153-1999 LTC
c.'q-y OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\cl.mIamJ..beach.n....
L.T.C. No.
153-1999
LETTER TO COMMISSION
July 12, 1999
TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Co 'ssion
FROM: Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT: Beachwalk Project Update
Attached for your review is a copy of the Amended Recommended Order in the case of Wallace
Corp. v, City of Miami Beach, and a brief synopsis in the form of a cc:mail from Bruce Henderson.
Thank you.
SRrr
ends.
f:\$aII\L TC99\beachwalk
/
~.
Author: BruceHenderson at C-H-PO
Date: 6/25/99 4:39 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: MatthewSchwartz
TO: JulioGravedePeralta
TO: JanetGavarrete
TO: ChristinaCuervo
TO: KentBonde
Subject: Beachwalk Project Update
------------------------------------ Message Contents ---------------~--~-----------------
For several years, the City has been working toward the development of
a linear pedestrian/bicycle accessway along the west side of the dunes
from 21st Street down to Lummus Park. Last year, the City applied to
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for a coastal
construction permit for the project. The DEP approved the permit
request, but a formal protest was filed by Wallace Corporation, the
owners of the Richmond Hotel.
Pursuant to their protest, a hearing was held before an administrative
law judge on August 11 - 14, 1998. Following that hearing, the judge
presiding over the case ruled in favor of the City and issued a
Recommended Order to the DEP directing the issuance of the permit.
Then, in a rather odd move, the DEP remanded the case back to the
presiding judge and asked for additional findings and conclusions
regarding the City'S compliance with t~e statutory provisions that no
structures shall be built east of the erosion control line unless they
are for erosion control.
The judge has now issued her Amended Recommended Order in response to
the DEP's remand. In her Amended Order the judge found that 1) the
City'S project does meet all of the requirements for issuance of the
permit, 2) the project will prevent erosion, 3) the project will not
result in significant adverse impacts to the beach, environment or
upland property owners, 4) that the project should not be built during
turtle nesting season, and 5) that the Wallace Corporation lacks the
legal standing to challenge the issuance of the permit.
Now that the judge has issued her Amended Order, the DEP has 90 days
in which to issue the permit or the remand it again. It is unlikely
that they will issue another remand and they probably won't take the
entire 90 days to issue the permit.
The City has filed an exception to the judge's recommendation that the
project not be built during turtle nesting season (May through
October). The City feels that since the project is to be built on the
west side of the dunes, away from the nesting areas, and only during
daylight hours, that there will not be any impact on the turtles.
Furthermore, it is the summer months that are best for the
construction of the project, fewer tourists, less traffic and rains to
help establish new plantings. We will have to wait and see if the DEP
includes the judge's recommended exclusion in the final permit
approval.
Once the DEP issues the final permit, Wallace Corporation will have an
opportunity to file an appeal. Since they have had an appeals
attorney working on, the Sase from beginning, it is fairly likely that
Wallace Corp. will !1?1?ea.l'. However, the judge's "conclusion of law"
that Wallace Corp lacked legal standing to challenge the permit will
limit their ability to make a successful appeal.