 90 percent, the rest -- the 90 percent
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Cross: We will bump.
Commissioner Carollo: Bump.
Mr. Cross: We will bump.
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah, I want to learn the bump before I leave today.
Mr. Cross: Okay. I thank you very much, and I look forward to working with you. Let me just
preface the upcoming Internet -- intranet -- Internet presentation. I think you will be wowed, and
it may take more than five minutes, but you will be wowed.
Chair Sarnoff: And just by the way, whatever Carollo pays you, I'll double it. Thank you.
EXB 163
13-00814
District 2- DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
Commissioner Marc
David Sarnoff
13-00814 Email - City's Website.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Manager, I think we have a discussion item we could at least look at, and
that is the City's website. Can we move to that agenda item? Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Ms.
Bravo, you're recognized for the record.
Alice Bravo (Chief of Infrastructure): Alice Bravo, Assistant City Manager. While the folks
come out to set up their PowerPoint presentation, we, a few months ago, started taking a closer
look at our website, department by department, and realized that there was a need to improve the
amount of information that's out there. We've been working very closely with department heads,
our Office of Communications, to improve the content of the information on the website,
particularly from the perspective of, you know, what information are people looking for. We
want to make sure that as much information as possible is out there so that people don 't have to
call in for information, don't have to come in for information; that, whenever possible, if there's
something that someone's applying for, that they're able to apply by web. So our focus for the
various departments, as we go through and overhaul the content for each -- we started with the
Parks Department, Emergency Management, and Planning & Zoning. In the case of Parks,
obviously, we have many facilities throughout the City, so we made sure we have hours of
operations, the activities, the programs that are at each park, et cetera, so that information is
available online. From the perspective of Planning & Zoning, we have many users out there, so
we want to make sure we eliminate the need for someone to call the Planning & Zoning
Department to ask for a form, a process, what a timeline for a certain process looks like, so that
information is being populated out there. we're not going to show it to you today, but other
departments -- Public Facilities, Building, Public Works, et cetera -- are all also being
revamped. As part of the Planning & Zoning presentation, there's a GIS (geographic
information system) tool that's very powerful, and we're working to layer onto that, so basically,
for any particular property, you could see all documents that are on record as far as permits,
covenants, warrants, et cetera. But the first one we want to -- we'll show, kind of, the before and
after -- is our Parks Department.
Lara De Souza: Good afternoon. Lara De Souza, Deputy Director for City of Miami Parks
Department. Okay. I just basically want to take us back to the beginning. This is our former
website. It's a ten-year-old design. What we found is that it was really hard for visitors to find
the information that they wanted. They had to do a lot of clicks to get to the source, so it really
wasn't user-friendly and also didn't adapt very well with a Smartphone or a tablet. This is an
example. They would have to click through quite a few pages just to get to some of the internal
documents that they wanted, so what we wanted to do was look for a much more user-friendly,
modern-look page. We want to make the information more accessible, allow the visitors to
control how they're accessing the information, streamline the communication of information, and
allow connectivity through the Smartphones, and subsequently, sharing of park information with
our contacts. So let's go there. So this is the new look and feel. I'm going to just scroll down, so
you can see the whole thing. Here on the top, we have dropdown menu items, and the reason we
put this in place is we looked at the Google analytics to see what is the highest number of visitor
information pages, and we created the dropdown information based on that. So one of the
examples is you can visit a park and do any one of these things. So let's say, Play with my
dog. So they can go here. It talks about the rules and regulations for a dog park and the
locations of our dog parks, so this way -- the great thing about the dropdown menu is we can add
additional queries. We also looked at the e-mail (electronic) contact that we get and the phone
contact that we get and what are people asking about so we can continue to grow this and
enhance it and make sure it's in keeping with what they're asking for. Additionally, under the
EXB 164
Recreation Corner, we picked the top items that people are searching for, whether it be learn
to swim, our master plan process, our programs for persons with disabilities, tennis lessons,
Grapeland Waterpark, and youth programs. So in many different areas of our main page, you
can start your search process. One of the things that I really want to highlight is, under Parks,
our community pages. A community park is what we would designate as somewhere that has a
recreation center and is offering you programs. So what we did is beyond taking a quick look,
which is what this page is -- let me just go here -- you can now click and go to an individual park
page for that park. It's going to give you a photo. It's going to give you hours of operations. On
the bottom here, it's going to show you the amenities that are available on site. You can even
click here, and it now takes you to Google so you can map out your ride there. You can also add
it to your my Places, depending on how people, you know, utilize their Google tools. Now, I'm
going to go back to the homepage. What's really nice is we're now going to have live video,
which is going to allow people to personally connect, you know, see people actively using a park
and hopefully give them ideas of how they can come to a park and get involved, whether it's in a
leisure format, or a summer camp, or an after-school program. But what we're really proud of is
this application here called Find a Park. This is a GIS interface, so a user will be able to
come, and all these little green dots, which are probably very small on your screen is a park
location. So, to make it simple, you can go in the search button and we're going to type in
Hadley -- may be good if I spelled it correctly -- Charles Hadley Park, so immediately what pops
us -- well, let me scroll the page down so you can see it -- is this information grid. Here, it tells
you all the different amenities that are available. We also have a feature that takes you back to
that page that we've created for that particular park, okay. When we scroll to the right, you can
type in your address and it'll give you directions, and you can also go here and view pictures of
the park. Now, say you're thinking about doing a pickup basketball game with your buddies.
You really like Hadley Park. You think it looks good. What you'll do is click here, and now you
can share it via Facebook, Twitter, or e-mail, the details about the park. So it's a great tool. I
mean, we have a lot of people that like to use our parks for birthday parties, baby showers, so we
want to upload pictures of our, you know, reception areas, banquet areas so they'll be able to use
that as a -- part of this tool as well. So that is pretty much the new configuration of the Parks
page. The one thing I want to show you, though, is our next step. Grapeland Water Park is one
of our most active summer parks, and we wanted to have a new look and feel for that particular
park that's really engaging and part of our advertising plan. So this has been designed over at
the GSA (General Services Administration) graphics, but now what we're doing is HTML
(Hypertext Markup Language) coding so that we can then add it to the site. Here, people will be
able to come and get the hours of operations, admission, information, rules, and party
reservation information. So this is the homepage, and this is what one of the internal pages will
look like. It's very inviting. You know, on a hot summer day, it's going to make you want to come
and splash around. So our next steps: We're continuing to go through and test and add content,
and it certainly invites you and your staff to look through the site, let us know if there's any
additional information you'd like to see, because you know, you're stakeholders just as much as
our residents are. We're going to add more content to the individual park pages and additional
photos, so whether you use the park finder app or the individual park page, you'll be able to get
a really good sense of what the park looks like. In April of 2014, Miami-Dade County will be
releasing the same application, the Park Finder application, and they will be incorporating all of
our parks as well. So what's great about that is no matter where you are in Miami-Dade County,
you say that you want to find a swimming pool, it's going to tell them where the closest one is,
regardless of the municipality, so -- and then the additional thing that I'm currently working on
in collaboration with the Miami Foundation is they have a group that's coming out of the
Harvard Innovative Lab that is called Opportunity Spaces, and it's going to be a platform to
allow more citizen engagement to -- it's part of the Miami Foundation's vision for a more livable
city, and the City of Miami is going to be the pilot program in South Florida for this , and it's
going to allow citizens to not only let us know what they like or don't like about a park, but it's
also allow them to give us a vision of how they see parks to build. So in my view, we've taken a
huge leap forward in advancement. We've -- the Park Finder app is very integrative with the
Smartphone, and it also will sync in with your GPS (Global Positioning Satellite), so again, you
EXB 165
can find things that are close to you. And we're also going to be looking at online reservation
and registration so that people don't have to keep coming to a physical park or to the main office
at the MRC (Miami Riverside Center) to book a party or to register their child for summer camp.
Chair Sarnoff: How long have you worked on this?
Ms. De Souza: Six weeks.
Chair Sarnoff: That's pretty good for six weeks. I think every other City department should take
notice.
Ms. Bravo: And we're not going to show the web page for every department today, but every
department is in process of being revamped like this; some are at a 90, 95 percent level. So, if
you want, we can continue to showcase each one as they're finished. But next, we have Planning
& Zoning.
Ms. De Souza: Thank you.
Lucia Gonzalez (Assistant to the Director): Good afternoon, Commissioners. Luciana Gonzalez,
Planning & Zoning Department. We also have been working on this for the last few weeks. Our
website has been existence, as well, for about ten years, following the same framework that the
Parks and Recreation Department had. However, as -- over the years, our information has had
to accommodate to the framework that existed within this design, and it forced us to hide
information that should be given more prominence just because we didn't have the ability, and a
good example that I will show you -- this is, again, the new look that you saw that's very similar
to the Parks and Recreation. On the left-hand side, you have the old and how we had very good
tools available to the public. However, they weren't very well seen within the page, and in
comparison, on the right-hand side, you have the new look, the new section of the page that
shows you the tools that are available to our stakeholders in a very -- the look and feel of it has
improved, and it's more intuitive to the user, ultimately. The other thing that we faced was
combining -- merging two different websites that were in existence. Planning Department had its
own website and Zoning, which is a little over two years old, had its own page, so we had to
figure out ways to combine the two to allow the user, again, to find information at a one-stop
shop. We -- because of -- our line of work is a little bit more technical. We had to do a lot of
research as far as the terminology that's used that's -- that provides the user with -- to find the
information that they're actually looking for, as opposed to using our, you know, professional
lingo with the architecture and urban design terminologies, so this is the result of it, and I'll show
you -- excuse me. On the light side, the different dropdown menus, you can basically find
anything that's available on the site through these dropdown menus here rather than having to
click, and then click again, and try to find the information. On the left-hand side of the page, we
also looked at the metrics to see what the most used pages are and gave a prominence to it. I'll
come back to this in a little bit. I want to skip over for a second. The Planning & Zoning
Department has different sections that may not be clear to the user. We have our Hearing
Boards; we have Tree Preservation; we have Zoning; we have Planning, which the urban design
and land development, so we -- we'll continue to build upon these menus to be able to give the
user the ultimate information. Here are the tools that are in place. Miami-Biz, as you may know,
that was recently launched for the certificate of use system. It's very user-friendly and allows
applicants to apply for certificate of use. The building permitting system, here we have general
maps, which are highly used by different people, as well as census information, which is obtained
here as well, and the zoning interactive tool. This has been in existence for quite some time.
However, it hasn't been given the prominence that it deserves through our systems, so what we've
done is really given it -- let me just fix that real quick. Not. We'll try again through -- here we
go. There it is. And if you -- you know, this tool allows you to find the zoning a lot more
EXB 166
information for any -- every single property within the City. There is different layers here. As
you can see, this is all the Miami 21 zoning. It's very similar to the Property Appraiser site. It
does give you sales information, ownership information, former zoning, and this is -- every
person that I speak with to talk about it, they -- we just get compliments for it, and it's now
clearly available on the page and --
Ms. Bravo: And this is the tool that, as part of our strategic plan, we' re going to layer with CU
(Certificate of Use) information, historical use, warrants, covenants, et cetera. You know, a lot
of people that come into Planning & Zoning are merely looking for older documents that help
them support a new application.
Chair Sarnoff: Will this ever get to the point where I can click on Chuck Rabin's home and see
that, historically, everything about it, any easements, any covenants --?
Ms. Bravo: Covenants, parking waivers, et cetera.
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Ms. Gonzalez: Exactly.
Chair Sarnoff: -- we would have historically on that home would be --
Ms. Bravo: Will be -- yes.
Chair Sarnoff: -- layered in there prominently.
Ms. Bravo: This will be our document management system, as well.
Ms. Gonzalez: That is the ultimate goal; to build on this to be able to access all the information
for, like Alice said, warrants, waivers, covenants, certificate of use, et cetera. And we
understand that this is something that's a little bit on the technical side, so what we've done is
created a video tutorial to go along with it. It's about seven minutes long, and it's, again, very
clear on the front page to be able to -- first-time users can come and understand everything that
the application provides.
Chair Sarnoff: But you're not miracle workers.
Vice Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. The biggest problem we have, individuals that want to
rent the space or they want to rent store and -- they want to know about the zoning. They want to
be -- know if they're able to use -- if they can rent it for the uses they would like to do. Can they
go in there and find out the specific zoning and the uses for that?
Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, yes. You zoom in here. I'm just going to zoom in any property --
Ms. Gonzalez: -- no specifics. I don't know if Chuck Rabin lives in the City, so I can't pick on
his property.
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) his house -- no, I'm just --
Ms. Gonzalez: So you can click here and it would tell you. University of Miami owns this. This
is the zoning. And there's a little hyperlink here that, if you open this up, it takes you to a
summary of Miami 21 regulations for that particular zoning, so you don't have to flip through the
whole entire book to know --
EXB 167
Chair Sarnoff: But I think Commissioner Gort may be asking --
Vice Chair Gort: The use.
Ms. Bravo: There's a table there.
Ms. Gonzalez: There's a table. Yes, there's a table here.
Chair Sarnoff: But instead of making the person go to the table, could you type in use, pet
clinic and would then that be able to spit out information, you know, C-1 allows?
Chair Sarnoff: Or --
Ms. Gonzalez: I think that it would be a combination of this together with the certificate of use,
because the certificate of use application, when you're applying for a new business, does do that.
If you click on something that's not allowed within that zoning category, it doesn't allow you to
move forward. Okay, yeah. We can show you the Miami-Biz. I must say that I am not an expert
on it, but it's very simple to use.
Ms. Bravo: A prior request was that certificate of use applications could be made online, and so
Miami-Biz was implemented a couple of months ago, and that facilitates the application of the
CU online and that's what --
Vice Chair Gort: I'm thinking about it before you go into that steps [sic]. Once you go looking
for certificate of use, you already rent the place, and then you go to certificate of use and you
can't use it for what you wanted to do.
Ms. Bravo: Right. And between the zoning information that's shown there and the actual --
through the zoning you could see if that's an applicable use.
Chair Sarnoff: But he's still asking the question differently. I think he's still saying -- you know,
I think it's great to do the dropdown menu, but you're a lay person, even me; I'm a lawyer. I
don't know Miami 21. I don't know what table to go to.
Ms. Bravo: And --
Chair Sarnoff: So instead of -- wait, let me finish -- going through a table, he says, all right, his
wife is interested in opening up a hairdresser studio, whatever they call that, so he types in on
that particular address: Can I do hairdresser? And it would come back zoning not
appropriate.
Ms. Gonzalez: I think we have the framework in place, the foundation to be able to do
something like that. As we move forward with these plans that we have for IT (Information
Technology), that's something that we need to consider, so --
Vice Chair Gort: You be amazed how many people come to us, that they rented a place or that
bought a place thinking they can use a certain way, then afterwards, when they apply for the CU,
Hey, wait a minute; can't use it. So before they buy the property or rent the property, would
like to have that information.
Francisco Garcia: Thank you, Commissioner. I'd like, briefly, to respond to the question,
because it is certainly one that we deal with very frequently, as you might imagine. For the
EXB 168
record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. And so the difficulty is this: The specific
use that a person may want may be called any of many things, and as you know, as a result of
Miami 21, what we've done is we've condensed our categories of use to make them as general
and accessible as possible, so right now we have a category of use that's called
General/Commercial, which encompasses 95 percent of all the commercial uses that one
could possibly want to inquire about. So presently, given our Zoning ordinance, it requires two
steps: One, for the user to determine -- and we're certainly available to answer those questions
-- that, one, for the user to determine which category of use is the use they want is in and then,
yes, automatically, we can address that request by saying, This use is available in this
property, without question, but it does require that first initial step that we would have to give
them advice on.
Chair Sarnoff: But you can fill your field -- let's say you used to have 600 uses under 11000 and
you brought it down to 95 under Miami 21. You can still fill the field on your data entry, so you
would come back with a positive finding, even though I didn't use the term you wanted me to use.
Like, for instance -- I don't know -- pet -- what are they called? -- grooming and you wanted it to
say pet something else. You know, you can fill the field on your back entry so you would still get
back an indication, yes. 'Cause I think Commissioner Gort is right; you want that person --
when they're -- what happens is a person's considering opening up a business, and in that
consideration, they have an idea where they want it to be.
Mr. Garcia: I absolutely agree, and certainly we can work towards, so certainly a challenge that
we receive gladly. Let's see how we can get around it, because you're right; it does become a
day-to-day challenge for our users.
Vice Chair Gort: Well, I wrote a lot of e-mails from my office to your office, that's for sure.
Mr. Garcia: Yes, you do, sir. So to the extent that we can improve upon it, we'll certainly try our
best. Thank you.
Ms. Gonzalez: And any other comments that you may have for the website, itself, and as far as
navigation, we welcome those as well. Thank you.
Ms. Bravo: I only have one more thing to add, and that's that through Apple, we've been cleared
for our application to be in the App Store the week of December 9.
Chair Sarnoff: For the trolley?
Ms. Bravo: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, congratulations.
Ms. Bravo: Thank you.
Vice Chair Gort: I'm sorry, what was that again?
Chair Sarnoff: They're going to go with Apple -- being that you're a Blackberry guy, don't
worry; Apple'll own it very shortly. But the App Store is going to be available to us so that we
could put the app on the Apple.
Ms. Bravo: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: And for those Samsung people, they just have to wait.
EXB 169
Ms. Gonzalez: It'll come shortly thereafter.
Chair Sarnoff: See, it all does come back. All right, I think -- are you --? Thank you very much.
By the way, much improvement; kudos to you. I didn't think you'd be this far along, to be candid
with you.
Ms. Bravo: It was a big team effort.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. And you know what; you should thank your team, especially Parks.
That's a big improvement on Parks. I think if you'd -- I think Commissioner Gort's right. I think
it just doesn't take that much more to get Planning & Zoning a little more depth than dirt to it,
and I think a lot of questions can be answered online.
Ms. Bravo: And that's our goal, to cut down on the number of calls and e-mails, et cetera, for
questions.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, thank you. So do you -- are you -- would you consider, Commissioner
Carollo, going to the tabled items?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. I was able to discuss with Water and Sewer and our
Administration, so I think I'm able to take 2. There's still one, the PH.3, I'm still -- I still haven't
been able to meet with them, but definitely, we could take PH.2, if possible, and there is another
one, PH (Public Hearing) --
Chair Sarnoff: We had tabled RE.11 as one --
Commissioner Carollo: And RE.11, you're right.
Chair Sarnoff: Yeah.

13-01179
City Commission STATUS OF HIRING POLICE OFFICERS.
13-01179 Cover Page.pdf
13-01179-Memo-Police Department Hiring and Staffing Update.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Sarnoff: All right, just to finish up, I think we could do the -- real quickly, we could do the
Police issue, D1.3 [sic], status of hiring police, and then we'll have lunch.
Vice Chair Gort: And come back about 3?
Chair Sarnoff: It's okay with me. It's not --
Vice Chair Gort: 'Cause I don't see any --
Chair Sarnoff: The problem is we're all back loaded, so it doesn't matter. Three o'clock is fine.
Commissioner Carollo: Three o'clock.
Chair Sarnoff: Because we're back loaded on time certains.
EXB 170
Chair Sarnoff: Whoever is going to present it.
Vice Chair Gort: Let's go.
Armando Aguilar: Good afternoon. Armando Aguilar, executive assistant to the Chief of Police.
I'll start while we await the Chief. Since the last Commission meeting, we have hired 13 certified
officers; 10 are already working for us, and 3 more start on Monday. We have an additional
eight certified officers that are awaiting medical clearance. We have another 91 certified officers
that are currently undergoing the physical agility phase. We received over 1,300 app --
Chair Sarnoff: Ninety-one officers who are undergoing the physical -- so you have 91 certified
officers?
Mr. Aguilar: Certified applicants, yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Ninety-one certified applicants that have not been hired yet?
Mr. Aguilar: Correct. That's in addition to the 13 that we did hire and the 8 that are almost
ready to hire.
Chair Sarnoff: So I'm going to ask you to back up again, because when I looked at this, we used
to be budgeted for 1,144. We're presently budgeted for 1,179.
Mr. Aguilar: That's correct.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. If I do the subtraction from -- I guess I should be subtracting from -- when
you say there -- Police is operating with 69 sworn vacancies. I should be subtracting 69 from
1,179.
Mr. Aguilar: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: So then I would be at 1,110 officers.
Mr. Aguilar: That's correct.
Chair Sarnoff: That would be a record for the City of Miami. We've never had 1,110 officers
before; is that wrong, Chief?
Manuel Orosa (Chief of Police): No, never had.
Chair Sarnoff: Right. So you have more police officers at your disposal than in the history of
the City of Miami right now.
Chief Orosa: Correct.
Commissioner Carollo: And that's what we were striving at during budget hearing, and we said
that by December, we should have X additional officers patrolling the streets.
Chief Orosa: We had -- In the history of the Police Department -- well, in the modern history of
the Police Department, we've never been 100 percent staffed because of whatever -- retirements,
layoffs or firings. We usually go -- there's a percentage below of the maximum budgeted amount.
Chair Sarnoff: Well, my recollection, based on previous statements you've made, we never even
have been at 1,144 before, so we're really --
EXB 171
Chief Orosa: Correct.
Chair Sarnoff: I'm not saying we're staffed adequately, but we're at least -- certainly, the needle
has moved, and the needle is moving in the right direction.
Chief Orosa: Yes, sir.
Chair Sarnoff: But -- and then something Mr. Aguilar said -- I almost wish I had his sentence in
front of me -- but that there -- is it 94 police officers that are certified that --? I don't remember
your number. It was in the high 80s or 90s.
Mr. Aguilar: It's 91 certified applicants that we're still processing off the existing certified
officer list, plus another 1,300 that we just received that some of those are certified, some of
those are not.
Chair Sarnoff: So best estimate, when could you get to your allocated 1,179?
Chief Orosa: Hopefully by mid next year.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, mid next year is June.
Chief Orosa: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: By June of next year?
Chief Orosa: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: Could you do better than that?
Chief Orosa: We will try as much as we can.
Chair Sarnoff: Now, taking into consideration people you anticipate leaving and then those
unanticipated --
Chief Orosa: I think that's very minimal. I think there are like 14, 16, in that ballpark, that are
leaving, not counting people that made -- commit mistakes and they have to be fired. So
including those, you know, 16 is a -- now that the hiring machinery is in gear and going full
speed ahead, it should be easy to overcome the people leaving in the DROP (Deferred
Retirement Option Program), those 16.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay. There's a sentence here that says there are 15 sworn members and 48
civilian members -- okay, I apologize -- who must separate. You're right, so your numbers are
about right. So you're not that concerned about the civilians; you're more concerned about the
police.
Commissioner Carollo: Of course.
Chief Orosa: Correct, because that's what I'm here for.
Commissioner Carollo: Of course.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, is there anything this Commission can do, period, anything to help you
gain more police officers on the street?
EXB 172
Chief Orosa: Right now the training is rolling. We are doing great with recruitment. We're
doing great with the list. Like I said, like Junior mentioned before, the last time, we would have
probably about 7, 800 applicants. This time around, we had over 1,500, and eventually, it
wound up to about 13 and change. So, Commissioner, with all due respect, the best thing
anybody can do is get out of the way.
Chair Sarnoff: Keep your hands and feet away from (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chief Orosa: Yes.
Chief Orosa: Move forward.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Anybody wish to address the Chief? Commissioner Spence-Jones?
Chief Orosa: Yes, you need to address me. This is the last time you're going to be addressing me
like this.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: No.
Chief Orosa: Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: Chief, it's good to see progress. It's also good to see the record numbers, 'cause
that's unique, and keep up --
Commissioner Carollo: Keep up the good work.
Chair Sarnoff: -- the good work, right.
Vice Chair Gort: Keep up the good work.
Commissioner Carollo: Keep up the good work.
Chief Orosa: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, thank you.
END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
CITYWIDE
HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS
DISTRICT 1
VICE CHAIR WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT

13-01283
EXB 173
STATUS REPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE PILOT PROGRAM TO

OPERATE CODE COMPLIANCE FROM THE ALLAPATTAH NET AND
FLAGAMI NET OFFICES.
13-01283 E-Mail - Status Report on Pilot Program.pdf

13-01283-Submittal-Herald Article.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Sarnoff: I know Commissioner Gort has one that's important to him.
Vice Chair Gort: Well, my discussion item is very simple. I passed this around.
Chair Sarnoff: You want to do it? Do it.
Commissioner Carollo: Do it.
Vice Chair Gort: There's no action to be taken. Only pass this around. An article came out in
the Miami Herald, which is called NET Again [sic]. This is something that I'm working on,
and I've been meeting with the staff and the Administration. We're going to be getting closer
together and see if we can come up with some changes that I would like to see, at least I would
like to see it in my district, and I'm working on it. I passed this all around so you guys will see,
more or less, what I'm intend to do.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. You want to take ten; maybe you can meet with Mr. Ihekwaba?
Commissioner Carollo: Again, you know, like I said, I need to meet with him before I take a
vote. And if you have --
Vice Chair Gort: Take ten minutes and get together.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know --
Chair Sarnoff: Are you available, Mr. Ihekwaba?
Nzeribe Ihekwaba (Director, Public Works): Yes.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know, and --
Commissioner Carollo: -- at the same time --
Chair Sarnoff: Let's take ten minutes.
Commissioner Carollo: And at the same time --
Chair Sarnoff: We're in recess.
Commissioner Carollo: -- I want to make sure that at 4:30, we have this. And if you have
quorum, you could call the question whenever you want.
EXB 174
END OF DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 2
CHAIR MARC DAVID SARNOFF

13-01076
DISCUSSION REGARDING DOUBLE POLES AND PROBLEMS WITH
COMCAST.
13-01076 E-Mail-Double Poles and Comcast.pdf
Note for the Record: Item D2.1 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Regular Commission
Meeting.
END OF DISTRICT 2
DISTRICT 3
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO

13-00723
FOLLOW UP ON RECRUITING.
13-00723 Email - Recruiting.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
Note for the Record: Per Miami City Code Section 2-33(k), Item D3.1 was continued to the

13-00753
UPDATE REGARDING THE CIP PROCESS.
13-00753 Update - CIP Process.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

13-01107
FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINANCIAL INTEGRITY PRINCIPLES
EXB 175
ORDINANCE.
13-01107 Email - Compliance with Financial Integrity Ord.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

13-01203
FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING ILLEGAL
BILLBOARD.
13-01203 E-Mail - Illegal Billboard.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

13-01204
FOLLOW UP REGARDING ISSUANCE OF 2013 AUDITED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
13-01204 E-Mail - Audited Financial Statements.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
END OF DISTRICT 3
DISTRICT 4
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
END OF DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 5
COMMISSIONER MICHELLE SPENCE-JONES
NON AGENDA ITEM(S)
NA.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

13-01379
CHAIR SARNOFF RECOGNIZED AND WELCOMED BACK THE CITY
MANAGER, JOHNNY MARTINEZ.
DISCUSSED
Chair Sarnoff: Morning. All right, Spence-Jones would say it again. Good morning.
The Audience: Good morning.
EXB 176
Vice Chair Gort: Morning; we're awake.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, I heard that from the cops in the audience. That was good. You guys
still have a voice over there. Welcome to the November 21, 2013 meeting of the City of Miami
Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Willy
Wilfredo [sic] Gort, Vice Chair; Frank Carollo; Michelle Spence-Jones for her second, and
great to see her here; Francis Suarez; and myself, Marc David Sarnoff, the Chairman. Also on
the dais, back from Botox surgery, and having had a lifestyle lift, looking just spectacular, we
have none other than Johnny Martinez, the City Manager.
Applause.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Yeah.
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): Mr. Chair, can I say a few words?
Chair Sarnoff: Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Martinez: I would like to take a few minutes to say that I am humbled and emotionally
touched by all the support and patience that I received from this Commission and the Mayor . I
read every text and e-mail (electronic); unfortunately, I was not in a position to answer all. I
want to thank Danny; every employee for continuing to do the people's work and supporting
Danny in his role as acting City Manager; great job, Danny; all the ACM (Assistant City
Manager), and directors, and chiefs. I don't think we skipped a beat. Again, I want to thank the
entire City of Miami for your prayers and well wishes. I also want to thank Jackson Memorial
Hospital and their entire team, including the vampire nurses that drew blood every five seconds;
and the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Mr. Migoya, for the excellent care provided to me, and
congratulations to a successful referendum. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, and just so you know, Johnny Martinez' surgeon who did the lifestyle
lift, if you want to get him, it's 188-444-4444. I think he looks great. You could barely tell he
had surgery. You could -- you know, look at the Botox. He looks great. He looks 30 years
younger. Welcome back, Mr. Manager.
Mr. Martinez: I'm sure, Arleta Tijeras (phonetic).
Chair Sarnoff: Victoria Mndez, the City Attorney; Todd Hannon, the City Clerk.
NA.2 RESOLUTION
13-01359
Civilian Investigative A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Panel ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING THE CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL'S
APPOINTMENT AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OF
CRISTINA BEAMUD AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CIVILIAN
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL, SUBJECT TO ADHERENCE OF ALL CITY OF MIAMI
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES DURING THE TERM OF HER
APPOINTMENT.
CONTINUED
Note for the Record: Item NA.2 was continued to the December 12, 2013, Regular Commission
EXB 177
Meeting.
Chair Sarnoff: I've just been handed a pocket item from CIP (Civilian Investigative Panel), and
I'm willing to hear it, but I don't know if the other Commissioners are aware of this, at all. Have
you had a chance to look at a pocket item? My understanding of the pocket item is to hire a
executive director. And you're recognized for the record, Mr. --
Tom Corbitz: Corbitz.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Corbitz is here.
Mr. Corbitz: Sometimes I do show up.
Chair Sarnoff: Now we have a really high-priced lawyer standing up here.
Mr. Corbitz: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tom Corbitz. I'm the
chairperson of the Civilian Investigative Panel here in the City of Miami. If you will recall
during the budget discussions, this -- we already budgeted for an executive director, so as of
today, all we're asking you to do is to appoint the executive director that we believe is
appropriate. Ms. Beamud -- her name is Cristina Beamud -- she's the person who founded the
Eugene, Oregon's Civilian Oversight of their police department. As of late, she has been the
director of Atlanta, Georgia's Civilian Oversight of their police department. She is a previous
board member of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. We think
that she is perfect for this job. She has been here a couple of times. We've met with her. We did
have an open search for her. She has the kind of talent that brings national reputations and
national experience to our City, and in times like this, we do need people who know about
civilian oversight. I think that we couldn't -- we can't go wrong with this lady. What we're
asking you to do today -- so I don't think we need 4/5ths vote; we just need to pass the resolution
-- is to appoint her. The budget has already reflected that her salary is in there. This is the
salary we're discussing and it's a standard salary package, so that's why we're here today.
Chair Sarnoff: All right. Can we just hear from our personnel director or director of HR
(Human Resources), 'cause I'd like to hear that some process has gone through and -- And Ms.
Klose --
Amy Klose (Director, Employee Relations): Hi. How are you?
Chair Sarnoff: -- can you just address the Commission? I mean, you're asking us to do
something by pocket. Maybe you're not --
Ms. Klose: No.
Mr. Corbitz: We are.
Chair Sarnoff: -- but we're being asked to look at something by pocket item, which -- give us the
reason for the pocket item as best you can tell and whether this person is a person you 're
recommending.
Ms. Klose: Okay. I really don't know anything about this, so if I can be -- maybe we can table it
and bring it back?
Mr. Corbitz: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: I only ask that you could table it because I haven't seen anything either.
EXB 178
Chair Sarnoff: I -- it was just handed to me, and I know that they're here right now. Why don't I
do this: I'll table you -- 'cause I know you are all medium- to high-priced lawyers, and I'll --
what I'll do is I'll bring it up after the brownsfield [sic], which I think will take up quite a bit, and
then if any Commissioner has an objection or wants --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I just --
Mr. Corbitz: Yes, yes, of course.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: I was just trying to understand why is it a pocket item? Is it some
-- is it an emergency right now? Is that what it is?
Mr. Corbitz: Well, it is an emergency, because she's living up in Boston right now, and we've
been basically keeping her under hook now since before the budget issues and whatnot. If you'd
like --
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Why didn't we just put it on the agenda then?
Mr. Corbitz: Staff?
Commissioner Spence-Jones: So let's just ta -- I --
Horacio Stuart Aguirre: Mr. Chair -- Horacio Stuart Aguirre, chairman of the Budget and
Finance Committee of the Civilian Investigative Panel, City of Miami. I do apologize. It was my
understanding that the resume from Ms. Beamud had been circulated to City Commissioners a
couple of months ago. If it has not, I truly apologize. We have been operating without an
executive director for about four months. With me is Mr. Charles Mays, independent counsel to
the Civilian Investigative Panel, former Assistant City Attorney, who has been very graciously
acting as chief administrator for the CIP on site. I think we would agree to, what, a four-hour,
five-hour deferral or something like that?
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Aguirre, I think what you're trying to tell us is if we don't grab this lady now,
she may go somewhere else?
Mr. Aguirre: She is, I would think, highly marketable. This is a woman who's a mature adult
practicing lawyer for about 40 years, highly respected by the Department of Justice and other
civilian oversight agencies, and I think she's quite marketable. And right now we are operating
without --
Chair Sarnoff: But do we know? Do we know that she's on the verge of taking another position?
Mr. Aguirre: I don't know that for sure.
Chair Sarnoff: 'Cause I -- every Commissioner has to be scratching his or her head saying,
How by pocket should we be doing this?
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And I think what's happening is that every Commissioner up here
wants to be flexible --
Mr. Aguirre: Agreed.
EXB 179
Commissioner Carollo: -- and wants to, you know, accommodate, but at the same time -- and I
know I am -- we're pretty much saying, Wow. All of a sudden, our five-day rule is thrown out
the window. We just received this. Now we're sort of -- I wouldn't say pressured, but, yes, if
we don't make a decision now, we may lose this person, and all of a sudden, it's like, well, where
was the planning? I mean, yeah.
Mr. Aguirre: I've got to ask something, if I may, with all respect: I thought that we had made
the petition in excess of the five days. Had we not, Mr. Mays?
Charles Mays: I'm Charles Mays, independent counsel for the Civilian Investigative Panel. We
got a resolution presented last week. Apparently, we may have dropped the ball from the
standpoint of actually delivering the same to you all individually, and to the extent that that was
done in error, obviously, I will accept responsibility for that. We're not necessarily in fear that
Ms. Beamud will be engaged by someone else, although that is, indeed, a concern. We wanted to
start her on December 9, and we'll obviously have no problem at all in deferring the matter until
such time as we have met with you all, but notice that the reason that we're here is only because
the code, itself, the City provision governing the CIP authorizes the CIP to appoint an executive
director; however, that appointment is subject to the approval of the Commission.
Mr. Mays: And that's the concern.
Chair Sarnoff: Have you voted to appoint her?
Mr. Aguirre: Yes.
Chair Sarnoff: You have.
Mr. Mays: Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Gort: That was my question.
Mr. Mays: We did that some time ago. In fact, the reason that the Commission graciously
increased our budget was so as to allow for the appointment of an executive director. We have
been doing our best from the standpoint of trying to operate in the absence of an executive
director. I confess, I'm a simply lawyer, and you mentioned earlier the medium-priced lawyer.
Chair Sarnoff: High-priced lawyer or medium-priced ?
Mr. Mays: No, a volume-priced lawyer.
Mr. Mays: But I'm not necessarily an administrator.
Vice Chair Gort: He's a public servant.
Chair Sarnoff: I understand that.
Mr. Mays: Thank you.
EXB 180
Chair Sarnoff: So is there anything wrong with you bringing this to the next Commission
meeting, which is December 12?
Vice Chair Gort: Well, they'd like to --
Chair Sarnoff: I don't want to make -- I don't want to sit with tabling stuff, because, you know,
you're going to sit here, and you're going to wonder when we're going to get to it, but is there any
-- does anybody see a problem with December 12?
Commissioner Carollo: I don't see a problem.
Mr. Mays: I don't necessarily see a problem with it. I'll just inform Ms. Beamud --
Chair Sarnoff: Let's just --
Mr. Mays: -- that instead of coming on December 9, she needs to adjust accordingly.
Chair Sarnoff: Mr. Clerk, it's a pocket item; we just -- we don't need to take any action?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Just defer it to December 12. You're fine, sir.
Mr. Mays: Thank you so much for your time and attention. Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman --
Commissioner Carollo: -- if I may suggest, can it just come as a regular resolution?
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Certainly, you can make that request.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Could we just see it in the regular agenda as a resolution at the
next Commission meeting, which I think is December 12?
Mr. Hannon: Yes. The City Manager will ensure that it's placed as a resolution on the agenda
for December 12.
Chair Sarnoff: And could I recommend that Amy Klose brief us all so that we know the
qualifications --
Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely.
Chair Sarnoff: -- and whether she comports with it? You're recognized.
Vice Chair Gort: My understanding is this is equivalent to the Miami Parking System and DDA
(Downtown Development Authority) and all those boards where you -- the board members decide
on who they want to appoint as a board member and who the executive director is, then do all
the interview. I don't think it has to go through our ER (Employee Relations) system. I think
they're independent. They just come in front of us to confirm.
EXB 181
Mr. Mays: That is correct.
Vice Chair Gort: That's my understanding. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mays: Thank you so much for your time.
Mr. Corbitz: Thanks for your time.

13-01380
VICE CHAIR GORT RECOGNIZED AMBROSIO BERTOLOTTI, VICE CHAIR
OF WORLD FEDERATION OF THE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE IN THE
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBER.
DISCUSSED
Vice Chair Gort: I'd like to have a privilege. At this time, I'd like to introduce Mr. Ambrosio
Bertolotti, who's here. He's the VP (Vice President) of World Federation of Chamber of
Commerce, better known as AICO (Association of Latin American Chambers). He's going to be
participating with us next year in the Hemispheric Conference, and I'd like to introduce him over
here.
Chair Sarnoff: Come on up, sir.
Vice Chair Gort: And I'd like to give him -- present him a gift, if you allow me, of --
Chair Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the Commission.
Vice Chair Gort: -- in behalf of the City of Miami.
Applause.
Vice Chair Gort: As you know, international trade is very important for us in the City of Miami.
And this is the World Federation. He just got off the plane.
Presentation made.

13-01381
COMMISSIONER SPENCE-JONES BID GOODBYE AND THANKED THE CITY
OF MIAMI EMPLOYEES, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY
COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND COMMITTMENT TO
MAKING THE CITY OF MIAMI THE BEST CITY IN THE WORLD.
DISCUSSED
Commissioner Spence-Jones: As we adjourn the meeting, I just really wanted to, once again,
thank all of the City employees, our City Manager, our City Attorney. It has been a awesome,
EXB 182
awesome journey. As you know, just in case for those folks that are watching may not
understand the process, but we do have a new Commissioner, Commissioner Keon Hardemon;
young, bright future, very excited about what he's going to do in the City. He actually was
elected on Tuesday, but because of the process, Friday, he's actually --
Vice Chair Gort: Wait a week.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Right. So next Wednesday, he'll have his swearing in, and we will
be back to welcome him to City Hall. But I wanted to officially say good-bye and to say thank
you so much for your love, support, and prayers. I want to especially thank my colleagues. It
has been an interesting journey over these last two years. I am actually ready for the next
chapter of my life. I want to also clear up right now so now one has to have -- no rumors will
float -- Spence-Jones is in no way interested in working in City Hall. She will not be working in
District 5. She will not be the chair of the CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) and any
other crazy things that one may be thinking Spence-Jones is doing. Spence-Jones is going to
focus on her family, focus on her future, and putting things in place for the next chapter in my
life. So I've had two City employees said, Oh, Commissioner, we're glad you're going to remain
the chief of staff. Like you crazy? Not interested. So -- but I will be still fighting for my district
and for my community and supporting our district Commissioner. And while we do have some
great things that we started, he has some bright ideas himself, and he's going to create his own
legacy. So with that being said, I really appreciate all that you guys have done and will continue
to do to make my district the best place to live, work, and play.
Vice Chair Gort: Mr. --
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Gort: Ms. Spence-Jones, I'm sorry I was not here in the meeting with everybody, but
I'd like to tell you there -- it's been a pleasure to have been serving with you. I think your
dedication not only to your community and to the employees of the City of Miami have been
tremendous. Your love that you have for this community and this City is well taken care of it, and
I commit it and promise to keep working. And the commitment, what you started, I'm going to
make sure it gets finished.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Appreciate that.
Vice Chair Gort: I'll be there, okay?
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Appreciate it.
Vice Chair Gort: Thank you for your service.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you.
Vice Chair Gort: I appreciate it, and I know you got a great future.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thanks.
Vice Chair Gort: You're a great lady.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you. I appreciate it. So --
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I agree.
EXB 183
Commissioner Carollo: I echo what Commissioner Gort said, and at the same time, let you know
that it truly has been a pleasure working with you. You know, at least I could say I'm going to
miss you. I'm looking forward to Keon also coming, but I am going to miss you, and I do believe
that you've served District 5 very well, and at the same time, I'm sure Keon is going to continue
and will be serving District 5 very well, so I'm --
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thanks.
Commissioner Carollo: -- looking forward to working with him also. Thank you.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you. I'm waiting for some flowers to come from the back
again.
Chair Sarnoff: I didn't know. I should have had them. Here's to the toughest Commissioner I've
ever debated in my life. Here's to the toughest lady I've ever met in my life.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Outside of your wife.
Chair Sarnoff: She's pretty tough, too, you're right.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: I know.
Chair Sarnoff: You guys are a good -- you'd be a good tag team. As I said to you earlier at the
last Commission meeting, I did enjoy the debate. If I ever -- if the debate ever got personal, it
was my fault, and I apologize for that, 'cause I never want to get personal. I have the utmost
respect for you. I really do. I used to always say to everybody in the backroom, What's Spence's
position on this? 'cause I needed to know, 'cause you are a tough -- you're tough and -- but
you're -- you're tough, but you're fair, you're honest, and you're very revealing. And like I said,
we'll never agree on many things, Spence --
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Me?
Chair Sarnoff: -- because we've not walked in each other's shoes at all, but I respect the shoes
you walk in --
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: -- and I think you ended up respecting the shoes that I walk in. I will say this to
you: If I had the name Spence-Jones and your looks, I'd be President of the United States.
Commissioner Spence-Jones: Aw, thank you. So thank you, guys. I really appreciate it. I will
not be here for the afternoon meeting. I just want to make sure that you know that I -- I do want
to mention that I don't think I have any other items. The only item I have is one that you and I
share, which is this whole Wal-Mart issue. You know, I've been very supportive to them from the
standpoint of all the stuff that they've done with me for these kids in Haiti, but not only that, you
know, the jobs that come to the district. I won't be here, but I at least wanted you to know that
was my position. I won't be here to vote on it, but I do want you to at least know my position. So
with that being said I love you guys, love you guys, love you guys, and let's continue to make the
City of Miami the best place to live, work, and play.
Chair Sarnoff: Would you come back and visit?
Vice Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) back.
EXB 184
Commissioner Spence-Jones: I need a break.
Applause.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we'll be in recess until 3 o'clock.
NA.5 RESOLUTION
13-01358
District 3- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING THE FLORIDA
Commissioner Frank DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CEASE ANY AND ALL TREE
Carollo REMOVALS WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI ON CORAL WAY BETWEEN
SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PURSUE
ANY REMEDIES IN LAW OR IN EQUITY TO PROTECT THE TREE CANOPY
IN THE CORAL WAY SCENIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FROM HARM.
13-01358-Legislation.pdf
13-01358-Submittal-Commissioner Carollo.pdf
R-13-0470
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Let's see if I can get Commissioner Carollo.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, we have Commissioner Carollo's pocket item.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know Mr. Tom Martinelli is here, so I'd
like to begin by thanking FDOT, Florida Department of Transportation, for being here. I asked
that they be here and possibly present a plan so it will be, you know, for the record. I'd also like
to thank my colleagues for allowing me this time certain and for all the neighbors that are here
and believe in historic preservation. My intention with this pocket item is to have a healthy
discussion and not to have an acrimonious dialogue. At the same time, I want to make sure that
I -- I want to make sure that we project our historic designated corridor. As many of you
recently heard -- and I do mean recently -- the Florida Department of Transportation revealed
their plan to remove at least 5 banyan trees and 61 black olives from our historic Coral Way
Corridor from 37th Avenue to 13th Avenue. I am presenting a fact sheet that was distributed by
Florida Department of Transportation in the last few days, months. I'm not really sure when it
started, but I've learned about this recently. But if you see in their fact sheet, it stipulates work to
be performed: Landscaping, trimming trees, and removing damaged and diseased trees. If I
could, I'd like to show at least where the banyans, which are the banyans that they have
identified. This is one of the banyans that have been identified on 13th Avenue and Coral Way.
And by the way, Commissioners, these banyans align both District 3 and District 4, so it affects
two districts. However, I truly believe that this is not just a district item. This is a citywide item,
because whenever anyone speaks about the historic corridor in Coral Way, they don't say in
District 3 or District 4; they say, in the City of Miami. So this is one of the banyans that,
if you see clearly, marked for removal. It is on 13th Avenue and Coral Way. Could we go to the
next one? Here is another one. This is on 27th Avenue and Coral Way. Go to the next one. This
one's on 29th Avenue and Coral Way, and actually, this is not in their plans. There is one
marked in their plans on 29th Avenue and Coral Way, which is this one. However, if we could go
back, this one is also on 29th Avenue and Coral Way. It is not marked for a removal, but you
could clearly see the X is there, that this banyan tree is going to be removed, or at least it's
EXB 185
marked to be removed. Could we go to the next one? That one is marked. Here's another
banyan tree that is marked for removal. And if we could go to the last one. This is the last one.
Thanks to many homeowners association, we had a town hall meeting, and prior to that town
hall meeting, we had a walk along with the Florida Department of Transportation where we went
-- at least I did -- tree by tree, and I actually was joined with a certified arborist that works for
the City of Miami and Mr. Herms [sic], also from our City Public Works Department, to see if
these actually were damaged or diseased trees and see what were their perspectives because,
obviously, at least from my perspective, we shouldn't remove any of these historic trees. I don't
want to put words into their mouth. I'm sure that they could speak on their own, but in the -- in
essence, at least our certified arborist did not believe that all of these trees needed removal, but
again, I won't put words into their mouth. In recent days, a movement by the homeowners and
the various homeowners association prompted a town hall meeting with FDOT, Representative
Rodriguez, Commissioner Suarez, and myself, which was duly noticed by the City Clerk, and
many, many of the residents. I think their voices were loud and clear, that they did not want any
removals, and furthermore, some thought that -- and believe that some of the pruning was going
to hurt the canopy in Coral Way. In that meeting, and to their credit, the Florida Department of
Transportation represented that they will not remove the 61 black olives at least for a year that
was originally planned on being removed, and they stated that at least for the time that they
prune the rest of the banyans, which is approximately three weeks, they will not remove these
banyans. However, there was no commitment on their part that they will not remove these
banyans, and at the same time -- and I mean permanently -- listen, we're going right into the
festive season. You know, we have other holidays coming. There's only one Commission meeting
in December. And to be honest with you, I want to have some assurance on the record, and
should we need to make any type of legal claim, I want to make sure that everybody understands
the position of the City and that our City Attorney has the -- at least the go-ahead from this City
Commission to stop any of this removal from this historic corridor that , in all fairness, if you
believe in historic preservation, then you should believe that none of these trees should be
removed on this scenic transportation corridor. Thank you. With that said, Madam City
Attorney -- and again, I don't know if -- I know Mr. Martinelli is here. I don't know if he wants to
put anything for the record, but I plan on -- and I spoke with our City Attorney -- going forward
with my resolution as is.
Tom Martinelli: Commissioners, Chairman, good afternoon. My name's Tom Martinelli, Florida
Department of Transportation. And I just wanted to say that, first off, we're happy to be here,
and secondly, based on the community's input, we're reevaluating the entire project. And as we
said on Tuesday at the town hall, we are committed to not removing the banyans off Coral Way.
Commissioner Carollo: At all.
Applause.
Commissioner Carollo: Because when we spoke at that meeting, you said that you're committing
not to remove them for the next three weeks while the State and the City talk, compare notes,
whatever, but the bottom line is that should at that time, you proceed with removing banyans, we
have no recourse, and I'm not sure if our City Attorney has the needed requirement for her to file
suit and try to stop it, so that's why I wanted to go along with my resolution, to make sure that we
are crystal clear with regards to our position.
Mr. Martinelli: Absolutely, Commissioner. And it is the Department's belief that the banyans --
those five banyans, in particular, are in pretty poor shape, but we're more than happy to sit down
and go through, tree by tree, branch by branch with the City, and even taking it to the Historical
Preservation Board, if need be, to get this item resolved, but rest assured that we're not going to
touch those banyans or remove the banyans, I should say, for this project.
Commissioner Carollo: Madam City Attorney, what do you need then from us, from this
EXB 186
Commission, to make sure that the banyans are not touched or should you need to proceed with
any legal action -- and by the way, I don't want this to be an acrimonious --
Mr. Martinelli: Absolutely, you're right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know, meeting. In all fairness --
Mr. Martinelli: I agree.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know, we have been working as soon as we found out about it --
at least I found out about it -- we have been working together with you, and it's been, you know,
a good dialogue. But at the same time, I want to make sure that it's not just a dialogue and --
you know, listen, this was prompted on us at a whim. I didn't know about it. Lots of residents
came to me. I made a commitment to Shenandoah Homeowners Association that I will bring this
resolution forward, and as many residents see, I -- when I commit to something, I do it. So I just
want to make sure that the City is protected, because, listen, those trees were here way before I
was here, so I want to make sure that they belong here and stay here for many, many years to
come.
Mr. Martinelli: Absolutely. And Commissioner, in moving forward in whatever we do on that

corridor, we'll go ahead and notify you, make sure that we get a hold of you and have a meeting
with you as to whatever project goes on in that corridor.
Commissioner Carollo: And in all fairness also with Commissioner Suarez -- I know he's not
here -- but he was at -- he attended that meeting, and he expressed his opposition to removal of
these trees also, so I want to make sure that happens. Madam City Attorney, do you need
anything from this Commission?
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Thank you, Commissioner. Basically, this resolution is just
urging the Florida Department of Transportation not to cut any of the trees and giving the City
Attorney's Office the ability, if necessary, to discuss with DOT attorneys, and DOT staff, and
things of that nature. So the best thing would be to pass this resolution just so that DOT knows
the Commission's position on the fact that they do not want these trees cut, and then it also gives
me the flexibility to be able to assist in this regard.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And again, what my intention is for this to be in a friendly
manner --
Mr. Martinelli: Collaborative, absolutely.
Commissioner Carollo: -- unless -- obviously, you know, 'cause realistically, this is -- this should
be no brain -- at least I see as a no-brainer, and I think that historic corridor, which, by the way,
I think your own statute, State statute, you know, designates it as a historic highway, and there's
certain requirements for the removal and pruning. With regards to the pruning, there was at
least one to two people in that meeting -- and I mean the town hall meeting -- that was concerned
with regards to the pruning. Could you elaborate on that? Could you --? Because what a lot of
-- well, what those people were concerned about that some of that pruning would actually take
away a lot of the canopy and would actually hurt the trees.
Mr. Martinelli: Commissioner, there is a certain level of expertise that I have and landscaping
isn't one of them, but from what I have understood is that the pruning and trimming will be
minimal in order to preserve much of the canopy in order to -- for safety reasons. That's really
the reason we're going through with this, for maintenance and safety reasons. So it's going to be
minimal, just to preserve the safety of those users of the corridor, pedestrians and vehicular
users alike.
EXB 187
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Manager, would it be possible -- and you being a former
FDOT director or secretary -- Mr. Secretary, is it possible for you to be -- or our City
Administration be in communication with FDOT administration or at least the people doing the
work to make sure that --? you know, we have arborists.
Mr. Martinelli: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: I know I see one there that was so kind to walk with me the whole Coral
Way Corridor, going tree by tree. So is it possible that, you know, we can --?
Johnny Martinez (City Manager): I'd like to work with them and get something a little more
binding that they're not going to touch the trees; not just in three weeks, but in our lifetime.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And again, I want to work with FDOT --
Mr. Martinelli: Absolutely.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and we have been working together, but at the same time, I think there
are a lot of residents that wants to make sure that we don't get -- I don't want to use the word
swindled, but the bottom line is that everything is done properly and correct.
Mr. Martinelli: Fair enough.
Commissioner Carollo: With that, I move my resolution.
Chair Sarnoff: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Gort: What's the resolution?
Commissioner Carollo: It was passed with the agenda. It was actually passed with your
agenda.
Ms. Mndez: It was submitted with the agenda, but I have a copy here.
Vice Chair Gort: Would you read it, please?
Ms. Mndez: Okay, I will read it.
The resolution was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.
Vice Chair Gort: Second for discussion.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, we have a second. We have a Jane Thede that wishes to speak.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry; I think there's going to be a lot of people
that wish to speak. I'm just being noticed, so there may be other people that wish to speak.
Jane Thede: There are few people in here know me and most of you don't. I'm Dr. Jane Thede,
Bachelor of Science banking; Bachelor of Science zoology; doctor of veterinarian medicine. I
came to Miami in 1967. I had been here on several occasions, and quite frankly, I was floored at
the magnificense of the banyan trees. And when I found out that somebody has been trimming
those, I cannot believe it; you do not trim a banyan tree. You leave those roots alone. That's
what sustains a tree. I cannot understand why anybody took it upon themselves to trim the roots
away from the tree, and I think this has been mishandling on somebody's part, and I think if
EXB 188
you'll give enough nutrition and enough water to those trees, they'll come back. And that's what
I've got to say, and thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anybody else wishing to be heard on Commissioner Carollo's pocket
item, please step up.
Elvis Cruz: Commissioners, Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Two brief points I'd like to
make. The resolution I've just heard goes to 13th Avenue. That may be a typo. Did you mean
13th Street, perhaps? Thirteenth Avenue would exclude all the banyans that are in the Roads; is
that correct?
Commissioner Carollo: Their fact sheet says to 13th Avenue. In other words, they're not
thinking of going beyond 13th Avenue, at least that is my interpretation.
Mr. Martinelli: The entire scope of the projects.
Mr. Cruz: Okay.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. In other words, yes, that's the scope of the project. That's why I
didn't go beyond. I went beyond the scope of their project in removal of trees.
Mr. Cruz: And lastly, just to make a brief point about botany, and I'll try not to bore you too
much. Banyan trees, as the good Dr. Jane Thede just mentioned, they drop aerial roots. Those
are called adventitious roots, and they can be induced to grow. So quite often, instead of
trimming or cutting a banyan branch, you can induce it to drop those aerial roots, which once
they touch the ground, will solidify into another trunk and make it much stronger. That's an
avenue you may want to consider.
Chair Sarnoff: And you do that by tickling them between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening.
Mr. Cruz: With a feather.
Ms. Mndez: Mr. Cruz, if you want to look at the fact sheet.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes, ma'am. You're recognized for the record.
Josefina Sanchez Pando: Dr. Josefina Sanchez Pando, 2110 Southwest 24th Terrace.
Commissioner Carollo, I need to add one more word to your proposition. You stated not to have
the banyans removed. Good verb. You need another one. Not to have them trimmed, like the
doctor said. The word, trim needs to go there, because there is nothing more dangerous than
to give one of those hatchets to one of those poor men whose job it is to take home the pay to
feed their children slaughtering those trees that have taken so many years, have withstood all of
our hurricanes. They're there. They're there. They're there to remind you, and you, and you that
nature is getting mad at us. We have enough typhoons. We have enough water coming up. We
have everything. Do not cut -- what happened? What was the problem? In Louisiana, the last
hurricane, the overflow of the Mississippi, they had chopped down the barriers of the small trees
that grow near the water, and because there was no barrier of trees and roots there, that water
destroyed the City of New Orleans. We need trees. People, study. Please, do not let
unknowledgeable persons do what they might think it is right, but it is absolutely and technically
wrong. Suppose this is a banyan tree? These are the banyan trees. This is the middle. The tree
grows to one side and to the other side more than half of the way of Coral Way. In 1964, '65, the
first time that the gentleman sitting there was Mayor Ferrer, Manolo Reboso, Rose Gordon --
Commissioner Carollo: Theodore Gibson.
EXB 189
Vice Chair Gort: Father Gibson.
Ms. Sanchez Pando: No, no, wait, wait, wait. J. L. Plummer and my very, very good friend, the
reverend. They planted those small olive trees. They were 10 to 12 feet high above. And don't
you let them trick you. They say, Oh, no, we're going to plant here 12 feet high. Twelve feet
counting from where to where? Do not count me. That ball of roots that you have to put
underneath a tree, because that's four -- that's five feet that have to go there, and eight minus five
becomes a very little tree. When they were planting those trees, I told Maurice -- because I was a
friend -- I am a friend of his, and I call him by first names. Maurice, they're very tiny. And he
said, That's all we have money-wise to plant, Josefina. They will grow, and you will be here to
see them 30 feet high. And I said, Well, if it's a matter of money and we don't have anymore, I
believe in planting just even a seed, because if properly nurtured, that seed will grow into a
beautiful tree that you cannot build, you cannot build, and you cannot build. Trees are not built.
You can make a thousand-story high building; build it. You can't build a tree. That belongs only
to God, and who are we to take into our hands what they believe? When you start pruning --
that's the word -- Commissioner Carollo, no pruning. When you start pruning, those branches
that go half-way out, that meet the black olives that have already grown, and there are some
streets, some that have met, and you have a beautiful canopy, not all. Just walk. I would ask you
three to walk for -- start walking towards Sears at 22nd Avenue. From 22nd Avenue to 23rd
Avenue, we don't have one tree left on the swale. You know, people don't like trees, because they
shed leaves, and they get the front of their stores dirty, and the branches get into the way of their
signs, so let's chop down the tree. They know that you can't chop down a tree, so what do we do?
We start poisoning it. Just takes a little Clorox once a week; the tree will dwindle. The tree will
die. The tree is dead. Clorox is not very expensive. That's the way it's done, sir, 'cause I know
the nitty-gritty and the dirty work that they do on trees. Remember, in South Miami Avenue, 15
years ago when they wanted to chop down our beautiful red corridor of the trees, I stood there. I
went to the Historic Preservation, and they stood up for the trees, and they're still there. One or
two died and they were replaced right there, and then with big ones. We have gorgeous trees
there. Do not prune them. You just heard the specialist say those roots are not to be touched.
Those are aerial roots. Those branches are not to be touched. No, you cannot. You'll hurt them,
like if -- you're kind of fat, so I'm going to trim you down, Commissioner, so I'll cut both arms so
you can't spread out. You'll grow straight. You will grow two arms. But you won't. Please see
that it's done properly. Stand for those trees. They cannot speak for themselves. You speak for
them. You want to have your children and your grandchildren enjoy them, like I have been
enjoying them for 50 years and as I have fought for them four times. This is time number four.
Because if you start walking from 13th Avenue towards Sears -- I never know where's east, or
north and south, so don't make me walk north in an avenue. Give me a landmark and I'll walk
towards Sears, whatever that direction is.
Vice Chair Gort: You're going west.
Ms. Pando: Walk towards Sears and you will see then on 13th Avenue there is a swale for the left
turn of the traffic. Here we stand, machine against man and against nature. There were -- there
is a turn on 13th, a turn on 17th, 22nd, 32nd, 35th, and the sixth one, you get to Sears. You have
one street here and another street here. This is Coral Way and this is the street interrupting.
This is 17th. This is 22nd. So three of the big humongous ones -- not even those; these are the
smaller ones -- were removed on this side of the street and three. Six times six is thirty-six in
mathematics if you add it, if you multiply it, if you just go six by six. Thirty-six were removed.
We couldn't help it. Traffic. We needed a left turn. The automobiles, progress, money; let the
trees go to hell. Who cares? Thirty-six went down. You have the Miami Herald there; just get
the records, first page: Couple of crazy ladies chained themselves to those trees. I'm very
proud to be one of those crazy ones. I'm very proud to have done it. we couldn't save them, and
I haven't cried enough, 'cause there wasn't that sensitivity in the public that we have now that
you can arouse a typhoon of people to get out there and protect what belongs to them , 'cause it
belongs to your children and to your grandchildren that you don 't have, and you have no right,
EXB 190
no right, sir --
Chair Sarnoff: Doctor, in conclusion.
Ms. Pando: Add the other verb and see that the employees -- see that it is not done. Stand, fight
the State. Fight the State. We're strong enough. When we have the truth in our hands, you can
fight for it, sir. It's not a matter of whether you like it, or he likes it, or whether I don't like it. It's
a matter of a truth, a fact. The facts, sir, are there.
Ms. Pando: Those trees would be fine.
Ms. Pando: Thank you very much.
Applause.
Ms. Pando: Do not touch the trees.
Nathan Kurland: Nathan Kurland, 3132 Day Avenue. I'm going to be very concise in my
comments. I'd like to thank Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Gort, and also Chairman
Sarnoff, who I know has always been a great protector of trees here in our Coconut Grove. I'd
like to just say one thing that I think: One, everyone in this room should be standing up here in
support of keeping five 70-year-old banyan trees; and two, I'd like to request that FDOT shake
like a tree and leave.
Applause.
Chair Sarnoff: You're recognized for the record.
Lucita Moran: If I could just say a few words please. I've been here since 1942. I grew up
looking at those beautiful trees, as my parents did. Dr. Paul George is a very good friend of
mine. He said not one leaf should be removed from -- that is a historic site and it is in writing
that nothing should ever be done to any of those trees. Fertilize them. Take care of them. They
are God's property. I think it's obvious what's going on with the weather situations all over the
globe. There's horrendous things happening that have never happened before. I think God is not
very happy with the stewards of this planet, which is the human race. As far as those black
olives goes, I can't believe that they were taken out. They hurt nothing. They're beautiful.
They're great shade trees. Unfortunately, greed seems to be the order of the day of these times. I
come from a generation where people knew each other, and neighbors, and cared about things.
We were strong. Miami is now a very hectic city to liv in. It's very stressful. There's so much
traffic and divorces, so forth and so on, which gives an open door to the wrong kind of people to
call the shots for us, because we're so involved in just surviving in the city now, but as Dr. Paul
George said and the young lady before me, that is a historic site. It is not to be touched. You take
care of those trees. You fertilize them. You love them. You nurture them and they will go on and
live, okay. They're a special interest in our heart here. I am not that savvy about politics, okay?
I am just a native Miamian, and I did graduate with Willy Gort in -- from Miami High in 1960,
and I appreciate his love of nature for this city. We grew up here. And any consideration you
will give these trees and any other beautiful natural things that the Lord has blessed in this City ,
please preserve it for future generations to enjoy, as we were blessed to do. Thank you.
EXB 191
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to be heard on Commissioner Carollo's pocket
item? After this, I'm closing the public hearing.
Luis Herrera: One little thing. It's historic tree, and that's what we need, historic. Thank you.
Chair Sarnoff: Thank you. All right, so we had a motion and we had a second. You want to
amend?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with including pruning, but
that was the purpose of having our Administration meet with their administration and work
together because -- and we have arborists here. We have certified arborists. But I want to make
sure that the proper treatment is given to those trees, so they live as long as they can and we can
preserve them for as long as we can, but -- so I don't know if at certain times it's proper to cut
some of the old and already limbs, but again, I'm not an expert in it. I just want to make sure
that the proper things are done and that the public feels that all -- you know, all is done to
preserve these trees, so I don't have a problem with adding the pruning to my resolution. I just
want to make sure that it's proper to do that by one of our arborists or our City Attorney, if you
feel --
Ms. Mndez: What we can do is to cease any and all improper tree trimming, pruning, or
removals within the City. I think then that should cover it.
Chair Sarnoff: Who's the arbiter of proper?
Ms. Mndez: Hmm?
Chair Sarnoff: Who is the arbiter of proper?
Ms. Mndez: Well, if it -- obviously, if it's any tree trimming that, as Commissioner Carollo
described as trimming that complies with industry standards or is trimming just to make sure that
the tree is viable; nothing that would, obviously, effectively remove or hat rack it or trim it in a
way that is not --
Vice Chair Gort: Do they have to pull a permit?
Ms. Mndez: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: It's required that they take it -- pull out a permit.
Ms. Mndez: Yes.
Vice Chair Gort: How about it --
Commissioner Carollo: So -- you know what?
Vice Chair Gort: No, let --
Chair Sarnoff: Let Commissioner Gort talk.
Vice Chair Gort: -- Carollo finish.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, go ahead.
Vice Chair Gort: Look, we want to make sure -- because let me tell you what happens. You have
crews that are subcontract to go trim a tree. They go up there and they start cutting away. They
EXB 192
don't even know what they're doing and so on. Now, my understanding, DOT made a statement
-- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that they're going to work with you very closely, and they're
going to look at the trees, and if they find that some of them are sick, that they're going -- willing
to go even to historical board and apply for it. Now, from what I'm hear [sic] -- I'm not an
expert in this -- is these trees can be cure; these trees can be taken care of, so make sure there are
people, and work very close with them, and if they say the tree can be saved, to be saved,
because those sites have been there forever. Okay.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so Commissioner Carollo --
Applause.
Chair Sarnoff: -- has made -- has modified his motion. Does the seconder accept the
modification?
Commissioner Carollo: And that's to include the pruning; removal and pruning.
Chair Sarnoff: Yes.
Susan Batlle: May I speak for one moment?
Ms. Batlle: Hi. My name is Susie from Azucar Ice Cream, and I want to commend the Board
and Commissioner Carollo for going past the -- what he needed to do about these trees. We also
have a situation similar in Little Havana on 8th Street, so I'm very happy to see what's going on
here, because I would like the same to be done for us. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Vice Chair Gort: You didn't bring any ice cream?
Ms. Batlle: My name's Susan Batlle from Azucar Ice Cream.
Vice Chair Gort: Susanna [sic], did you bring any ice cream?
Ms. Batlle: No. Next time.
Chair Sarnoff: All right, so we have a modified maker, modified seconder accepting. All in
favor then, please say aye.
Chair Sarnoff: Okay, let's go into the PZ (Planning & Zoning) agenda.
Applause.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
EXB 193
EXB 194
EXB 195
EXB 196
EXB 197
EXB 198
EXB 199
EXB 200
EXB 201
EXB 202
EXB 203
EXB 204
EXB 205
EXB 206
EXB 207
EXB 208
EXB 209
EXB 210
EXB 211
EXB 212
EXB 213
EXB 214
EXB 215
EXB 216
EXB 217
EXB 218
EXB 219
EXB 220
EXB 221
EXB 222
EXB 223
EXB 224
EXB 225
EXB 226
EXB 227
EXB 228
EXB 229
EXB 230
EXB 231
EXB 232
EXB 233
EXB 234
EXB 235
City of Miami
City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Agenda
2:00 PM
PLANNING AND ZONING
City Commission

Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Chair
Keon Hardemon, Vice Chair
Marc David Sarnoff, Commissioner District Two
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
EXB 236
ANY PERSON WHO ACTS AS A LOBBYIST PURSUANT TO CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE NO.
11469, CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VI OF THE CITY CODE, MUST REGISTER WITH THE
CITY CLERK, PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BEFORE CITY STAFF, BOARDS,
AND COMMITTEES AND THE CITY COMMISSION. A COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, CITY HALL.
ANY PERSON OR ENTITY REQUESTING APPROVAL, RELIEF OR OTHER ACTION FROM THE
CITY COMMISSION OR ANY OF ITS BOARDS, AUTHORITIES, AGENCIES, COUNCILS OR
COMMITTEES CONCERNING ANY ISSUE, SHALL DISCLOSE IN WRITING, AT THE
COMMENCEMENT (OR CONTINUANCE) OF THE HEARING(S) ON THE ISSUE THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION:
1. WHETHER ANY CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR COMMITTED, DIRECTLY, OR

ON ITS BEHALF, TO ANY ENTITY OR PERSON FOR AN AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT OR
WITHHOLD OBJECTION TO THE REQUESTED APPROVAL, RELIEF OR ACTION;
2. TO WHOM THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR COMMITTED;
3. THE NATURE OF THE CONSIDERATION, AND
4. A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
CONSIDERATION.
THE DISCLOSURE FORM WHICH IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY CLERK MUST BE READ INTO
THE RECORD BY THE REQUESTING PERSON OR ENTITY PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE
SECRETARY/CLERK OF THE RESPECTIVE BOARD.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4(g)(5) OF THE CHARTER OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, THE MAYOR MAY
VETO CERTAIN ITEMS APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS
FOLLOWING THE COMMISSION ACTION. THE COMMISSION MAY, AFTER THE VETO
OCCURS, OVERRIDE SUCH VETO BY A FOUR-FIFTHS VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THEN
PRESENT.
ANY PERSON MAKING IMPERTINENT OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS OR WHO BECOMES

BOISTEROUS WHILE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, SHALL BE BARRED FROM FURTHER
AUDIENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UNLESS PERMISSION
TO CONTINUE OR AGAIN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION BE GRANTED BY THE MAJORITY
VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT. NO CLAPPING, APPLAUDING, HECKLING
OR VERBAL OUTBURSTS IN SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO A SPEAKER OR HIS OR HER
REMARKS SHALL BE PERMITTED. NO SIGNS OR PLACARDS SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
COMMISSION CHAMBERS. PERSONS EXITING THE COMMISSION CHAMBER SHALL DO SO
QUIETLY.
THIS PRINTED AGENDA IS DISTRIBUTED AT LEAST FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, AND
THE MATERIAL IN CONNECTION WITH EACH ITEM APPEARING ON THE AGENDA IS
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK IN CITY HALL, AT AGENDA OFFICE/MIAMI RIVERSIDE CENTER, OR ON-LINE AT
WWW.MIAMIGOV.COM.
ANY PERSON WHO SEEKS TO ADDRESS THE CITY COMMISSION ON ANY PROPOSITION
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION IS INVITED TO DO SO AND SHALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
INFORM THE CITY CLERK OF HIS/HER DESIRE TO SPEAK, GIVING THE CITY CLERK HIS/HER
NAME. AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD, THAT PERSON SHOULD APPROACH THE
EXB 237
MICROPHONE AND WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Formal action may be taken on any item discussed or added to this Agenda. Any person, or
persons, wishing to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any
matter considered at this meeting or hearing, will require a verbatim record of the proceeding
upon which the appeal is based. Any person with a disability requiring auxiliary aids and
services for meetings may call the City Clerk's Office, 250-5360, with requests at least two
business days before the meeting date.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The City Commission has established a policy that the lunch recess will begin at the
conclusion of deliberations of the agenda item being considered at Noon; further, that
Commission meetings shall adjourn (a) at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item
being considered at 10:00 p.m., unless the time is extended by unanimous agreement of the
members of the City Commission then present or (b) at the conclusion of the regularly
scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. This rule does not apply when the City
Commission is engaged in its annual budget hearings (Ordinance 12586).
EXB 238
PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
The Planning and Zoning item(s) shall not be considered before 2:00 PM.
PZ.1 RESOLUTION
07-01499ac1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), CLOSING, VACATING, ABANDONING AND
DISCONTINUING FOR PUBLIC USE NORTH/SOUTH AND EAST/WEST
ALLEYS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH MIAMI AVENUE AND NORTHWEST
MIAMI COURT FROM NORTHWEST 20TH STREET TO APPROXIMATELY
215 FEET NORTH OF NORTHWEST 20TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
LOCATION: Between N Miami Avenue and NW Miami Court from NW 20th

Street to Approximately 215 Feet North of NW 20th Street [Commissioner
Marc David Sarnoff - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire and Elinette Ruiz,

Esquire, on behalf of Southern Waste Systems, Ltd.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE: Recommended approval on February 6,
2014 by a vote of 6-0.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended denial to City
Commission on March 5, 2014 by a vote of 5-2.
PURPOSE: The alley closures and unification of the site will enable a
modern and clean recycling/processing center to be constructed and reduce
the amount of material otherwise deposited in landfills.
07-01499ac1 Fact Sheet.pdf
07-01499ac1 Analysis & Color Maps.pdf
07-01499ac1 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
07-01499ac1 Legislation (v2).pdf
07-01499ac1 Exhibit A.pdf
DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SECONDER: COMMISSIONER SARNOFF
SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
ABSENT: 1 - COMMISSIONER(S) CAROLLO

MOVER: COMMISSIONER SARNOFF
CAROLLO, SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
EXB 239
PZ.2 ORDINANCE FIRST READING
14-00054zc AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF ORDINANCE NO.
13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
FROM "T6-24-O" URBAN CORE ZONE-OPEN TO "T6-36A-O" URBAN
CORE ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 1410, 1420, 1424, AND 1432 NORTHEAST MIAMI
PLACE; 1415, 1421, 1425, 1433, AND 1445 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT;
AND 47, 55, AND 67 NORTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
LOCATION: Approximately 1410, 1420, 1424, and 1432 NE Miami Place;

1415, 1421, 1425, 1433, and 1445 NE Miami Court; and 47, 55, and 67 NE
14th Street [Commissioner Marc David Sarnoff - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire, on behalf of 14th Plaza Corporation
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended denial.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with
conditions, which failed, constituting a denial to City Commission on March 5,
PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "T6-24-O" to

"T6-36A-O". Item does not include a covenant.
14-00054zc FR Fact Sheet.pdf
14-00054zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00054zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
14-00054zc Legislation (v3).pdf
14-00054zc Exhibit.pdf
DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
DATE: JULY 10, 2014

CAROLLO AND HARDEMON
ABSENT: 1 - COMMISSIONER(S) SUAREZ
EXB 240

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
EXB 241
13-00865lu AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED,
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT
PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES,
BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT
APPROXIMATELY 180 NORTHEAST 50TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM
DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
LOCATION: Approximately 180 NE 50th Street [Commissioner Keon

Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Ben Fernandez, Esquire, on behalf of Douglas Gardens

Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to
City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File
ID 13-00865zc.
PURPOSE: This will change the above properties from "Medium Density
Multifamily Residential" to "Medium Density Restricted Commercial".
13-00865lu FR Fact Sheet.pdf
13-00865lu Analysis & Color Maps.pdf
13-00865lu PZAB Reso.pdf
13-00865lu FR/SR Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
13-00865lu CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf
13-00865lu Exhibit A.pdf

VOTE: AYES: 3 - COMMISSIONER(S) SARNOFF, SUAREZ AND
SPENCE-JONES
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT AND CAROLLO
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2013
EXB 242

CAROLLO
SPENCE-JONES
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2013

SECONDER: COMMISSIONER HARDEMON
HARDEMON
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) CAROLLO AND
SUAREZ
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2014

DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2014

DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
ACTION: INDEFINITELY DEFERRED--PASSED
EXB 243

FROM "T4-R" GENERAL URBAN ZONE-RESTRICTED TO "T4-L"
GENERAL URBAN ZONE-LIMITED, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 180 NORTHEAST 50TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA;


Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):
modifications* to City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 6-1. See
companion File ID 13-00865lu.
*See supporting documentation.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T4-R" to "T4-L". Item
includes a covenant.
13-00865zc Analysis & Color Maps.pdf
13-00865zc PZAB Reso.pdf
13-00865zc FR/SR Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
13-00865zc CC Legislation (Version 3).pdf
13-00865zc Exhibit A.pdf

VOTE: AYES: 3 - COMMISSIONER(S) SARNOFF, SUAREZ AND
SPENCE-JONES
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT AND CAROLLO
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2013

CAROLLO
SPENCE-JONES
EXB 244
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2013

SECONDER: COMMISSIONER HARDEMON
HARDEMON
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) CAROLLO AND
SUAREZ
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2014

DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2014

DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
EXB 245

PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY
CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE ACREAGE
DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 622
NORTHEAST 80TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL";
MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED
AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

APPLICANT(S): Tony Recio, Esquire, on behalf of Pier Real Estate II, LLC
FINDING(S):
City Commission on March 19, 2014 by a vote of 7-4. See companion File ID
14-00053zc.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential" to "Restricted Commercial".

14-00053lu Analysis, Maps, & PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00053lu Application & Supporting Documents.pdf

MOVER: VICE CHAIR HARDEMON
SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
EXB 246

FROM "T5-R" URBAN CENTER ZONE - RESTRICTED TO "T6-8-O" URBAN
CORE ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT

FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval,
which failed, constituting a denial to City Commission on March 19, 2014 by a
vote of 4-7. See companion File ID 14-00053lu.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T5-R" to "T6-8-O".
Item includes a covenant.
14-00053zc Analysis, Maps, & PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00053zc Application & Supporting Documents.pdf

MOVER: VICE CHAIR HARDEMON
SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
DATE: MAY 22, 2014

SUAREZ AND HARDEMON
EXB 247
PZ.7 ORDINANCE SECOND READING

FROM T5 - O "URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE-OPEN" TO T6-8-O
"URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" , FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET BETWEEN
FLORIDA; AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
T4-L "URBAN GENERAL TRANSECT ZONE - OPEN" to T5-L "URBAN
CENTER TRANSECT ZONE - LIMITED", FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY SOUTHWEST 2ND STREET BETWEEN
FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
LOCATION: Approximately SW 1st Street between SW 13th Avenue and

SW 17th Avenue; and SW 2nd Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW
17th Avenue [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3]
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of

Miami
FINDING(S):
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification from "T5-O" to

"T6-8-O" for the properties located at approximately SW 1st Street between
SW 13th Avenue and SW 17th Avenue; and from "T4-L" to "T5-L" for the
properties located at approximately SW 2nd Street between SW 13 th Avenue
and SW 17th Avenue. Item does not include a covenant.
14-00963zc SR Fact Sheet.pdf
14-00963zc Analysis, Maps & PZAB Resolution.pdf

SECONDER: VICE CHAIR HARDEMON
VOTE: AYES: 3 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT, CAROLLO AND
HARDEMON
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) SARNOFF AND
SUAREZ
EXB 248
PZ.8 ORDINANCE SECOND READING
14-00515zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING

ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, MORE SPECIFICALLY BY MODIFYING ARTICLE 7, SECTION
7.1.1.4(d)(4), ENTITLED "PLANNING, ZONING, AND APPEALS BOARD",
SUBSECTION (D)(4), ENTITLED "PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD", TO
PROVIDE THAT TO APPROVE CERTAIN ACTIONS, OR TO RECOMMEND
APPROVAL OF CERTAIN ACTIONS, AS SPECIFIED BELOW, THE
CONCURRING VOTES OF A SUPERMAJORITY OF BOARD MEMBERS,
WHICH CONSISTS OF ONE (1) MORE MEMBER THAN A SIMPLE
MAJORITY, BE REQUIRED; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND

Miami
FINDING(S):
PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
September 3, 2014 by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will make Miami 21 consistent with Chapter 62, and
provides that to approve, or to recommend approval of certain actions, the
concurring votes of a supermajority of board members, which consists of one
more member than a simple majority, be required.
14-00515zt SR Fact Sheet.pdf

14-00515zt PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00515zt Legislation (v2) .pdf

SECONDER: VICE CHAIR HARDEMON
VOTE: AYES: 3 - COMMISSIONER(S) GORT, CAROLLO AND
HARDEMON
ABSENT: 2 - COMMISSIONER(S) SARNOFF AND
SUAREZ
EXB 249
PZ.9 RESOLUTION
14-00522v1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING OR

DENYING THE VARIANCE APPEAL BY DOWNTOWN REALTY
INVESTMENTS AS LISTED IN THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, ARTICLE 7, SECTION
7.1.2.7, TO ALLOW A RELAXATION OF THE TERMS OF THE MIAMI 21
CODE FOR THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS
ABOVE THE 8TH STORY AND THE REQUIRED LOADING
REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS: TO ALLOW A SIDE SETBACK (EAST)
OF 3'10" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 26'2"), A SIDE SETBACK
(WEST) OF 4'4" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 25'8"), A REAR
SETBACK OF 5'0" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 25'0"), AND
FROM ONE (1) LOADING BERTH TO ZERO (0), FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 115 SOUTHEAST 1ST STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA.
LOCATION: Approximately 115 SE 1st Street [Commissioner Marc David

Sarnoff - District 2]
APPELLANT(S): Maria A. Gralia, Esq., on behalf of Downtown Realty

Investments
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval of the
variance, with conditions*.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Approved the variance, with
conditions*, on September 3, 2014 by a vote of 9-0.
PURPOSE: The appeal seeks to reverse the Planning, Zoning and Appeals
Board's approval of a variance that will allow reductions of the rear and side
setbacks in order to construct a new mixed-use building.
14-00522v1 Fact Sheet.pdf
14-00522v1 Appeal Letter.pdf
14-00522v1 Analysis, Maps, PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00522v1 Applicant Representation Letter.pdf
14-00522v1 Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
EXB 250
PZ. 10 RESOLUTION
13-01030iia A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), GRANTING/REJECTING THE APPEAL BY GRANT
STERN, PETER EHRLICH, ROSI BARRIOS, SANDI MADGER, DAVID LE
BATARD, YASMINE GARATE, AND ANTHONY DAVIDE,
REVERSING/AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING, ZONING
AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY APPROVING/DENYING THE CLASS II
SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 12-0054, ISSUED BY THE
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 12, 2013, TO
ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 3055 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
LOCATION: Approximately 3055 N Miami Avenue [Commissioner Marc

David Sarnoff - District 2]
APPELLANT(S): Paul C. Savage, Esquire, on behalf of Grant Stern, Peter

Ehrlich, Rosi Barrios, Sandi Madger, David Le Batard, Yasmine Garate, and
Anthony Davide, Aggrieved Persons
APPLICANT(S): Alfredo L. Gonzalez, Esquire, on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores

East, a Delaware L.P.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Denial of the Class II Special
Permit appeal.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Denied the Class II Special
Permit appeal on October 2, 2013 by a vote of 6-4.
PURPOSE: Appealing the City of Miami Class II Special Permit issued for
the property and the Resolution No. PZAB-R-13-049 of the Planning, Zoning
and Appeals Board denying the appeal of the Class II Special Permit issued
for the property.
EXB 251
13-01030iia Fact Sheet.pdf

13-01030iia 11th Judicial Circuit Order Appellate Division.pdf
13-01030iia Certified Resolution R-13-0471.pdf
13-01030iia Certified Minutes RE FileID 13-01030ii CC 11-21-13.pdf
13-01030iia Analysis.pdf
13-01030iia Supporting Docs.pdf
13-01030iia Legislation (Version 2).pdf
13-01030iia Exhibit A.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Class II Approved by PZ Dept.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 PZAB Supporting Docs.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Appeal to PZAB.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Appeal to CC.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Legislation (Version 3).pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Exhibit A.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittals-Emails-Midtown Walmart.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - Peter Ehrlich.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal- Mark Alvarez Presentation - Midtown Walmart Class II Special Permit
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - Paul C. Savage - PowerPoint Presentation - Appeal of Class II Spec
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - North Miami Elevation.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - Projection-WalMart in Midtown.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal-Presentation-Background.pdf
END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
EXB 252
EXB 253
EXB 254
EXB 255
EXB 256
City of Miami
Land Development Section
ANALYSIS FOR MODIFICATIONS

TO LOADING BERTHS FOR
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT
File No. 12-0054
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, a Delaware L.P.

c/o Alfredo L. Gonzalez
Genovese Joblove & Battista P.A.
APPLICANT 1000 Southeast Second Street, 44th Floor
LOCATION 3055 N. Miami Ave., Miami, Fl.

NET OFFICE: Wynwood
COMMISSION DISTRICT: 2
FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:
On November xx, 2014, Mr. xxxxxxx provided revised plans on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores
East, LP, a Delaware L..P. reflecting a total of three (3) Loading Berths.
The applicant has made a voluntary proffer to modify, at the ground level, the number
of Loading Berths along N.E. 31st Street from four (4) to three (3) 12x55x15(H )
Loading Berths.
The applicants proposed loading area at deck level 2 has been eliminated and it will
only be designated as a staging area and not for loading.
The voluntarily proffered modification to the project reflects a reduction to the total
number of loading bays in accordance with the Opinion issued by the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court on October 15, 2014 in Case No. 14-004 AP .
The proposed project, as presented, confirms that the elimination of (1) 12x55x15 (H)
EXB 257
Loading Berth and the proposed loading area at deck level 2 would not have any impact
on any development parameters of the project, including parking, F.A.R., liners,
setbacks, turning radii, etc.
This plans dated xx-xx-xxx have been reviewed and are found to be in compliance with
Section 1305 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, as applicable, and the Miami 21 Code,
Appendix C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West.
Based on the above findings, the considered advice of officers and agencies consulted on
this matter, the Opinion of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Case No. 14-004 AP, and pursuant
to Section 1306 of Zoning Ordinance 11000, as applicable, and the Miami 21 Code Appendix
C: Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West, the subject revision is hereby
approved subject to plans and supplementary materials submitted by the applicant and on
file with the Planning and Zoning Department.

Date
AEP
11/6/2014
EXB 258
EXB 259
EXB 260
EXB 261
EXB 262
City of Miami City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
Marked Agenda www.miamigov.com
City Commission
Thursday, November 20, 2014 2:00 PM City Hall Commission Chambers
Present: Chair Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Commissioner Carollo,

Commissioner Suarez and Vice Chair Hardemon
On the 20th day of November 2014, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by
Chair Gort at 5:35 p.m., recessed at 5:39 p.m., reconvened at 6:37 p.m., and adjourned at
9:06 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT:

The Planning and Zoning item(s) shall not be considered before 2:00 PM.
PZ.1 RESOLUTION
07-01499ac1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

EXB 263
City Commission Marked Agenda November 20, 2014

Street to Approximately 215 Feet North of NW 20th Street [Commissioner
Marc David Sarnoff - District 2]
APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire and Elinette Ruiz,

Esquire, on behalf of Southern Waste Systems, Ltd.
FINDING(S):
PURPOSE: The alley closures and unification of the site will enable a
modern and clean recycling/processing center to be constructed and reduce
the amount of material otherwise deposited in landfills.
MOVED: Keon Hardemon
SECONDED: Marc David Sarnoff
Motion that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote.
AYES: Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Hardemon
ABSENT: Commissioner(s) Carollo and Suarez
Note for the Record: Item PZ.1 was deferred to the February 26, 2015 Planning and
Zoning City Commission Meeting.
PZ.2 ORDINANCE First Reading

FROM "T6-24-O" URBAN CORE ZONE-OPEN TO "T6-36A-O" URBAN
CORE ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY 1410, 1420, 1424, AND 1432 NORTHEAST MIAMI
PLACE; 1415, 1421, 1425, 1433, AND 1445 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT;
AND 47, 55, AND 67 NORTHEAST 14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA;
EXB 264

FINDING(S):
conditions, which failed, constituting a denial to City Commission on March 5,

14-00054zc Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
Note for the Record: Item PZ.2 was deferred to the January 22, 2015 Planning and

PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES,
BY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
ACREAGE DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT
APPROXIMATELY 180 NORTHEAST 50TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM
DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A
EXB 265


Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):
City Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File
ID 13-00865zc.

FROM "T4-R" GENERAL URBAN ZONE-RESTRICTED TO "T4-L" GENERAL
URBAN ZONE-LIMITED, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
EXB 266


Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING
FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
EXB 267

FINDING(S):
City Commission on March 19, 2014 by a vote of 7-4. See companion File ID
14-00053zc.

14-00053lu Analysis, Maps, & PZAB Reso.pdf
Motion that this matter be PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.

FROM "T5-R" URBAN CENTER ZONE - RESTRICTED TO "T6-8-O" URBAN
CORE ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT

FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval,
which failed, constituting a denial to City Commission on March 19, 2014 by a
vote of 4-7. See companion File ID 14-00053lu.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T5-R" to "T6-8-O".
Item includes a covenant.
EXB 268

SECONDED: Frank Carollo

UNANIMOUS
AYES: Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
PZ.7 ORDINANCE Second Reading

FROM T5-O "URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE-OPEN" TO T6-8-O
"URBAN CORE TRANSECT ZONE-OPEN," FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET BETWEEN
FLORIDA; AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
T4-L "URBAN GENERAL TRANSECT ZONE-LIMITED" TO T5-L "URBAN
CENTER TRANSECT ZONE-LIMITED," FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED
AT APPROXIMATELY SOUTHWEST 2ND STREET BETWEEN
FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS, CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
LOCATION: Approximately SW 1st Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW

17th Avenue; and SW 2nd Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW 17th
Avenue [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3]

Miami
FINDING(S):
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification from "T5-O" to

"T6-8-O" for the properties located at approximately SW 1st Street between
SW 13th Avenue and SW 17th Avenue; and from "T4-L" to "T5-L" for the
properties located at approximately SW 2nd Street between SW 13 th Avenue
and SW 17th Avenue. Item does not include a covenant.
EXB 269
13490
MOVED: Frank Carollo
SECONDED: Francis Suarez

UNANIMOUS
Motion that this matter be ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
14-00515zt AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING


Miami
FINDING(S):
September 3, 2014 by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will make Miami 21 consistent with Chapter 62, and
provides that to approve, or to recommend approval of certain actions, the
concurring votes of a supermajority of board members, which consists of one
more member than a simple majority, be required.

MOVED: Frank Carollo
SECONDED: Francis Suarez
AYES: Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo and Suarez
NOES: Commissioner(s) Hardemon
PZ.9 RESOLUTION
14-00522v1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE
EXB 270
VARIANCE APPEAL THEREBY AFFIRMING THE DECISION TO APPROVE

THE VARIANCE BY DOWNTOWN REALTY INVESTMENTS AS LISTED IN
THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.1.2.7, TO ALLOW A RELAXATION OF
THE TERMS OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE FOR THE REQUIRED MINIMUM
SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS ABOVE THE 8TH STORY AND THE
REQUIRED LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS: TO ALLOW A SIDE
SETBACK (EAST) OF 3'10" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 26'2"),
A SIDE SETBACK (WEST) OF 4'4" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO
WAIVE 25'8"), A REAR SETBACK OF 5'0" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO
WAIVE 25'0"), AND FROM ONE (1) LOADING BERTH TO ZERO (0), FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 115 SOUTHEAST 1ST
STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA.


Investments
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with
conditions*.
PURPOSE: This variance appeal seeks to reverse the Planning, Zoning and
Apeals Board's approval of a variance that will allow reductions of the rear
and side setbacks in order to construct a new mixed-use building.
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Letters of Support.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Miami 21 Article 7 Section 7.1.2.7.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Presentaion.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Supporting File Document.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Maria A. Gralia-Documents for Appeal of Variance Approval.pdf
14-00552v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Historic Designation for City National Bank Building.pdf
R-14-0439
MOVED: Marc David Sarnoff
AYES: Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Carollo
ABSENT: Commissioner(s) Suarez and Hardemon
EXB 271
PZ. 10 RESOLUTION
13-01030iia A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL BY GRANT STERN, PETER
EHRLICH, ROSI BARRIOS, SANDI MADGER, DAVID LE BATARD,
YASMINE GARATE, AND ANTHONY DAVIDE, AFFIRMING THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY
GRANTING THE CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 12-0054,
ISSUED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 12,
2013, TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT APPROXIMATELY 3055 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.

13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal- Mark Alvarez Presentation - Midtown Walmart Class II Special Permit.pd
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - Paul C. Savage - PowerPoint Presentation - Appeal of Class II Special P
13-01030iia-Submittal-Grant Stearn-Supplemental Brief of Respondent to 11th Circuit Court of Appeal.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Mandate from Circuit Court Appelate Division 11th Judicial Circuit.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Passages from the opinion of the Appellate Court Opinion at 4.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Passages from the opinion of the Appellate Court Opinion at 7, 8 and 9.p
13-01030iia-Submittal-Grant Stern-Audio Recording-Judges rule against Walmart in Midtown Miami.pdf
13-01030iia-Supporting Docs-SUB.pdf
13-01030iia-Analysis-SUB.pdf
R-14-0440
MOVED: Marc David Sarnoff

UNANIMOUS
EXB 272
ADJOURNMENT
EXB 273
City of Miami
City Hall
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
2:00 PM
PLANNING AND ZONING
City Commission
EXB 274
Present: Chair Gort, Commissioner Sarnoff, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez and
Vice Chair Hardemon
On the 20th day of November 2014, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Gort at
5:35 p.m., recessed at 5:39 p.m., reconvened at 6:37 p.m., and adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
ALSO PRESENT:

Chair Gort: I need one more Commissioner. At this time we have to make some announcement.
Yes, ma'am.
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): I'm going to read the procedures. We'll now begin the
Planning & Zoning items, and I'll state certain procedures to be followed in this portion of the
meeting. P&Z (Planning & Zoning) items shall procedure according to Section 7.1.4 of the
Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak will be sworn in
by the City Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by City staff and the
City Attorney on items on the agenda today. The members of the City Commission shall disclose
any ex parte communications to resume -- to remove the presumption of prejudice, pursuant to
Florida Statute Section 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4(5) in the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Staff will
briefly present each item to be heard. The appellant or petitioner will then present their
application or request to the City Commission. If the applicant agrees with the staff
recommendation and no one from the audience wishes to speak for or against the item, they may
waive the right to an evidentiary hearing. The order of presentation shall be as described in the
City Code and the Miami 21 Code. Members of the public will be permitted to speak through the
Chair for not more than two minutes, unless modified by the Chair. The City of Miami requires
that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the hearing anything
provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the requested action ,
pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the City Commissioners that have
not been provided seven days before the meeting as a part of the agenda materials will be
entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. And now I believe the Planning
director has some items that are going to be continued.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Francisco Garcia: Thank you, sir. For the record, Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning
director. There are from today's Planning & Zoning agenda four items that we would like to
propose be continued. They are as follows: PZ.1 is an alley closure for the Miami Sun plat.
This is proposed to be continued to February 26. The second item, PZ.2: This is a proposed
rezoning for 1410 to 1432 Northeast Miami Place and nearing addresses. This is proposed to be
continued to January 22. And items PZ.3 and 4, so PZ.3 and PZ.4, which are companion items
for a land use change and rezoning at 180 Northeast 50th Street, these two are proposed to be
continued to the meeting of February 26. That's all I have, sir.
Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. The -- Mr. Clerk, you want to swear in the --
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Sir, we're just doing continuances and deferrals at this time, so if
someone wants to make a motion.
EXB 275
Chair Gort: Let's have a motion.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So moved.
Chair Gort: Vice Chairman Hardemon; second by Commissioner Sarnoff. All in favor, state it
by saying "aye."
Mr. Garcia: Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, Francisco.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): PH (Public Hearing) --
Mr. Hannon: If we're going back to the regular agenda, then we need to --
Chair Gort: Going back to the regular.
Mr. Hannon: -- recess the Planning & Zoning meeting.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Mr. Hannon: And we just need a minute to flip the tape.
Chair Gort: Okay, are we ready? You have to swear people in.
Mr. Hannon: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you'll be speaking on any of today's
Planning & Zoning items, can I please have you stand and raise your right hand?
The City Clerk administered the oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons
giving testimony on zoning issues.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair.
PZ.1 RESOLUTION
07-01499ac1
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH

Street to Approximately 215 Feet North of NW 20th Street [Commissioner Marc
David Sarnoff - District 2]
EXB 276
APPLICANT(S): Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Esquire and Elinette Ruiz, Esquire,

on behalf of Southern Waste Systems, Ltd.
FINDING(S):
PURPOSE: The alley closures and unification of the site will enable a modern
and clean recycling/processing center to be constructed and reduce the amount
of material otherwise deposited in landfills.
Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Sarnoff, that this matter be
DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff and Hardemon
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Carollo and Suarez
Note for the Record: Item PZ.1 was deferred to the February 26, 2015 Planning and Zoning City
Commission Meeting.

14-00054zc
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
13114, AS AMENDED, BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM
"T6-24-O" URBAN CORE ZONE-OPEN TO "T6-36A-O" URBAN CORE
ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1410,
1420, 1424, AND 1432 NORTHEAST MIAMI PLACE; 1415, 1421, 1425, 1433,
AND 1445 NORTHEAST MIAMI COURT; AND 47, 55, AND 67 NORTHEAST
14TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS; CONTAINING A

FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Motion to approve with
conditions failed on March 5, 2014, by a vote of 3-5, thus constituting a denial.
EXB 277

Note for the Record: Item PZ.2 was deferred to the January 22, 2015 Planning and Zoning City
Commission Meeting.

13-00865lu
ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY
DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL PROPERTIES AT APPROXIMATELY 180
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO
AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND


Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval to City
Commission on October 16, 2013 by a vote of 5-2. See companion File ID
13-00865zc.
EXB 278
Commission Meeting.

13-00865zc
"T4-R" GENERAL URBAN ZONE-RESTRICTED TO "T4-L" GENERAL URBAN
ZONE-LIMITED, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 180
NORTHEAST 50TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS;
EFFECTIVE DATE.


Holding Corp.
FINDING(S):
Commission Meeting.

14-00053lu
ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
EXB 279

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" TO "RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING
FINDINGS; DIRECTING TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
14-00053lu SR Fact Sheet.pdf
14-00053lu Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf
14-00053lu Legislation (v2).pdf
14-00053lu Exhibit.pdf

FINDING(S):
March 19, 2014, by a vote of 7-4. See companion File ID 14-00053zc.
Chair Gort: All yours.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Just to remind everyone here
present, items PZ.1, PZ.2, PZ.3, and PZ.4 have been continued to dates certain. You may inquire
from the City Clerk's Office exactly what those dates are. We can then, Mr. Chair, pick it up on
PZs 5 and 6 --
Chair Gort: Yes.
Mr. Garcia: -- if you'd like, which are companion items. These are a land use change and
zoning change proposal for the property at 622 Northeast 80th Street. This is before you on first
reading. And this item is being recommended to you for approval by the Planning & Zoning
Department. The Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board heard the land use proposal -- the land use
change proposal and recommended approval by a vote of 7-4. However, on the zoning change
proposal, they recommended denial. Originally, it was a recommendation for approval.
However, it failed to obtain a majority. It failed 4-7; thus, constituting a recommendation for
denial. It is before you today. Again, our recommendation for approval rests on the fact that the
subject property is bounded to the north, to the east, and to the south by restricted commercial
land use designation on the land use side; however, on the zoning side, the pattern changes a bit,
and it is bounded only on the north and the east by the higher zoning, which is T6-8-O. I'll yield
to the applicant for presentation and stand by to answer any questions you may have .
EXB 280
Chair Gort: Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Tony Recio: Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is
Tony Recio, with law office at 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, in Coral Gables. I'm very happy
to be here before you today on Pierre Investments. This application has been pending for quite
some time. Last time we were here, the district Commissioner, Commissioner Hardemon,
requested that we meet with some of our neighbors; we did. We had those meetings, and we
continued some dialogue with them, and I'll get into that in a moment. Actually, before I present,
I wanted to know if it is the will of this Commission for me to give a truncated presentation ,
because it is a late hour, and I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to work with you all.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Please.
Chair Gort: Yes, sir.
Mr. Recio: All right, I will be very, very --
Chair Gort: We want you to earn your fee.
Mr. Recio: I'm going to hit the highlights. As Mr. Garcia explained, this property is bounded on
the north, west and south by commercial comprehensive plan designation. This property is
situated right here just off of the activity note of 79th and Biscayne Boulevard. You see all this
red. This red is commercial. It is commercial comprehensive plan designation. This area that is
lined in this is a neighborhood that is cut off from the rest of Shorecrest by a barrier at this
location and a barrier at this location. This area is actually zoned T5. It's comprehensive plan
designated for medium density residential, so it's different from the rest of this, and it's actually
cut off and separate. This particular parcel has commercial zoning and comprehensive plan
over here. Commercial development over here, commercial development over here; shares a
service alley on two sides, so you're talking about noise, you're talking about, you know, garbage
pickup at different hours, you're talking about deliveries. All the things that are associated with
commercial, this is hit by that on two different sides, okay. It's currently a vacant lot. If you look
at the zoning, it's actually got T6-8 zoning here, T6-8 zoning here, and then this is what they call
T5-O zoning, so it's still commercial along here, but it is at a T5 level as opposed to a T6 level.
As you can see, if you go further north and further south, this T6-8 line actually extends much
further to the east; everywhere else, except here, which is a weird situation. It's an odd situation,
especially when you consider that unlike these properties up here, which don't have service
alleys, don't share service alleys with existing commercial, are immediately next to single family
and actually have streets that connect into Shorecrest. This doesn't have any -- this is the
opposite. This has service alleys. The street does not connect. There's a physical barrier that
prevents vehicular traffic, and it's actually abutting what is T5 already, what is five stories
already. Okay, staff is recommending approval of this application. They've been recommending
approval since day one. As I said, we had met with the neighbors to discuss this. This was back
in May. We had several conversations after that. Mr. Jett from Shorecrest was a perfect
gentleman, but -- although -- we had a meeting. We had about 20 people show up. There were
about 20 different opinions as to what should be done, so we couldn't get on the same page with
him. I don't know if any of them are here tonight. I don't think so, but to the extent that there
are, I would ask for just a chance to speak after they speak. But I do believe that this is a
positive application. After speaking with them, we went through all the different scenarios. It
turns out we think that the original request is the best request, and it actually fits with what is
directly across the street from us. Miami 21 has all kinds of protections in place to guide
development. It's the same development that would occur here. It would simply occur here on
this location. That's pretty much what I wanted to walk you through. If you have any questions,
I'm here to answer them. And I hope that you can support this application on first reading . We'd
have to come back before you on second.
EXB 281
Chair Gort: Thank you. Did you read the -- Francisco, 5 and 6?
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. I've read both of them together.
Chair Gort: 'Cause this public hearing is for both 5 and 6. Okay, is anyone in the public would
like to address any of these issues? Anyone in the public? Seeing none, hearing none, we close
the public hearings. Commissioner.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. In reference to PZ.5, of course, the one thing that
the residents are usually mostly worried about is spot zoning, right. So this is a situation where
there is restricted commercial use that is to the north of it, to the south of it, and to the west of it;
medium density, multifamily residential merely to the east of it. And so in considering the way
that -- for PZ.5, the way that this is set out, I don't have a problem moving to pass PZ.5 as it
states before us today, especially considering the approval from the PZAB (Planning, Zoning &
Appeals Board) and also from staff. There doesn't appear in this situation to do -- it doesn't
appear in this situation to do anything other than really straighten out that line that you have
from Biscayne Boulevard east to parcels where it's west of the medium density multifamily
residential, which is just south of Northeast 80th Street towards -- so as far as PZ.5 --
--
Mr. Recio: Understood.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- the way that I see it, I move to approve it.
Chair Gort: Okay, it's a motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Sarnoff: Second under this unique circumstance.
Chair Gort: Okay, it's been moved, second. Any further discussion? An ordinance.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.5. Commissioner Sarnoff?
Commissioner Sarnoff: Reluctantly, yes, but under these compelling and unique circumstances.
Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair Hardemon?
Vice Chair Hardemon: That sounds so amazing on -- when you read it on a sheet of paper, but
I'll just say "for."
Mr. Hannon: Chair Gort?
Chair Gort: Yes.

14-00053zc
"T5-R" URBAN CENTER ZONE - RESTRICTED TO "T6-8-O" URBAN CORE
ZONE-OPEN, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 622
NORTHEAST 80TH STREET, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS;
EXB 282

EFFECTIVE DATE.

FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Motion to approve failed on
March 19, 2014, by a vote of 4-7, thus constituting a denial. See companion
File ID 14-00053lu.
PURPOSE: This will change the above property from "T5-R" to "T6-8-O". Item
Motion by Vice Chair Hardemon, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Commission Meeting.
Note for the Record: Please see Item PZ.5 for minutes referencng Item PZ.6.
Chair Gort: RE.6 [sic].
Tony Recio: As to PZ.6, the presentation is essentially the same. This is -- we're seeking T6-8
zoning. We have T6-8 directly to the north of us, directly to the west of us, and we've got
commercial down here. So in any event, the O is here, here, and here. The T6-8, as you can
see along this line is -- it is -- it extends much further east than we are. It's all the same reasons
that I went through before. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have and address
those.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Now in this situation, you find yourself in a predicament as a just bit -- a
bit more troubling for me --
Mr. Recio: Okay.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- because T6-8-O is a bit more intensive than the use that is to -- find it.
Mr. Recio: To the east.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- to the -- yes, to the east. And then -- so now we're talking about taking
T6-8-O, it's also more intensive than the use to the south of it. Now, besides that little parcel
that's not highlighted -- there's a little parcel of land that appears -- or is that the street.
Mr. Recio: Here?
EXB 283
Vice Chair Hardemon: To the north of the property.
Mr. Recio: To the north, this parcel.
Vice Chair Hardemon: There's -- between the T6-8-O --
Mr. Recio: Yeah.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- and what you're proposing, there's a little parcel of land.
Mr. Recio: This is the street.
Vice Chair Hardemon: That is a street?
Mr. Recio: Yeah, yeah.
Vice Chair Hardemon: That is a street; that's what I thought.
Mr. Recio: This is 80th Street that has the dead end barrier.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So here in this situation, I can't -- and I know that the community has
been in an uproar about having T6-8-O directly abut the T5-R properties, and so here, you find
yourself in a much more difficult situation, so I'm more inclined to vote no on this type of
situation, which then would put you in a predicament where it would fail, all of the project,
because you won't be able to do what you're trying to do --
Mr. Recio: Correct.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- as I understand it, right? And you find yourself between T6-8-O and
T5-R, which is kind of like a rock in a hard place.
Mr. Recio: Yes.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So what I -- the things that I thought about in that situation, with the help
of staff, to draft some type of creative solution to this is considering maybe something like a
T5-O, which is T5, which is where it is now, but O, so it has some of the same type of -- as far
as the height of the building as -- is -- to its neighbors to the east of it.
Mr. Recio: May I propose a -- maybe a variance on that?
Vice Chair Hardemon: You can say whatever you like.
Mr. Recio: T5 is five stories maximum.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Mr. Recio: Under Miami 21, you can have up to a 14-foot-high story, so each floor can be 14
feet high. So the maximum height that you can get in T5, 14 times 5 would be 70 feet. That's the
cap, right? If we were to, between first and second reading, perhaps, come back to you with a
covenant that despite a T6-8-O zoning, we would cap the height at 70 feet, so that is exactly what
we would do here. That would allow us to get at least a six-story to basically -- to be able to
accommodate parking all on site. That would really help us out a lot of in terms of development
in actually developing this parcel. So it would be -- the concept is T6-8-O zoning just to allow
the number of floors, but a maximum height imposed by covenant, recorded against the property
EXB 284
for the same height that you could achieve on T5 at 70 feet.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well, you know, in this situation, I know the height of the building has
been much of the concern, so what you're saying to me is the height will be the same or at least
the maximum use of the T5-O.
Mr. Recio: Correct
Vice Chair Hardemon: And it would allow you to put the parking inside. I'm not sure exactly
how that works, so I would love to hear from staff how that works. And then -- and also, I want
to hear what the past Commissioner for that area would like to say about this situation , because I
know this community is dear to your heart also. I just want to make sure we're making the right
decision for the residents.
Mr. Garcia: So there are two -- thank you, Commissioner, for the opportunity. There are two
issues to consider, and Mr. Recio has identified one, which happens to be the height. The other
one -- and this should be put on the record -- has to do with density. So the change to T6-8-O
increases the density from what T5 provides for, which is 65 units per acre; in T6-8-O, you would
have 150 units per acre, so there's a significant density increase for residential uses. That's one
issue to be considered. In terms of the height, in fact, Mr. Recio is correct in saying that T6-8-O
would allow on this site up to 12 stories; T5, of course, allows only five, and there is no interim
transect zone. And what he's proposing is perhaps worthy of consideration, and it would have
the effect of capping the height, if they were to proffer a covenant as he suggested, capping the
height at 7 stories, which would be the equivalent of the roughly 70 feet they could otherwise
obtain. I'll add, because I think it's significant, that these covenants typically are phrased so that
any amendment to the covenant would be brought back to the Commission itself. So it does
provide the sort of security that nothing beyond 7 stories could be built. And if that were to be
the pleasure of the Commission, then this is something that we would certainly seek the input
from the affected property owners because they have been involved in the past as well.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And Mr. Chairman.
Chair Gort: Yes, go ahead.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And -- you know, what came to mind -- I use the word -- when -- as he
spoke, intensity, which is the density. This will be the equivalent of that in saying that the
height, of course, corresponds with the number of people who will be allowed to reside, if there
was someone residing in that building, or the use of that structure. And I'm sure, although those
representatives of that community are not here today, that they will still be concerned with the
use going from -- if it's 16 or so units per square -- what was it?
Mr. Garcia: Square -- per acre. Units per acre.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Per acre. -- to more than 120, so those are big concerns for me. And the
people who live there have to live there. And long after your representation ends, they will be
there and they will be here. And so it is most important to me to ensure that the people who are
in that community are happy with the representations that are being made by myself in reference
to the properties that are just around them and especially where -- what you've said to me is that
you've had an opportunity to speak with them, but I haven't heard any major agreement that's
been made. So what it tells me is that there needs to be some type of mediation. And any time
we mediate, the question is, is it a better -- is it a benefit to the community or is it a benefit to the
developer or whoever the applicant is? And many times, I believe -- and especially as
Commissioners, we should always lean towards the benefit to the community, so -- but I'm
always open for compromise, but the compromise has to be good.
EXB 285
Mr. Recio: Sure.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So in this community, Commissioner Sarnoff, you've spent quite a lot of
-- a number of time in this community dealing with these types of issues, so just what's your input
on this?
Commissioner Sarnoff: I heard something that piqued my curiosity, Mr. Recio, which is you said
that you would keep all the parking -- I don't know if you said on the site, which you'd have to do
anyways, but did you mean to say within the building?
Mr. Recio: Yeah. It would have to be within the building, yes. Yes.
Commissioner Sarnoff: So you're --
Mr. Recio: But -- I'm sorry. If I may? When I say onsite, there are provisions in the Miami
21 which allow for offsite parking. We don't -- that's not a scenario that we think will work here,
not on this street. We want to keep it all onsite. So that's why we would want the additional
floors to be able to fit that parking onto the site. And when we talk about the number of units --
Commissioner Sarnoff: Well, when you say --
Mr. Recio: I'm sorry.
Commissioner Sarnoff: But, no, that's all right. When you say that, that indicates to me you' re
keeping the parking within the drip line of the building.
Mr. Recio: Yes, within the building. Yes.
Commissioner Sarnoff: You could do that with what you propose? I mean, you have enough
space to do that with the required parking requirement?
Mr. Recio: In terms of our lot coverage?
Commissioner Sarnoff: Yes.
Mr. Recio: Yeah, yeah. We would have to be creative about how we do it, you know, vehicular
lifts and doors and those kinds of things, because it is small site. But yes, we can do that.
Commissioner Sarnoff: And I don't mean to debate you. I'm just having a little trouble
fathoming this, which is that --
Mr. Recio: Sure.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- you're going to go to a -- you said a 70-story building. You're going
to put -- I don't remember how many floors you said you put there, but --
Mr. Recio: No, no. Seventy feet.
Commissioner Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) feet. I'm sorry; 70 feet. And you're going to put
how many floors in there?
Mr. Recio: Either six or seven, depending on how --
Commissioner Sarnoff: So six or seven.
EXB 286
Mr. Recio: -- the heights work out.
Commissioner Sarnoff: How many units per floor?
Mr. Recio: Well, residential units were capped -- if -- even under T6-8, we're capped at 23 total
units for the building --
Commissioner Sarnoff: So you're --
Mr. Recio: -- which is not a big building.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- 23 parking spaces, right?
Mr. Recio: Twenty -- 1.5 times 23, so you're talking about thirty-some spaces.
Commissioner Sarnoff: So thirty-something spaces. And how -- well, how big is your lot? Is it
an acre, an acre and a half?
Mr. Recio: No, it is not.
Chair Gort: It's very small.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Yeah.
Mr. Recio: It's very small.
Commissioner Sarnoff: I'm just curious how he's going to keep better than 40 or 45 -- I'm
thinking you're going to have some retail. How are you going to keep 40 -- let's just say it's 40.
How many -- how are you going to keep 40 cars --?
Mr. Recio: That may limit the -- what we can put in terms of the uses. In terms of the parking --
the parking, will limit what the uses are on the site, in any event.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Then let me just say this to my colleague. If they can keep their parking
inside their building --
Chair Gort: Yeah.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- I'm all in favor of that.
Chair Gort: Now, let me ask you a question. My understanding is you need the initial -- this
change of zoning to provide the parking underneath.
Mr. Recio: We need the change of zoning to provide a mix of uses.
Chair Gort: Mix of uses.
Mr. Recio: Yeah, not --
Chair Gort: But the parking --
Mr. Recio: But the parking assists us -- the extra floors is what we need to provide -- to be able
to fit the parking in there.
Chair Gort: Okay.
EXB 287
Vice Chair Hardemon: Is -- some of the things that stood out to me. One, there's skepticalness
[sic], right. You've seen a lot of buildings built within your community as far as -- that are very
tall because you've been here and you've had the boom that we've had downtown and in some
other areas in the Upper Eastside The word that you said that struck the -- a cord to me was
creative --
Mr. Recio: Yeah.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- and that's scary because -- and when you say creative, that means
that it's not something that is normally done; that it's outside the box. And it's not as if you come
today with a plan that actually shows that it can be done. So when you say creative to me, it
says -- it's an alarm in my mind that says that it can be done, and the record won't reflect that I
tilted my head to the right and grinned my teeth to show that you were skeptical, if it can -- well,
I don't want to say that, because I don't want to put that on the record for you.
Mr. Recio: Thank you.
Vice Chair Hardemon: But that I am skeptical, rather, that that is something that can be
achieved and that, merely, we're trying to find a way to get you to the two T -- well, to the
allowable floors for T6-8-O or the allowable density for a T6-8-O, 'cause that's the goal. You
want T6-8-O; it provides you greater density, greater use.
Mr. Recio: Yes, yes, but it's not even to max out the T6-8-O, because we couldn't put 8 floors or
even 12 with the bonuses in 70 feet. What we'd like to do is get above 5 within those 70 feet. Get
to six or seven so that we can have -- we can actually dedicate two of those floors to parking with
liners, with habitable liners, and then we can actually have some uses above that.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Yeah. It kind of alarms me. It reminds me of like a -- if everyone has
seen like those boxes, those plastic boxes that you put sandwiches in. If you stack them up with
bread, you can comfortably fit two slices of bread in it, but you can also fit five. It's just that you
squish all the bread and compact it into something, and that's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of
we're trying to pack so much into this small site that it would be something that the community
who's just around it would object to. So I -- at this point, I'm not necessarily comfortable with
doing that. And we have options. I mean, we can have the community have an opportunity to
come speak on this issue. Maybe there is something that they -- maybe they agree to something
like that, but maybe they don't. But I'm inclined today to make it T5-O. We have the ability to
actually come down on the zoning; can't increase it, but we can bring it to a T5-O, which is in
line with what is immediately to the east of this structure, which is a T5-R, the residential area.
It's in line with that. And I think that is a better fitting, necessarily, for the community at that
point.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Commissioner, can I make recommendation, and you can make it very
clear that you're only considering this for this purpose, but would you be at least willing to come
back with a building design to show us what that covenant looks like?
Mr. Recio: Yes, we could do that.
Commissioner Sarnoff: So that we could see what -- by the way, kind of a cool thing to do would
be, Commissioner, this is what a T5-O would look like --
Mr. Recio: Sure.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- with parking exterior. This is what a T6 with this covenant would
look like.
EXB 288
Mr. Recio: Internal.
Commissioner Sarnoff: And then he has a real choice to make for the neighborhood, and that's
-- I got to tell you, keeping a building that has its stored parking inside is a much sleeker
building.
Mr. Recio: Yeah.
Chair Gort: Let me ask a question.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I'm assuming that he's going to do that, because the question is are
you going to do it? And when you say creative, sometimes creativity, you say -- we thought
we could do it, but we can't.
Chair Gort: Let me ask a question. Wait a minute. First reading, you can pass -- it's certain
zoning; and second reading, as long as below that one, you can also change it, right?
Mr. Min: That's correct.
Chair Gort: Okay. So the alternatives here is you can make the motion for T6-8 at this time.
Let him get to the community. Let him come to us and -- on second reading, and you can always
bring it down on the second reading (UNINTELLIGIBLE) not in comply with.
Commissioner Sarnoff: It's a way of getting a peek at what he has --
Chair Gort: It's a compromise.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- in store.
Vice Chair Hardemon: No, no, I understand. I understand. I just want -- go ahead.
Mr. Garcia: And Commissioner, if I may. We will certainly accept direction and, frankly,
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) we'll accept it to reach back out to the community and put before them all
the options that were considered here today and seek their feedback prior to coming back to you.
Vice Chair Hardemon: You know, part of my -- when the story is told, when the story is told, the
phone call that I receive from the community is he passed it. They don't understand the
details that we speak of. They don't get the -- it was only because of this or that. They don't get
the record where Commissioner Sarnoff so eloquently explained his support of the project for the
PZ.5 in the way that he did it. It doesn't -- it's not reflected in their mind. All they hear is that it
passed. So I can continue this item just -- this PZ.6, but I'm not going to just move it and pass it
on first reading because it's -- in lieu of time, I'm not going to do that. So I can move to continue
this to be heard at the time that PZ.5 comes up for second hearing, but it'll still be on first
reading.
Mr. Recio: Okay. If I may, may I ask that that happen -- to give us time to develop the plan, if I
could just push it to January? Because I know with the holidays, it will be tough to --
Vice Chair Hardemon: This is not -- will this be heard in December? It won't be heard in
December.
Mr. Garcia: No, sir, and especially not if you continue, which you certainly can do, PZ.6; then
we will certainly make sure that both items come back to you together either in January or
February, as you see fit.
EXB 289
Mr. Recio: And just one thing I would like to make clear for the record. When I said creative,
I -- it's not something that's never been done before. It's done on Miami Beach all the time.
That's just what I meant.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Recio: It's not unheard of --
Chair Gort: Our day.
Mr. Recio: -- what we're proposing.
Vice Chair Hardemon: So I move as indicated earlier.
Chair Gort: Okay, it's been move and second. Any further discussion? Being none --
Mr. Hannon: Excuse me. Chair, my apologies. Vice Chair, are you moving it to a date specific
in January or February?
Vice Chair Hardemon: No, I'm not. I'm just deferring it.
Mr. Hannon: We --
Vice Chair Hardemon: I'm sor -- to -- not to a date certain -- well. I'm sorry. I apologize. I will
state it as so. I want to defer it to the same date that PZ.5 will be heard.
Mr. Min: Which should be the second meeting in January.
Mr. Hannon: Just for the record, that'll be January 22.
Mr. Min: And if I could also just clarify, Mr. Recio, if you are going to propose a restrictive
covenant, you can provide us with a draft prior to that hearing so both the Planning Department
and also the City Attorney's Office would have the opportunity to vet it?
Mr. Recio: Certainly.
Mr. Min: Thank you.
Mr. Recio: Certainly.
Chair Gort: Okay, it's an ordinance.
Commissioner Sarnoff: No, no.
Mr. Min: It's a motion to defer.
Commissioner Sarnoff: It's a motion to defer.
Chair Gort: Oh, you didn't pass it. Okay. Any further discussion on the motion? Being none,
all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
EXB 290
Mr. Recio: Thank you all. Have a great evening.
Chair Gort: Thank you.

14-00963zc
T5-O "URBAN CENTER TRANSECT ZONE-OPEN" TO T6-8-O "URBAN CORE
TRANSECT ZONE-OPEN," FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
APPROXIMATELY SOUTHWEST 1ST STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWEST
13TH AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; AND BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM T4-L "URBAN GENERAL
TRANSECT ZONE-LIMITED" TO T5-L "URBAN CENTER TRANSECT
ZONE-LIMITED," FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
SOUTHWEST 2ND STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWEST 13TH AVENUE AND
SOUTHWEST 17TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA; MAKING FINDINGS,
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.

LOCATION: Approximately SW 1st Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW

17th Avenue; and SW 2nd Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW 17th
Avenue [Commissioner Frank Carollo - District 3]
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S):
PURPOSE: This will change the zoning classification from "T5-O" to "T6-8-O"
for the properties located at approximately SW 1st Street between SW 13th
Avenue and SW 17th Avenue; and from "T4-L" to "T5-L" for the properties
located at approximately SW 2nd Street between SW 13th Avenue and SW
17th Avenue. Item does not include a covenant.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be

13490
Chair Gort: PZ.7.
Tony Recio: And a very Happy Thanksgiving.
EXB 291
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Item PZ.7 is a -- it's an item proposed by your
Administration, by the City of Miami City Manager's Office. This is before you on second
reading, and it is a proposed rezoning for the Southwest 1st Street and Southwest 2nd Street
corridors between 13th and 17th Avenues. The proposal before you seeks to rezone the
Southwest 1st Street corridor from T5-O to T6-8-O and the Southwest 2nd Street corridor from
T4-L to T5-L, again between 13th Avenue and 17th Avenue; before you on second reading. And
I'll -- happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Gort: It's been moved by Commissioner --
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Gort: -- Carollo. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Discussion.
Chair Gort: Second by Commissioner Suarez. Discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: I want to make sure that the record reflects it's not here, I think -- I guess
it was a typo -- that the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) Board voted unanimously in
favor of this. Is that correct?
Mr. Garcia: That is correct, sir, and thank you for reminding me. The Planning, Zoning &
Appeals Board, on their meeting of October 15, considered this item and voted unanimously,
10-0, to recommend approval for this item.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Do you want to open it to the public?
Chair Gort: We open the public hearing. Is anyone in the public would like to address PZ.7?
Seeing none, hearing none, it's closed.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.7.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.

14-00515zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
EXB 292


APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S):
September 3, 2014, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will make Miami 21 consistent with Chapter 62, and provides
that to approve, or to recommend approval of certain actions, the concurring
votes of a supermajority of board members, which consists of one more
member than a simple majority, be required.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be

Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Sarnoff, Carollo and Suarez
Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
Commission Meeting.
Chair Gort: PZ.8.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. Item PZ.8 is an amendment to
Miami 21. This is pertaining to the voting requirements for the Planning, Zoning & Appeals
Board. It is before you on second reading, and it is filed as an application by the City
Administration. I wanted to insert a note that I hadn't done before. This comes about as a result
of some questions we received in the briefing process, and I want to make it clear that this is to
realign Miami 21, your Zoning Ordinance, with provisions already stated clearly in the City
Code; and I would like, for purposes of clarity, to refer to City Code Section 62-17, titled
Proceedings of Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and referring specifically to subsection
D regarding quorum, and I'll quote an excerpt of that subsection, which says, No action to
recommend adoption of amendments to the City comprehensive plan or to recommend the
amendment of the text of the Miami 21 Code rezoning or special plan or to approve an exception
shall be taken by the PZAB (Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board) without the concurring vote of
a supermajority of board members present. Period. And it follows by saying, Said
supermajority consists of one more member than a simple majority. It is that language that
already exists in your City Code that we are seeking to mirror in the Zoning Ordinance, which
presently contradicts that to some extent. Again, our recommendation is for approval, and
perhaps most telling, the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board recommendation was also
unanimously for approval of this amendment. I'll answer any questions you may have.
Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. Discussion. Motion.
Commissioner Sarnoff: So move.
EXB 293
Chair Gort: Who moved it?
Commissioner Carollo: Commissioner Sarnoff moves it and I second.
Chair Gort: Sarnoff moved it; second, Commissioner Carollo. Discussion.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I do have some.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Any time there is something within our Code or there's something within
a charter or anything that has something to do with rules where you request a supermajority , to
me signals that it is of importance. And so the reason that I don't support this amendment,
although it is making it in alignment with the Code -- maybe the Code is -- went the wrong way,
but the way that I see it is that here we are with a document that says there should be a
supermajority, which -- I believe you said there is -- how many people on the board?
Mr. Garcia: Twelve members appointed, sir, and eleven who can actually vote.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Eleven who can vote, right. So that's seven? I believe a supermajority
would be seven. Now -- and the question then becomes, well, how difficult is it to get seven
votes? I mean, part of the reason that you create a supermajority of the entire board is because
it creates a higher threshold to meet -- to make these changes that we deem -- because we made
it a supermajority -- important. So how many times do we have an opportunity to have that
many people vote in favor of something? On PZ.5, there were 11 members present. On PZ.6,
there were 11 members present. On PZ.7, there were 10 members present. So to me, when I read
it, I don't think that we have a problem with quorum, but when we reduce -- or when we loosen
the language here to allow it to be a supermajority of the members present, then it becomes if
there are -- if there's a major -- if there are, say, six members would be -- which would meet
quorum, then four would make -- no -- then five would make a supermajority. So now you've
reduced it from seven to five, and so it becomes much more easy to pass whatever it is that you
want -- what changes you want to make to whatever this thing's referring to with five votes as it
pertain to seven. As just fundamentally, I'm not happy with that. Fundamentally, I think that if
there's a supermajority, it needs to be a supermajority and not a simple majority with plus one,
because this is a majority plus one. That's all that this is. This is not supermajority. So if we --
why call it supermajority? It's deceptive to even call it supermajority in this situation by
saying it means plus one because it's not. Supermajority means supermajority in the way that
I see it. So I'm sure other Commissioners have things to say in reference to it, but that is why I'm
not in favor of this language.
Commissioner Suarez: I just have a question.
Commissioner Suarez: Sometimes on these things, I like to get a little mathematical just to see if
we can, you know, change the discussion a little bit. Supermajority of the members is how
many? Let's -- what's the numbers?
Mr. Garcia: The supermajority of appointed members is seven.
Commissioner Suarez: Of?
Mr. Garcia: Eleven.
EXB 294
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so that's a little more than 70 percent, right? So -- actually, it's a
little less than 70 percent, slightly less than 70 percent. So why don't we just say an equal
percentage of voters based on the quorum or more or greater? In other words -- right. Of
whatever the members are there, the same extent of a supermajority or more. I mean, it -- from a
percentage perspective. If it's five out of six, five out of six is greater than 70 percent, you know.
I mean, if that's what --
Commissioner Carollo: I suggest, why don't we defer this and have it massaged a little bit more
--
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and bring it back. That's what I recommend.
Commissioner Suarez: Give it a little bit of a head massage.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: A cranial massage.
Commissioner Carollo: Move to defer to --
Chair Gort: January?
Commissioner Carollo: -- the second meeting in January.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Certainly. Commissioner Sarnoff, would you like to withdraw
your motion?
Commissioner Sarnoff: I certainly would, Mr. Hannon.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Massage the temples.
Chair Gort: Okay, there's a new motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I second it.
Chair Gort: Second by Commissioner Suarez. Any further discussion? Being none, all in favor,
state it by saying "aye."
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Aye.
EXB 295
Chair Gort: Aye.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Against.
Commissioner Carollo: Against the deferral?
Chair Gort: PZ.9. One against.
Commissioner Carollo: Against the deferral? We're deferring it to January.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I know. I understand, but I --
Commissioner Suarez: So we could massage it.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- don't like this. This --
Commissioner Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) reconsider it.
Vice Chair Hardemon: It passes. Can I vote the way that I want to vote, please? Thank you
very much.
Commissioner Suarez: You don't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Is that okay, everyone? May I do that?
Chair Gort: PZ.9.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you so much.
Commissioner Suarez: You don't like massages?
Chair Gort: PZ.9.
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): If I may just briefly. I just wanted to advise that currently,
right now, the City Code, as it reads in Chapter 62, has this provision. Unfortunately, Miami 21
has taken two years to catch up. So if you don't like this language, we have to also change the
City Code. I just wanted to be very clear with that -- and when we used to have this type of
language, nothing would get passed because, unfortunately -- and it goes back to your quorum
issue, I understand, but it just makes it very difficult. Right now we have a very active board, but
it's not always like that. So I just wanted you to know a little history. Right now the Code, as it
stands, this is the law right now that we've been --
Chair Gort: Okay.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I --
Ms. Mndez: -- doing for two years.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I completely -- Mr. Chairman, I completely understand what the law
is, and that's why I say maybe it's not this, but maybe it's the Code that we need to change. So,
theoretically, I'm saying something that is -- the reason I was against the deferral because I don't
necessarily believe that this is the way we should change it. Maybe I believe the other document
is what we need to change, one. And then when you tell me it's much more difficult to get it
done, to me it's one of those -- you know, this -- it's supposed to be difficult; that's why you make
it a supermajority. You can't water down supermajority and call it supermajority.
EXB 296
Chair Gort: Okay, PZ.9.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Thank you.
Chair Gort: We already vote on this. He's got all the rights to vote (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Garcia: Absolutely. Thank you for the feedback.
PZ.9 RESOLUTION
14-00522v1
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DENYING THE
VARIANCE APPEAL THEREBY AFFIRMING THE DECISION TO APPROVE
THE VARIANCE BY DOWNTOWN REALTY INVESTMENTS AS LISTED IN
THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, ARTICLE 7, SECTION 7.1.2.7, TO ALLOW A RELAXATION OF THE
TERMS OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE FOR THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SIDE AND
REAR SETBACKS ABOVE THE 8TH STORY AND THE REQUIRED LOADING
REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS: TO ALLOW A SIDE SETBACK (EAST) OF
3'10" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 26'2"), A SIDE SETBACK
(WEST) OF 4'4" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 25'8"), A REAR
SETBACK OF 5'0" (30'0" REQUIRED, REQUEST TO WAIVE 25'0"), AND
FROM ONE (1) LOADING BERTH TO ZERO (0), FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 115 SOUTHEAST 1ST STREET, MIAMI,
FLORIDA.
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Letters of Support.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Miami 21 Article 7 Section 7.1.2.7.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Presentaion.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Supporting File Document.pdf
14-00522v1-Submittal-Maria A. Gralia-Documents for Appeal of Variance Approval.pdf
14-00552v1-Submittal-Ben Fernandez-Historic Designation for City National Bank Building.pdf


Investments
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with
conditions*.
PURPOSE: This variance appeal seeks to reverse the Planning, Zoning and
EXB 297
Apeals Board's approval of a variance that will allow reductions of the rear and
side setbacks in order to construct a new mixed-use building.
Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be

Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Hardemon
R-14-0439
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Item PZ.9 is before you as a variance appeal.
It is for a property at 115 -- that's 1-1-5 -- Southeast 1st Street, and it is before you as an appeal
to variances granted by the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board in their meeting of September 3,
2014 by a vote of 9-0. I will tell you briefly that the subject property is zoned T6-80-O, which
allows a significant amount of height, 80 stories particular, or as high as the FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration) might allow, that is, and the proposal in the plans that you see attached
is one for a 13-story building. Unfortunately, the subject site is approximately 6,500 square feet,
and it is abutted on both sides or book-ended by already-existing historic buildings which
renders the ability to develop the subject site rather constrained. And in addition to the fact that
the width of the site is, if I'm recalling correctly, 55 feet and you add to that the step backs
required by the Code, which are 30 feet on either side for the higher portion of the building, that
basically caps the building at a height of 8 stories. The hardship condition that this property has
happens to be that it is substandard in terms of size and frontage , and because of that, we think
the hardship requirement is met. And other than that, we think that the variances sought by the
applicants were the minimum variances that would yield a reasonable development of the site.
For which reason we, the Planning & Zoning Department, recommended approval to the
Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and for which reason, we believe the Planning, Zoning &
Appeals Board approved it. Again, Commissioners, it is before you as an appeal of a Planning,
Zoning & Appeals Board decision, and so it is before you as a de novo hearing for your
consideration. I'll stand by the answer any questions you may have, and I'll yield to the
appellant.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
Maria Gralia: Yes. Good evening. Maria Gralia, with law office at 150 West Flagler Street. I
represent Downtown Realty and the principal is Sergio Rok. They are the adjacent property
owner to the proposed development. I want to say that we are not objecting to any development
on that site. We're just objecting to the process that was taken in approving these variances. We
don't believe that there was actually adequate findings of fact by your Planning Department on
granting this -- these variances. Further, we don't believe that the applicant presented
substantial competent evidence in order to obtain these variances. It is well established that a
board making a determination on an application for a variance is required to set forth the facts ,
findings, and reasons of which these actions are based. In this case, none of that occurred at the
hearing below. Further, applicant has the burden to prove by substantial competent evidence
that its application meets all the criteria set forth in granting a variance. Again, that was not
done at the hearing below. Further, more importantly, the board failed to set forth any findings
of fact or reasons why they granted these variances and solely relied on whatever the Planning
Department submitted before them that evening. A variance shall not be granted unless and
until every mitigating measure to offset the impact of the -- excuse me. Need my glasses -- less
relaxed requirements can be shown that -- I apologize -- offset the impacts of the relaxed
requirements can be shown to be -- to have been taken. That did not occur in this case. Again,
tonight you heard another erroneous fact, and that is that the property is flanked by two historic
structures. That is not the case. The property has a historic structure on the east side. There is
no historic structure on the west side, and you heard that again this evening. That was one of the
findings of the Planning Department that was presented to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals
Board. The other flaw with the granting of this variance was that the Planning & Zoning
EXB 298
Appeals Board did not consider the adverse impacts on the adjacent property. There was no
discussion. There was no consideration as to what this request would do to the adjacent
property. It's very interesting, the setbacks and -- as your Planning director stated, this is a
variance to setbacks above the eighth floor. This property can be built to the eighth floor.
Because of the size of this property -- as you heard, this is a very constrained site. It's a very
small site. The kind of variances they're requesting from floors 8 to 13 where 30 feet is required,
they're proposing on the east 3 feet 10 inches; on the west, 4 feet 4 inches, and on the rear, 3 feet
10 inches. That is substantial. I have with me that I will turn over to your Clerk the record
below. This is it. And actually, I've included more information than they included. But
basically, all that was included to establish that this variance should be granted was the analysis
by your Planning Department, which, again, in the analysis it states that the site is flanked by
two historic buildings, which I have stated here tonight and I can show you that it is not; only
one historic building, which is the City National Bank building on the east side. This is all that
was presented. There was the analysis for variance with absolutely -- all it is a reiteration of
what's in your Code, but no further analysis. I would argue that tonight that this building is
viable at 8 stories. There is no evidence in the record that it wouldn't be viable at 8 stories. And
I -- at this point, I would like to ask the Planning director a few questions. Mr. Director, did you
take into consideration any of the effects that this project would have on the adjacent property to
the west?
Mr. Garcia: My apologies. Yes, staff certainly did.
Ms. Gralia: Okay. And can you tell me what those considerations were?
Mr. Garcia: As is customarily the case, we compared the projected development as proposed
with that which would be otherwise available to any abutting property, and it is our intent
always to ensure that every site is treated if not equally -- because that's impossible, given
different circumstances -- at the very least, equitably. And given, once again, that the height
allowed in this particular district is 80 stories at most, we thought that reasonable flexibility
provided to the subject site so that as much height as feasible might be obtained considering
circumstances but certainly something that was worth pursuing.
Ms. Gralia: Thank you. And when you were giving the consideration to this project when you
were reviewing it, did you get an opportunity to review the site plan for this project?
Mr. Garcia: We certainly have had an opportunity to review the site plan, yes.
Ms. Gralia: Okay. And can you tell me how the developer treated the east faade of the east
elevation of this project?
Mr. Garcia: I believe there are plans on the record to that effect, and I am going to make
reference to those. If you allow me just a moment to retrieve those, I'll be glad to answer your
question. I don't seem to have those plans handy. I can tell you from memory, while I continue
to search -- and I would certainly urge any other parties, and I know there are other interested
parties present, should they have that information at hand and they can provide it for me, I can --
Ms. Gralia: I have it.
Mr. Garcia: -- certainly refresh my memory. But essentially, up to the eighth story, it would be a
wall that is -- that goes all the way to the property line and therefore a blank wall. And from that
point on, there is a slight -- thank you so much -- recess proposed, which would then be
minimally fenestrated. And the reason for that, of course, is that building codes require that,
given the close proximity of the two structures, that those articulations respect fire codes and
remain at minimum. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation. If not, I'm happy to elaborate.
EXB 299
Ms. Gralia: Yes. So the important part there that I want to make is that the east elevation of that
building is basically a blank wall, and they -- you did take that into consideration because the
adjacent property has a building next door to it, right? Okay. So can you tell me how the west
elevation was treated and how you reviewed the west elevation of this project?
Mr. Garcia: I will in a moment, but first, I would like to respond to the statement you just made.
The blank wall treatment is an as-of-right, and I want to underscore that, as-of-right treatment,
given that in this particular zoning designation, the building can go to the property line. And
any time a building is built to the property line in an as-of-right manner, it can be built with a
blank wall, so that is, in no way, an extraordinary circumstance. Having said that, you are now
requesting an analysis of -- is it the west?
Ms. Gralia: The west elevation.
Mr. Garcia: Certainly. I expect -- and I am about to verify with the plans you've kindly provided
-- that the west -- and I will certainly -- actually begin by saying that as of right, on the western
site, given that it's a small property since, as of right, they can build to the property line, I would
expect to see a blank wall there. And in fact, there is that, partially a blank wall. In fact, all the
way rising to the top there is a blank wall with a slight recess; and again, out of Code
requirements, even that recess is set aside for what is singled out as a designated area for an art
installation. Again, giving the close proximity, no fenestration is allowed, so the best they can do
is recess it slightly to respect whatever openings happen on the other side of the property line
and then some art treatment is to be provided right on that area.
Ms. Gralia: But in -- though, if I look at the west elevation, there is no blank wall. That west
elevation is actually treated with balconies and other features.
Mr. Garcia: I'm referring to design drawing A3.01, which shows a narrow blank wall, which is a
--
Ms. Gralia: Right.
Mr. Garcia: -- designated area for art installation. Above the eighth story up to there, I'm going
to assume, although it's an elevation, so it has no depth to it. It's a two-dimensional drawing
designated area for art installation. And then beyond that, so closer to the street there would be
fenestration and some balconies as well. That is correct.
Ms. Gralia: And did you take the adjacent property into consideration when you were reviewing
this project that above floors 8 to 13, you would have the treatment on that west elevation of the
balconies?
Mr. Garcia: What I can certainly say is that especially for a building of a residential or lodging
nature, certainly articulation, fenestration and opportunities to have interior spaces enjoy life
and airing are not only desirable but, in fact, mandated, and so to that end, whenever they can
be accommodated, they should be. Obviously, as you know, because this is a request for a
variance, these particular schematics are ultimately submitted to the building permitting process;
and if any of these should not comply with Code, that would be corrected at that time. That said,
these serve to provide for a -- enough information to obtain a variance. And as pertains to the
design and the articulation and, in this particular case, the fenestration proposed, we think it is
entirely appropriate. It is not the case that in considering the appropriate development for this
property, one can consider what other development exists on the property next door, because the
ability for the next-door property owner to develop his property or her property should not
impinge upon the next-door property owner's ability to develop theirs in an accurate fashion as
provided by the Code.
EXB 300
Ms. Gralia: So if there would have been a building on the west side already up like the one on
the east side, would you have the same -- would there be the same outcome and would you have
the same determination?
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): Chairman, I would object to this line of questioning. We're just
basically going for the variance standard and any hardship issues and things of that nature , and
I think the Planning director has given a lot of information, but we can just narrow it.
Ms. Gralia: I'm almost done.
Chair Gort: Excuse me.
Ms. Gralia: So two seconds.
Chair Gort: I'll let the attorneys -- this is a quasi-judicial. I'll let my attorneys here -- I see the
attorney give me an opinion, then if any other attorney would like to give their opinion, we'll
appreciate it.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Say sustain.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Ms. Gralia: Okay. I have one more question that doesn't go to the design, but my last question
is do you -- in your opinion, in your expertise, do you think that an eight-story building would be
viable?
Mr. Garcia: My expertise has to do with, in this particular case, with compliance with Code,
and I'm going to rely on that expertise regarding compliance with the Code and say that an
eight-story building would be complying with the Code, as would be a 13-story building, as
would be an 80-story building in principle. And I will restate something that I said previously,
which is that it is certainly appropriate for the applicants to have submitted for a variance
seeking to derive highest and best use from their land, and we believe that 13 stories on a T6-8 --
T6-80, I'm sorry, O zoned property, 13 stories, although certainly not highest and best use,
comes as close as possible, given the circumstances, which is why we recommended approval.
Ms. Gralia: I have nothing further for the Planning director. I know that the applicant may
have an expert, so if there is an expert, I'd like to cross-examine the expert.
Chair Gort: Sure, no problem.
Ms. Gralia: Okay.
Chair Gort: But I'll be the judge.
Ms. Gralia: Thank you. I have --
Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Anyone -- you can use the other --
Ms. Mndez: Ms. Gralia, you can be on this side, if you like.
Chair Gort: You ready?
Ben Fernandez: Trying to get -- screen. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon.
Good evening, rather, members of the Commission. Ben Fernandez, 200 South Biscayne
Boulevard. I'm here on behalf of the property owner, and I'm the respondent in this case. You
EXB 301
heard from Ms. Gralia that there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to
substantiate this approval. First of all, I'd like to remind the board that the standard of review
here is a de novo standard of review, which means that the evidence that is presented today is
what you are to consider. But let me just say in addition to that, that your professional staff
recommendation, that is, for approval, 100 percent for approval, is substantial and competent
evidence by itself, and Florida case law reflects that point. So you have more than adequate
evidence before you to uphold this approval, as the PZAB did at the lower level. And let me
remind the Commission also that the PZAB approved this matter unanimously by a 9-0 vote with
almost an entire board present. This property is a slender, elegant design. It is flanked on both
sides by historic buildings in your downtown core. This is a map of the City of Miami Downtown
Miami Historic District, and you can see --
Commissioner Sarnoff: Can you stop right there? Because I'm just curious where there's a
dispute that there's not historic building flanking it.
Mr. Fernandez: I'll tell you, I can -- I think I can explain that, Commissioner. And the reason is
that the Langford Hotel, which is the City National Bank Building, originally built in '26, flanks
the building to the east. That is a locally designated historic resource. However, both buildings
are in the National Historic District and both are historic. If you just look at them, you can get
an idea of the character of the building. There you see the building that Ms. Gralia's client
represents. The PZAB also deferred this matter on one occasion to allow the owners to meet with
interested parties, and the matter was fully vetted at the lower level. So the argument that this
wasn't considered properly, that there weren't adequate protections in place, I don't believable
that those are proper arguments at this point. We also have support from all of the other owners
in the area: Mr. Abe Frankel. I've distributed letters to you from Mr. Frankel, who owns the
property to the rear, as well as the Downtown Development Authority that reviewed the project
and recommended it, as well as the Downtown Partnership.
Commissioner Sarnoff: This slide you have up here, Mr. --
Mr. Fernandez: Yes.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- Fernandez, the proposed 36 tower under construction. Is that

Centro?
Mr. Fernandez: Yes, sir, that is Centro. And that is a project that obtained upper level setback
variances, very similar to what we're requesting today. And in that case, you didn't have the
same hardship that you have here. This is a 55-foot-wide lot in a T6-80 transect, which is your
most intense transect. What that means is that this property owner has the highest level of
entitlements that Miami 21 can grant to a property owner; yet, he's burdened with the fact that
the lot size is only 55 feet wide. Centro was able to, through their variance, achieve a density of
a thousand units per acre, which is the density that is permitted under this transect. Our project
is at less than half of that at approximately 430 units per acre. So the variances that we are
applying for are simply variances that are needed to reach a reasonable level of development on
this site. This is a great project, by the way. It is a project that will appeal to young people, a lot
of one bed-room, studio type, very New York-like setting; no parking; relies entirely on mass
transit, which allows it to have a very elegant design. With respect to the setbacks, what this
exhibit will show you is that the configuration of the abutting properties is such that they are
L-shaped so that the setback variance that we're requesting applies to the relief sought at the
narrowest point between the structures. But if you look at the majority of the building, the
majority of the length of the building, you'll find that the setbacks are actually about 12 feet
between buildings on both the east and the west, which is very reasonable for downtown
standards, where typically you have zero for the setbacks. This exhibit shows you that the height
that we are requesting, the height of the project is a hundred and -- I'm sorry. What you could do
by right as an eight-story building would be 123 feet tall, because Miami 21 counts a story as 14
EXB 302
feet. So if we were to build at 14-foot floor to ceiling, you would have a maximum height of 123
feet. By virtue of the variances, what we're doing is within practically the same building
envelope adding five stories, bringing down the height to approximately 10 feet, which is still a
nice floor-to-ceiling height, making the building more energy-efficient and more economical, but
still staying within relatively the same building envelope. The building envelope is 131 feet high
versus 123, almost a de minimis variance. This is what the massing would look like as an
eight-story project with a 25-foot floor-to-ceiling height at the ground level; also what Miami 21
allows. Again, this is the massing that we're proposing, almost the same, a little bit taller.
Actually, it looks a little bit more slender and elegant. The setbacks that we're providing from
the ground level are actually greater than what Miami 21 requires. Miami 21 would allow a zero
setback on both sides, which would mean that we could go directly up to the property line next to
Ms. Gralia's property. In fact, we're providing 4 feet, 4 inches from her client's property, and
we're providing 3 feet, 10 inches from the Langford. So at the very closest point, we're still
providing more of a setback than what the Code requires. With respect to the hardship
standards, again, I just want to briefly go over Article 7, Section 7.1.2.7, which are the relevant
standards, and I'll go through them quickly, but I have to because I suspect that this matter may
be further appealed. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land:
The lot, as I mentioned, is a legally platted 55-foot substandard, nonconforming lot, almost 50
percent narrower than the typical lot in T6-80, which 100 feet wide. The special conditions do
not result from the actions of the applicant. My client purchased this property the way that it was
platted. A literal interpretation of the provisions of Miami 21 would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties within the same transect. In fact, the Centro
property obtained a similar variance, and the Langford building, which is immediately to the
east, could not be developed today without similar variances, because that building is 12 feet
high -- I mean, 12 stories tall, so it would need the same variance to be developed. That
demonstrates that we're compatible with the area. The granting of the variance conveys the
same treatment to owners as owners of other lands and buildings or structures in the same
transect; obviously for the same reasons that I just stated it does. The variances -- the minimum
variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land; we believe again, based on the
proposed density, that this is a very reasonable project. The variance is in harmony with the
general intent and purpose of Miami 21 and is not injurious to the neighborhood. We believe
that it would not be injurious because the mass and scale is similar to other projects in the area ,
and we believe that the project complies with Article 4, Table 12, as is indicated by your
professional staff recommendation. And with that, I think I would like to say I'm here with
Reynaldo Borges, who's our project architect of Borges Architects. He can answer any questions
that you may have, and I'd like to leave the floor open in case you have any. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Gralia: Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond briefly to a couple of things. I'll be very
quick. It's important to note that in Article -- Section 7.1.2.7 that he read into the record, you
must comply with all the criteria set forth, and it is our belief that they have not complied with all
the criteria, in particular, that the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of
the land; an eight-story building makes possible the reasonable use of the land. Further, as far
as the statement again that this is a historic structure on the west side, it is a -- the property
surrounding this property, the area, has been designated in the National Register as a historic
area. This is not a contributing structure. It has not been designated, so I just want to just state
the record, make it clear what it is and --
Mr. Fernandez: I -- but --
Chair Gort: Excuse me. Let her finish.
EXB 303
Chair Gort: Then I'll give you time too, and then that's it. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Gralia: And I also want to say that there was a statement made that the architect is the
architect of record. I believe that that's not the case. The architect is -- the architect of record is
not here. I have no idea where he is. That's the architect that we met with. And we have had --
tried to discuss our issues and our concerns with the developer. We want this development to
take place, but I truly believe and my client truly believes that the way that this project has been
designed, the variances that have been granted is going to adversely affect his property. Thank
you.
Chair Gort: Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir, you have two minutes.
Mr. Fernandez: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I just had to correct the record. This is a contributing
property within the National Historic District. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) indicated on this map. It
shows that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Gort: You got to go on the mike. My understanding, you both are saying the same thing,
that a historical district, but the building itself is not declared historic, and so we understand
that.
Mr. Fernandez: Okay. And I do want to say that the application is reasonable. The FLR (Floor
Lot Ratio) that is permitted by right here is 24 times the net lot area. The FLR of this project is
7.65 times the net lot area; very reasonable. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Gort: Thank you. This is a public hearing. My understanding, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of

you -- you have a couple of people like to speak.
Jennifer Gonzlez: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Jennifer Gonzlez. I'm here on behalf
of Allen Fons, of Fons, Inc. Mr. Fons, unfortunately, couldn't be here today; he's out of town.
But I'm here just to state, as a matter of public record on his behalf that he is the architect who
developed the plans that this variance is based on, and there's currently a private dispute
between him and the property owner. As of right now, we've put the property owner on notice
that they're not entitled to rely on his plans, and if this private dispute is not resolved amongst
the parties, they may not have permission to ultimately use the plans, so just stating that as a
matter of record.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Who's next?
Grant Stearn: Hello. My name is Grant Stearn, 400 Northwest 26th Street. I'm a nearby
resident, and I'm just here to speak in favor of the project. I'm very pro transit-oriented
development; having a project that changes the building envelope modestly but maintains the
building envelope significantly, and more importantly, doing it honestly and applying for a
variance the proper way; it's the right way the go. I commend these people. They have a great
project, a great building, and I hope that you guys pass their variance. Have a nice day.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Who's next? Who's your other name? Who --
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): All good.
Chair Gort: Okay, close the public hearing.
Mr. Garcia: Sir, if I may, while the while the public hearing is perhaps open for one more
second. I did want to put a statement into the record and give everyone the ability to question me
about it, should they wish to do so. But I did want to point, because it has been a point of
EXB 304
contention, that finding number 5 of many in our staff analysis -- I' ll be more precise. Finding
number 5 of 11 in our staff analysis does point out that this site, the subject site is flanked -- and
I'm reading verbatim -- by two historic buildings. Adjacent to the east is the locally designated
13-story City National Bank Building built in 1925, and adjacent to the west is the historic 101
Southeast 1st Street Building built in 1920. It may be the case -- and it doesn't say so here, but
I'm happy to put it in the record -- that the 101 Southeast 1st Street Building built in 1920, while
not designated singularly, is a contributing structure within the historic neighborhood.
Chair Gort: Okay, thank you. All right, we'll now close the public hearings.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Ordinarily, I tend to believe that you get what you pay for when you buy
your building site based on 55 feet by whatever dimensions. And Francisco Garcia and I have a
pretty hefty standing argument over a site on the river where I believe a size 11 shoe is being put
into a size -- or size 11 foot is being put into a size 6 shoe, especially when it's by the river and
you start creating non-setbacks on what I think should be public areas. In this circumstance, and
based on the competent, substantial and overwhelming evidence, it appears to me that you have
somebody who, as of right, can go eight stories, but instead is doing something more consistent
with the neighborhood, creating an affordable -- more affordable housing opportunity, their
height variance being 8 foot de minimis in terms of the neighborhood; that this is something that,
as of right, they should be granted the variance; otherwise, we'd be offending 7.12 --
Ms. Mndez: One point two point seven.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- 1.2.7 of our Code, so I would move to deny the appeal.
Chair Gort: I'm sorry; I missed that.
Commissioner Sarnoff: It's a motion to deny the appeal.
Chair Gort: Okay, it's a motion to deny. Is there a second? It's been second. Any further
discussion? Being none, all in favor, state it by saying "aye."
Ms. Gralia: Thank you.
PZ. 10 RESOLUTION
13-01030iia
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING THE APPEAL BY GRANT STERN, PETER
EHRLICH, ROSI BARRIOS, SANDI MADGER, DAVID LE BATARD, YASMINE
GARATE, AND ANTHONY DAVIDE, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD, THEREBY GRANTING THE
CLASS II SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 12-0054, ISSUED BY THE
EXB 305
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 12, 2013, TO ALLOW

NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY
3055 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.

13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal- Mark Alvarez Presentation - Midtown Walmart Class II Special Permit.pdf
13-01030iia - CC 11-21-13 Submittal - Paul C. Savage - PowerPoint Presentation - Appeal of Class II Special Perm
13-01030iia-Submittal-Grant Stearn-Supplemental Brief of Respondent to 11th Circuit Court of Appeal.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Mandate from Circuit Court Appelate Division 11th Judicial Circuit.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Passages from the opinion of the Appellate Court Opinion at 4.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittals-Paul Savage-Passages from the opinion of the Appellate Court Opinion at 7, 8 and 9.pdf
13-01030iia-Submittal-Grant Stern-Audio Recording-Judges rule against Walmart in Midtown Miami.pdf
13-01030iia-Supporting Docs-SUB.pdf
13-01030iia-Analysis-SUB.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be

R-14-0440
Chair Gort: PZ.10.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Thank you, sir. I'm going to introduce briefly
item PZ.10, and then, very promptly, yield to the City Attorney's Office or, perhaps, I will do that.
I will simply note for the record that item PZ. 10 is related to -- and I'm not even going to use the
legal jargon, which I'll defer to my colleague, the City Attorney, on, but I will tell you that it's
pertaining to the Class II Special Permit appeal relating to a site at 3055 North Miami Avenue,
which may -- you may otherwise have heard of as the Walmart in Midtown. That said, I'll defer
quickly to the City Attorney's Office, but I would like to make a couple of additional comments
once she has completed her presentation. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Yes, ma'am.
Victoria Mndez (City Attorney): This matter is brought back before the City Commission on
EXB 306
appeal of a Class II Special Permit issued to Walmart Stores East. Previously, the Planning
director issued the permit. Petitioners Jacobs Pfeffer, et al., appealed to PZAB, the Planning,
Zoning & Appeals Board, which denied the appeal; and also appealed to this Commission, which
denied the appeal by resolution R-13-0471 on November 21, 2013. Pfeffer, et al., appealed to
the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, raising a number of arguments. The Circuit Court --
the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court ruled that the Planning director was not bound by the
recommendations of the NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office and the UDRB (Urban
Development Review Board). The written findings of the Commission were sufficient as a matter
of law. The project met the 65 percent pedestrian use frontage requirement. The project
complied with the liner uses requirement. The project was in compliance with the setback
requirements for parking facilities. And the project satisfied the building continuity
requirements. These rulings of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court are the law of the
case. They're outside the scope of this Commission's review today. The Commission can rely on
all the past evidence on the record regarding this item and use that as a part of their decision
here today, along with the law of the case as presented by the Appellate Division of the Circuit
Court. The only ruling against the project involved a number of loading berths. The permit
included more than three loading berths. The Court interpreted the Code Section 627.215 in the
appendices of Miami 21 to only allow three berths total, so not five, not four; only three. The
Court stated, Since the project provides for five berths and the Code requires three berths total,
this Court finds that the Commission's resolution finding the project complied with the
requirements under the Code is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. For the
above stated reason, we hereby quash the Commission's decision as set forth in Resolution
R-13-0471, file number 13-0103ii, and remand this cause for proceedings consistent therein.
Based on the ruling of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, the case is back now before
this Commission on the limited issue to consider the appeal as it relates to the number of loading
berths only, so the amount of loading berths. So the --
Chair Gort: They appeal it because they want to see the five instead of the three
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) by the judge?
Ms. Mndez: Well --
Chair Gort: Is that what they said; they want to see the five instead of three?
Ms. Mndez: -- not --
Chair Gort: Now, my understanding, the judge says not five but three, but they appealing the
judge decision, which means they want five bays?
Ms. Mndez: Well, the -- it's back here because the Court has said to bring it back, but more
importantly, I just want the -- this Commission to know that the de novo hearing -- so the hearing
from scratch that you're going to listen to is only supposed to be on whether there should be
three berths or not.
Chair Gort: Okay.
Ms. Mndez: Nothing more, nothing less. I'm sure that Mr. Savage is going to disagree with
that.
Chair Gort: I know. I (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the whole process (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes, sir,
you're recognized.
Paul Savage: Thank you very much. My name is Paul Savage, with law offices at 100 Almeria
--
EXB 307
Ms. Mndez: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Mr. Savage: Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Mndez: Thank you, Mr. Savage, but that was what I needed to say on the record, but the
Planning director still has to give his presentation before you start.
Chair Gort: Go ahead.
Ms. Mndez: Thank you. I apologize.
Mr. Garcia: I'll be very brief. No, but that's fine. I'll be very brief, and I appreciate the
opportunity to say this, and this goes directly to the question or comment that Commissioner
Gort made. I, as your Planning & Zoning director, have to tell you that I have found both the
logic and the order of the judges difficult to process because to me -- and again, this is my view
as a lay person, not an attorney -- it is somewhat counterintuitive. That said, I am under the
impression that we have been directed by the Court to correct an error that was made in the
Class II Special Permit, which my department issued and which I signed. So I understand my
choices to be very limited today as your Planning & Zoning director, and my choices are
basically only to bring back to you a project that has a total of three loading berths , because the
Court decided that total is to be interpreted as meaning no more than -- no less than three
loading berths, and this is in fact what the applicants, the original applicants have done. They
have presented to us and you will find in your packets, documents that show that where there
were once five loading berths, there are now three loading berths; and of course, because we
have to do our due diligence, we had to make sure that those three loading berths that the
documents show are functional, which is why you will see in some of the drawings there are
maneuvering diagrams. So there are three functional loading berths presently in this particular
establishment. By doing so, we believe that we have complied with the Court's order, and we
submit to you then that the revised set of documents and the analyses and findings that are
attached to those documents are worthy of your approval and corrective of a defect found by the
Courts. Thank you.
Chair Gort: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Mr. Savage: Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner, Chairman. My name is Paul
Savage. I have offices at 100 Almeria Avenue. I'm here on behalf of the numerous objectors who
are listed in both my appellate papers and also on the pre-existing appeals to the PZAB and the
Commission; all of which is a part of this record. I just want to jump right in. I have a very
serious other -- or distinct view, rather, of what the Appellate Court did. My arguments, as
briefed up for the PZAB, for this Commission, and again in front of the Appellate Court, was at
all times an argument about process. It was not merely an argument about three versus five
loading berths. The reason I was talking about those loading berths was because if you have a
variance, you have no business traveling under the process of a Class II Special Permit. A Class
II Special Permit is a special species that is purely administratively approved, and without
additional hearings and other proceedings that are required in a Major Use Special Permit
where a variance -- as a prime example, the last matter before you was a variance; people were
talking about hardship standards. It's another animal altogether. So what I was arguing in front
of all tribunals was that this has variances. It does not need to be -- it should not have been
treated as a Class II Special Permit. We were robbed of those procedural points of entry and
public hearings and all of those things that are there in a Major Use Special Permit and that are
not there in a Class II Special Permit. So the Court ultimately agreed with me; granted many of
the variances that I identified, and I had a long list. The Court said, Mr. Savage, you' re correct
in the law, but in the application of the law to the facts, we disagree with you; that was not a
variance. Let's go to the next one. All of the things that your City Attorney enumerated. No,
Mr. Savage, that's not a variance. But they got down to the loading berths and they said, Yes,
EXB 308
this -- the Code says three berths total. We construe Florida Statutes every day of our lives.
As judges, we can read what 'total' means. I have three children total. My cholesterol reading
is so much total. I know what total means. You don't get five without a variance; you get three.
Because there's a variance, and all I needed was one, and the Court said that my most
compelling argument is that the Class II Special Permit, improperly granted variance --
variances which are subject to a stricter standard of review, notice and public hearing process.
The Court goes on to say, In other words, petitioners allege that a variance from the Code
cancels the Class II Special Permit and requires that the application be resubmitted under other
applicable provisions governing variances. So I was right; there was a variance. It needed to
go to another process. And to come back down and read this as -- and pretend that it was only
about those loading berths and to slap a Band-Aid on it and say, Oh, we'll take out the berths,
I'm sorry, that is not bringing -- that is not -- those are not proceedings consistent with the
opinion of the Court. That's an oversimplified and facile reading of the opinion. For example,
the NET referral that happened in October 9, 2012 was with a variance and, thus, is invalid.
The NET referral of February 13, 2013 to the Wynwood Allapattah NET referral office, that's --
that had a variance. That was not supposed to be handled that way. The UDRB (Urban
Development Review Board) hearing of February 4, 2013; the UDRB hearing of February 20,
2013; the Class II itself, which was issued on August 12, 2013, all of that is void. We cannot
breathe life into this invalid permit. Moreover, only the director can issue Class IIs after certain
referrals are made; none of that has been made here. We basically had an argument all along
the way that this should be handled a different way. The City believed the other way. And the
Court has come down and ruled that, in fact, it should have been handled in a variance. If you
want to take out your variance, then resubmit a new Class II application and let the citizens have
a proper application before them and make the requisite referrals and the like. Essentially, your
honor -- I'm sorry -- essentially, ladies and gentlemen -- or gentlemen on the Commission, the
Court has ordered a retrial, if you will, and not just a little Band-Aid fix. This has always been a
procedural argument. It remains a procedural argument. To do it in this hasty way and not
require them to go back and make a proper application that doesn't have a variance and get all
of our procedures in order, I believe will not be in line with the mandate of the Court, which, by
the way, says that You are commanded that such further proceedings be had in such cause in
accordance with the opinion of this Court, attached hereto and incorporated as part of the
order. And I'm available for any questions that you may have.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. I believe at this level, you will be the petitioner?
Richard Lydecker: Yes.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Will you announce yourself for the record, please?
Mr. Lydecker: Richard Lydecker, Lydecker and Diaz, representing my client, Walmart. We're at
1221 Brickell Avenue.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Would you like to --
Mr. Lydecker: Sure.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) for the record?
Mr. Lydecker: Thank you. The petitioner or appellant is urging for more hearings in this case,
and that's -- I'll be honest, that's very remarkable, probably one of the remarkablest [sic] things
I've ever heard, because the Appellate Court has just ruled in this case. The Appellate Court
considered all of these issues. And I stood before you all about a year ago and I said, This is
the spaghetti defense where they throw up everything, and we had a great big hearing and we
addressed every issue along the way, right. It was in front of this Commission. The Commission
unanimously ruled in favor of Walmart that, yes, we met the design standards. It went up on
EXB 309
appeal. The Appellate Court considered all this [sic] issues and said that the City Commission,
this Commission, in its unanimous decision got it right; the process, 100 percent right; virtually
every decision in the case right. So the question as to whether or not we met the design standard
or every little thing they point at, the Appellate Court has ruled. Everybody got it right. Now,
they are the only people who think that something went wrong, right. They've argued the same
thing, this variance, this theory of theirs. They argued that at the UDRB; they ruled against
them. They argued that at the Planning & Zoning Appeals Board. The Planning, Zoning
Appeals Board, they all ruled against them. This Commission ruled against them. The Appellate
Court ruled against them. Everybody ruled against them but them. And the truth of the answer
is they just don't want a Walmart store there. They just want to oppose it. And there -- this
procedural stuff just becomes a pretext for that. Now, the Appellate Court -- let me back up. The
Appellate Court agreed with everything. In the remand order actually to the Commission, it
verbatimly [sic] states -- and he says it right there -- that You are hereby commanded to take
actions in accordance with this opinion. This opinion supported everything that this
Commission found, right. You can't go back and undo the decision that's already been made by
the Appellate Court. Now, the Appellate Court did make one distinction. It made a legal
distinction. It looked at the City's Code and it said, The City has interpreted this Code
provision to be a maximum versus a minimum of three versus five berths. Okay, so the legal
opinion from the Court that says now it's three. Okay, so I -- we got the opinion; we looked at it.
We went back. I pulled out my eraser and I looked at the plans. I said, all right, let's make it
three. Let's conform our plans to what the Appellate Court told us to do, because he just told us.
Everything's good, except for make it three berths. We said, All right, we'll make it three
berths. That's not a big deal actually. It actually works out better for us. So we conformed to
it and made it three berths. Notwithstanding, they want to have a debate and talk about
variances. After the Appellate Court's ruling, the discussion gets pretty simple. The discussion
becomes whether or not we want to have three loading berths or do we want to have three
loading berths? Or, on the other hand, should we have three loading berths? Because the
Appellate Court just ruled thou shalt have three loading berths. I asked my client. I said,
Client, how many loading berths do you want? They looked at me and they said, Well, I'll
have three loading berths. That's it. Nothing's changed in this case. We are asking about --
that the resolution be passed approving our Class II Permit. We have done all the hearings in
this case. That they -- we passed our Class II permit. And just -- and it's like any other
condition. You just add -- include the condition as part of the resolution that we comply with the
appellate order specifically requiring three loading berths. And to back that up, we've actually
provided plans, turnability [sic] plans; actually, back it up by representation. We will just have
three loading berths. So we would urge a simple resolution. We have done this for almost four
years. We really do, do a good job there. And I will say this to you on a personal note, and I'd
like to close with this: There was a dream called Midtown Miami. It was to take some of the
biggest blighted area in the City of Miami, hopelessly riddled with junk and crime, and convert it
into one of the most successful urban design, outdoor shopping and residential area. It's
beautiful. It's a success we can all be happy with. But that dream was only half completed. My
client is the other half of that dream. And we're asking for your support so that we can finish and
move everything forward. And I thank everybody for their time.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Mr. Lydecker and also --
Mr. Savage: Yes, sir. Paul Savage.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- Mr. Savage. No, I appreciate both of you all's argument moving
forward. And one of the things that I know that we're tasked with is a de novo review. And
considering the fact that we have a de novo review, in the opinion that was laid down by the
EXB 310
Appellate Court, it laid out reasons that it was in your favor, Mr. Lydecker, and reasons that it
was not in your favor, Mr. Lydecker; as well as, Mr. Savage, reasons that it was in your favor
and it was not in your favor. And so I just want to ensure that at this level, we at least hear some
fact that you want to put on the record to support your opinion , the opinion that -- of the
Appellate Court made so that when -- as we make our decisions here today, that our -- and how
do I put it? I want to read this -- and remand this cause -- proceedings consistent herein, we
want to make sure that we do everything right so that the decision we make today is one that will
stand once appealed.
Mr. Savage: May I have -- and I -- that's a great way to proceed, as long as I have a chance to
rebut.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Mr. Savage: If that's okay through the Chair.
Vice Chair Hardemon: You will have one opportunity --
Chair Gort: Through the Chair.
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- to rebut.
Mr. Savage: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lydecker: Here's what I would say as your -- we have had a full hearing, as --
Mr. Lydecker: -- I think you may recall. We did have very spirited debate. We chased down
every issue. We would rest on our record in this case, based upon prior hearings that we have
done.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And let me -- I'm sorry, and I'll interrupt for one moment. And I'm not
asking you to give me another hearing. That's not what I'm doing.
Mr. Lydecker: Okay.
Vice Chair Hardemon: But in the opinion, there were very specific statements that were made by
the Court that sustained your position.
Mr. Lydecker: Correct. And we would say -- then I will draw this Commission's attention to a
2012 case that I think actually pled very well, and it's a case involving Lucia Dougherty that
came up with the Appellate Court, and there are just two phrases that I would just read into the
record right now as well. Says, Under the law of the case doctrine, questions of law that
actually have been decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and in the trial
court through all subsequent proceedings. Second phrase, The City Commission's de novo
review -- this is when it came back from remand -- let me back up. This was a case where it
went up on appeal and it was remanded back for certain actions. The City Commission did an
additional action than what was the basis of the remand order. And this is what the Court said,
the Appellate Courts: The City's Commission -- is this City's Commission -- The City
Commission's de novo review deprived Dougherty of previously successful application without
any legal basis and allowed respondents an additional bite of the apple not contemplated under
the City's code -- that's this City -- or the appellate pronouncement in this case. And then I
would also draw the Commission's attention to the language of the actual remand order. The
Clerk went through the entire record; was brought up there and it was reargued. And they only
EXB 311
said on a legal basis, five equals three. So it was no -- it was a numeric question: five loading
berths versus three. We said, Fine, we'll take three. We'll comply to the law. And then on the
remand order, it specifically says, You are hereby commanded to take further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion. And the opinion provides expressly we're right every which way,
except five versus three. We confirm to -- we reformed it to three, and that's what's before you
right now. And my esteemed colleague has argued to you the same things that were argued
before and, in effect, request that you, this body, reverse the Appellate Court, 'cause that's what
he's asking. He's saying, I don't like the process. He's saying, We should not have done a
Class II Permit. Well, if he felt that way, he argued in front of the Appellate Court and the
Appellate Court disagreed with him. And he had another appellate opportunity, and that was to
take it to the Third DCA (District Court of Appeal). And you know what? They abandoned their
appeal. They abandoned it. If they felt that the process was wrong regarding a Class II Permit
or whether or not a variance was gone [sic] or something that was wrong with that appellate
decision, they should have taken the next appeal, but they chose to abandon it, and they come
back to this Commission and ask you to reverse the Appellate Court, and that, I would
respectfully suggest, is something that you just cannot do.
Commissioner Sarnoff: Mr. Chair.
Chair Gort: Yes.
Vice Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Sarnoff: So being the attorney -- I'm sorry. I wasn't the attorney. Being the
Commissioner that the Court was speaking about in Dougherty versus City of Miami, who then
put on and did not listen to the Court based on his previous ruling , and then I investigated what
the law of the case really means, and it's to avoid piecemeal litigation where the Appellate
Courts has [sic] made findings of facts. I think it's only one thing we have to do here, and they
have submitted a three-bay plan. The only evidence we need to hear today is: Can this building
operate with a three-bay plan? Once we hear that, based on a case called Bueno versus Bueno,
which is a Third DCA, 677 Southern Second Third matter, citing Supreme Court decisions of
Jacobson versus Humana, we don't have choices here. And having met my brethren Third DCA
judges and having been told by them Do you not understand what 'proceedings consistent
herein' mean, Mr. Sarnoff? And I'm speaking to you as Commissioner Sarnoff. And I said, I
understand, judge. When you tell us to come back and do something, we do what you tell us to
do. So I think the only thing we have to hear, Mr. Chair, is does this building operate?
Vice Chair Hardemon: But -- and I want to very clear for the members that sit on this
Commission, the board. There are facts, though, that we need to hear in reference to what you're
stating. So what I'm saying is that we need to be careful as the Commissioners that we receive
those facts before we make a decision. If we make a decision without having those facts, then
there was no de novo review.
Mr. Lydecker: I would suggest, respectfully, that we have submit drawn plans showing the
operational and maneuverability of how trucks would work within the loading bay area and --
Commissioner Sarnoff: And -- but what I think we need to hear is the Planning director saying
--
Mr. Lydecker: Right.
Commissioner Sarnoff: -- this building operate satisfactorily.
Ms. Mndez: Which he said that at the beginning when he gave his --
EXB 312
Commissioner Sarnoff: I didn't hear; I'm sorry.
Ms. Mndez: -- presentation, but we can --
Commissioner Sarnoff: I apologize.
Ms. Mndez: -- just clear for the record, Mr. Garcia, can you please explain for the
Commissioners, so there's no doubt, the viability of three berths with this project at this point?
Mr. Garcia: Thank you. Yes. And I would like to phrase it in the following fashion: Your
Planning & Zoning Department has submitted -- and it is on the record -- a document called
File Number 12-0054, Analysis for Modifications to Loading Berths for Class II Special
Permit. Within this document, which I signed myself, dated the 15th of November of 2014,
there are findings and comments, specifically seven findings, and our recommendation -- and I'll
simply put that in there for the record -- and our findings, to summarize, are as follows: The
modifications made to the plans render the three remaining loading berths fully functional .
There are maneuvering studies that prove that. In addition to that, we find that the three loading
berths, as provided, comply with what we understand is to be the -- what we understand to be the
Court's mandate to interpret the Code to mean that, at most and at least, three loading berths
shall be provided. So we are here to verify that three loading berths fully complying with the
appropriate sizes and dimensions provided by the Zoning Ordinance have indeed been provided ;
plans attached to show that that is the case. And lastly, as the Commissioner requires and we
have pointed out, this particular establishment will function just fine. It will function properly
with the three loading berths provided. I'm happy to answer any additional questions.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well, why wouldn't -- with that statement being made, Mr. Savage, I want
to give you an opportunity to differ in opinion as to the facts that have just been put on the
record for your client's sake.
Mr. Savage: Well, yeah, I have a -- absolutely, I'll put on the record. I think that the proceeding
is improper. The court is clear that there was, in fact, a variance; that the proceeding was
wrong. The proceeding was wrong. We went through County Court, if you will, instead of going
through Circuit Court. The judges ruled that we should have been in another proceeding, and
they need to resubmit their application. But to answer your question, even though I disagree
with the whole procedure, I will answer your question and say, if you're having a de novo
hearing on -- and by the way, this thing is framed up by your existing resolution as We're going
back in time and hearing Mr. Savage's appeal from PZAB. That's what this resolution says
right now. And I'm standing on the -- I'm very comfortably, by the way, standing on the written
opinion of three Appellate Court judges, and I happen to know a little bit -- a little something.
Maybe I can't do a floor area ratio calculation very well, but I did clerk at the Third District
Court of Appeal in the beginning of my career; I've drafted language that now resides in the
Florida Statutes, and I know something about what an Appellate Court is saying. This Court set
out my argument as my -- as the most compelling argument. The part that's missing, I will grant
you, are the seven reasons or more that they rejected all the variances that I said. I -- and I'm
not re-arguing that. But what it says at the end is Mr. Savage, you did; you found one. It's in
here. You're right, there should have been another process, but okay, so I'll go down the rabbit
hole with you and I'll said that this is what we're doing and you're having a de novo hearing.
Well, a de novo hearing of that appeal was, I was at that time complaining that the PZAB got it
wrong because they didn't find a variance. Well, guess what? I'm standing on an Appellate
Court opinion that said, You know what? There was a variance. So you're still going to deny
my appeal? I was right; there was a variance. I mean, I'm very comfortable taking this record,
and I'm very comfortable having that decision about did -- having that discussion with the Court
about Did you follow our mandate? And you want to make jokes. You think it's funny? Yeah,
okay, fine, we can make jokes. I mean, this is just -- you lost, okay. You lost this case. Now, we
want to, you know, act like Taylor Swift and shake it off, and move on, and stop on a Band-Aid
EXB 313
and keep on trucking like it didn't really happen, okay, I know their address. I know where to
take it.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Commissioner Suarez.
Mr. Lydecker: Mr. Vice Chairman, I also have my client here who might -- who would be willing
to testify very briefly, if that's helpful.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay, I want to recognize Commissioner Suarez before we move there.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. That's the first Taylor Swift reference that I've been privy to
since I've been here as a Commissioner, so kudos to you for that one. I have a question in terms
of amplifying the record a little bit. I just asked you a question privately and I want to ask it
publicly, which is they've reclassified the five berths as three berths with a staging area. Is that
correct?
Mr. Garcia: Yes, sir. As a result of deleting the other loading berths -- and I'm going to clarify
that I am calling them loading berths because the Court called them loading berths -- that, in my
previous mind, was debatable. I will no longer debate that. The Court said there were five --
Commissioner Suarez: You shouldn't debate that.
Mr. Garcia: I understand. I understand, but should the issue ever come up, I just want to note
for the record that the one on the upper story perhaps should not have classified as loading
berth. We had approved the project with four loading berths. That said, five loading berths have
been turned into three. And you are correct, Commissioner, as the plans show where there were
previously five loading berths, there are now three, and the result of that is that there will now be
three properly dimensioned, properly striped areas. And I'll now use the loading berth definition
provided by the Appendix C of Miami 21, which refers back for full clarity to Zoning
Ordinance 11000, as appropriate, to indicate that loading berths in this context means that
these are the sole spaces where trucks or other delivery vehicles may station themselves so as to
load and unload merchandise. Because the number of loading berths is now three, the area that
was previously set aside for the other two loading berths now function as additional space for
staging areas to be used as appropriate, not for loading.
Commissioner Suarez: And in your opinion, that's in conformity with our Code, and with Miami
21 and that's an acceptable -- and that's welled off. That's not -- there's no viewing of that?
There -- it's not viewed by the public, et cetera.
Mr. Garcia: These three loading berths are fully contained within the building, fully shielded
from view and protected by either walls or a gate, yes.
Commissioner Suarez: And the other question I asked you was whether or not they had
submitted a traffic management plan and you told me that they had.
Mr. Garcia: The original Class II Special Permit application addressed those issues
satisfactorily, and they were reviewed by the CITP (Capital Improvements & Transportation)
Department, as well as the Planning & Zoning Department, as well as the Public Works
Department. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. I -- I think it was important to amplify the record on those issues,
because when you delete three berths -- or five berths and you make it three berths, the natural
question is, well, what happened to the remaining area? So I think it's important for the
Planning director to specify that and put that on the record very clearly. I want to make some --
a generic statement about this, but I'm not so sure that I should. You know, I never fully -- and I
EXB 314
am the Midtown chair so I suppose I should somewhat opine on this. You know, Midtown has a
great vibe, and it was created in a way that is a mishmash of a lot of eclectic things, whether it's
restaurants, whether it's housing, and it's kind of a mixture of the big-box concept with also very
cool and innovative restaurants, and unfortunately, it seems to clash right in that point, you
know, and I think that's what really led people to question whether Walmart was the best
property for that or the best use. Unfortunately, in a democracy, in a capitalistic democracy,
you don't necessarily always get to choose what -- whether it would be a Best Buy or whether it
will be some other sort of big-box store. One thing that I think is important is that it is lined
along Northeast 1st Avenue with what will ultimately be, hopefully, a use that is much more
consistent with the kind of cool vibe that we have along Northeast 1st Avenue, and I think that's
something that, if you're an opponent of this, that will be hopefully something that would placate
you a little bit and would make your feel more comfortable with the proposed development, and
that's something that I'm sure was hard negotiated and hard fought through the competing
elements that were at war, and there were many for a long period of time, 'cause this has taken a
long time to get to this point. Again, this could be a Best Buy. This could be anything else. I'm
not so sure why Walmart specifically is so offensive to some people. It does serve a lot of poor
people in our community and that, to me, is something that, you know -- just like any general
store, any large commercial general store, you know, we can't -- Midtown cannot be just for one
class of person, I think, and sorry for making all these kind of generic statements that really have
nothing to do with the court case at issue. But I wasn't hear the first time that this was heard, so
I kind of -- was kind of on my mind and kind of wanted to express my thoughts on that.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you, Commissioner. And one thing -- I want to assure Mr. Savage
that his arguments are not going on deaf ears.
Mr. Lydecker: Yeah.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I read what you've highlighted and it says, Finally, the most compelling
argument -- and it is an argument -- of the petitioners is that the Class II Special Permit is
improperly granted variances -- so what you've argued that it was not a permit but a variance
-- says, which are subject to a stricter standard of review and notice in public hearing
process. In other words, the petitioners allege that a variance from the Code cancels the
Special II Permit and requires the application to be resubmitted under other applicable
provisions governing variances. Now, it properly says that that is an argument. It does not say
in the next sentence that you are correct in your argument, but it does say that In contrast, the
respondents argue that they presented competent substantial evidence establishing the project's
compliance with the requirements under the Code. And I read that because the statements that
you skipped in between your presentation are important, because in that paragraph that we just
read, it does not say that the application needs to be resubmitted. What it does go on to the next
paragraph and it says, The test is whether there exists any competent substantial evidence to
support the decision-maker's conclusion. The decision-maker would be the City Commission at
the -- sitting in this capacity. And then it says, Evidence supporting a contrary decision is
relevant. So it's not considering whether or not there's some contrary evidence there, but
whether or not there is competent substantial evidence to support the decision-maker. And so
then it goes on to the facts that were laid out, and it said, in fact -- in one of the -- in -- one of
the paragraphs, it reads, In fact, she -- referring to Ms. Ana Gelabert -- testified that the
project exceeded this requirement. And so, in that statement, it was giving substantial --
competent substantial evidence in support of the decision-maker's decision. In the next
paragraph it goes on to -- Ms. Gelabert's testimony appears sufficient to uphold the
Commission's findings on the requirements for active pedestrian usage frontage and linear uses
were met. So there again, it fits the -- it meets the test that was stated earlier. And then it goes
on and says that the -- Consequently, Ms. Gelabert's testimony finding that the setback
requirements were met because the parking spaces were set back 85 feet is sufficient to establish
bases of fact from which the Commission can conclude that Walmart's project comply with this
requirement. So your argument where you say that it is a variance and not a special permit -- I
EXB 315
want to make sure I use the correct words. I believe I was right. That it's a variance and not a
special permit -- in the way that the Court ruled was -- well, they didn't -- I want say they
commented on your testimony, but they moreover commented on the -- at that level, the
respondent -- and let me finish.
Mr. Salvage: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Because it was saying that everything that was put on the record at that
time met the test, but then it goes into nevertheless, and this is the part where you've hung
your hat. The off-street loading requirement shall be as follows, and it goes into the berth, the
three berths total. At the hearing, Ms. Gelabert testified that this provision has always been
interpreted as the minimum amount. So she's saying that this is the minimum amount.
Consequently, she testified that the project provides for five loading berths, which is in
compliance with the request -- so she's making an argument here, but the case law was very
clear and the Court ruled as you stated, that when the statute or rule is unambiguous and
conveys a clear and ordinary meaning, there is no need to resort to other rules of statutory
construction. So in the past arguments, from the way that I see -- and I would like my
Commissioners to consider -- in the past arguments, it's saying we defer to the Commission,
and there were facts that were provided that were sufficient to meet the test. In this case, they're
saying they don't defer to the Commission; they defer to the unambiguous clear meaning of the
statute. And the Court was, as it usually is, smart enough to say, The plain meaning of the
word 'total' would not permit it to be read as minimal. You gave examples as far as children.
They gave -- they say that the Court, meaning -- says, The project provides for five berths and
the Code requires three berths total. This finds that the Commission's resolution finding that the
project complied with the requirements under the Code is a departure from the essential
requirements of the law. So you're saying the essential requirements of the law. Now, it doesn't
then say because they departed from the essential requirements of the law that the application
must be resubmitted as if it was a -- to be resubmitted as a variance. It does not say that. What
it goes on to say is that For the above-stated reasons, we have quashed the Commission's
decision as set forth by resolution and remand this cause for proceedings consistent herein .
Had the court, to me, in my reading of this said -- after they said the City departed from the
essential requirements of the law, if it then said that the applicant at the time must then resubmit
their application in accordance -- just the same way as they mentioned the re-- the resubmittance
[sic] of the application in your argument. Had it said that, I would think that then there would
need to be some -- resubmittance [sic] of the application and that portion has to be reconsidered.
I don't see that. What I see from when I read this is that the -- everything was -- the process was
correct. It's just that in the last consideration where you're talking about berths, that the City
varied from the plain reading of the word total and incorrectly allowed five when it should
have been three as a special class permit would allow, so here we are now deciding whether or
not three fits within the special class permit, because that's the stage that we're back in now;
we're deciding about the special class permits. And a special class permit in the language that
we presented before us now requires three, and I've heard sufficient evidence from the -- from
staff and from the applicant that three is what they've been provided. Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me bring it down to laymen's terms,
and as you know, I'm not an attorney, but I just want to put it in laymen's terms. It seems to me
that the Court has dictated that, yes, there was a variance; that the variance is that there was five
instead of three. So if -- fix it and then you have no variance; therefore, then you're allowed a
Special Class II Permit to consist. The reason why it may not be allowed is because we did file a
variance. The variance was you did five total instead of three. Fix it. So you fix it. You -- we do
three variance -- I'm sorry, three loading berths, then you have no variance; therefore, it's
allowed, because the rest of the process was correct. That's the way I'm reading it or the way I'm
understanding it.
EXB 316
Vice Chair Hardemon: And now -- and from what --
Commissioner Carollo: And I --
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Gort --
Commissioner Carollo: -- I'm putting it in laymen's terms.
Vice Chair Hardemon: No, and I think, in laymen's terms, that was very well stated.
Ms. Mndez: Very articulate --
Chair Gort: Very well.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Yeah, yeah.
Ms. Mndez: -- laymen's terms.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well stated.
Ms. Mndez: Thank you.
Vice Chair Hardemon: The lawyers, though, we don't typically do that, right? We do it for the
record, right? But I would say that --
Commissioner Sarnoff: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) because I got to tell you, if you're a little lower
than me, I may just hire you.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Now, had the applicant come to us today and said, well, they wanted five
and not three, then they would be requesting a variance.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And then that application --
Commissioner Carollo: It would (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- process would be --
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- different, and I don't see that happening today. I mean, that's the way
that I read it.
Mr. Lydecker: You've described it better than I could, and I wholeheartedly agree. I would -- if I
could just say one quick word --
Vice Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Mr. Lydecker: -- Mr. Vice Chair?
Vice Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Mr. Lydecker: Is -- and in that process, we're not moving one light switch. We're not moving a
wall. We are not move a thing. Not one paint swatch. Everything stays the same; just going to
EXB 317
have three, period.
Commissioner Sarnoff: All right.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I'm willing to entertain a motion of the Commission.
Commissioner Sarnoff: I'll take a shot, Mr. Chair, if you'd like.
Ms. Mndez: Well --
Commissioner Sarnoff: I would move --
Ms. Mndez: Are we --
Vice Chair Hardemon: I apologize.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) public --
Vice Chair Hardemon: I did not have the public hearing.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I need at this time the recon -- to open the floor for public hearing, and I
will recognize those who are going to be called by the City Clerk.
Mr. Savage: And Mr. Chairman, can I just say one thing, and I just want to thank you for going
through the opinion. I do appreciate the extra time that you took. I respectfully do disagree with
the reading. I do think that the process is, in fact, different and should have been different and
should start from scratch. But I do want to thank you for reading the opinion as carefully as you
did. And so with that, I will conclude my remarks. Thank you.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): The first speaker is Peter Ehrlich.
Peter Ehrlich: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Peter Ehrlich. My address, 720
Northeast 69th Street. This appeal has already been heard and the Commissioners voted 3-0 to
deny the appeal. The City Attorney stated the -- plaintiffs that were bringing this appeal today.
She mentioned the plaintiff that contradicts the plaintiffs that were mentioned in your item on
PZ.10. On PZ.10, the appellants are listed as Grant Stern, Peter Ehrlich, Rosi Barrios. Your
City Attorney said the appellant today was somebody named Jacob Pfeiffer [sic]. Jacob Pfeiffer
[sic], who will be speaking later today, he's one of the appellants that -- or one of the plaintiffs
in the court case that you have a copy of, so there's a difference in the -- the plaintiffs in the court
case are slightly different than the appellants, and that's a contradiction that the City Attorney
might not have been aware of. I would just like to say that we hope you will -- even though we
didn't ask for this appeal to be heard today, and we weren't notified that it was going to be
heard; we just -- we saw it on the agenda. Without any heads up whether we'd be in town and
able to show up today, we hope you'll affirm the appeal. And if you do, we think it'll lead to a
better project. You know, many times in the past you've denied projects and asked for projects to
come back with changes. We think that if it happens in this case, you will see a better project.
For a handful -- for six or eight different reasons, the project can come back far better for the
City, far better for the neighbors in the Midtown Miami area. And there's a few other people
that'll be talking today. On one quick point -- I don't know how many of you remember JCPenny
that submitted an application for this site a number of years ago, but their application was for a
store of a little over 100,000 square feet; this Walmart Store is over 200,000 square feet.
EXB 318
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate your time.
Mr. Ehrlich: Thank you very much.

Vice Chair Hardemon: And Madam City Attorney, if you want to clarify for the record the
differences between the respondents and petitioners --
Ms. Mndez: The --
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- on each level.
Ms. Mndez: Right. The information that I stated at the beginning was the court process and
how it went through the process, and when it went to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court.
Here today, because it was remanded back here before the Commission, it's remanded in the
same process that it came up through this -- to the City Commission originally and those
appellants at that point. So that is the distinction, which really does not make a difference, but I
just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Hannon: Jacob Pfeffer.
Jacobs Pfeffer: Good evening. Jacob Pfeffer, 401 Biscayne Boulevard. I was actually the lead
plaintiff in the court case, as we've corrected on the record now. It's been three years since we
started this process. In that time, Commissioner Suarez, I think you've had your first child; so
have I.
Commissioner Suarez: Congrats.
Mr. Pfeffer: Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff, you've grayed your hair a little bit; we have a
new Commissioner, so this process has been long, but there's a reason it's been long: Because
we're trying to get it right. And I'd like to correct something that was stated by the Planning
director, or at least clarify. You stated earlier that a traffic study was submitted as part of this
Class II Special Permit application. We've been asking for that for years, and it's never been
shown to us. As far as we know, that has not been completed. And when you ask, Why do we
oppose a Walmart? it's the scope of the store that we oppose, not the brand that's on the wall,
on the faade. This store and trade area that it pulls from will create a significant traffic impact
into the area that is a pedestrian area on a bike-friendly area and in a connecting area from
Design District to Wynwood. Furthermore, that Miami Avenue traffic is already horrendous, and
bringing in all the traffic from Miami Beach will only exacerbate the problem.
Commissioner Suarez: Can we get a copy of that at some point? Because I think it's a fair
request. I mean, if it exists, you know, it will be -- it's a fair request, if it's part of the public
record.
Mr. Pfeffer: Well, I think that will be irrelevant also for this process. Furthermore, today we
haven't actually been shown -- and I don't know if you've seen it on the record yet. We just found
it today on the website, even though it was only submitted five days ago on a Saturday, but the
revised plans. And when they've taken these five berths and made them three -- I'm not sure if
you've seen this yet, and I would love for it to be placed on the screen, if possible -- all they did
was with a red pen mark it off and then call it a staging area. When I was a kid, I got an "F"on a
test once on a red pen, and all I did was take a red pen and drop a little line down, and all of a
sudden, that became an A, and that's what they've done here. They've taken an F and tried
to turn it into an A, but ultimately, it's still an F, because where will the enforcement be to
make sure that those berths -- those staging areas won't still be used as berths; that when trucks
EXB 319
are stopped there and when the truck driver has a deadline, that they're not going to use their lift
gate to bring merchandise down and load it in? So the fact that you can just all of a sudden
change the vernacular and call it a staging area doesn't mean that it ultimately can't still be used
as a loading berth. Finally -- and forgive me if I'm running out of time, but I would appreciate a
little bit of leeway on this -- on October 22 of 2006, in the Coconut Grove Grapevine, a
community newsletter, a letter to the neighborhood was written where, Commissioner Sarnoff,
you wrote there: There's still work to be done. But all of you out there, please take stock that
Home Depot failed to follow the law. Why? These reasons could be anyone's guess. And you
went on to say, When they began to retrofit, the City failed to make them follow the law. A
judge will easily find they failed to follow the law and they will lose their permit. These
circumstances are exactly the same: They have not followed the law. They should have gone
through a Master [sic] Use Special Permit; judges have agreed with them, and unfortunately, we
are wasting City resources with this hearing, because ultimately, we're going to take it back to
the court again and have them illuminate what their decision was.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Pfeffer: Thank you for your time.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: Can you -- I --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez, you're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I just -- because I think I asked a question, and I want to make
sure that he answered it, but he asked it again, and he asked it in a slightly different way so I
want to make sure you answer it again, which has to do with the difference between a loading
berth and a staging area. Can you describe why it is not simply, you know, just as he described,
changing the letter from an F to an A? Can you describe why that is a difference that is
significant versus something that is not?
Mr. Garcia: I'm happy to do so, sir. And should I forget, which I don't expect to, please remind
me to go back to the traffic study --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Mr. Garcia: -- question, which is also relevant. So I think the best way I can hopefully put this
issue to rest regarding what is a loading berth and what isn't a loading berth is to be very factual
and to read into the record the definitions, which I alluded to previously, although I
paraphrased; put into the record verbatim the definitions for loading berths provided by Zoning
Ordinance 11000, which, in this case, applies since this is in Appendix C of Miami 21. This
makes sense for the record, and I know a number of people are following me, but these are the
rules that apply, suffice it to say. There are four terms involved: First, I will read the definition
for berth. It says, See stall/berth or loading facility, offstreet or loading space, offstreet.
Period. Then that refers us to loading facility, offstreet. I'll read the definition for that. A
building, structure, and area used in the operation of terminal facility. See also 'loading space,
offstreet, and berth/stall.' Not very helpful; I'll read on. Loading space, off street. An area in
which goods and products are moved on or off a vehicle, including the stall or berth and the
apron or maneuvering room incidental thereto; a little more helpful. Lastly, stall/berth
defined as The space within which vehicles are placed during actual loading or unloading
operations. It is this last definition that I think is most helpful. It is certainly, at least, to me as
the ultimate signer of the document, and I think is the one that's most easy to explain. In the end,
Commissioners, the plans that are submitted to receive approvals of Class II Special Permits are,
yes, in fact, lines on a piece of paper. That is what they are. Those lines on those pieces of
EXB 320
paper have meaning, and when we approve a set of plans, lines on paper, and we stamp and sign
our names on it, that's what we mean to approve. In this case, the appropriate method to correct
the defect that the Court found when it found that there were five loading berths and there should
have been three, the correct way to address that is to, in fact, strike out, delete, erase, otherwise
remove, the two excess loading berths that the Court found defective and replace those with
other uses that are not loading berths. We thought and we recommended to the applicant, and
we find in full compliance that to have staging areas to support the loading and unloading of
wares from these trucks that will be parked on these three spaces that that, in and of itself, would
be helpful, and therefore, we have approved it. The corrections are satisfactory, and we think
that it is not going to have any impact whatsoever in the proper functionality of the store as
proposed and as submitted to you in the plans on the record. I'm happy to add to that, if
someone wants to ask additional questions. Other than that, I will say as pertains to traffic
impact studies, operational studies, et cetera, and I'll be a little clearer than I was perhaps the
last time for everyone's sake. The Class II Special Permit process is a very intensive review
process. Someone else -- some other speaker alluded to the fact that it took two years in this
particular case. It certainly took two years and many meetings. And so, as part of that process,
we referred -- this is on the record -- to many departments, many agencies, but in particular, we
referred to the Capital Improvements Program, which has the Transportation Office within it, to
the Public Works Department, and part of their review of the plans submitted precisely delves
into how this store is going to function or the particular building is going to function , and they
gave us recommendations as to whether it is in compliance or not. It is that kind of study, it is
that kind of review, intensive as it is, that I am referring to when I say that, Yes, it has been
vetted, it has been reviewed, and it has found to be in compliance. Those reviews were done
certainly with the experts that the applicant brought to explain whatever issues were attendant to
the application, and they were discussed in many public meetings and public hearings, and
again, we have found those and make reference to those in finding the plans that have been
proposed satisfactory and worthy of approval.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Grant Stearn: Thank you, Chair. My name is Grant Stearn.
Vice Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, Mr. Stearn.
Mr. Stearn. Thank you. I've got some handouts for everybody, so if you'll indulge me for a
second. What you're receiving is two packets. One packet contains Walmart's 11-page legal
brief arguing why the five berths depicted in the prior design that Walmart admits has not
changed even one iota were five berths. Now they're simply drawing some red lines on a piece of
paper and claiming that these five berths are now three, and I posit to you, sirs, if it walks like a
duck and it quacks like a duck, it is, in fact, a duck. Now, there's a second packet that you're
going to receive in a moment that contains some information that you may turn a stone ear to
considering that you believe this may not be a de novo review, but it contains evidence of one
major variance and one probable variance as well. To return to my opponent's words, he clearly
said to you just a few minutes ago that the UDRB found unanimously against us. Well, that's a
complete mischaracterization of the truth. They found unanimously against Walmart. They
named only two conditions, but they named many things in their oral arguments that were not
named in the resolution, and had they been named in the resolution would have been already
resolved. Now, it is true, the Court found in favor of us. And one thing that nobody has
mentioned tonight is that the Court awarded us quashal. Quashal is the highest remedy. And I
would like to play 30 seconds of the oral argument where the judges and counsel, Paul Savage,
discuss What does quashal mean? because this is key. Quash and remand for proceedings
consisting herein, let's listen to the proceedings. This is 30 seconds.
Note for the Record: At this time, an audio-visual presentation is made.
EXB 321
Mr. Stearn: So the judges believed when we asked for quashal that we were asking to nullify the
permit and send them into the variance procedure forthwith if they wished to continue. If they
wish to withdraw their special application after the final decision that was issued last August ,
they're also welcomed to do so. And Article, I believe, 1311 would apply and a 12-month waiting
period, for a substantially similar application does exist. So you can understand why they' re
trying to force this through the wrong way. This is a miscarriage. This permit has been nullified
by the court system. To hear it today without the proper referrals, without going to the PZAB, it's
not right. And the documents that I gave you, that I know you may turn a stone ear to, show that
there is a very important requirement central to Midtown Miami's functioning as a
pedestrian-friendly area. It's a lot of pages, but it's not a lot of information, and I apologize for
not bringing the monitor so I can show it on the television. But it's called -- it just says, Corner
entrance on open space interpretation guide, and what it says is, All ground-level space
intended -- designed for pedestrian-oriented uses shall have external entrances directly
accessible from public sidewalk space. At least one external entrance shall be located along the
frontage of the primary street or on the corner intersection of the primary street and any other
street or -- and this is the important part -- the frontage of public open space. Well, there is
a track on the west side of this property that is a six-foot-wide private park owned by the CDD
(Community Development District) that -- Mr. Suarez, you chair the CDD as well? No, just the
CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency). But the Community Development District, declared
under Chapter 190 of Florida Law and ratified by the Miami-Dade County, owns the six feet
west of the Walmart application. Their garage entrance should be a store entrance. It says very
clearly, it should be glass. If you look at every other corner that meets the criteria in this packet,
they are all store entrances, even if there's no road.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much for your time. I really do appreciate it. Your time
has expired.
Mr. Stearn: Thank you very much, Mr. Hardemon.
Vice Chair Hardemon: You're very welcome. And I do have a question for -- and Madam City
Attorney can answer it; counsel, Mr. Lydecker, or even Mr. Savage, if you have any response,
that'll be great. The argument that the speaker just before just elevated was basically the fact
that where we are now, the quashing -- and I believe you made this argument -- the quashing of
it makes it that a new application for even the special permit needs to be put before this body, at
least be heard by PZAB, et cetera, et cetera. Now -- so my question specifically is do you have
any case law that indicates that any time something is quashed, if a special use permit -- or a
special permit is quashed by -- let's say the Third DCA -- if that decision is quashed, that they
must go back then through a full process? Do you have any case law that states that?
Mr. Savage: Well, the case law -- I only -- well, there are rules of appellate procedure and many
cases that say that you must follow the mandate of the Appellate Court.
Vice Chair Hardemon: I don't -- I understand that argument.
Mr. Savage: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Vice Chair Hardemon: You made -- because you made that argument earlier. But specifically, if
-- I want to know -- and I believe that, Commissioner Sarnoff, you understand where I'm going
with this. If there's any case law that exists that says that any time in this situation, with these
types of facts, that there is a quashal -- that it's been quashed -- that there must be now a new
application that goes in that means that we need to make a decision on or whether or not we' re
just -- as is stated in the opinion of the Third DCA, that we remand this cause for proceedings
consistent therein? Because that word proceedings is -- I believe that becomes the phrase that
we're now concerned about, proceedings. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) just matter -- are we saying that
it is this proceeding where we're considering everything de novo, or is it proceedings as far as a
EXB 322
new application being submitted for this special permit?
Mr. Lydecker: For me?
Mr. Lydecker: Thank you. Is -- there's been no -- we've done a lot of research. There's no such
case law that we've seen. And it's one of those areas where I think you look at and you'd said,
Well, there's probably no case law on that because it just doesn't make sense. Think about it.
We are to do proceedings consistent with the opinion. The opinion just went on for 10, 12 pages
saying that we did everything right, so you're going to send us back to the UDRB to decide what?
Either it's waived or it's already been decided by the Appellate Court, been decided by
Commission; in which case, you're asking a committee to overrule the Appellant Court.
Ms. Mndez: And if I may just briefly? And I think this will resolve most questions, and we can
just hone in on the three issue, three-berths issue. For the above stated reason, we hereby
quash the Commission's decision as set forth in resolution R-13. It doesn't say quash
everybody's decision. It doesn't say all decisions. It doesn't say start all over. And more
so, we are already having a de novo hearing today on the one issue that they disagreed with . So
we're really beating a dead horse today.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well, thank you very much, Madam City Attorney. I think what you just
stated, in addition with having no case law that will go towards Mr. Savage's point, I'm satisfied
with the response. So what I'd like to do is continue the public hearing. You still -- oh. So
there's no further persons that would like to speak on the record for public hearing ? You're
recognized, ma'am.
Renita Holmes: Madam Holmes, for the public. And I've watched this, even beginning with you
-- Commissioner Suarez not here when $33 million was spent that was supposed to be spent on
another side of town to do economic opportunity for a community, so I can understand starting
all over again and then losing. But as I read, according to proceedings -- and you asked the
question -- asked, answered -- if this has been quashed, and anything else was quashed, and any
other applicant decided that they wanted to modify, or remand or change anything on this local
level or where it's been given you back the authority to decide what is fair or what is reasonable
and to reconsider data according to the -- by fine Administrator for the City; anyone else,
whether it be JC Penny, me, or your momma, they got to reapply. And when I look at a Walmart
over here in a area that's doing very well in my community from a personal note, and I see one
over here that's adjacent to a residential community that has issues with traffic impacts, that
talks about environmental, which I hardly get an answer for, even in my previous inquiry, Mr.
Chair, then I think we have to reconsider some -- what is it to not give information now to the
community because some what ifs and some partial things have been said here that I'm not
clarified as the public -- and it was the Administrator that stated that it is a public process, and
in all fairness, which is what law here -- a rule here -- all fairness is to make sure that everyone
within the Commission's charge receives rightful information, equal opportunity, and to hear the
modifications and the impact reports. I leave you with that. What does it harm? We've invested
ourselves to argue to stay in place because it's an economic opportunity, but in regards to what
the community and you represent, I have not heard all of the true answers about the berth, the
frontage, the west, the east, and I have not been given a opportunity to say that I want this to set
precedence as the way when people say one thing and it turns out that it's not so clear that when
they come back and clarify it without giving it to the public --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Madam --
Ms. Holmes: -- that I'm being represented. And thank you so much, sir.
EXB 323
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much for your time. Seeing no other persons here for
public hearing, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Stearn: Sir, may I request, respectfully, two more minutes, please, just two more minutes?
Vice Chair Hardemon: And I will say this to you: We granted you two minutes, another young
woman from the community gave you another two minutes, so at this time, procedurally, I'm not
going to allow you for another two minutes, unless there's some objection from our
Commissioners, and I don't see any. So at this point, I'm going to close the public hearing at this
point.
Commissioner Suarez: Give him two minutes. What's two minutes?
Vice Chair Hardemon: You want two --
Commissioner Suarez: Give him two minutes.
Vice Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) two minutes. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Hardemon: So you get two minutes.
Mr. Stearn: Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate it.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) minutes.
Mr. Stearn: Look, I would like just to point out one more thing, and I appreciate your leeway
very much, Chair. In the brief that I provided from Lydecker where they spent 11 pages arguing
that there were in fact five bays in the exact same design before you today, minus the markings,
claiming that they were accessory loading berths, or whatever the heck they want to make up
from the Code. This is 11 pages claiming that there were five berths in the project. My opponent
just said they did not even change anything, not a single thing; and further, within the conclusion
on page 11, they did not request a quash and remand. They requested a remand. And they
requested remand for additional findings by the Commission, written findings in other words.
They did not request a remand to change the number of loading berths. They did not request
quashal. They would have requested quashal if that was the thing for them. They requested a
straight remand; they did not get it. Why would they leave the Planning director's final decision
open in a Class II Special Permit is very simple. From here, they can only proceed into the
variance procedure or withdraw, because a final decision has already been created and you
cannot amend the final decision. Final is final, and we will have to define final in our appeal.
I'm sure you will disagree on the -- that final means not final, but they did not request
quashal. We received quashal as our relief for all of our efforts. The City is wasting its time. It's
wasting legal staff time. And lastly, they have denied the traffic study to us for three years. I've
made repeated requests. They're in violation of Chapter 119 of the Sunshine Law, and I'm very
disappointed the City approved this plan on Saturday, days after the notice was given. We were
noticed and then the approval was given to Walmart. Approval on the 15th; notice on the 9th.
How wrong is that? Thank you very much for your leeway.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Well, thank you very much, sir. I'm going to close the public hearing at
this time; open up the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Commissioner Suarez,
you're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I mean, I'll just say, look, you know, if this goes back for judicial
review, which I suspect it might, the question that's going to -- the judges are going to look at is,
EXB 324
which is why I asked you that specific question, which is if you re-categorize the berths in some
other way, is that a legally justifiable re-categorization? It's your expert opinion that it is. A
judge may or may not agree, and certainly, they have every legal right to exhaust their legal
remedies, as they have effectively. You know, again, Walmart just did a -- I think, the first store
in the City of Miami in my district. I was actually very happy that they did. It was a substantial
improvement over what was there, and they did it very quickly, very efficiently, and they were a
good partner. They did hiring out of the area. I mean, they did a lot of things. Again, it's a
commercial use of a commercial structure. Maybe if I had, as Commissioner Sarnoff would say,
my druthers, maybe I would put something else there. But you know, they have control of that
site through their arrangements with DER and, you know, and I think there have been many
efforts to try to make it as appealing as humanly possible, given the constraints, and I think that
they have, you know, in fairness to them, been somewhat reasonable in that. Whether ultimately
they are -- you know, the case turns on the issues that you guys feel, you know, we'll see. But I
think the Court, in its ruling, was very specific and said, essentially, that everything was done
properly, with the exception of the number of berths that were approved. That's it. And if the
number of berths approved are in conformity with the ruling, then it's an acceptable application.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. And the Chair is willing to accept a motion at this
time.
Commissioner Sarnoff: And Mr. Chair, let me just say two things. There were two occasions
that, as a Commissioner, I sat up here; did not listen to the City Attorney's advice -- happened to
be Maria Chiaro -- and I decided that I knew better than the Court of Appeal, and that was in
something called Eisenberg versus City of Miami, and then Dougherty versus Eisenberg versus
City of Miami; both times it came back because the Court said you just don't follow our
instructions, essentially, in the way Carollo would like to hear it. And you want to know what?
Chiaro said to me, You're going to get sanctioned by the Court or you're going to get in trouble
with the Court, Commissioner. And I just didn't listen. And you know what I did? I wasted
City time. I wasted City services. I wasted taxpayer dollars, because I used our City Attorney
because I refused to listen to the Court of Appeal. So now here's my motion: I move to deny the
appeal because the doctrine of the law of the case that this matter is before the Commission on a
limited issue. Simply stated, that doctrine is that the -- is that those points of law adjudicated in
a prior appeal are binding in order to promote stability of judicial decisions and to avoid
piecemeal litigation. That happens to be Bueno versus Bueno, 677 Southern Second Third,
Florida Third DCA 1996 opinion. I've already cited you Dougherty one. I've already cited you
Dougherty two. When this cause was before the City Commission on November 2013, the
Commission approved a Class II Special Permit. There was an appeal, and the Circuit Court
entered a written opinion and affirmed on all but one of the issues. That Circuit Court, sitting in
its appellate capacity, ruled that: One, the Planning director was not bound by the
recommendations of the NET Office and UDRB; two, the written findings of the Commission
were sufficient as a matter of law; three, the project met the 65 percent pedestrian use frontage
requirement; four, the project complied with the liner use requirement; five, the project was in
compliance with the setback requirement for parking facilities; six, the project satisfied the
building continuity requirements. The Court also found that the number of loading berths could
not exceed three because of the language of the Zoning Ordinance. The doctrine of the law of
the case says, Points of law adjudicated in a prior appeal are binding. Questions of law
actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court, in the same trial, through all
subsequent stages of the proceedings. Under the law of the case, the Commission has no
authority to change these rulings. For the reasons stated by the Circuit Court, sitting in its
appellate capacity, the City's Code requires no more than three loading berths for this project.
Based on the record evidence presented at this hearing and the previous hearing on November
21, 2013, including the modified plans of the applicant and recommendation of the Planning
director that this project, as modified, is in compliance with the City's Zoning Code and Zoning
Ordinance, I move to affirm the Class II permit, as modified, to reflect three loading berths in
compliance with the City Code and Zoning Ordinance, and the decision of the Circuit Court
EXB 325
sitting in its appellate capacity.
Vice Chair Hardemon: And to clarify for the record, so we have a motion to deny the appeal and
affirm the Class II permits; is that correct? Yes. And I'm -- I'll yield to you, sir, please.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you for allowing me to make a brief statement, and I think it is important
and, perhaps, appropriate to hopefully clarify something that may be confusing, and it is this: I,
as your Planning & Zoning director, stand corrected by the Court. I want to assure this
Commission that the mistake made by your Planning & Zoning Department is not to have
overlooked a variance. That is a rather significant issue, and I'm here to tell you that has never
happened and it will never happen, at least under my watch. I'm positive of that. The reason we
stand corrected is because this Court has found that a long-standing interpretation of the Code,
which says that the language in Section 627.2.15, Offstreet Loading, which says, For
nonresidential floor area up to 250,000 square feet, three berths total. I'm humbled. I, my
predecessors, had always opined that that meant three was a minimum and we could certainly
exceed it. It turns out, as the Court says, that the plain meaning of the word total makes it so
that it cannot be interpreted reasonably as being more than three. We stand corrected. We're
humbled by it. I'm here to tell you, though -- and this is the important thing -- that had this been
correctly interpreted to mean that only three loading berths were required, you would have had
before you one year ago exactly the project that you are affirming today. That's all I have.
Mr. Stearn: The public record, as I understand it, is --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Sir --
Mr. Stearn: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- I will not allow you to speak. You're not recognized at this time.
Mr. Stearn: Yes, sir.
Vice Chair Hardemon: The public hearing has been closed. Right now we're on a matter of
discussion for the Commissioners to consider whether they will vote yea or nay.
Commissioners. No further --
Commissioner Suarez: I think (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Hardemon: The question has been called.
Commissioner Suarez: I think Francisco just -- you know, that was actually the most poignant
statement you made the whole entire --
Vice Chair Hardemon: Yeah, that was -- it was beautiful, but that's what the courts are for. But
the question has been called. City Clerk.
Mr. Hannon: Would you like to call the question or a roll call?
Vice Chair Hardemon: The question was called.
Commissioner Suarez: He wants a roll call.
Vice Chair Hardemon: It was called by --
EXB 326
Commissioner Suarez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) whatever.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call?
Vice Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner -- it needs a roll call vote.
Mr. Hannon: Sure.
Mr. Hannon: The resolution passes, 5-0.
Vice Chair Hardemon: Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
Mr. Hannon: Now, Commissioners, we still have to go back to the regular, so we just need to
flip the tape; give me just two, three minutes. We still need to go back to the regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
EXB 327
EX C
COMMUNICATIONS
1. E-mail (with attached list of agenda items) from Julia D. Hernandez, City Agenda
Coordinator, titled Staff meeting/Agenda Review with the City Manager for Nov. 20, 2014
City Commission, (Oct. 15, 2014, 12:08 PM) (printed by City on March 17, 2016, 05:45
PM).
BN EXC 001
2. Email from Erik Bojnansky, titled Status and public records request (Oct. 27, 2014, 10:44
AM) (printed by City on March 17, 2016, 05:43 PM).
a. Email from Garcia, titled FW: Status and public records request on Walmart
(October 27, 2014, 10:51 AM) (printed by City on March 17, 2016, 05:43 PM).
b. Email from Min, titled RE: Status and public records request on Walmart (Oct. 30,
2014, 11:02 PM) (printed by City on March 17, 2016, 05:43 PM).
c. Email from Garcia, titled RE: Status and public records request on Walmart (Oct.
31, 2014, 09:29 AM) (printed by City on March 17, 2016, 05:43 PM).
BN EXC 003
3. Email threads regarding Staff Analysis (Nov. 14, 2014 to Nov. 16, 2014).
BN EXC 005
4. Email from Isiaa Jones, titled PRR 16-135: Public Records Request (May 23, 2016, 10:33
AM).
BN EXC 011
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 1 of 1
Thursday, M arch 1 7, 2 016 at 5 :45:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Subject: Sta Mee(ng/Agenda Review with the City Manager for November 20, 2014 City Commission
Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 12:08:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Hernandez, Julia D.
To: Acosta, Vanessa, Alfonso, Daniel J., Alfonso, Jessica, Angel-Capo, Jessica, Arcia, Miriam, Arteaga,
Diana, Ar(les, Marisol, Baez, Cindy, Beamud, Cris(na, Betancourt, Vicente, Black, Elaine, Blondet,
Lillian, Bockweg, Pieter, Bravo, Alice, Burns, Kevin, Burns, Mark, Bustamante, Aldo, Casamayor,
Fernando, Davis, Berta, Davis, Terrence, De Souza, Lara, Diaz, Daniel D., Diaz-Torres, Calitza, Diez,
Orlando, Dougherty, Loran, Ewan, Nicole, Falero, Ricardo, Fernandez, Jose M., Garcia, Francisco,
Gell, Jose, Gomez, Marta, Green-Watson, Judy, Haas, Alina, Hannon, Todd, Hegedus, Irene S.,
Hernandez, Julia D., Hudson, Iris, Hwa, Chris(ne, Iglesias, Peter, Ihekwaba, Nzeribe, Johnson,
Latanya, Jones, Stephanie, Kemp, Maurice L, Kennedy, Kimberly (Kim), Kinchens, vonCarol, Klose,
Amy, Kwong, Terry, Lopez, Lisse_e, Lopez, Marcia, Madelyne Raybourn (raybourn@miamidda.com),
Mar(nez, Maria, Mar(nez, Ricardo (Employee Rela(ons), Mays, Charles C, McCray, Edith, McGinnis,
Lai-Wan, Medina, Anna, Menardy, Alicia T., Mendez, Victoria, Mensah, George, Michel, Leon, Min,
Barnaby, Mindingall, Tishria, Moran-Davila, Andrea, Newton, Jelani, Nunez, Mario F., Orosa, Manuel
(Chief of Police), Paschal, Erica, Perez, Annie, Pons, Maurice, Prendes, Zimri, Quintana, Rachel,
Ramirez, Jennifer, Rawlins, Tracy, Revuelta, Sheiza, Roberts, Angela, ZZZ-Alyce Robertson
(Downtown Development Authority), Rodriguez, Ana (NET), Rodriguez, Gisela, Rodriguez, Jeovanny,
Rodriguez, Monica U, Romo, Raquel, Rose, Christopher, Ruiloba, Angie, Sanchez, David (Major),
Santamaria, Ed, Schmand,Timothy, Sco_ Simpson (ssimpson@miamiparking.com), Sharpe, Ann-
Marie, Sierra, Daniel, Smith, Angela, Snyder, Teresa, Soto, Stephanie M., Spanioli, Mark, Torres,
Sergio, Tropnas, Shellande, Valdes, Ivonne, Velez, Pablo, Zahralban, Joseph (Joe), Zamora, Olga,
Zayon, Angel, ZZZ-Cabrera, Luis
CC: Albo-Gonzalez, Elizabeth, Alfonso, Jessica, Antony, Shiny, Ar(les, Marisol, Baez, Cindy, Bermudez,
Gladys, Blanco, Lourdes, Blue, Sabrina, Burns, Mark, Byrnes, Terry, Cambridge, Susan, Carballosa,
Sandra, Colina, Jorge (Major), Darrington, Marlo, Davis, Berta, De Crumpe, Edwige, Diaz-Torres,
Calitza, Downer, Wilma, Doyle, Be_y, Fiallo, Amanda, Figueroa, Natalia, Forges, Sandra, Galvez,
Rafael, Gandarilla, Aimee, Gibson, Tymekia, Giron, Vanessa, Gomez, Marta, Gonzalez, H. Bert,
Gonzalez, Luciana L., Gray, Tahlia, Green-Watson, Judy, Hernandez, Yvonne, Hudson, Iris, Jackson,
Tameka, Jaramillo, Wendy, Johnson, Latanya, Jones, Stephanie, Jordahl, Kris(n, Kennedy, Kimberly
(Kim), Kinchens, vonCarol, Lorenzo, Niurka, Madelyne Raybourn (raybourn@miamidda.com),
Mar(nez, Maria, McGinnis, Lai-Wan, Medina, Anna, Mendez, Yordanka, Morejon, Aida, Morley,
Lacleveia, Perez, Ofelia, Prada, Barbara, Quintana, Rachel, Ramirez, Jennifer, Rawlins, Tracy,
Revuelta, Sheiza, Rodriguez, Ana (NET), Rodriguez, Gisela, Romani, Nancy, Romo, Raquel, Rueda, E.
Patricia, Ruiloba, Angie, Saunle_, Joy, Smith, Andrea, Snyder, Teresa, Tejera, Hilda, Tropnas,
Shellande, Valdes, Ivonne
Priority: High
Good afternoon,
Attached is the list of agenda items pending the City Managers approval for placement on the
November 20, 2014 City Commission Meeting (Regular Agenda).
Any questions, please contact our office.
Thank you,

Julia D. Hernandez
City of Miami
Agenda Coordinator
EXC 001Page 1 of 2
Phone: 305-416-2077
Fax: 305-416-2075
Email:jdhernandez@miamigov.com

EXC 002Page 2 of 2
Subject: RE: Status and public records request on Walmart

Date: Friday, October 31, 2014 at 9:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time
To: Min, Barnaby, Greco, John A.
CC: Mendez, Victoria, Zayon, Angel, Carby, Grace
There are none at present.
Regards,
Francisco

City of Miami
305.416.1470
From: Min, Barnaby

Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 11:02 PM
To: Garcia, Francisco; Greco, John A.
Cc: Mendez, Victoria; Zayon, Angel; Carby, Grace
Subject: RE: Status and public records request on Walmart
Please provide any responsive documents to the requestor.
Barnaby L. Min
City of Miami Office of the City Attorney
Telephone: (305) 416-1835
Facsimile: (305) 416-1801
bmin@miamigov.com
Disclaimer: This electronic mail is intended only for the individual or entity named within the message. This electronic mail may contain
legally privileged and con8idential information. If you properly received this electronic mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in
con8idence to protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to
another person or party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, or the agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti8ied that any review, dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so may constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error, we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail
and delete the original message. Nothing in this electronic mail shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this of8ice by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this electronic mail.

To: Min, Barnaby; Greco, John A.
Cc: Mendez, Victoria; Zayon, Angel
Subject: FW: Status and public records request on Walmart
Dear all,
EXC 003Page 1 of 2
For your reference.
Regards,
Francisco

City of Miami
305.416.1470
From: Erik Bojnansky [mailto:erikbojnan@live.com]

To: Law; Garcia, Francisco; Santangelo, Pat; Zayon, Angel
Subject: Status and public records request on Walmart
Hello:
My name is Erik Bojnansky. I'm a journalist who works for the monthly Biscayne Times and the daily
website The Real Deal South Florida.
I'm interested in the following:
When Walmart will be coming back to The Miami City Commission.
Sta reports and aZorney opinions regarding Walmart.
Please consider this a public records request.
I can be reached at 786-266-5095 or erikbojnan@live.com.
Thank you in advance.
Erik Bojnansky
The Real Deal
Biscayne Times
EXC 004Page 2 of 2
Subject: Sta Analysis Walmart - dra1

Date: Friday, November 14, 2014 at 4:37:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Mendez, Victoria, Greco, John A., Min, Barnaby
CC: mae@lydeckerdiaz.com
Please see aOached and respond with any feedback, as appropriate.
Kind regards,
Francisco

City of Miami
305.416.1470
EXC 005Page 1 of 1
Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Midtown / Class II Special Permit

To: Gonzalez, Luciana L.
CC: Mendez, Victoria, Greco, John A., Min, Barnaby, Zamora, Olga
Hello Luciana,
These are the documents to be posted containing the revisions to the Class II Special Permit for the Midtown
Walmart project.
As discussed these should be posted along with the analysis addressing the changes as soon as the City Attorneys
Office provides their feedback, as requested.
We remain available to assist as needed.
Kind regards,
Francisco

City of Miami
305.416.1470
From: Zoraya Cabrera [mailto:zc@lydeckerdiaz.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:07 PM
Cc: Mark Emanuele
Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Midtown / Class II Special Permit
Good ATernoon Mr. Garcia,
Please nd enclosed correspondence and aVachments.
Thank you,
Zoraya Cabrera \u9474 Legal Assistant to

Mark A. Emanuele, Partner
and Charles Norris, Esq.
T 305 416 3180 F 305 416 3190 E zc@lydeckerdiaz.com W www.lydeckerdiaz.com
Lydecker \u9474 Diaz \u9474 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor \u9474 Miami, FL 33131
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by Lydecker | Diaz for the use of the named individual or entity
to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or
receipt by, anyone other than the named addressee. It should not be copied or forwarded to any unauthorized persons. If you have
received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the
sender of the error by reply email or by calling Lydecker | Diaz at (305) 416-3180, so that our address record can be corrected.
Think Green. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
EXC 006Page 1 of 1
Subject: Re: Sta Analysis Walmart - dra4

From: Greco, John A.
CC: Mendez, Victoria, Greco, John A., Min, Barnaby, mae@lydeckerdiaz.com
At the end of paragraph 1: replace "set aside as inapplicable" with "rejected by the court"
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 14, 2014, at 4:37 PM, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com> wrote:
Please see attached and respond with any feedback, as appropriate.
Kind regards,
Francisco
<Picture
(Device Francisco J. Garcia, Director
Independent Planning and Zoning Department
City of Miami
Bitmap) 305.416.1470
1.jpg>
<12-0054 Revised Sta Analysis.pdf>
EXC 007Page 1 of 1
Subject: Re: Sta Analysis Walmart - dra4

From: Greco, John A.
CC: Mendez, Victoria, Greco, John A., Min, Barnaby, mae@lydeckerdiaz.com
At the end of paragraph 1: replace "set aside as inapplicable" with "rejected by the court"
John
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 14, 2014, at 4:37 PM, "Garcia, Francisco" <fgarcia@miamigov.com> wrote:

Please see attached and respond with any feedback, as appropriate.

Kind regards,
Francisco

<Picture
(Device Francisco J. Garcia, Director
Independent Planning and Zoning Department
City of Miami
Bitmap) 305.416.1470
1.jpg>
<12-0054 Revised Sta Analysis.pdf>
EXC 008Page 1 of 1
Subject: Re: Urgent Publishing Request

Date: Sunday, November 16, 2014 at 7:57:18 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Otero, Manny
CC: Gonzalez, Luciana L., Zayon, Angel
Many thanks Manny,
There were a sta analysis, and a leRer and 3 plans (architectural drawings) submiRed by the applicant.
I am not certain how they were arranged but those are documents provided as support for the hearing.
Perhaps Luciana can clarify as she knows beRer how they were set up.
Kind regards,
Francisco
On Nov 15, 2014, at 10:23 PM, "Otero, Manny" <MOtero@miamigov.com> wrote:
Luciana,

I have gone ahead and published. I no^ced that there were two documents under /docs/
(Walmart revised, and Sta Analysis) that I did not see as part of the request, but seem to be
linked from the no^caôns page, so I published them as well.

Regards,

Manny

From: Gonzalez, Luciana L.
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:55 PM
To: Zayon, Angel
Cc: Garcia, Francisco; Otero, Manny
Subject: RE: Urgent Publishing Request

Thank you so much.

From: Zayon, Angel
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Gonzalez, Luciana L.
Cc: Garcia, Francisco; Otero, Manny
Subject: Re: Urgent Publishing Request

Approved.
Angel Zayon
Chief of Communicaôns and Protocol
Execu^ve Director, Mayors Internaônal Council

EXC 009Page 1 of 2
Oce of Communicaôns/Oce of Protocol/Mayors Internaônal Council
Oce: 305- 416-1036
Fax: 305-400-5158
Email:azayon@miamigov.com
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: The informa8on contained in this transmission

may contain privileged and conden8al informa8on. It is intended only for the use of the
person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby no8ed that any
review, dissemina8on, distribu8on, or duplica8on of this communica8on is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient, please immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public
records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not sent electronic mail to this enEty. Instead, contact this oce by phone or in
wriEng.
On Nov 15, 2014, at 3:33 PM, "Gonzalez, Luciana L." <lgonzalez@miamigov.com> wrote:
Angel:
We need your approval to publish the following page to the web as soon as
possible in order to make documents available to the public. I have already been in
touch with Manny for his assistance to publish.
hRp://dev.miamigov.com/planning/no^caôns.html
Thank you in advance,
<image001.jpg> Luciana L. Gonzlez, Assistant Director

City of Miami
LGonzalez@miamigov.com
305.416.1404
EXC 010Page 2 of 2
PRR 16-135: Public Records Request
Jones, Isiaa <IJones@miamigov.com> Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:33 AM
Cc: PublicRecords <PublicRecords@miamigov.com>
Good morning Mr. Stern,
We have not heard back from you in regards to your public records request for emails. We suggest a review of the
below proposed search criteria, please feel free to make any necessary changes to conduct a more comprehensive
search:
The total cost to run the queries to retrieve emails which fit suggested criteria below, to create Outlook PST files with
querys output and to save the output to a media (CD, DVD or hard disk depending on the volume) is $787.00. The
electronic media to save the data is included in the estimate.
The process to create the storage media will take approximately 4 business days after receiving the approval and
payment. The costs includes searches for Civilian mailboxes. Police mailboxes are not included.
If the request is related to a law matter case or may include any other exempted emails then a review of the results
may be required before being released and this may add more delivery time and cost. If the suggested criteria and
estimate are accepted, a payment for the quantity above needs to be made to City of Miami and delivered to Ms.
Latanya Johnson at 444 SW 2nd Avenue, cubicle 515, Miami, FL 33130. Payment can be done in check or cash.
Results are based on suggested criteria and may contain emails not related to requestors desire. Please review the
suggested criteria and make any necessary changes. If you do not agree with suggested criteria, you can change it
before making the payment. Once the payment is received and the query is executed, a change in criteria may require
additional charges.
SEARCH1:
Start Date 5/18/2009
End Date 5/18/2016
To f.garcia.iglesias@gmail.com
From f.garcia.iglesias@gmail.com
Key words \
Phrases
EXC 011
SEARCH2:
Start Date 5/18/2009
End Date 5/18/2016
To Anyone/ All City Employees
From Anyone/ All City Employees
Key words \
f.garcia.iglesias@gmail.com
Phrases
Please feel free to contact us if you should have any further questions.
Thank you,
Isiaa Jones
Paralegal
City of Miami Office of the City Attorney
Telephone: 305-416-1862
Facsimile: 305-416-1801
ijones@miamigov.com
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(s) named within the message. This e-mail might contain legally
privileged and confidential information. If you properly received this e-mail as a client or retained expert, please hold it in confidence to
protect the attorney-client or work product privileges. Should the intended recipient forward or disclose this message to another person or
party, that action could constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is prohibited by the sender and to do so might constitute a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. section 2510-2521. If this communication was received in error we apologize for the intrusion. Please notify us by reply e-mail and
delete the original message. Nothing in this e-mail message shall, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship with the sender.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses and the contents of the e-mail are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address, or the
contents of the e-mail, released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this
EXC 012
office by phone or in writing.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
EXC 013
EX D
OTHER CASES
1. Pfeffer v. City of Miami, Case No. 14-004 AP (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir.) (filed Jan. 02, 2014).
a. Docket, Case No. 14-004 AP (available at https://www2.miami-

dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx) (captured Sept. 21, 2017).
b. Order on Petition for Writ of Cert., Case No. 14-004 AP (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. Oct.
15, 2014).
BN EXD 001
2. Pfeffer v. City of Miami, Case No. 14-0492 AP (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir.) (filed Dec. 16, 2014)
(Pfeffer II).
a. Docket, Case No. 14-0492 AP (available at https://www2.miami-

dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx) (captured Aug. 16, 2017).
BN EXD 014
3. Pfeffer v. City of Miami, Case No. 3D15-2208 (Fla. 3d DCA) (filed Sept. 24, 2015).
a. Docket, Case No. 3D15-2208 (available at

http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/ds/ds_docket_search?pscourt=3) (captured Aug. 08,
2017)
BN EXD 016
4. Stern v. City of Miami, Case No. 2015-026587-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir.) (filed Nov. 13
2015).
a. Docket, Case No. 2015-026587-CA-01 (available at https://www2.miami-

dadeclerk.com/ocs/Search.aspx) (captured Sept. 16, 2017).
b. Amended Complaint
c. Order, Def. Mot. Immediate Hearing (March 21, 2016).
BN EXD 018
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 1 of 1
EXD 001
EXD 002
EXD 003
EXD 004
EXD 005
17,2013.
A de novo, quasi-judicial public hearing was held before the Commission on November
21, 2013. The Petitioners argued that the PZAB approval was an end-run around the City's
variance requirements. The Petitioners presented, among other evidence, an urban planning
expert, Mark Alvarez, who focused on the Project's noncompliance with the 65% pedestrian use
frontage requirement along the North Miami Avenue, the lack of liner uses and failure to meet
the setback requirements on the second and third floors , and the non-compliance with the
required number ofloading berths under the Code.
In response, Wal-Mart's counsel presented Ana Gelabert, a former Planning Director for
the City of Miami. Ms. Gelabert testified that the proposed Proj ect met the required 65% active
pedestrian frontage along North Miami Avenue, along with the liner use and setback
requirements under the Code. She further testified that the proposed Project complied with the
Code's continuous design requirement, and required number ofloading berths.
The Commission voted 3-0 to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision. The
Commission adopted Resolution R-13-0471, (file number 13-10130ii), which contained the
following findings:
(1) The proposed project will be beneficial to the surrounding area by providing
new retail and service facilities while creating jobs for the area;
(2) The proposed project, as presented reflects revisions and refinements made
based on the comments from reviewing Departments and the Urban
Development Review Board, and is appropriate in scale and size pursuant to
Section 1305 and the Midtown Overlay District 6.27.2 Midtown Miami West;
(3) The proposed project is in compliance with the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan in that it promotes good urban infill and is consistent with
the Buena Vista East Regional Activity Center (RAC), designation as applied to
this property; and
(4) This application has been reviewed pursuant to Section 1305 of Zoning
Ordinance 11000 and the Miami 21 Code, Appendix C: Midtown overlay District
6.27.2 Midtown Miami West and found to be sufficient.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing the decision of quasi-judicial action of an administrative body, the circuit

court must determine whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence,
whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether due process has
been accorded. City of Deerfield Beach v. Valiant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982); Florida
3
EXD 006
EXD 007
EXD 008
EXD 009
EXD 010
EXD 011
EXD 012
EXD 013
EXD 014
EXD 015
8/18/2017 Third District Court of Appeal Case Docket
Third District Court of Appeal Case Docket

Case Number: 3D15-2208
Civil Certiorari Petition from Dade County
JACOB PFEFFER, et al., vs. CITY OF MIAMI, etc., et al.,
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 14-492
Right-click to copy shortcut directly to this page

08/18/2017 10:47
Date
Docketed Description Date Due Filed By Notes
09/24/2015 Petition Filed Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
09/24/2015 Appendix Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
09/25/2015 Acknowledgment Letter Acknowledgment of new case with
attachments. ** The $300 filing fee for
petition is due.
09/28/2015 Order Resp. on all 10/18/2015 Respondents are ordered to file a response
Petitions except within twenty (20) days of the date of this
Prohibi(OR12L) order to the petition for writ of certiorari.
Petitioners may, but are not required to file a
reply to the response within fifteen (15) days
thereafter.
09/29/2015 Notice of Appearance John A. Greco 991236
09/29/2015 Notice John A. Greco 991236 designation of email.
09/30/2015 Case Filing Fee FILING FEE FOR PETITION.
10/01/2015 Notice of Filing Samuel J. Dubbin 328189 supplemental appendix to petition for writ of
certiorari.
10/19/2015 RESPONSE John A. Greco 991236 to petition for writ of certiorari.
10/19/2015 Notice of Appearance Joan Carlos Wizel 37903
10/19/2015 RESPONSE Joan Carlos Wizel 37903 to petition for writ of certiorari.
10/19/2015 Appendix Joan Carlos Wizel 37903 to response.
10/23/2015 Mot. for Extension of Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
Time to File Reply Brief
10/27/2015 Ext-granted to reply to 11/10/2015 Petitioners motion for extension of time to
response on pet. (OG01D) file a reply to the response to the petition for
writ of certiorari is granted to and including
November 10, 2015.
11/06/2015 Mot. for Extension of Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
Time to File Reply Brief
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/ds/ds_docket
EXD 016 1/2
8/18/2017 Third District Court of Appeal Case Docket
Date
Docketed Description Date Due Filed By Notes
11/13/2015 Ext-granted to reply to Petitioners motion for extension of time to
response on pet. (OG01D) file a reply to the response to the petition for
writ of certiorari is granted to and including
November 13, 2015.
11/13/2015 REPLY Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
11/13/2015 Motion For Oral Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
Argument
11/13/2015 Appendix Samuel J. Dubbin 328189 2nd supplemental appendix for petition for
writ of certiorari.
12/01/2015 Miscellaneous Motion John A. Greco 991236 motion for sanctions
12/11/2015 Motion for Extension of Samuel J. Dubbin 328189 to respond to motion for sanctions.
Time Unopposed.
12/18/2015 Notice of Supplemental Samuel J. Dubbin 328189
Authority
12/23/2015 Motion To Strike Joan Carlos Wizel 37903
01/07/2016 Motion to Strike Denied Upon consideration, respondent Wal-Mart
(OD30) Stores East, LPs motion to strike
petitioners notice of supplemental authority
is hereby denied. SHEPHERD, LAGOA and
SCALES, JJ., concur.
01/07/2016 Certiorari Denied Following review of the second-tier petition
(Including Resp & Reply) for writ of certiorari, and the responses and
(DA30) reply thereto, it is ordered that said petition
is hereby denied. Respondents City of
Miami and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP's
motion for sanctions is hereby denied.
Petitioners' request for oral argument is
hereby denied as moot.
01/07/2016 Denied - Order by Judge
01/29/2016 West Publishing
01/29/2016 Disp w/o mandate
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/ds/ds_docket
EXD 017 2/2
EXD 018
EXD 019
EXD 020
EXD 021
EXD 022
EXD 023
EXD 024
EXD 025
EXD 026
EXD 027
EXD 028
EXD 029
EXD 030
EXD 031
EXD 032
EXD 033
EXD 034
EXD 035
EXD 036
EXD 037
EXD 038
EXD 039
EXD 040
EXD 041
EXD 042
EXD 043
EXD 044
EXD 045
EXD 046
EXD 047
EXD 048
EXD 049
EXD 050
EXD 051
EXD 052
EXD 053
EXD 054
EXD 055
EXD 056
EXD 057
EXD 058
EXD 059
EXD 060
EXD 061
EXD 062
EXD 063
EXD 064
EXD 065
EXD 066
EXD 067
EXD 068
EXD 069
EXD 070
EXD 071
EXD 072
EXD 073
EXD 074
EX E
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
1. David Smiley, Ruling in Miami Walmart Lawsuit May Resolve Little, Miami Herald, Oct. 24,
2014 (available at http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-
dade/article3356081.html) (captured on Sept. 24, 2017).
BN EXE 001
2. Planning & Zoning Meeting Page, Nov. 21, 2013 City Commission Hearing (available at
http://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1527) (captured on Sept. 19,
2017).
BN EXE 004
3. Planning & Zoning Meeting Page, Nov. 21, 2013 City Commission Hearing (available at
http://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1527) (captured on Sept. 19,
2017).
BN EXE 008
4. PRR 15-165, Citys Production Timeline (Sept. 18, 2015 Feb. 16, 2016) (available at
https://miami.nextrequest.com/requests/15-165) (captured on Sept. 21, 2017).
BN EXE 009
5. PRR 16-107, Citys Production Timeline (March 23, 2016 May 04, 2016) (available at
BN EXE 013
6. PRR 16-132, Citys Production Timeline (April 06, 2016 April 27, 2016) (available at
BN EXE 014
7. PRR 16-135, Citys Production Timeline (April 11, 2016 Aug. 18, 2016) (available at
BN EXE 015
PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Page 1 of 1
9/24/2017 Ruling in Miami Walmart lawsuit may resolve little | Miami Herald
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Ruling in Miami Walmart lawsuit may resolve little

BY DAVID SMILEY
dsmiley@MiamiHerald.com
OCTOBER 24, 2014 7:11 PM
In the David-and-Goliath fight between Miami residents and Walmart, a ruling last week by a panel of
judges that a planned Midtown superstore narrowly violated the citys zoning laws has been hailed by
foes of the worlds largest retailer as a significant victory.
Three judges told City Hall it upheld a permit for a 203,000-square-foot project last year in departure
from the essential requirements of the law. Walmart, for all its heft and high-powered attorneys
including former Miami mayor Manny Diaz was told to go back and secure a proper permit.
But in the wake of the ruling, Walmart and the Miami City Attorneys office havent flinched.
ADVERTISING
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article3356081.html
EXE 001 1/3
Plans are already under way to bring the issue of Walmarts permit back to the Miami Commission as
early as next month for what attorneys believe should be a quick fix. The retailer, happily stating that
the court sided mostly with Walmart and the city, is predicting it will receive an amended permit in
short order.
Thats raising objections from Walmarts opponents, who say the ruling demands the entire permitting
process must start from scratch.
If the city of Miami dares to defy the ruling of those three judges and break its own laws again after the
judges ruled they broke its laws a first time, well sue once again, pledged anti-Walmart activist Grant
Stern.
Stern and others have been fighting Walmart since the summer of 2012, when the company submitted
an application for its three-story superstore bounded by Northeast 29th and 31st streets, and North
Miami Avenue and Midtown Boulevard. The project was eventually approved administratively through
a Class II Special Permit by Miamis planning director, Francisco Garcia.
Stern and others appealed, saying Walmarts project conflicted with the citys zoning code and required
major variances. The citys Planning Zoning and Appeals Board rejected the appeal, and then the city
commission upheld that decision.
Undeterred, Walmart foes petitioned Miami-Dades circuit court, leading to last weeks decision by a
three-judge panel. The panel agreed with the city and Walmart on most issues. But, noting the
petitioners most compelling argument was that improperly granted variances required the
application be resubmitted, the panel said Walmarts receipt of five loading berths was more than the
three total allowed by zoning code.
The panel then quashed the commissions decision upholding the zoning boards denial of the appeal,
and remanded the issue back to the city.
Activists declared victory. But so did Walmart, which swiftly issued a statement saying the retail chain
would look forward to receiving an amended permit as soon as possible. Miami City Attorney Victoria
Mendez said this week that the city commission will now reconsider the appeal, but only on the narrow
issue of the number of loading berths.
It will be a hearing limited to that issue, Mendez wrote in an email.
As long as Walmart which declined to comment for this story is amenable to three berths, the
commission can correct the issue and the permit can be amended administratively, she said. Garcia, the
EXE 002 2/3
planning director, said that might actually result in a worse project, one that would comply with the
courts curious ruling but would generate more street traffic, with trucks forced to wait to unload
their wares.
I dont see how five loading berths makes it worse, he said. If anything it makes it better.
Paul Savage, attorney for the petitioners, said his clients simply want the city to follow its own laws. He
said his clients will fight to ensure thats what happens.
Should the Commission seek to skirt the correct and proper process again, the Court will no doubt
quash the Commissions Resolution again for misunderstanding and flouting its ruling, said Savage.
The City Commission cannot amend, ratify or breathe life into a void, illegal permit.
EXE 003 3/3
EXE 004
EXE 005
EXE 006
EXE 007
9/19/2017 2014/11/20 02:00 PM City Commission Planning and Zoning - Web Outline - Miami, FL
City Commission
Planning and Zoning
11/20/2014 2:00 PM
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133
Downloads:
Agenda
Marked Agenda Minutes
Select Language
Powered by Translate
http://miamifl.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1527&Print=Yes
EXE 008 1/1
EXE 009
EXE 010
EXE 011
EXE 012
EXE 013
EXE 014
EXE 015

Stern vs. City of Miami II - Public Records Action W/ Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stern vs. City of Miami II - Public Records Action W/ Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(A)(2), and Miami, Fla. Code of Ordinances 52(C).

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

4. Venue is proper pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011.

5. This Complaint references the Plaintiffs Records Requests, City documents,

this Complaint are itemized and attached as Exhibit E.

7. Defendant City of Miami (City) is a municipal corporation located in Miami-Dade County,

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

written document listing the permits non-conformities with City law.

Judicial procedures outlined in Miami 21 7.1.4.

for the City Commissions review. See Exhibit B-04.

evidence offered by the appellants.

Walmarts permit should be denied. See Exhibit B-17.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

reason to why access could not be granted.

Ordinance 11000 1311.

the request. See Exhibit B-07a.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

under Miami 21 7.1.3.5.d.4(a). See Exhibit B-08.

21, 2015. Exhibit B-10.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

838, 843 (Fla. 2001)).

436 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983)1.

email. See Exhibit C-01.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

02 Sterns Records Requests and Related Matters

See generally Exhibit A.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

Commissions November 20, 2014 hearing:

a. Notice of the City Commissions hearing on Walmarts application;

b. Traffic Study related to Walmarts application;

c. Revisions to Walmarts application and plans;

d. Applications submitted to City by Walmart, including additional applications and

e. All information about the upcoming City Commission vote;

f. Legal opinions written by City officials relating to processing Walmarts application;

terms Walmart, Walmart Midtown, and @Walmart.com, along with other

personal email accounts;

i. Records, including City ordinances, relating to the City Commissions hearing;

emails, voicemails, pertaining to all requested items;

location where the records are kept;

See generally Exhibit A.

request periodically, and Mendez acknowledged. Exhibit A at 3-8.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

were no responsive documents. See Exhibit C-02c.

the same day by the Citys Office of Communication. Exhibit A at 15-16.

See Exhibits B-11-12.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

would nevertheless be approved. See Exhibit B-18a.

Exhibits B-14 & B-15.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

date) on November 13, 2014. See Exhibit B-13.

the upcoming November 20, 2014 public meeting. Exhibit C-03.

substantial evidence as a designated appellant at the hearing.

PLAINVIEW LAW pllc

documents have been provided. Exhibit A at 25.

still pending. Exhibit A at 26.

56. The documents available in Legistar after the meeting included:

c. November 05, 2014 Certification of City Commissions November 29, 2013

d. November 05, 2014 Certification of November 21, 2013 Meeting Minutes;