2004-25655 Reso
RESOLUTION NO.2004':'2i655 ' ...
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO A
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZING (1) THE
CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 7,726 SQUARE FEET OF
CITY-OWNED LAND CONTAINED IN AND ADJACENT TO LOTS
18, 29 AND 30 OF BLOCK 51, LOCATED BETWEEN
WASHINGTON AVENUE ON THE EAST, BISCAYNE COURT TO
THE NORTH, ALTON ROAD TO THE WEST AND SOUTH POINTE
DRIVE TO THE SOUTH, IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA TO TRG-
ALASKA III, LLC, (2) THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY
450 SQUARE FEET OF THE EASTERN TIP OF THE CITY-OWNED
LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL TRIANGLE,
SUBJECT TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, LOCATED
ADJACENT TO THE ALASKA PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO SOUTH
POINTE PARK IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO TRG-ALASKA I,
LTD., AND (3) THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,653
SQUARE FEET OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE ALLEY
KNOWN AS OCEAN COURT ON BLOCK 1, LOCATED BETWEEN
OCEAN DRIVE ON THE EAST, FIRST STREET TO THE NORTH,
COLLINS AVENUE TO THE WEST AND SOUTH POINTE DRIVE TO
THE SOUTH, IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO SUN & FUN, INC.
AND PORTOFINO REAL ESTATE FUND, LTD., AND WAIVING THE
$5,000 APPLICATION FEE, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT; FURTHER WAIVING, BY 5/7THS
VOTE, THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND APPRAISAL
REQUIREMENTS; AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 82-39 OF THE
MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE; FINDING SAID WAIVER TO BE IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH.
WHEREAS, East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline"), West Side
Partners, Ltd. ("West Side"), among others (collectively "the Portofino Entities"), initiated
litigation against the City of Miami Beach (the "City") and the Department of Community
Affairs, in various actions respectively claiming damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris
Private Property Rights Protection Act, other civil rights violations and other relief in Florida
Circuit Court Case No. 98-13274 CA 01 (30), and United States District Court Case No. 01-
4921-CIV-Moreno, and Florida Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 02-3283GM;
and
WHEREAS, some of the properties at issue in the litigation have been conveyed to
one or more companies that are part of The Related Group (the "Related Entities"); and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission have heretofore approved a "Term
Sheet," settling in concept the above litigation, by Resolution No.2004-25509, adopted on
February 25,2004. Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the Related Entities and Portofino Entities
have participated in a collaborative process including neighborhood residents and
representatives, and City staff and consultant Alex Cooper, to prepare a Concept Plan to
implement the settlement terms; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2004, the City Commission referred the Concept Plan to the
Design Review Board and Planning Board, for review and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission further authorized the Administration to execute
owner affidavits for those applications filed pursuant to the Term Sheet that involve City-
owned land; and
WHEREAS, as part of today's agenda, the Concept Plan is attached as part of the
Settlement Agreement and there are various amendments to the Land Development
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, collectively, which are necessary to implement
the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, on July 7,2004, the Mayor and City Commission adopted a resolution
setting the public hearing on July 28, 2004 to consider the conveyance of City-owned land
and the Vacation of Alley, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code, governing the sale (which
includes conveyance) or lease of City-owned property, provides that the conveyance of any
City-owned property, requires the following:
. a public bidding process;
. a Planning Department analysis;
. an independent appraisal to determine the value of the leasehold interest;
. a public hearing to obtain citizen input; and
WHEREAS, Section 82-39 further provides for the waiver of the competitive bidding
and appraisal requirements, by 5/7ths vote of the Mayor and City Commission, upon a
finding by the Mayor and City Commission that the public interest would be served by
waiving such conditions; and
WHEREAS, the attached resolution also provides for the waiver of the competitive
bidding and appraisal requirements. Waiver of competitive bidding is supported in that the
proposed conveyances are contemplated as part of a global settlement of litigation; and
WHEREAS, waiver of the appraisal requirement is also supported due to the global
settlement; in addition to settling all pending lawsuits and releasing the City from all related
claims, the City will be receiving approximately 2 acres of the Alaska Parcel, prime land at
the mouth of the Government Cut, in exchange for the conveyance of approximately
12,829 sf, in aggregate, of City land and public alley/easement area; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 82-39, a minimum fifteen (15) day
advertised notice advising of the public hearing was provided; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Department analysis is attached to the Commission
Memorandum; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's requirements for Vacation of Alleys, Easements
and City Rights of Way, the requirements of Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code
also apply in considering the vacation of the alley and pursuant thereto this resolution finds
said vacation to be in the best interest of the general public's welfare and all other
requirements have been met; and
WHEREAS, this resolution further authorizes the waiver of the $5,000 application
fee required for vacation of right-of-ways, insofar as the Related Entities have agreed to
provide, at no cost to the City, a $10 Million title policy on the lands it will convey to the
City; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Terms of the Settlement Agreement, it is
contemplated the City will convey the end lots (18, 29 and 30) on the south side of Block
51 containing approximately 7,726 sJ.; and
WHEREAS, these end lots enable the optimal development of the Block 51 site and
as public individual lots, yield little developable value to the City and/or as open green
space due to their minimum dimensions, adjacent to the public right-of-way and to the
proposed Developer improvements; and
WHEREAS, while the Term Sheet originally contemplated conveying 3,150 sf of the
Federal Triangle, revisions to the Concept Plan now allow the Settlement Agreement to
provide for conveyance of approximately 450 sJ. ofthe Federal Triangle, subject to Federal
Government approval, located adjacent to the Alaska parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Government has preliminarily indicated its favorable review
of the subject conveyance; and
WHEREAS, as exists with the Federal Triangle existing deed, the same Federal
deed restrictions and reservations will apply to a like transfer area, such area is
contemplated to be a comparable amount of land at the water's edge next to the boat
basin; and
WHEREAS, these Federal deed restrictions and reservations that exist today on the
Federal Triangle include a reservation of oil, gas and mineral rights, public recreation use
and a reverter to the United States for national defense requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement contemplates the vacation of the southern
half of the public alley/easement known as Ocean Court on Block 1, containing
approximately 4,653 sJ., in order to allow a unified and contiguous development on the
southern portion of Block 1; and
WHEREAS, in order to mitigate the adverse impacts of double parking and
commercial deliveries being made from the street, access and a turnaround area will be
provided from the alley southbound into the northern fac;ade of the contiguous
development; and the access area will be accommodated as the design develops for the
proposed project, on site; and
WHEREAS, the subject vacation approval will be conditioned upon the following:
Sun & Fun, Inc. and Portofino Real Estate Fund, Ltd. shall comply with the required
conditions and costs of relocation or provision of an equivalent easement, as required by
any and all utility companies occupying the existing alley/easement area, and/or obtain
letters of agreement of no objection by these utility companies prior to the City executing a
Termination and Abandonment of the Alley/Easement Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, pursuant to a scheduled
Public Hearing, authorize (1) the Conveyance of approximately 7,726 square feet of City-
Owned land contained in and adjacent to Lots 18,29 and 30 of Block 51, located between
Washington Avenue on the east, Biscayne Court to the north, Alton Road to the west and
South Pointe Drive to the south, in Miami Beach, Florida to TRG-Alaska III, LLC, (2) the
Conveyance of approximately 450 square feet of the eastern tip of the City-owned land
commonly known as the Federal Triangle, subject to Federal Government approval,
located adjacent to the Alaska property, adjacent to South Pointe Park in Miami Beach,
Florida, to TRG-Alaska I, Ltd., and (3) the vacation of approximately 4,653 square feet of
the southern portion of the alley known as Ocean Court on Block 1, located between
Ocean Drive on the east, First Street to the north, Collins Avenue to the west and South
Pointe Drive to the south, in Miami Beach, Florida, to Sun & Fun, Inc. and Portofino Real
Estate Fund, Ltd. and waiving the $5,000 application fee, pursuant to the Terms of the
Settlement Agreement; further waiving, by 5/7ths vote, the competitive bidding and
appraisal requirements; as required by Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code;
finding said waiver to be in the best interest of the City of Miami Beach.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of July
ATTEST:
?/t.1./vy
DATED
CllY OF MIAMI BEACH
COIIINIISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
A Resolution, pursuant to a scheduled Public Hearing authorizing conveyance of (1) approximately 7,726
square feet of City-owned land contained in Lots 18, 29 and 30 of Block 51, to TRG-Alaska III, LLC, (2) of
approximately 450 square feet of the eastern tip of the City-owned land commonly known as the Federal
Triangle, subject to Federal Government approval, to TRG-Alaska I, L TO" and (3) the vacation of
approximately 4,653 square feet of the southern portion of the alley known as Ocean Court on Block 1, and
waiving the $5,000 vacation application fee to Sun & Fun, Inc. and Portofino Real Estate Fund, Ltd., in
Miami Beach, Florida, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; further to consider waiver, by
5/7ths vote, of the competitive bidding and appraisal requirements; as required by Section 82-39 of the
Miami Beach City Code; findino said waiver to be in the best interest of the Citv of Miami Beach.
Issue:
Should the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached Resolution which authorizes the conveyance of
City-owned land and the Vacation of Alley, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The Mayor and City Commission have heretofore approved a "Term Sheet," settling in concept litigation, by
Resolution No.2004-25509, adopted on February 25, 2004. Pursuant to the Settlement Terms the
conveyance of certain City-owned property is contemplated.
Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code, governing the sale (which includes conveyance) or lease of
City-owned property, provides that the conveyance of any City-owned property, requires the following:
a) a public bidding process; b) a Planning Department analysis; c) an independent appraisal to determine
the value of the leasehold interest; and d) a public hearing to obtain citizen input.
Section 82-39 further provides for the waiver of the competitive bidding and appraisal requirements, by
5/7ths vote of the Mayor and City Commission, upon a finding by the Mayor and City Commission that the
public interest would be served by waiving such conditions. There is also requirement that there be a
minimum fifteen (15) day advertised notice advising of the public hearing.
Pursuant to the City's requirements for Vacation of Alleys, Easements and City Rights of Way, the
requirements of Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code also apply in considering the vacation of the
alley and finding said vacation to be in the best interest of the general public's welfare.
Waiver of the competitive bidding and appraisal requirement by 5/7'h vote and the $5,000 application fee is
also recommended; findino said waivers to be in the best interest of the City.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
Design Review Board - June 15, 2004 - Approval
Plannin Board - June 22, 2004 - A roval
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
D
Finance Dept.
T:\AGENDA\2004\JUI0704\Regular\PortofinoConveyanceOfLand PH.SUM.DQC
AGENDA ITEM Rl F-
DATE 7-;:€-oy
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www,miamibeachfl.gov
To:
From:
Subject:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Date: July 28, 2004
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ /' PUBLIC HEARING
City Manager ~
A RESOLUTION F THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO A SCHEDULED PUBLIC
HEARING, AUTHORIZING (1) THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY
7,726 SQUARE FEET OF CITY-OWNED LAND CONTAINED IN AND
ADJACENT TO LOTS 18, 29 AND 30 OF BLOCK 51, LOCATED
BETWEEN WASHINGTON AVENUE ON THE EAST, BISCAYNE COURT
TO THE NORTH, ALTON ROAD TO THE WEST AND SOUTH POINTE
DRIVE TO THE SOUTH, IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA TO TRG-ALASKA
III, LLC, (2) THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 450 SQUARE
FEET OF THE EASTERN TIP OF THE CITY-OWNED LAND COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL TRIANGLE, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE ALASKA
PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO SOUTH POINTE PARK IN MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, TO TRG-ALASKA I, LTD., AND (3) THE VACATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 4,653 SQUARE FEET OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION
OF THE ALLEY KNOWN AS OCEAN COURT ON BLOCK 1, LOCATED
BETWEEN OCEAN DRIVE ON THE EAST, FIRST STREET TO THE
NORTH, COLLINS AVENUE TO THE WEST AND SOUTH POINTE DRIVE
TO THE SOUTH, IN MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO SUN & FUN, INC. AND
PORTOFINO REAL ESTATE FUND, LTD., AND WAIVING THE $5,000
APPLICATION FEE, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT; FURTHER WAIVING, BY 5/7THS VOTE, THE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND APPRAISAL REQUIREMENTS; AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 82-39 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE;
FINDING SAID WAIVER TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
East Coastline Development, Ltd. ("East Coastline"), West Side Partners, Ltd. ("West
Side"), among others (collectively "the Portofino Entities"), initiated litigation against the City
of Miami Beach (the "City") and the Department of Community Affairs, in various actions
respectively claiming damages and rights under the Bert J. Harris Private Property Rights
Protection Act, other civil rights violations and other relief in Florida Circuit Court Case No.
July 28, 2004
Commission Memorandum
Portofino Conveyance of Land
Page 2 of 5
98-13274 CA 01 (30), and United States District Court Case No. 01-4921-CIV-Moreno, and
Florida Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 02-3283GM. Some of the properties
at issue in the litigation have been conveyed to one or more companies that are part of The
Related Group (the "Related Entities").
The Mayor and City Commission have heretofore approved a "Term Sheet," settling in
concept the above litigation, by Resolution No.2004-25509, adopted on February 25, 2004.
Pursuant to the Term Sheet, the Related Entities and Portofino Entities have participated in
a collaborative process including neighborhood residents and representatives, City staff,
and consultant Alex Cooper, to prepare a Concept Plan to implement the settlement terms.
On May 26, 2004, the City Commission referred the Concept Plan to the Design Review
Board and Planning Board, for review and recommendation. The City Commission further
authorized the Administration to execute owner affidavits for those applications filed
pursuant to the Term Sheet that involve City-owned land. In today's agenda, the Concept
Plan is attached as part of the Settlement Agreement and there are various amendments
to the Land Development Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, collectively, which are
necessary to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
On July 7,2004, the Mayor and City Commission adopted a resolution setting the public
hearing on July 28,2004 to consider the conveyance of City-owned land and the Vacation
of Alley, as contemplated in the Settlement Agreement.
Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code, governing the sale (which includes
conveyance) or lease of City-owned property, provides that the conveyance of any City-
owned property, requires the following:
. a public bidding process
. a Planning Department analysis
. an independent appraisal to determine the value of the leasehold interest
. a public hearing to obtain citizen input
Section 82-39 further provides for the waiver of the competitive bidding and appraisal
requirements, by 5/7ths vote of the Mayor and City Commission, upon a finding by the
Mayor and City Commission that the public interest would be served by waiving such
conditions.
The attached resolution also provides for the waiver of the competitive bidding and
appraisal requirements. Waiver of competitive bidding is supported in that the proposed
conveyances are contemplated as part of a global settlement of litigation. Waiver of the
appraisal requirement is also supported due to the global settlement. In addition to settling
all pending lawsuits and releasing the City from all related claims, the City will be receiving
approximately 2 acres of the Alaska Parcel, prime land at the mouth of the Government
Cut, in exchange for the conveyance of approximately 12,829 sf, in aggregate, of City land
and public alley/easement area.
In accordance with Section 82-39, a minimum fifteen (15) day advertised notice advising of
July 28, 2004
Commission Memorandum
Portofino Conveyance of Land
Page 3 of 5
the public hearing was provided. Additionally, the Planning Department analysis is
attached.
Pursuant to the City's requirements for Vacation of Alleys, Easements and City Rights of
Way, the requirements of Section 82-39 of the Miami Beach City Code also apply in
considering the vacation of the alley and pursuant thereto this resolution finds said vacation
to be in the best interest of the general public's welfare and all other requirements have
been met. This resolution further authorizes the waiver of the $5,000 application fee
required for vacation of right-of-ways, insofar as the Related Entities have agreed to
provide, at no cost to the City, a $10 million title policy on the lands it will convey to the
City.
Block 51. Lots 18, 29. and 30
~.
~
~
~
~
?i
o
au
In accordance with the
Terms of the Settlement
Agreement, it is
contemplated the City will
convey the end lots (18, 29
and 30) on the south side of
Block 51 containing
approximately 7,726 sJ.
(legal description attached).
These end lots enable the
optimal development of the
Block 51 site and as public
individual lots, yield little
developable value to the City
and/or as open green space
due to their minimum
dimensions, adjacent to the
public right-of-way and to the
proposed Developer
improvements.
July 28, 2004
Commission Memorandum
Portofino Conveyance of Land
Page 4 of 5
Federal TrianQle
While the Term Sheet originally contemplated conveying 3,150 sf of the Federal Triangle,
revisions to the Concept Plan now allow the Settlement Agreement to provide for
conveyance of approximately 450 s.f. of the Federal Triangle, subject to Federal
Government approval, located adjacent to the Alaska parcel (legal description attached).
The Settlement Agreement provides for the Developer to convey approximately 88,550 s.f.
of Alaska, which includes a similar 450 s.f. of transfer property, in exchange for the Federal
Triangle. The Federal Government has preliminarily indicated its favorable review of the
subject conveyance and exchange. As exists with the Federal Triangle existing deed, the
same Federal deed restrictions and reservations will apply to a like transfer area, such area
is contemplated to be a comparable amount of land at the water's edge next to the boat
basin. These Federal deed restrictions and reservations that exist today on the Federal
Triangle include a reservation of oil, gas and mineral rights, public recreation use and a
reverter to the United States for national defense requirements.
The conveyance of the smaller 450:1: s.f. will enable the optimal Development of the
Goodman/Hinson/Alaska Parcel and provides a much smaller than anticipated conveyance
of public land while maximizing the amount of land deeded to the City within the Alaska
assemblage.
July 28, 2004
Commission Memorandum
Portofino Conveyance of Land
Page 5 of 5
Block 1; Ocean Court Allev/Easement
$ Lastly, the Settlement Agreement
contemplates the vacation of the southern half
of the public alley/easement known as Ocean
Court on Block 1, containing approximately
4,653 s.f. (legal description attached), in order
to allow a unified and contiguous
development on the southern portion of Block
1. In order to mitigate the adverse impacts of
double parking and commercial deliveries
being made from the street, access and a
turnaround area will be provided from the
alley southbound into the northern fac;:ade of
the contiguous development. The access
area will be addressed on site during the
design review process for the proposed
project.
The subject vacation approval will be
conditioned upon the following: Sun & Fun,
Inc. and Portofino Real Estate Fund, Ltd. shall
comply with the required conditions and costs
of relocation or provision of an equivalent easement, as required by any and all utility
companies occupying the existing alley/easement area, and/or obtain letters of agreement
of no objection by these utility companies prior to the City executing a Termination and
Abandonment of the Alley/Easement Area.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends that the Mayor and City
Commission authorize the conveyance of City-owned land and vacation of alley,
substantially in the form attached and subject to approval of legal descriptions by the City
Attorney and Public Works Department, in accordance to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and further waive by 5/ihs vote the competitive bidding and appraisal
requirement and $5000 vacation application fee; finding said waivers to be in the best
interest of the City.
JMG\~C\rar
T:\AGENDA\2004\JuI2804\Regular\PortofinoConveyanceOfLand PH.eM.DOC
Block 1 Alley
A portion of the alley (a/k/a Ocean Court) bounded on the south by the north right-of-
way line of South Pointe Drive (f1kJa Biscayne Street), bounded on the north by the north
property line of Lot 5 extended westerly to the west line of the said alley, bounded in the
east by the east line of said alley, bounded on the west by the west line of said alley, all
aforementioned lands lying within Block 1 of "Ocean Beach Subdivision", a subdivision
recorded in Plat Book 2, at Page 38, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
Block 51 End Parcels
A portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of
OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.3 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 81 of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
Begin at the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 29; thence N 77013'28" E along the
Northerly line of said Lots 29 and 30 a distance of 55.15 feet to a point; thence S 000
37'13" W for a distance of 112.35 feet to a point on the Southerly line of a 10 foot walk
shown on said plat of OCEAN BEACH ADDITION NO.3; thence S 76052'58" W along
the Southerly line of said 10 foot walk a distance of 31.51 feet to its intersection with the
Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot 29; thence N 12046'09" W along the
said Southerly extension and along the Westerly line of said Lot 29 a distance of 110.02
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
All of the above lying and being in Section 3, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, City of
Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
A portion of Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto, Block 51 of the plat of OCEAN
BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO. 3 as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 81 of the Public
Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida, more particularly described as follows:
That portion of said Lot 18 and the 10 foot walk adjacent thereto lying Easterly and
Northerly of the following described line; begin at a point on the Northerly line of said Lot
18, said point being 0.39 feet Easterly of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 18; thence
S 12046'09" E, parallel with and 0.39 feet Easterly of the Westerly line at said Lot 18 for
74.85 feet to a point of nontangential curve leading to the left and concave to the
Northeast, having a radius of 47.50 feet and whose radius point bears N 68024'46" E;
thence Southerly and Easterly through a central angle of 37"27'59" for an arc distance
of 31.06 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 18 and on the Northerly line of a
10 foot walkway as shown on said plat of OCEAN BEACH FLA. ADDITION NO.3, said
point being also a point of compound curve having a radius of 45.00 feet; thence
Southerly and Easterly through a central angle of 23025'51" for an arc distance of 18.40
feet to a point on the Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Lot 18, said point
being 9.78 feet Southerly of the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 18 and the TERMINAL
POINT of the herein described line.
All of the above lying and being in Section 3, Township 54 South, Range 42
East, City of Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Federal Triangle 450:1:
INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR 450 SF PORTION OF FEDERAL TRIANGLE
T:\AGENDA\2004UuI2B04\Regular\PortofinoConveyanceOfLand PH.legals.DOC
FEDERAL TRIANGLE 450:1: SF
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A Porcel of lond locoted in Section 10, Township 54 South, Ronge 42 Eost, City of Miomi Beoch,
Miomi-Dode County, Florido, ond being more porticulorly described os follows;
Commence ot the Northeost corner of Lot 3, Block 8, South Beoch Subdivision os recorded in Plat
Book 6 at Poge 77 af the Public Records of Miami-Dode County, Florido; Thence S10"47'31" W
olong the Eosterly line of soid Block 8 for 111.76 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 1 of said
Block 8;Thence N 65"35'12" W olong the Southwesterly line of said Lot 1 for 64.44 feet; Thence S
87' 37'54" W olong the southerly line of lots 1 ond 3 of soid Block 8 for 208.59 feet to the Point
of Beginning of the hereinafter described porcel of lond; Thence S 57'41'41" W olong the
Northwesterly line of Parcel II os shown on Fortin, Leovy, Skiles, Inc, survey drowing number
20010-061-1 for 41.05 feet to 0 non-tongent point on 0 circular curve concove to the northeost
ond whose rodius point beors N62"37'08"E; Thence northwesterly olong a 104.49 foot radius curve
leading to the right through 0 centro I ongle of 11"54'26" for on orc distonce of 21.72 feet to 0
point on the South line of soid lot 3, Block 8; Thence N 87'37'54" E olong soid South line for
42.66 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 445 squore feet, more or less,
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
- This site lies in Section 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 Eost, City of Miomi Beoch,
Miomi-Dode County, F1orido.
- Beorings hereon ore referred to on ossumed volue of S 87'38'57" W for the south right-of-woy
line of South Pointe Drive.
- Londs shown hereon were not obstrocted for easements ond/or rights-of-woy of
records.
- This is not 0 "Boundory Survey" but only a grophic depiction of the description
shown hereon.
- Oimensions shown hereon ore bosed on Fortin, Leovy, Skiles, sketch #2001-061-1.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify thot this "Sketch of Description" wos mode under my responsible chorge
on July 21, 2004, ond meets the Minimum Technicol Standards os set forth by the
Florido Board of Professionol Surveyors ond Moppers in Chapter 61 G 17 -6, Florido
Administrotive Code, pursuont to Section 472,027, Florido Stotutes,
"Not valid without the signature and the original raised seal of a Florida Ucensed Surveyor and Mapper"
FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, INC., LB3653
By;
Doniel C. Fartin, For The Firm
Surveyor ond Mopper, LS2853
State af Florida.
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No. 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale as shawn
Ref. Dwg. INC"
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS lob. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER; 00003653 Dwg, No. 1004-091
180 Northeast 168th. Street! North Miami Beach, Florida, 33162
Plotted: 7/21/04 11:090 Phone: 305-653-4493/ Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey.com Sheet 1 of 2
lOW
, ~ ~
I ~ W
I fu ~
I ' - BISCAYNE AVENU~)
(PLAT BOOK 6 PAGE
I 587"38'S7"W _ _ - - - - - ...,-- - -,
L----r------------ I I
I I I Z
I I I 0 I
I POINT OF I I!; UJ I
\ COMMENCEMENT I v J f'1
I NORTHEAST CORNER OF I I? Z i I
\ LOT 3, BLOCK 8 -/- _ I UJ ~~J- - - -c- -
------------ W)~ I~~cc
__\---'---=~;;-"'-..L- n --@ - ~ ~ !ffi3--1-;: <<11 \ \c""."
\ \ ~ U= M """ . "'" " I LOT 2;;; Ie:> " 0 T , LOT 'I LOT
\ N87037'54"E LOT 3 l-. _ _ - -I--- -..:> I I
\ 42,66' SOUTHERLYUNEOF "- MONUMENTrl.:i' ~~ T 1. 1 ~ ;: I I I
\ \ LOTSlAND'BlOCKS "S87037'54 0'$ (J) D()O'
" \ _ _ _ _ _ _+.q++ 208.59' '$"< R/~~ ci"L. _ _1_ _ ....L -
,__.L- A=11054'~6" 'iii!"' ~ ~ .4<t'
\ ~=~~.i;9 ~ , 0' POINT OF I ~ HARr:.\
\ __~ 41.05' BEGINNING I --~""ilOc~
\ -- NORTHWESTERLYLlNEO' MONUMENT 'WEST' ~ I / ........ .LOT ,1('L"'oET. "',"1
/'" PARCEL II OF FORTIN LEAVY """
\ __ SKILESDRAWINGII2OO',08"l SOUTHEAS CORNER I ........1........ I
\ __ -- /\ OF LOT 1, BLoCK 8 / ........ '-.i
\ __ __-- \ I 1/
/\ __ \ I 1/ -SOv,.",
--) I' "'O'IV
Y __ / ~
\ __ I / '1"',>
\ -- I
V-- /
\ PARCEL II ! /
\ OF FORTIN LEAVY SKILES I /
, DRAWING #2001-061-1 I /
\ I /
\ I /
\ I /
\ I /
, I /
, I /
G ................
Ot..-: ........ ........ I /
i::~"v1L1. ...... ...... I /
i::"v.,.. ........ ...... ...... -L.. ..../
OU.,..
~
$0
7.l.
1-~
~
7.l.
bJ=t~=~=L~=L~=~=~~=~~I~j
SOUTH POINTE DRIVE
~====
I
I
G
GRAPHIC SCALE
o
I
50
I
100
I
200
I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = tOO fl.
DllJwn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No. 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale 1"=100'
Ref. Dwg. INC.
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 00003653 Dwg. No, 1004-091
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/21/04 11;090 Phone; 305-653-4493 / Fax 305-651-7152 f Email fls@flssurvey.com Sheet 2 of 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A Porcel of land locoted in Section 10, Township 54 South, Ronge 42 Eost, City of Miomi Beoch,
Miomi-Dode County, Florida, ond being more porticulorly described os follows:
Commence ot the Northeost corner of Lot 3, Block 8, South Beoch Subdivision os recorded in Plot
Book 6 ot Page 77 of the Public Records of Miomi-Dade County, Florida; Thence S10'47'31" W olong
the Easterly line of said Block 8 for 111.76 feet to the sautheost corner of Lot 1 of said Block 8;
Thence N 65'35'12" W olong the Southwesterly line of said lot 1 for 64.44 feet; Thence S 87'37'54"
W along the southerly line of lots 1 ond 3 of soid Block 8 for 208.59 feet; Thence S 57'41'41" W
olong the Northwesterly line of Porcel II as shown on Fortin, Leavy, Skiles, Inc. survey drowing
number 2001D-061-1 for 215.75 feet to the Point of Beginning of the hereinofter described porcel
of land; Thence continue S 57'41'41" W olong the previously described line for 14.75 feet more ar
less to the Mean High Woter line of the Easterly shoreline of Biscayne Bay; thence S 32'13'24" E
olong soid Meon High Water line for 30.32 feet; Thence N 56'33'59" E for 14.75 feet; Thence N
32'13'24" W for 30.03 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Contoining 445 squore feet, more or less.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES:
- This site lies in Section 10, Township 54 South, Ronge 42 Eost, City of Miomi Beoch,
Miomi-Dode County, F1orido.
- Beorings hereon are referred to an assumed volue of S 87'38'57" W for the south right-of-woy
line of South Pointe Drive.
- Lands shown hereon were not abstracted for eosements and/or rights-of-woy of
records.
- This is not 0 "Boundory Survey" but only 0 grophic depiction of the description
shown hereon,
- Dimensions shown hereon are bosed on Fortin, Leovy, Skiles, sketch #2001-061-1.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this "Sketch of Description" wos mode under my responsible chorge
on July 21, 2004, ond meets the Minimum Technical Stondords as set forth by the
Florida Boord of Professional Surveyors ond Moppers in Chapter 61G17-6, Florida
Administrative Code, pursuont to Section 472.027, Florido Stotutes.
"Not valid without the signeture and the original raised seal of a Florida Licensed Surveyor and Mapper"
FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, INC., LB3653
By;
Doniel C. Fortin, For The Firm
Surveyor ond Mopper, LS2853
Stote of Florida.
DnlWD By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION I Date 7/21/04
Cad. No, 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale as shown
Ref. Dwg. INC,
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER; 00003653 Dwg. No. 1004-092
180 Northeast I68th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida, 33162
Plotted: 7/21/04 11;090 Phone: 305-653-4493/ Fax 305-651-7152 / Email fls@flssurvey,com Sheet 1 of 2
: ~ ~ bJ=l._'=...l.=L~=.L=I=...l.==-1===':r~j
I ~ w
I lli ~ SOUTH POINTE DRIVE
I ., - BISCAYNE ApVf~:t~7}
(PLAT BOOK 6
I S87'38'S7"W _ _ - - - - - ,- - I
L----r------------ , I
I / I Z
I , I 0 ,
I POINT OF ,I !; UJ ,
I COMMENCEMENT I V:J :'
I NORTHEAST CORNER OF / I Z Z ~~ /
LOT 3, BLOCK_B _ _ _ -I- _ X- UJ ~~J-
I > i8 T -; -;: 1;"" .;-
--<::,...o;;-u';-", - ..L - - - - - - - - - n.--?' f?c;-) - - -f - ~ fg ( "5/ I l(p.B... Pg,
""". rg> [k @ ce If":>. ,= /. 'Co &, I I
LQ:) PLAT BOOK IS PAGE 71 \ LOT 2;;; ~~ lOT 6 LOT 5 I lOT
LOT 3 h.. _ _ - -I- -..::> / I
MONUMENT 1(;' Q T 1 0 :: I
SB7037'54'W -''15$1 fi:j 0 00" I
~ 20B.59' '$'1< "'~~~ _ _1_ _..L-
'"4'
~ HARLEY
MONUMENT WEST', (Po. '.
--I!l~TCC~
' I(P.B,'. Pg.
I I I .......~ 6 LOT 5
SOUTHEAST'l'CORNER, .....1..... I
OFLOT1,B OCKB / .....-.....\
/ / /
, It
, ,
, /
, /
, /
, /
, /
/ /
, /
, /
, /
/ /
/ /
/ /
, /
..... / /
.....- /
--1....../
CV--,..
--,,--
\. \
\. \
\. \
\. '0-_________
'\ - - (<... O~ 0- <3
/' O~ ~\~~ ,/-,<,')
\. ~ ~\~ ~
~~ \. \ ~~ O~,,~'
~\ \. ",,<,1
0'%' \. ./ /\
./ \
llllis..--..LN32013'24"W\
S3~od;;'4"E/ .qql~ N5603:~~~:~ ./)
.~ \. 14.7~"'-
~ \.../
o \.
"?..L. \.
1-~ \
\.
\.
\.
\
"
.....
,.,.. ..........
'?Ov. .....
I$~"v. ..........
"'-11$",--,..
NORTHWESTERLY UNE OF
PARCEL II OF FORTIN LEAVY
SKILES DRAWING J2001.061-1
~
"?..L.
f=====
,
,
~o
lJ~1y
,(:)0,,,,
~"''''
"l~'r
G
GRAPHIC SCALE
50
I
200
I
100
I
( IN FEET )
t inch = 100 ft,
Drawn By JJB ( SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION 1 Date 7/21/04
Cad. No. 031069 FORTIN, LEAVY, SKILES, Scale 1"=100'
Ref. Dwg. INC.
2001-061-1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & MAPPERS Job. No. 041300
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER: 00003653 Dwg, No. 1004-092
180 Northeast 168th. Street / North Miami Beach, Florida. 33162
Plotted: 7/21/04 11:090 Phone: 305-653-4493 / Fax 305-651-7152 / Ernail f1s@f1ssurvey,corn Sheet 2 of 2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Planning Department
Interoffice Memorandum
m
To:
From:
Cristina M. Cuervo
Assistant City Manager
Jorge G, Gomez ~
Planning Director V~
Date: July 16, 2004
Subject: PLANNING ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO SHAPIRO ORDINANCE
The following is the Planning analysis pursuant to Section 82-38 of the City Code for the proposed
conveyance of City-owned land and the vacation of alley, as contemplated in the Settlement
Agreement between the Portofino Entities and the City.
1. Whether or not the proposed ordinance is in keeping with City Goals and objectives
and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed conveyance and vacation contemplated in the above mentioned settlement
agreement is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The impact on adjacent property, including the potential positive or negative impacts
such as diminution of open space, increased traffic, noise level or enhanced property
values, improved development patterns and provision of necessary services. Based
on the proposed use of the property, the City shall determine the potential impact of
the project on City utilities and other infrastructure needs and the magnitude of the
costs associated with needed infrastructure improvements. Should it become
apparent that further evaluation of traffic impact is needed, the proponent shall be
responsible for obtaining a traffic impact analysis from a reputable traffic engineer.
The proposed conveyance and vacation is not expected to have any detrimental impact on
any adjacent properties. Rather, it will facilitate the expansion of South Pointe Park.
3. A determination as to whether or not the proposed use is in keeping with a public
purpose and community needs, such as expanding the City's revenue base, reducing
City costs, creating jobs, creating a significant revenue stream, and improving the
community's overall quality of life.
The proposed conveyance and vacation is part of a settlement agreement which should
contribute to the improvement of the South Pointe area, by ending litigation which has
caused uncertainty regarding future development scenario. The end result ofthe settlement
is a result of community input and collaborative planning.
4. Determination as to whether or not the development is in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood, will block views, or create other environmental
intrusions, and evaluation of the design and aesthetic considerations of the project.
The proposed conveyance and vacation is not expected to create environmental intrusions
into the community.
Portofino Settlement
July 16, 2004
Page 2
5. The impact on adjacent properties, whether or not there is adequate parking, street
and infrastructure needs.
Adequate parking and infrastructure is expected to be provided. The proposed conveyance
and vacation do not create any additional impacts.
6. A determination as to whether or not alternatives are available for the proposed
disposition, including assembly of adjacent properties, and whether the project could
be accomplished under a private-ownership assembly.
N/A
7. Within the constraints of public objectives, the department should examine financial
issues such as job generation, providing housing opportunities and the return to the
City for its disposition of property.
N/A
8. Such other issues as the Planning Department may deem appropriate in analysis of
the proposed disposition.
None.
JGG/RL
F:IPLANI$ALLIShapiro amend fileslPortofino settlement.doc
:e i CITY OF MIAMI BEACH lO
~i\' PUBLIC NOTI~~~!~~ ~~N ~~M~~I~a~~~!~~on:: a
>-. meeting on Wednesday, JULY 28, 2004 at 5:15 P.M. in the City Commission
:J I Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach,
::': \ Florida.
~ During this meeting the Miami Beach City Commission will hold a public
z hearing to consider the conveyance of City-owned land and the vacation of
,j, : alley, as eontemplated in the Settlement Agreement between East Coastline
I Development, Ltd., West Side Partners, Ltd., among others (collectively "the
portofino Entities"), and the City of Miami Beach (the "City") and the
Department of Community Affairs, and further delineated as follows:
1) The conveyance of approximately 7,726 square feet of City-owned
land contained in Lots 1 B, 29 and 30 of Block 51, located between
Washington Avenue on the east, Biscayne Court to the north, Alton
Road to the west and South Pointe Drive to the south, in Miami
Beach, Florida to TRG-Alaska III, LLC;
2) The conveyance of approximately 450 square feet of the eastern tip
of the City-owned land commonly known as The Federal Triangle,
subject to federal government approval, located adjacent to the
Alaska Parcel adjacent to South Pointe Park in Miami Beach, Florida
to TRG-Alaska I, Ltd,; and
3) The vacation of approximately 4,653 square feet of the southern
portion of the alley known as Ocean Court on Block 1, located
between Ocean Drive on the east, First Street to the north, Coliins
Avenue to the west and South Pointe Drive to the south, in Miami
Beach, Florida, to Sun & Fun,lnc. and Portofino Real Estate Fund, Ltd.
All persons are Invited to appear at this meeting or be represented by an
agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission cl
o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, First Floor, City Hall, Miami
Beach, Florida 33139,
A copy of the Settlement Agreement and all documents related thereto are
available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Cierk's
Office. Inquires may be directed to the City Manager's Office at 305-673.7010.
The Public Hearing may be continued at this meeting and, under such
circumstances, additional legal notice would not be provided. Any person may
contact the City Clerk at 305-673-7411 for information as to the status of the
Settlement Agreement as a result of the meeting.
Pursuant 10 Section 286,0105, Florida S1aW, tile City hereby adVises tile publ~ tI1at: . a person dec~es 10
appeal any decision made by tile City Commission with respect 10 any matter considered at its meeting or its
heanng, such person must insure tI1at a verbatim record of tile proceedings is made, wh~h record includes ,
tile testimony and evidence upon wh~h tile appeaJ is 10 be baSed.l11is notiCe doeS not cons1ltute consent by I
tile City for tile introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or i"elevant ev~ence. nor does it
au1horize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
i To, request this mmerinl In acce~sible format, sign language interpreters. information, on acces" lor ner<;r'l1s
: With disabilities, apdlor any accommodation to review any document or participate In any Clij-~Onsorecl
pn_'Beding, please contact. 305-fi04-2489 (voice), 305~673.7218(11Y) five days in advance to initiate your
"Quest. lTY users nay also call 7 \ 1 (Flooda Relay SelVlce). (Ad lI0272)
:J
<!
CY
iJ..l
I
'!!
~ ,
~
~
'"
J::
;:
;:
;:
:;;
/
~s uL~ )-~} LDO'!
~i'L. P.:,i~S
t7A
/C7F
, ,'.
REMARKS AND COMMENTS BY MICKY BISS R i; 8
BEFORE THE MIAMI BEACH CITY COMMISSION JL S-- F
AND THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R-S-c.
JULY 28, 2004 l2-.~ }) I.
p-_~E {Y-t
My name is Micky Biss, Individually, and through my corporate entity, USA Express, Inc., I
own property in the City of Miami Beach located at 120, 126 and 130 Ocean Drive and my
corporate entity and I are affected parties to this evening's proceedings. I understand that
for certain aspects of these proceedings you are sitting as the Miami Beach Redevelopment
Agency and therefore, where applicable, my remarks are being made to both this agency, as
well as to the City Commission.
I have not been before you for many years. I come here tonight because what is before you
now is one of the most important matters the Miami Beach Commission has ever dealt with.
The plaintiffs and applicants intend this to be the culmination or final act of a development
plan which has been carefully orchestrated and choreographed for over twelve years.
When Thomas Kramer first came to our fine City and started buying up properties some
twelve years ago, I was one of the largest land owners in the area known as South Point -
the area in Miami Beach south of Fifth Street. I became acquainted with Mr, Kramer, we broke
bread together and we shared ideas and visions for a new South Beach and, more
particularly, the redevelopment of South Point. As many of you may recall, one of his earliest
plans was to turn South Point into a beautiful low-rise community with hills and valleys and
green space; resembling as he then said, the Italian City of Portofino - hence the name of
his entity which is now before you.
The City leaders seemed intrigued. They even participated in Portofino's June 1993 charette
at which time architects and planners from around the globe gathered in Joe's for several
days to exchange ideas and concepts for this Redevelopment Area of Miami Beach.
Unfortunately, soon after, all those beautiful and seductive ideas were no longer being
discussed. Instead, in 1994 we got Portofino Towers and a lot of lawsuits filed against our
fine City by some of the very best attorneys in Florida. One of the most interesting
maneuvers was that Portofino bought, from an out-of-state entity, a judgment which this
entity had against the City of Miami Beach and then Portofino threatened the City with this
judgment and really tried to stick it to us.
About that time, a young man, an attorney in town with a lot of intelligence and charisma and
most importantly, a lot of principles, woke up the citizens of this City through the grassroots
organization he spearheaded known as Save Miami Beach. We all know the rest of the David
and Goliath story of how this small organization with a few dollars defeated Portofino's two
Page 2
million dollar campaign and how this charter amendment was ultimately passed by the
citizens of this City to protect our waterfront property. The little bit of undeveloped
waterfront property we still had was now going to be saved forever from developers doing
the very type of thing Portofino wanted to do in 1997. Later, the charter was further
amended to also protect our non-waterfront inland property.
It is ironic that today the gentleman who spearheaded this charter amendment movement is
our mayor, the honorable David Dermer and it is a travesty that a few months ago in
anticipation of pulling off the Settlement Agreement that is before you tonight, the City
modified the language of the very charter amendments which were to supposed to protect
the City and its citizens from Portofino. Supposedly, these modifications now exempt
Portofino, along with their related companies and entities from the original charter
amendments and thereby from the will of the citizens of this City. This sounds like something
that Chavez would attempt to pull off in Venezuela. Since it seems that he controls the
Supreme Court of Venezuela, he would probably be successful. Fortunately, here in Miami
Beach, USA, this will not fly. In addition to the manipulative intent of the modifications, I
believe that the language on its face does not allow for the actions that you are considering
tonight to be exempt from the charter amendments. Some of the terms of the proposed
Settlement Agreement must go to the voters of this City for approval by the electorate before
you can act.
I have already spent much of the time allotted to me tonight in an attempt to put the twelve
years preceding this Settlement Agreement into perspective and try to have you see that this
Settlement Agreement being quickly approved tonight, along with all of the land use changes
and other actions the City will be compelled to take and approve does not pass the
"reasonable doubt" test - reasonable doubt as to whether all this is in the best interest of
the City and reasonable doubt as to whether, in view of the multiple charter amendments
which should prohibit the commission from these types of actions, all this should really be
approved by you at this late hour on a Wednesday night in the middle of the summer just
before you adjourn for summer recess. Think about it. What do you have to lose by allowing
the citizens to vote on this decision? Even if you do not agree with me that the recent charter
amendments do not exempt what is being contemplated here tonight from the requirements
of the charter, what do you have to lose to err on the side of caution and put this to a public
vote? I urge you to give the voters enough credit to be able to figure out what is really best
for the City. As Mr. Dermer and his Save Miami Beach organization learned in 1997, the
voters were smart enough to figure it out and knew the right thing to do. Give them credit
now, seven years later, for being able to figure it out and do the right thing again.
Page 3
I want to believe that you will heed this advise and not rush to judgment tonight and bind the
City to an agreement regarding our precious waterfront and other land that we will all have to
live with in perpetuity and those that come after us will also all have to live with.
But, just in case my urgings fall on deaf ears tonight, I need, as quickly as possible, in the
time still allotted to me to make some other mentions to, as we say, preserve the record. In
addition to that which I have already stated, much of the process before you tonight is
flawed and I or in violation of: the City Charter, the City Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, State Statutes, State Regulations and even restrictions imposed on you by the Federal
Government.
This evening's proceedings have been, I believe intentionally, a very rushed process. The
Public Hearings were set for tonight by this commission well after the City staff had already
sent out notices of these Public Hearings anticipating that you would rubber stamp what
others had already decided to do.
Regarding these Public Hearings, I want to raise my formal objections to merging or
otherwise consolidating any of the Public Hearings noticed and scheduled for this evening.
Each of these hearings should be held separately. While I recognize that there may be some
related issues, each of these matters are affected by different law, regulations or charter
provisions. There should not be a merger of evidence. I believe you must hold separate and
distinct hearings. Within one day of the time these Public Hearings were set, on July 7th, I
made numerous Public Records Requests to be able to see certain relevant public records
and files in connection with all of the extremely involved and complicated matters that are
before you tonight. It seems my request came as a surprise to City staff. While the process
under City and State law provides for all of what I asked for to be readily available, it was not.
To this date, I still have not received a substantial part of the relevant public records I
requested; even though I have considerably modified my request so as to not burden the
City. The delays in my receiving the requested public documents and the constant last-
minute modifications to the documents has contributed to my difficulty in trying to analyze
the nature and effect of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the related approvals
and ordinances before you this evening, and interpret and analyze the ordinances, the
actions of the Planning Board and how all of this affects my property. Only yesterday
afternoon was I finally able to receive a copy of the deed the city received from the Federal
Government for the coveted piece of property known as the Federal Triangle and only
yesterday was I able to confirm what I suspected. There are covenants and restrictions in that
deed given to the City by the Federal Government, which specifically prohibit the actions that
Page 4
you are contemplating to take tonight. Clearly, the deed from the Federal Government does
not allow this property to be a pawn in the settlement of a lawsuit, nor does it allow for any
of it to be part of a commercial undertaking or enterprise.
As for the delays in receiving the final documents, even the actual Settlement Agreement
which is the primary document before you and which drives everything else here tonight, was
not ready for public viewing after notices of these hearings went out and after you set the
Public Hearings. The best the City was able to provide me with days after my Public Records
Request was a document entitled "Draft - 6/28/04 - Settlement Agreement." It was not until
just a few days ago that I was able to finally get a copy of the Settlement Agreement which
no longer said draft and which was now dated July 21st 2004. But even this document does
not contain all of the various exhibits referenced in the agreement.
Even the actual ordinances before you tonight were not in final form well after notice of
these hearings was sent to the affected property owners and you scheduled these Public
Hearings. As late as Monday July 19th, I personally was in the Planning Office and received
directly from the Planning Director copies of the ordinances which he claimed were the final
versions of the five ordinances. But, it seems they were not - or at least nobody really knew
what the final versions were. A couple of days later I received different versions of the
ordinances from the City Attorney's Office and at that point realized that the notices that
went out did not conform to the so-called final ordinances which the Planning Director gave
me on July 19th and which I believe may be before you tonight - but, I really don't know
because just like the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office, I am at this point
totally confused as to which version of these ordinances are before you tonight.
A few days ago I received a notice postmarked July 19th for yet another Public Hearing this
evening regarding the conveyance of two parcels of City owned land and the vacation of a
street - the alleyway between Collins Avenue and Ocean Drive -indicating that you're
considering tonight, among other things, giving a public street away and closing off access
to the rest of the public. Certainly, it seems to me that the notice is deficient and I believe
incorrectly identifies the Department of Community Affairs as a party to the Settlement
Agreement, which is inconsistent with other notices and with the identified parties to the
Settlement Agreement. Here too, I do not believe that all of the regulations have been
followed correctly.
Then, we have the 1992 Shapiro Ordinance regarding giving away City owned land. You
might recall that I was quite involved regarding the Shapiro Ordinance in 1994. I believe you
Page 5
have also not fulfilled the requirements of this ordinance regarding the actions you are
contemplating this evening.
I also have questions and concerns as to whether or not the prerequisites for your
contemplating any of the ordinances and other matters you are considering this evening
have been properly done and accomplished. If the Planning Director himself was not certain
which proposed ordinance was final as recently as last Monday, I question what the Planning
Board reviewed and voted on and whether there were deficiencies regarding those
proceedings. And, of course, the Design Review Board was supposed to opine on some of
this, but I question whether those requirements could have been properly fulfilled in view of
all the uncertainties and changes that have been taking place up to, it seems, the very last
moment.
I also have additional questions and concerns. Why was the public not clearly notified that
the Settlement Agreement involved Bert J. Harris claims and thereby allowing the affected
property owners to receive legal advice regarding their rights in this matter?
Can the proposed ordinances and Settlement Agreement really be changed or modified after
the 3D-day notice to the affected property owners?
Can the City really have Contract Zoning? I think what is being proposed here this evening
constitutes Contract Zoning.
Is it legal and proper to provide for conditional revocation of the zoning, land use and other
ordinances if future other approvals are not granted?
I also have concerns and questions regarding the consistency of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan changes with the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan.
And, I still have many other questions and concerns for which I have not been able to receive
legal counsel on due to the abundance of what is before you and the public this evening, the
shortness of time the City has given me to examine the public records and the unavailability
of some of the records to date.
Are all of the procedures required by State Statute such as, without limitation, 166.041;
Chapter 163 and the City Charter and City Code, for example, without limitation, Section 118
- 164 being correctly followed and complied with in connection with the proceedings before
you this evening? And, did the content of the Notices published and mailed comply with all
Page 6
the requirements? For example, I see no reference to the intended compliance agreement
procedure being sought for the Comprehensive Plan text amendment.
I thank you very much for allowing me the time to speak before you this evening and present
my reasons why you should not this evening rush to approve the Settlement Agreement, as
well as all the other ordinances and resolutions, being asked for by the plaintiffs and
applicants. If there is an opportunity for settlement of disputes which have gone on for over
a decade, I urge you to do it carefully, in compliance with all City, State and Federal
regulations and with the public's best interest being of utmost importance.