5 Response of City of Miami BeachINRE:
APPELLANTS:
APPELLEE:
RECEIVED
MAY -6 2022
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFF IC E OF THE CITY CL ERK
5333 COLLINS A VENUE
BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, IN
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MATTER NO. SM-2022-01
LOWER TRIBUNAL FILE NO: DRB21-
0694
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
THOMAS HAHN, JACQUELINE REBHUHN, DAVID SEBBAG,
CARRIAGE HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., AND
THE AMETHYST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
I
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'S OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL FOR
5333 COLLINS A VENUE
On December 17, 2021, the City of Miami Beach Design Review Board ("ORB") approved
an application for new construction of 100 residential units in a 17-story tower located at 5333
Collins Avenue (the "Application"), filed by 5333 Collins Acquisitions LP ("Applicant"). On
February 3, 2022, the order of the ORB was rendered approving the Application with conditions
("Order.") Appellants Thomas Hahn, Jacqueline Rebhuhn, and David Sebbag submitted their
appeal on February 23, 2022 ("Unit Owners Appeal") and Carriage House Condominium
Association, Inc. and the Amethyst Condominium Association, Inc. submitted their appeal on
February 24, 2022 ("Association Appeals") ( collectively, "Appellants") pursuant to Sections l l 8-
9( c )(2)(B) and l l 8-9(c)(3) of the City Code (collectively, the "Appeals."). 1
1 The citations to the record appendix in this Response are as follows and refer to the record appendix in the Unit
Owners Appeal: The use of APP_ refers the Appendix and Bates Stamp page number as set out in the
Appendix and Index to Petiti on in the Unit Owners Appeal: The use of [Tl: ] refers to the page of the transcript of
the DRB hearing held on October 5, 2021. The use of [T2: ] refers to the page of the transcript of the DRB hearing
held on December 17 , 2021.
1
Appellants argue that the Order should be reversed because (a) the record lacks competent
substantial evidence to support the Order; and (b) the Order illegally delegates authority to City of
Miami Beach Planning Department professional planning staff ("Staff') to approve certain minor
items prior to building permit2 • The Appeals must be denied because (a) the Order is supported
by hundreds of pages of competent substantial evidence and testimony received prior to and at the
ORB hearings on October 5, 2021 and December 17, 2021; and (b) Section 118-264 of the City
Code expressly allows the ORB to "prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards" and Section
l l 8-260(a) of the City Code permits the Planning Director and/or his or her designee to review
and approve the items listed in the Order administratively.
I. Standard of Review
The City Commission reviews the Order to determine whether (a) procedural due process
was accorded; (b) the essential requirements of law were observed; and (c) the decision was
supported by substantial competent evidence. City Code l 18-9(c)(4); Haines City Community
Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); City of Deerfield Beach v. Vail/ant, 419 So. 2d
624, 626 (Fla. 1982). Although Appellants claim a departure from the essential requirements of
law, the alleged departure is the lack of competent substantial evidence. Therefore, the alleged
departure from the essential requirements of law is not an independent basis for the Appeals. In
this case, the Commission's inquiry must focus on whether competent substantial evidence exists
to support the DRB's conclusion that the criteria of Section l 18-25l(a) have been satisfied; the
question is not whether there is competent evidence to support a position contrary to the DRB's
decision. Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2001) (Court is
2 Appellants make a passing objection to the true ownership of the property subject to the Application. However,
Applicant's application includes all required affidavits certifying that the "corporate entity named herein is the owner
of the property that is the subject of this application." APP 001-007.
2
limited to reviewing whether decision is supported by competent substantial evidence); City ofW
Palm Beach Zoning Bd. Of Appeals v. Ed. Dev. Ctr., Inc., 504 So. 2d 1385 , 1386 (Fla. 4 th DCA
1987). Competent substantial evidence is defined as follows:
Substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as will establish a substantial
basis of fact from which the fact at issue can be reasonably inferred. We have stated it to
be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a
conclusion . Becker v. Merrill , 155 Fla. 379, 20 So. 2d 912; Laney v. Board of Public
In s truction , 153 Fla . 728, 15 So. 2d 748. In employing the adjective "competent" to modify
the word "substantial," we are aware of the familiar rule that in administrative proceedings
the formalities in the introduction of testimony common to the courts of justice are not
strictly employed. Jenkins v. Curry, 154 Fla. 617, 18 So. 2d 521. We are of the view,
however, that the evidence relied upon to sustain the ultimate finding should be sufficiently
relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the
conclusion reached. To this extent the "substantial" evidence should also be "competent."
DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957).
The Commission 's factual inquiry begins and ends once it is shown that the Board 's
decision is merely supported by competent substantial evidence. Dusseau at 1275; City ofW Palm
Beach at 1386.
II. The Order is Supported by Competent Substantial Evidence
The Order must be affirmed because it is supported by hundreds of examples of plans ,
expert Applicant testimony and presentations, the Staff report, and testimony of the City 's
professional planning staff -all and each of which constitute competent substantial evidence.
Appellants challenge the Order with flimsy assertions that it is not supported by competent
substantial evidence because (a) the Staff report is not competent substantial evidence; (b) the
Application does not meet the code criteria; and (c) Appellants' submissions and testimony on the
record are contrary to the Order and thus justify reversal. Each of Appellants' challenges are
without basis in law or fact.
3
A. The Staff Report is Competent Substantial Evidence
It is well settled law that the Staff report constitutes competent substantial evidence . Village
of Palmetto Bay v. Palmer Trinity Private Sehl., Inc ., 128 So. 3d 19 (Fla 3d DCA 2012); City of
Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc ., 857 So . 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
Appellants complain that the Staff report is insufficient to support the Order because the Staff
report simply states "satisfied" next to each applicable criterion. However, this is an incomplete
and misleading assertion . "Satisfied " is the conclusion reached in the context of the other
statements contained in the Staff Report -all of which reflect Staff review and analysis of the
submitted materials in reaching Staff's conclusions, which include without limitation: (i) "The
applicant has submitted revised plans entitled "5333 Collins Avenue ... " ( emphasis added) APP.
268 ; (ii) "Design Review encompasses the examination of architectural drawings for consistency
with the criteria stated below with regard to the aesthetics, appearances, safety, and function of
the structure or proposed structures in relation to the site, adiacent structures and surrounding
community (emphasis added) APP. 268; and (iii) "Staff finds (sic) that the revised building design
is elegant with heightened architectural movement and warmth that compliments the seaside site."
APP 273. Moreover, a staff report that states "all applicable criteria" were reviewed constitutes
competent substantial evidence. Village of Palmetto Bay at 26-27; City of Hialeah Gardens at
205. (testimony of professional staff, when based on professional experiences and personal
observations and information in application and site plan constitute competent substantial
evidence).
Additionally, Appellants further assert that the Staff report is not entitled to deference ,
because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. However, this position
is patently absurd because: (a) there is a plethora of evidence in the record to support the Staff
4
report; and (b) overcoming a deference to staffs analysis requires a departure from the essential
requirements of law. Bell South v. Johnson, 708 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1998). Because there is
competent substantial evidence in the record , and the only alleged departure from the essential
requirements of law is a lack of competent substantial evidence, deference to the Staff analysis
and the Order is proper.
In this case, in addition to the copious amounts of competent substantial evidence contained
throughout the record , the ORB properly relied on the Staff analysis which reviewed the
Application with respect to all applicable criteria. Appellants fail to cite any additional criteria
that should have been evaluated but was not in the Staff analysis. Compare Alvey v. City of North
Miami Beach , 206 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d OCA 2015) (finding departure from essential requirements
oflaw where City affirmatively declined to review or apply applicable sections of City Code); City
of Naples v. Cent. Plaza of Naples , 303 So . 2d 423 (Fla. 2d OCA 1974) (denial of application
reversed where denial based on criteria outside the applicable code provisions). Here , the
Application materials submitted by the Applicant and the ensuing Staff analysis show that all
applicable code criteria were reviewed and supported by competent substantial evidence .
Accordingly, the essential requirements of law were followed and the Appeals must be denied .
B. The Application Meets the Applicable Code Criteria
The ORB reviews the Application for compliance with City Code Section 118-251 . While
the Staff report itself is competent substantial evidence, it is far from the only competent substantial
evidence upon which the ORB based its Order. The ORB had hundreds of pages of architect-
prepared plans and testimony by Applicant and City experts received at two public hearings, which
show compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 118-251 (a).
5
Appellants stress the alleged incompatibility of the project with the surrounding area,
stating without basis that the record lacks competent substantial evidence in support of
compatibility with adjacent buildings and height, massing, and scale. Contrary to Appellants '
assertions , the record contains massive amounts of competent substantial evidence showing the
project's height , scale, and massing in relation to adjacent buildings -and while Appellants may
disagree with the Board 's decision , the record irrefutably demonstrates that competent substantial
evidence was presented to the Board -all of which show and/or address the project's relationship
to the adjacent properties:
1. Context of building within the general area. APP 118, 120, 124, 127;
2. Context of building-beach view with neighboring buildings. APP 127;
3. Renderings depicting project with neighboring buildings. APP 130 , 131, 133 , 135 , 144 ,
152, 153 , 159, 176 , 177, 178, 179 , 202, 222;
4. Summer Solstice shadow study. APP 223-227 ;
5. Supplemental Letter of Intent 11/5/2021 APP 230;
6. ORB Resubmittal 11/5 /2021, showing context with neighbors. APP 232; 247; 248; 249 ,
251;
7. Context: APP 255; 256; 257; 258; 259; 260; 263; 264; 265;
8 . Applicant Presentation to ORB, 12/2021
a . APP 287: Massing drawing shows relationship to other buildings;
b. APP 290: Rendering shows building's relationship to neighbors;
c. APP 309: Rendering shows relationship to neighbors;
d. APP 313: Relationship to north neighbor;
e. APP 333: Beach view, neighbor context;
f . APP 336 -337 ; Elevations -compared to neighbors;
g. APP 340: Indian Creek view ;
h. APP 341: Park view.
Further, at the December 17, 2022 ORB meeting, the Applicant's attorney directed the
Board's attention to the architect-prepared plans which show the context of the project in relation
to its neighbors, i.e . that that the architect-built models that were presented to the ORB effectively
provided context for the DRB's review , and demonstrated that Appellant Carriage House is in fact
a significantly larger building than the one proposed by Applicant. T2:36. Board member
statements reflect review of the submitted application materials and consideration of competent
6
substantial evidence ("The way this building sits on that piece of property is so respectful of what
is allowed to be built;" "[The building] is contextual , because the vo lume on Collins really
maintains the street wall height that was set by Morris Lapidus ."). T2:40; T2 -50-51. The City 's
professional staff, Michael Belush, provided yet more competent substantial evidence regarding
context: "I thought this was very unique and unusual that they were not going to the maximum for
the entire portion of the building ... They 've actually stepped it from the ocean , stepped it from
the street, so I think this is noteworthy ... this 200 foot tall ... likes to screen mechanical
equipment is all in conformance with the regulations and we feel that the review criteria has been
satisfied for the Board to grant this height as requested." T2 :43 .
In addition to the Staff report and the foregoing list of specific citations to competent
substantial evidence , the following is a non-exhaustive summary of additional citations to
examples of competent substantial evidence throughout the record which demonstrates compliance
with each criterion of Section 118-251 (a) and therefore justifies the Order.
(1) The existing and proposed conditions of the lot, Survey APP 077 , APP 119 . APP
including but not necessarily limited to topography, 134. APP 213-2 16
vegetation, trees , drainage, and waterways.
(2) The location of all existing and proposed buildings, Survey APP 0 77 , APP 119 , APP
drives , parking spaces, walkways, means of ingress 134
and egress , drainage facilities, utility services, APP 291-294 (Privacy Screen)
landscaping structures, signs , and lighting and
screening devices .
(3) The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, APP 214-266
parking spaces, floor area ratio , height, lot coverage APP 234
and any other information that may be reasonably
necessary to determine compliance with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district , and
any applicable overlays, for a particular application
or project.
(4) The color, design , selection of landscape materials APP 161 -169 , APP 235-247,
and architectural elements of exterior building 297-304, 317-325
surfaces and primary public interior areas for
developments requiring a building permit in areas of
the city identified in section 118-252.
7
(5) The proposed site plan , and the location , appearance APP 218
and design of new and existing buildings and APP 232 -266
structures are in conformity with the standards of
this article and other applicable ordinances,
architectural and design guidelines as adopted and
amended periodically by the design review board
and historic preservation board and all pertinent
master plans .
(6) The proposed structure, and /or additions or APP 120, APP 130-35 , 181 ,
modifications to an existing structure, indicates a 201-208 , 282-288 , 290 , 309 ,
sensitivity to and is compatible with the 313 ,333 ,336 ,340 ,341 , T2:40,
environment and adjacent structures , and enhances T2:42
the appearance of the surrounding properties.
(7) The design and layout of the proposed site plan , as Contextual views APP 120, APP
well as all new and ex isting buildings shall be 130 -35 , 169 , 282-288
reviewed so as to provide an efficient arrangement
of land uses . Particular attention shall be given to
safety, crime prevention and fire protection,
relationship to the surrounding neighborhood ,
impact on contiguous and adjacent buildings and
lands , pedestrian sight lines and view corridors.
(8) Pedestrian and veh icular traffic movement within APP 153 , APP 190 -195 , 306 -
and adjacent to the site shall be reviewed to ensure 313
that clearly defined , segregated pedestrian access to
the site and all buildings is provided for and that all
parking spaces are usable and are safety and
conveniently arranged; pedestrian furniture and bike
racks shall be considered. Access to the site from
adjacent roads shall be designed so as to interfere as
little as possible with traffic flow on these roads and
to permit vehicles a rapid and safe ingress and
egress to the site.
(9) Lighting shall be reviewed to ensure safe movement APP 216
of persons and vehicles and reflection on public
property for security purposes and to minimize glare
and reflection on adjacent properties . Lighting shall
be reviewed to assure that it enhances the
appearance of structures at night.
(10) Landscape and paving materials shall be reviewed to APP 209-221 , 317-325
ensure an adequate relationship with and
enhancement of the overall site plan design.
(11) Buffering materials shall be reviewed to ensure that APP 190-195 , 218
headlights of vehicles, noise , and light from
structures are adequately shielded from public view ,
adjacent properties and pedestrian areas.
8
(12) The proposed structure has an orientation and APP 120 . APP 130-35, 181 ,
massing which is sensitive to and compatible with 201-208 , 282-288
the building site and surrounding area and which
creates or maintains important view corridor(s).
(13) The building has , where feasible , space in that part APP 144 , 145 , 153 , 159 , 196 ,
of the ground floor fronting a street or streets which 250-262 , 306-313
is to be occupied for residential or commercial uses;
likewise, the upper floors of the pedestal portion of
the proposed building fronting a street, or streets
shall have residential or commercial spaces, shall
have the appearance of being a residential or
commercial space or shall have an architectural
treatment which shall buffer the appearance of the
parking structure from the surrounding area and is
integrated with the overall appearance of the project.
(14) The building shall have an appropriate and fully APP 127 , 130 , 131 , 150, 152 ,
integrated rooftop architectural treatment which 154 ,242 ,245 ,246 ,247,248
substantially screens all mechanical equipment, T2 :43
stairs and elevator towers .
(15) An addition on a building site shall be designed , NI A
sited and massed in a manner which is sensitive to
and compatible with the existing improvement(s).
(16) All portions of a project fronting a street or sidewalk APP 135 , 144 , 153 , 159
shall incorporate an architecturally appropriate
amount of transparency at the first level in order to
achieve pedestrian compatibility and adequate visual
interest.
(17) The location , design , screening and buffering of all APP 190-195
required service bays , delivery bays, trash and refuse
receptacles , as well as trash rooms shall be arranged
so as to have a minimal impact on adjacent
properties .
(18) In addition to the foregoing criteria, subsection [118-NI A
]104(6)(t) of the city Code shall apply to the design
review board's review of any proposal to place,
construct, modify or maintain a wireless
communications facility or other over the air radio
transmission or radio reception facility in the public
rights-of-way.
(19) The structure and site complies with the sea level APP 271
rise and resiliency review criteria in chapter 133,
article II , as applicable.
9
The Commission 's factual inquiry begins and ends once it is shown that the Board 's
decision is merely supported by competent substantial evidence. Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1275.
There is an abundance of competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Order;
accordingly, the inquiry ends, the Appeals must be denied and the Order affirmed.
C. Documents and Testimony Inconsistent with the Order are Irrelevant on Appeal
Appellants ( other than Amethyst which failed to appear at either ORB hearing) 3 submitted
documents and testified on the record in opposition to the Application. Appellants repeatedly
stress how they testified against the project, and that their testimony constitutes competent
substantial evidence. However, on appeal , the question for this Commission is not whether there
is anything in the record to contradict the Order-the only inquiry is whether there was competent
substantial evidence to support the Order. Id.
The issue before the court is not whether the agency's decision is the 'best' decision or the
'right' decision or even a 'wise' decision, for these are technical and policy-based
determinations properly within the purview of the agency .... The court must review the
record to assess the evidentiary support for the agency's decision. Evidence contrary to
the agency's decision is outside the scope of the inquiry at this point,for the reviewing
court above all cannot reweigh the 'pros and cons' of conflicting evidence .... As long
as the record contains competent substantial evidence to support the agency's decision,
the decision is presumed lawful and the court's job is ended. ( emphasis added) Id.
While Appellants rely on their arguments made against the Application at the ORB
hearings below, the Commission cannot reweigh the evidence. G200 Exchange Ltd. v. City of
Miami Beach and Shore Club Property Owner, LLC, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 461 a (Court is not
permitted to reweigh the evidence; failure to follow proper standard is a departure from the
essential requirements of law), citing Miami-Dade County v. Valdes, 9 So. 3d 17, 20 (Fla 3d OCA
3 Appellant Amethyst did not appear at either of the hearings, and attorney argument is not competent
substantial evidence. Olson v. Olson , 260 So. 3d 367,369 (Fla . 4th DCA 2018).
10
2009). While fact-based citizen testimony can constitute competent substantial evidence in
support of a decision , the citizen testimony contrary to the Order has no bearing on the Appeals.
Lake Sana Dev. v. M;ami-Dade County, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp . 786a (11 th Judicial Cir., Miami-
Dade County 2019). The only inquiry for the Commission here is whether there was competent
substantial evidence to support the Order-not whether there was any evidence (including citizen
testimony and submittals) in opposition to the Order.
The Order is supported by hundreds of pages of plans and presentations, the Staff report,
and expert testimony from two public hearings -rendering the Appellants' testimony irrelevant
for the purposes of the Appeals. Because the Order is supported by competent substantial evidence
the Appeals must be denied. 4
III. Section 118-264 Allows the DRB to Impose Conditions, and Section 118-260(a)
Specifically Permits Administrative Approval of Certain Elements Prior to
Building Permit
City Code Section 118-264 expressly allows the DRB to impose appropriate conditions:
In granting design review approval, the design review board may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards either as part of a written order or on
approved plans .
Further, Section l l 8-260(a) permits administrative approval of the items listed in the Order
Section (I)(D). Here, Appellants inappropriately argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the
4 Appellants use Irvine v. Duval County for the proposition that after an applicant has met
its burden and shown that the application meets the code requirements , the burden shifts to the
objectors to show that the application does not meet the criteria and is not in the public interest -
erroneously implying that the objectors' competent substantial evidence somehow required the
Board to deny the application . Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 495 So. 2d 167 (Fla.
1986), citing dissent in Irvine v. Duval County Planning Commission, 466 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1986). Irvine is inapplicable. Irvine was a special exception case, where the settled standard
is that the applicant must meet its burden to show compliance with the code criteria, and then the
Board must rely on competent substantial evidence that the application is not in the public interest.
to deny the special exception. Since this is not a special exception case and not a case of a denial ,
there is no burden shifting.
11
City Code requires the ORB to approve every detail of the Application, and that the ORB cannot
enter an Order with conditions for approval of minor items prior to building permit. However -
as in this matter -the ORB is authorized to delegate the authority to review and approve certain
items for the efficient operation and enforcement of the City Code. See Sims v. State , 754 So.
2d 657 , 668 (Fla. 2000)(finding no improper delegation of authority). Compare Webb v Town
Council of Hilliard, 766 So. 2d 1241 , 1244 (Fla. pt DCA 2000) (failure to comply with notice
requirements); MB v. Consolo, 279 So. 2d 76, 79 (Fla. 3d DCA l 973)(failure to comply with time
for refiling). Appellants ignore that the plain and ordinary meaning of Section 118-264 allows the
ORB to prescribe conditions in the Order and Section l l 8-260(a) ("The planning director, or the
director's designated representative, shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions,
or deny an application on behalf of the board, for the following ... ") specifically delegates the
authority to the Planning Director and/or his or her designee to approve, among other things :
Section I l 8-260(a)(2) the replacement of windows , doors , storefront frames and
windows, or the approval of awnings, canopies, exterior surface colors , storm shutters
and signs ;
Section l 18-260(a)(3) Fa9ade and building alterations , renovations and restorations
which are minor in nature.
As conditions of the approval, the Order requires the Applicant to implement five minor
revisions to be approved by the Planning Director and/or his or her designee: (i) balcon y
modifications; (ii) color palette; (iii) exterior walkway cover; (iv)exterior handrails and support
posts ; and (v) exterior finishes. The Order further requires that these conditions should be
reviewed and approved administratively consistent with the Design Review Criteria and /or
directions from the ORB . Contrary to the Appellants ' arguments , these revisions fit squarely
within the scope of the items that may be administratively approved pursuant to Section 118-
260(a)-colors , canopies, signs , facades and other minor alterations.
12
Appellants also complain that the Staff report denotes that the Application is inconsistent
with the zoning code. The specific language in the report, however, provides that the purported
inconsistencies are the result of a "preliminary review" APP 268 and that the project is required
to comply with applicable zoning requirements "prior to the issuance of a Building Permit." APP
268. Further, the inconsistencies are limited to awnings and minor alterations, i.e. covers for
driveways and walkways, fence modifications, and final verification of the Section 142-802(8)
required view corridor (i .e . minor landscape alterations) -all of which are within the
administrative approval authority set forth in Section I I 8-260(a). Any modifications required
are authorized by Section 118-260( a) which allows administrative approval of awnings,
canopies, exterior surface colors, and fa9ade and building alterations which are minor in nature-
and no building permit can issue until all zoning matters obtain "final review and verification by
the Zoning Administrator." APP 268.
The ORB 's decision to impose conditions and allow minor revisions to be approved at
the Staff level is specifically authorized by Sections 118-260 and 118-264 of the City Code, and
the ORB 's decision is entitled to deference from the Commission . Dusseau at 1246 (finding that
Circuit Court departed from the essential requirements of law by failing to defer to agency 's
reasonable interpretation of its own guidelines .) Its interpretation of the applicable Code
provisions is entitled to great deference and should be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous .
BellSouth Telecommunications , 708 So . 2d at 596-59 7 . Appellants must show a departure from
the essential requirements of law to overcome the ORB 's interpretation. Id. Because all the
conditions set forth in the Order are specifically authorized for administrative review and
approval pursuant to Sections l I 8-260(a) and 118-264 of the City Code, Appellants have failed
to meet their burden and the Appeals must be denied.
13
CONCLUSION
The Appeals fail because (a) the Order is supported by ample competent substantial
evidence; and (b) the conditions in the Order for adm inistrative approval are specifically
authorized by City Code Sections 118-260(a) and 118-264 Accordingly, the Commission must
uphold the DRB 's Order.
14
Dated: May 6, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
RAPHAEL A. PAZ, ESQ.
City Attorney
City of Miami Beach
Fla. Bar No.: 150363
NICHOLAS KALLERGIS, ESQ.
Deputy Assistant City Attorney
Fla. Bar No.: 105278
City of Miami Beach City Attorney 's Office
1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
rafaelpaz@miamibeachfl.gov
nickkallergis@miamibeachfl .gov
AND
LEHTINEN SCHULTZ PLLC
Attorneys for Appellee, the City of Miami Beach
Design Review Board
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 507
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel: 305.760.8544
Fax: 305.356 .5720
Email: BdelaFuente@Lehtinen-Schultz.com
By: /s/ Bob de la Fuente
Bob de la Fuente, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 973998
and
By: /s/ Amanda Quirke Hand
AMANDA QUIRKE HAND, ESQ.
AQHLaw
Co-Counsel for City of Miami Beach Design Review
Board
1395 Brickell A venue Suite 800
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel: 305-733-2800
Florida Bar No. 26838
Email:ahand@aqhlaw.com
15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been hand delivered to the Clerk of
the City of Miami Beach and served upon counsel of record via email to:
Paul C. Savage, Esq .(psavage@rascoklock.com)
W. Tucker Gibbs, Esq .(tucker@wtgibbs.com )
Neisen 0. Kasdin, Esq. (neisen.kasdin@akerman.com )
Joni Armstrong Coffey , Esq .(joni.armstrong.coffery@akerman.com )
Christopher Penelas, Esq.(christopher.penelas@akerman.com)
this 6th day of May, 2022.
By: /s/ Bob de la Fuente
Bob de la Fuente, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 973998
16