Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 212102
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader    Clerk's Official Copy   

File Number: 212102 File Type: Ordinance Status: Deferred by the Board
Version: 0 Reference: 22-148 Control: Board of County Commissioners
File Name: APPLICATION NO. CDMP20210003 Introduced: 8/27/2021
Requester: Regulatory and Economic Resources Cost: Final Action:
Agenda Date: 11/1/2022 Agenda Item Number: 7A
Notes: CDMP Title: ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. CDMP20210003, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE HOMESTEAD EXTENSION OF THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE (HEFT), BETWEEN SW 107 AVENUE AND SW 122 AVENUE, AND NORTH OF SW 268 STREET (MOODY DRIVE), FILED BY ALIGNED REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC, ET AL., AS AN OUT-OF-CYCLE CYCLE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE AGENDA ITEM NOS. 8L1, 8L2, 8L3, 8L4, 8L5]
Indexes: NONE
Sponsors: NONE
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 11/15/2022 Veto Overridden

Mayor 11/10/2022 Vetoed
REPORT: Mayor Levine Cava presented a Veto Message to the Clerk of the Board's office on November 10, 2022 at 12:48 p.m.

Office of the Chairperson 11/9/2022 Assigned Dennis A. Kerbel

Office of Agenda Coordination 11/7/2022 Assigned County Attorney 11/1/2022
REPORT: RER - CAO: Denn is A. Kerbell - CDMP First reading - item has 9 pages - Note: Replacement Ordinance

Board of County Commissioners 11/1/2022 7A Adopted with change P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the title of the agenda item into the record. He also read the titles of the companion Zoning applications into the record (See Agenda Item 8L1; Legislative File No. 221102). Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted that although a public hearing for the on the foregoing proposed item and the zoning applications was previously held, since Chairman Diaz wished re-opened the public hearing for additional comments by the public, members of the public who wished to speak about the items needed to be sworn in as witnesses. ALL WITNESSES AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETERS WERE SWORN IN BY THE CLERK PRIOR TO PRESENTING TESTIMONIES BEFORE THE BOARD. Chairman Diaz opened the public hearing, and the following persons spoke in opposition to Agenda Item 7A: -Dr. Stephanie Clements, Education and Advocacy Director of the Tropical Audubon Society, 6840 SW 45 Lane, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Miguel Caridad, 1012 Castile Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida; -Ms. Claudia Sebastani of Hold the Line Coalition, 951 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Mr. James Pierce of the Dade County Farm Bureau, 16920 SW 274 Street, Homestead, Florida; -Mr. Terrence “Rock” Salt, Vice President of the Tropical Audubon Society, 1435 Miller Road, Coral Gables, Florida; -Ms. Lauren Jonaitis, Conservation Director of the Tropical Audubon Society, 915 NW 1 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Mary Waters, 13600 SW 229 Street, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Elizabeth Carpenter, Managing Attorney of the Everglades Law Center, 6815 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Steven Leidner, 1130 102 Street, Bay Harbor Island, Florida; -Ms. Eve Samples, Executive Director of Friends of the Everglades, 3727 SE Ocean Boulevard, Stuart, Florida; -Mr. Martin Motes, 25000 SW 162 Avenue, Redland, Florida; -Ms. Maria Araujo, 1627 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Taylor Brotons, 8391 SW 124 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Valeria Donets, 10630 SW 200 Street, Cutler Bay, Florida; -Dr. Morgan Gianola, 5833 SW 62 Street, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Tiffany Troxler, 350 NE 2 Street, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Gary Milano, 5974 SW 59 Street, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Samantha Barquin, Chief of Staff for Miami Waterkeeper, 12010 SW 105 Terrace, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Zachary Spicer, 1465 NE 123 Street, North Miami, Florida; -Mr. Michael Rosenburg, 13030 North Calusa Club Drive, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Richard Weisskoff, 18140 NE 10 Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida; -Ms. Madeline Joyce, 3737 Peacock Drive, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Dave Doebler of the Biscayne Bay Health Coalition, 800 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; -Ms. Daniella Ramirez, 3760 Bird Road, Miami, Florida; and -Mr. Ray Schooley, 16311 SW 173 Avenue. The following persons came forward to speak in support of Agenda Item 7A: -Mr. Sebastian Juncadella of Fairchild Partners, 2560 Tiger Tail Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Daisy Diaz, 330 West Palmwood Lane, Key Biscayne, Florida; -Mr. Nick Diaz, 26401 SW 107 Avenue, Homestead, Florida; -Ms. Ranae Asher, 381 West Heather Drive, Key Biscayne, Florida; -Ms. Lourdes Rodriguez, 7101 SW 77 Place, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Alex Isaia, 10305 SW 71 Avenue, Pinecrest, Florida; -Mr. Matthew Rothman, 10701 SW62 Avenue, Pinecrest, Florida; -Mr. Bruce Arthur, 7855 SW 133 Street, Pinecrest, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Monica Morarles, 15469 SW 147 Street, Miami, Florida. She read a letter of support from Mr. Douglas Richards, and submitted the letter into the record; -Ms. Hattie Middlebrooks, 14301 SW 268 Street, Homestead, Miami; -Mr. Manuel De Zarraga, 8520 SW 53 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Xavier Mili, 8520 SW 53 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Lizeth Cuenca, 13916 SW 278 Lane, Homestead, Florida; -Ms. Lisa Bergstrom, 521 NE 82 terrace, Miami, Florida; -Mr. José Soto, a former member of Community Council 11, 14654 SW 140 Court, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Joanne Karmade, 675 NW 17 Street, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Ramona Andrioaie, 325 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Patricia Shannon Davis, a former member of the West Kendall Community Council, 8910 SW 172 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Clara Sturdivant, 26043 SW 133 Place, Homestead, Florida; -Mr. Joel Furrer, 601 NE 27 Street, Miami, Florida; -Pastor Alphonso Jackson, Sr. of the Second Baptist Church, 1111 Pinkston Drive, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Nadine Smith, 2217 NW 15 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Vincent Merrelle, 6300 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; -Ms. Gloria Mejia, 13909 SW 177 Terrace, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Maylee Ayala, 6386 SW 165 Place, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Ory Dawes, 14457 SW 139 Avenue; -Mr. Jay Koeningsberg, 3077 Blaine Street, Coconut Grove, Florida; -Ms. Maria Portomene, 11000 SW 200 Street, Cutler Bay, Florida; -Ms. Anna Jimenez, 14472 SW 139 Avenue East, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Bessie Brown, 28104 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida; -Mr. Lee Katsikos, 8669 NW 36 Street, Doral, Florida; -Ms. Marilyn Perdomo, 1137 SE 23 Avenue, Homestead, Florida; -Ms. Mercedes Arrojas, 933 NW 128 Place, Miami, Florida; -Mr. José Gomez, 2830 SW 60 Court, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Bryan Sevilla, 3440 SW 84 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Alain Lantigua Gonzalez, 3930 Irvington Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida; -Mr. Armando Bravo, 6440 SW 69 Avenue, Miami, Florida; -Ms. Ileana Morgado, 22831 SW 88 Place, Cutler Bay, Florida; -Mr. Raul Gonzalez, a member of Community Council 14, 14650 SW 176 Terrace, Miami, Florida; -Mr. J.L. Demps, Jr., 11025 SW 223 Street, Goulds, Florida; -Ms. Trace Brown, 9025 SW 58 Avenue, Pinecrest, Florida; -Mr. Truman Skinner, 12240 SW 70 Court, Pinecrest, Florida; -Mr. Timothy Forbes, 25208 SW 117 Place, Homestead, Florida; -Ms. Connie Skinner, 12240 SW 70 Court, Pinecrest, Florida; -Ms. Elsie Hamler, 14651 SW 99 Court, Miami, Florida; -Mr. Geoffrey Johnson, 8954 SW 224 Terrace, Cutler Bay, Florida; -Mr. Augustine Arellano, 9045 SW 58 Avenue, Pinecrest, Florida; and -Ms. Elena Cuellar Rojas, 6411 Hog Cay Trail, Lake Worth, Florida. Chairman Diaz closed the public hearing after no one else came forward to speak. Mr. Paul Schwiep, representing Hold the Line Coalition (Hold the Line), appeared before the Board and spoke in opposition of the application to develop 350 acres of new industrial development near Biscayne Bay, which was outside of the County’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB). He gave a PowerPoint presentation about the application, and pointed out several flaws. He stated the applicant did not demonstrate a need for the proposed development and noted that the application did not have concurrent zoning plan nor a complete development plan. Ms. Laura Reynolds, Hold the Line, appeared before the Board and commented about the naturally occurring arsenic contamination on the subject property. She spoke about the coastal high-hazard zone in Biscayne Bay during a PowerPoint presentation, and opined it was not prudent to develop the environmentally sensitive land. Ms. Reynolds submitted a letter from Mr. Adam Gelber, Director of the United States Department of the Interior’s Office of Everglades Restoration Initiatives, and introduced him to the Board. Mr. Gelber appeared before the Board and explained the ecological importance of the waters of the C-102 Basin for restoring the Everglades, which was located in the proposed development. Following Mr. Gelber’s comments, Ms. Reynolds elaborated on the impact the development would have on restoration efforts and the area’s waters. She asked the Board to deny the application. Mr. Schwiep concluded that if property was contaminated then it was the responsibility of the owner to decontaminate it. Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, representing the applicant, Aligned Real Estate Holding, LLC, appeared before the Board in connection with the foregoing proposed item and stated that a white paper was prepared that responded to issues voiced by the county commissioners from the September 22, 2022 CDMP meeting and it was submitted to the Board. He noted that the application had been changed based on a revision made to the County’s Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Mr. Pedro Gassant, Holland & Knight representing the applicant, announced that the applicant increased the amount of Environmentally Endangered Land (EEL) from 311 acres to 620 acres from the Priority A acquisition list. He pointed out the conveyance of the EEL was to be provided by the Phase IIA owners prior to final plat approval. Mr. Bercow detailed site plans for the proposed development in a PowerPoint presentation, which included a development plan by Florida Power & Light. Messrs. Mr. Gassant and Bercow gave a PowerPoint presentation which gave details regarding decontaminating the property. Mr. Gassant noted that it would cost the County $47 million to decontaminate the land, which was not planned for environmental use. Mr. Bercow stated that the development would not affect efforts to restore the Everglades and improvements to the area’s waters. Mr. Gassant pointed out that the development would not have an environmental impact on the drainage of adjacent agricultural land and the development was designed to withstand catastrophic storms. Mr. Bercow opined that because the County was running out of land for industrial use, the UDB should be expanded to include the development project. Mr. Gassant stated that the applicant committed to providing employment opportunities, job training, EEL maintenance and paying $2.7 million to preserve agricultural land. In response to Commissioner McGhee’s question, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel stated the applicant had the right to build on their property, but only for agricultural use, not for vertical construction. Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Director, Miami-Dade Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), explained the agricultural designation of the property and the applicant’s ability to construct a packing facility there. Mr. Gassant informed with Commissioner McGhee that the applicant would purchase EEL lands from the County’s Priority A list, and that there were elevated levels of arsenic contamination on the land, which had to be decontaminated. Mr. Wilbur Mayorga, Chief, Pollution Remediation Section, RER, reported that the land had three times the average concentration of arsenic contamination for the south area of the County. He also provided details on the range of concentrated contamination in the land, which had to be decontaminated. Mr. Edward Swaycon, President, EAS Engineering, confirmed the information Mr. Mayorga provided about the level of arsenic contamination in the land. Commissioner Regalado opined if the UDB was not to be expanded then there should be a moratorium on CDMP applications. She pointed out that the conservation issues raised during the discussion had been ongoing in the County for decades, but issues were not addressed proactively. She added that the Board implemented a reactive approach when it came to approving the expansion of the UDB with other CDMP applications, which did not adequately address environmental issues. As an example of how the County government did not address environmental issues, Commissioner Regalado mentioned the County-owned parcel of former agricultural land at Everglades National Park, also known as the “Hole-in-the Donut,” which was adjacent to the Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB). She noted that the land was not being used by the County for commercial purposes, as proposed in the past. Commissioner Regalado asked Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava to negotiate a lease with HARB for the “Hole-in-the Donut,” for $1 annually for 100 years. She requested the final negotiated lease agreement be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Commissioner McGhee seconded Commissioner Regalado’s motion. Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding Commissioner Regalado’s motion. Chairman Diaz sought clarification about the motion and its impact. He advised that voting be delayed on the motion until legislation was drafted, which would provide more information about the motion. Vice Chairman Gilbert III pointed out there was not enough information available during today’s (11/) meeting to vote on the motion; he indicated he would not support Commissioner Regalado’s motion. Commissioner Garcia suggested the discussion be directed back to the application in the agenda item. In response to Commissioner Heyman’s inquiry if the motion was properly presented for a vote, Assistant County Attorney Abbie Schwaderer-Raurell stated that the motion was properly presented before the Board for a vote. Commissioner Regalado explained that her motion was a directive that would come back to the Board for a vote, and noted she raised this issue before in past meetings, but it was not resolved. Commissioner Higgins questioned why Commissioner Regalado had not draft legislation about the issue she raised with the “Hole-in-the-Donut.” She indicated she was not supportive of the motion. Commissioner Regalado further explained her directive for Mayor Levine Cava to negotiate with HARB for a lease, which still had to come before the Board for approval. She noted that if legislation was drafted it would take longer to vote on it. Commissioner Souto asked Commissioner McGhee for more information about the issue with the “Hole-in-the-Donut” because the area was in Commissioner McGhee’s district. Commissioner McGhee replied that the directive would properly address the issues with the “Hole-in-the Donut” area and the possible construction of a commercial airport in the area that might replace HARB. He supported Commissioner Regalado’s motion. Commissioner Regalado detailed the history of the “Hole-in-the-Donut” and why she made the request for a lease with HARB. Commissioner Monestime noted he would not support the motion because it had to be properly vetted and processed as legislation by the District 9 County Commissioner (Commissioner McGhee). Chairman Diaz advised Commissioner Regalado to schedule a Sunshine meeting with Commissioner McGhee about the subject, and to draft legislation. Regarding the application, Commissioner Regalado noted that it had changed significantly due to input by the Board members. She opined that by approving the application and working with the applicant, the Board would take a proactive approach to preserving EEL lands. She commented that several issues existed with the County purchasing EEL lands and it was preferable if the public sector purchased the land and donated it to the County. She added that future proposed projects that came before the Board had to offer EEL lands in addition to employment for residents. Mayor Levine Cava commented that despite the perks offered by the applicant, there were several issues with the application. She pointed out the application did not have a development plan, was not properly located, did not guarantee employment, and did not demonstrate a need for the development project. She mentioned that government entities, non-profit organizations and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida were opposed to the application. She pointed out that the Administration was not in support the application. Commissioner Sosa pointed out that the UDB had been expanded before and that the application addressed employment and population issues faced by the County, especially in the south. She reminded the Board the application addressed environmental concerns with the purchase and donation of the EEL lands to the County by the applicant. She added that the applicant would help pay for the decontamination of the property, and would provide support for septic-to-sewer conversion and the storm water drainage management system. She also noted the lands were not used by the area’s farmers. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel informed Commissioner Sosa that Commissioner Regalado’s motion did not interfere with the application. Commissioner Regalado proposed a motion to change the covenant to include 622 acres of EEL land and specify where the acreage would be. Commissioner Higgins pointed out the parcel was larger than eight of the County’s cities and quoted the value of the land. She did not support the application because it did not offer enough community and environmental benefits to the County. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern with expanding the UDB line. She noted that the application would diminish farm land in the area and that the Dade County Farm Bureau opposed the application. She also pointed out that arsenic was present throughout the lands in the County and that developers decontaminated lands elsewhere in the County as a condition for their projects, so the applicant’s offer to decontaminate the land was not novel. With regards to the enforceability of the covenant provisions, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted that the County could not enforce the living wage provision by the applicant, however the donation of the EEL land was enforceable. He also cautioned that the applicant’s proposal for perpetual maintenance payments may not be defensible. Commissioner Garcia stated he would not support the application because its process was flawed and did not properly address the residents’ concerns. Commissioner Cohen Higgins opined the applicant had not demonstrated a need for the development and cautioned the proposed development would set a precedent and damage the UDB and the County’s protected land if it was approved. She noted that the applicant had not met with local residents to learn how the development would impact their lives. Commissioner Cohen Higgins pointed out there was extensive opposition to the application and she that would not support it. Mr. Kogon provided details about square footage for a vertical warehouse in the Palmer Lake Metropolitan Urban Center zoning district. Ms. Gomez stated the average land value for the land was $54,000 per acre and the value of the land would increase to $228,000 per acre if the land was moved into the UDB. Commissioner Regalado read a motion, as follows: “To revise the proffered covenant to provide that, prior to the approval of the first tentative plat for the property or any portion thereof, the Phase IIA owners shall, at their cost, convey to Miami-Dade County or the appropriate state or federal agency no less than 622 acres of land, the entirety of which shall meet at least one of the following: 1. The land is on the Priority A Environmentally Endangered Land (EEL) Acquisition list depicted on Exhibit E to the Declaration; 2. The land is determined by the County or the appropriate state or federal agency conducting the applicable Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) project to be appropriate for the CERP Biscayne Bay Southeast Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSEER) project; or 3. The land is determined by the County or to the appropriate federal agency to be outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and surrounding the Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB) and to be capable of being developed with uses that are incompatible with HARB, as determined by HARB. For all such land, the Phase IIA owners shall coordinate with the applicable County departments and federal and state agencies to select such properties. These conveyances shall not be credited toward any mitigation required by the County or other state or federal agencies for existing or proposed environmental permits. HARB-related conveyances may take the form of fee simple title, easement, or other instrument acceptable to the County and to HARB or other applicable federal agency.” Commissioner McGhee seconded the motion. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel explained the motion was to add the revision proposed by Commissioner Regalado to the application in the ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Regalado that her motion to revise the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Commissioner McGhee and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 8-4 (Commissioners Heyman, Higgins, Garcia and Cohen Higgins voted no). Assistant County Attorney Kerbel read the motion into the record, as follows: “To approve the application with the most recent changes requested by the applicant, including the most current revisions to the proffered covenant with the motion that was adopted as made by Commissioner Regalado with changes to the covenant.” Assistant County Attorney Kerbel reminded Chairman Diaz that the standard 30-day condition was needed for the application because the covenant had to be revised. There being no further comments or questions, the Board proceeded to vote on the proposed ordinance, as presented. (Note: Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the County's Rules of Procedures, Mayor Levine Cava vetoed the foregoing ordinance on November 10, 2022. At the Board's meeting of November 15, 2022, the Mayor's Veto was overridden - See Agenda Item 2A1; Legislative file 222650 from the Board meeting of November 15, 2022)

Board of County Commissioners 10/18/2022 7C Deferred 11/1/2022 P
REPORT: County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read into the record the title of the foregoing ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel advised the County Attorney had previously read into the record the title of Agenda item 7C, and the public hearing for this item had already occurred under quasi-judicial rules. He noted the public hearing was also applicable to the zoning accompanying applications, Agenda Items 8O1 through 8O5, which would also be taken as part of the discussion. He also noted that the zoning applications would be addressed within the content of the discussion. Chairman Diaz requested for the applicant to come forward and speak regarding the environmental concerns. As requested by Assistant County Attorney Kerbel, Clerk of the Board Director Basia Pruna swore in all witnesses and official interpreters before presenting testimonies before the Board. Chairman Diaz stated that the Board would like to hear clarifications regarding pending questions about the environmental concerns from the last Board meeting held on September 9, 2022. Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, attorney at Bercow Radell Fernandez Larkin & Tapanes, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicants and presented the applicant’s background development history. Mr. Pedro Gassant, attorney at Holland & Knight, spoke on behalf of the co-applicants, to address Commissioner Sosa’s question. He explained that, based on the findings of the Water Master Plan’s testing, it was anticipated that the existing condition of the property had arsenic contamination above permitted levels and pockets of groundwater contamination. He advised that the applicant was confident they would design a fully compliant stormwater management system that would appropriately remediate the existing contamination conditions of the property at the applicant’s expense. In response to Commissioner Souto’s question, Mr. Gassant explained that the district warehouse would be designed to accommodate local tenants with light manufacturing operations and new technology companies to launch and remain within the County. He noted the development would provide the much-desired technology company at the property site to satisfy the existing landowners’ wish of implementing a better design due to the complications related to the Formula racing at the property site. In response to Commissioner Monestime’s question, Mr. Gassant indicated the proposed development would attract much-needed logistic centers and technology facilities and would provide the following services and needs: - a majestic center; - technology facilities to support commercial development; - reverse traffic patterns; - support commercial development within the area - provide equity to the South Dade area - provide jobs near South Dade residents; - ensure contractors observed the Living Wage Ordinance; - ensure contracts allowed recruitment of South Dade residents; - provide a new water and sewer infrastructure throughout the development plan at no cost to the County; and - ensure the status quo would continue to allow 70 percent (70%) of South Dade residents to travel from South Dade to work. Mr. Gassant further stated that, as part of the property’s enhancements, a massive packing house facility or a large-scale pisciculture facility serviced by a septic tank infrastructure could be developed on the land located outside of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), which would harm Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the development of the property would have better results than the existing status quo. Mr. Gassant advised that, as part of the application, the applicant would commit to contributing land to the Environmentally Endangered Land (EEL) Program as part of the property’s enhancements and acquiring hundreds of wetlands and sensitive lands on a 1:1 net ratio per acre from the EEL’s wish list in South Dade to provide additional environmental benefits even if the development was not located in a wetland basin. He also advised that the applicant would commit to perpetually contributing twenty percent (20%) of the general revenues generated by the property Homeowners’ Association (HOA) to EEL Programs. In response to Commissioner McGhee’s inquiry, Mr. Gassant clarified the packing house would have no parking prohibitions for trucks carrying refrigerated containers; but this was a high water tabled area unsuitable for septic tanks. He noted the South Florida Water Management (SFWM) made the site farmable through seasonal drawdown. In response to Commissioner McGhee’s inquiry regarding the contamination level of the site, Mr. Gassant confirmed the arsenic levels were above the permitted contamination levels and that the applicants would remediate this issue. He pointed out that the applicant believed the subject property was an appropriate site for the type of development requested due to the current conditions of the property and its potential adverse impact on Biscayne Bay. Discussion ensued among the Board members and Mr. Gassant regarding the property owner’s current use of the land if not developed, the land contamination, and remediation. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that the Covenant addressed the Living Wage Ordinance due to the State’s law preemptions on living wage requirements, particularly when it was not a County contract. Consequently, the County would be unable to enforce the Living Wage Ordinance if the applicant failed to comply. Discussion ensued among Chairman Diaz, Commissioner Sosa, and Assistant County Attorney Kerbel regarding the County’s ability to enforce the Living Wage Ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that, as it pertained to the 20% contribution payments to the EEL Programs, the County may be unable to continue enforcement of the contributory payments to the chain of future owners; but it may be defensible but not perfect. Discussion ensued between Commissioner McGhee and Mr. Gassant regarding the applicant’s intent to contribute to the EEL Program through the purchase of over 300 acres of environmentally endangered lands. Mr. Bercow clarified that the provision to purchase over 300 acres of environmentally endangered land was a recent amendment to the application and would be enforceable since it was part of the CDMP District Tax and applied to every property in the district. Mr. Rashid Istambouli, Professional Engineer, Interim DERM Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department, requested additional time to properly evaluate the applicant’s proposed proposal. However, concerning the conveyance of over 300 plus acres of land, it would not be historically the highest because they managed over 27,000 acres. Mr. Bercow explained their data collection and analysis was based on twelve (12) years rather than eight (8) years of industrial market data, and the analysis was reliable. He presented the findings of his study and explained the comprehensive plan to accommodate growth. He noted it was the appropriate time to expand the UDB to include the district, and the demand for industrial land continued to be undiminished, and land appropriate for logistics was virtually gone in the south tier. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel expressed his concerns regarding the proposed EEL language for the special taxing district. He advised it was appropriate for the applicant to covenant it for their property since it imposed a CDMP plan language requirement needing analysis, and it was also unclear whether there was double dipping with other wetlands mitigation requirements that may be available today. Consequently, he was unprepared to testify today that the proffered language was legally sufficient. Mr. Bercow expressed his willingness to work with the Count Attorney’s Office. Mr. Gassant advised the applicant would commit to assuming all costs related to Phase II and would include that commitment in the development’s Declaration. He advised the applicant would also modify the special taxing district to ensure it was one property owner. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified there was no need to include it in the special taxing district if included in the Covenant. In response to Chairman Diaz’s question, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted that they could be prosecuted for perjury but not for the exaction. Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding how to best address and ensure the applicant complied with the proffered commitments. Commissioner Regalado stated it was important to obtain additional information on the land mitigation proposal proffered by the applicant to clarify the questions on the proposal. She noted that the Board members needed to know whether the remaining lands were inspected by DERM to determine if environmentally endangered and the designation, how important it was to the watershed, and what makes these lands environmentally endangered to be able to determine what the County was exactly receiving. Mr. Gassant explained the applicant was committed to acquiring over 300 acres of environmentally endangered lands on a 1:1 net acreage basis of the property size the developer was developing, and he showed a map that identified the subject lands. Vice Chairman Gilbert, III, stated that the lands inside the UDB were more important than those located outside of the UDB; and the best way to protect those lands was to own them. Mr. Istambouli explained that the properties designated ready were more prone to development, and the County would be unable to protect those environmentally endangered lands. Discussion ensued between Vice Chairman Gilbert, III, and Mr. Istambouli regarding the reasons to determine it more valuable. Vice Chairman Gilbert, III, recommended future consideration of EEL lands should include information explaining the reasoning the properties were designated EEL. He expressed his support for the application and asked that the scope of the information presented be narrowed. In response to Assistant County Attorney Kerbel’s question regarding reference to the EEL Program and the special taxing district, Mr. Bercow responded that an amendment regarding the district tax was circulated and uploaded to inter.gov, and they should be receiving a copy shortly. In response to Commissioner Regalado’s question regarding how the EEL designation was determined, Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Director, RER Department, explained she was unsure as to which acres the applicant was identifying within the aspirational list of the EEL Program priority list. She advised that the applicant’s wish to donate land was a wonderful intention; but it did not have a bearing on the question of need. She advised many of these suggestions arose from a prior application and explained how they arrived at the EEL donations. In response to Commissioner Regalado’s question, Mr. Istambouli responded the subject properties were placed on the EEL Program’s priority list as approved by this Board. He explained the evaluation criteria and process to include properties designated EEL in the priority list. Commissioner Regalado requested that Mr. Rashid Istambouli, Interim Director of DERM, provide her with information regarding the details of the process and criteria to determine to include the subject 400 acres of land in the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Priority List, including information on whether these properties needed restoration. Mr. Istambouli reiterated this proposal needed to be reevaluated administratively since there was no knowledge relating to which of the 400 acres were more valuable as it related to the acquisition; but philosophically speaking, EEL properties located inside the UDB were more important than those located outside of the UDB. Commissioner Sosa requested that public feedback be obtained on the foregoing Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) proposal before a final decision was made. Commissioner McGhee requested the revenues generated from the application be dedicated to the North and South rail projects. Commissioner McGhee requested farmers be encouraged to donate trees to expand the Tree Canopy Program and Neat Streets Program. Commissioner McGhee requested the Agreement and/or Covenant including the LW issue be prepared for Board review. Commissioner McGhee requested the County Administration review the feasibility of creating a bond program designated to purchase farmland, and he asked to be shown as the sponsor of the legislation. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel announced this ordinance needed to be re-advertised to allow the Board to consider it at the Board's meeting scheduled for November 1, 2022. Upon conclusion of the foregoing discussion, the Board members deferred the foregoing ordinance to the Board meeting scheduled for November 1, 2022.

BCC - Comprehensive Development Master Plan 9/22/2022 7A Deferred 10/18/2022 P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the title of the foregoing ordinance into the record. He noted that Agenda Item 7A Supplement 2 and 7A Supplement 3 contained a scrivener’s errors. The application number has been corrected to 2022 instead of 2021. He pointed out that the agenda item had a concurrent zoning application, which would be acted on during today’s (9/22) Zoning meeting. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted that the public hearing had been opened and closed for both applications in the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and Zoning agenda, and all witnesses were sworn in; any new speakers would have to be sworn in. All witnesses were sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Brian Adler, an attorney, appeared before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) and spoke on behalf of Archimedes Holdings, one of the property owners located within the area listed of the application. He noted the objections raised by his client. Mr. Richard Grosso, an attorney representing the organization, Friends of the Everglades, also appeared before the Board and pointed out that revisions made to the application by the applicant, Aligned Real Estate Holdings, were not significantly different. He opined that many issues with the application would still exist even with the reduction of acreage size from 800 to 350, and that the applicant failed to present a complete development plan. Mr. Grosso requested the application be denied by the Board. Ms. Laura Reynolds of Hold the Line Coalition, noted that material compiled by her organization’s technical committee was distributed to the Board. She claimed that properties surrounding the area were at risk environmentally and detailed other factors as to why the application should be denied. Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, an attorney representing the applicant, detailed the revisions made to the application in a PowerPoint presentation, which included the reduced acreage noted by Mr. Grosso. Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava opined that many current issues faced by the County were due to poor planning and misguided, past developments. She stated that the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) was established by the County to ensure proper growth based on necessity. She supported the staff’s recommendation to reject the revised application because the proposed project in the application would be constructed in an area without sufficient infrastructure to support it and nearly 60 percent of the application lacked a development plan. Mayor Levine Cava asked the Board to reject the application. Discussion ensued among the Board members regarding the foregoing application. Commissioner Monestime inquired if the reduction in acreage was the only revision in the application. He also asked why the application did not have a development plan. Mr. Jerry Bell, Assistant Director for Planning, Miami-Dade Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) and Mr. Bercow confirmed the acreage reduction and noted there were changes to the phasing schedule change in the application. Mr. Bercow countered the claim by Mayor Levine Cava that the application did not have a development plan; he noted that the plan was in the special district text of the application. Mr. Bell explained the Board’s policy about UDB applications, which required concurrent zoning applications. He pointed out that the applicant was trying to alter the Board’s policy about the application by not including a development plan for a majority of the proposed site. He added that such action would impact future UDB applications. After Commissioner Monestime asked why the applicant could not use available land within the UDB, Mr. Bercow replied these lands were not available for logistical use. Mr. Robert Hesler, Planning Section Supervisor, RER, reported to Commissioner Monestime and Vice Chairman Gilbert III there was adequate space in the County for industrial land and explained how RER determined what space in the County was available for future use. Ms. Lourdes Gomez, Director, RER, informed Commissioner Monestime that the proposed site was located in the County’s Urban Expansion Area. Commissioner Sosa pointed out that the area proposed for development in the application was contaminated with arsenic and the applicant should pay for the removal of the contaminants. Mr. Bercow confirmed that the area was contaminated and the applicant was willing to submit for the area to be designated as brownfield land, subsequent to approval. Commissioner Sosa noted the revised application addressed many concerns raised in the May 19, 2022 CDMP meeting (See Agenda Item 7A, Legislative File No. 212102), significantly reduced acreage to develop, and that the applicant had submitted many reports and documents. She also confirmed with Mr. Bercow the application site was not located in wetlands and the applicant would contribute to the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program. Commissioner Heyman voiced her concerns with the application and stated the application did not provide enough information about jobs, industries and infrastructure. She also opined the County should focus on improving transit services in the south and protecting agricultural land in the area. Chairman Diaz noted his support for the application; he opined the UDB needed to be expanded because of growth in the County, and understood the need for the application, which would provide jobs for the community. Ms. Gomez informed Commissioner Cohen Higgins that the applicant did not demonstrate a need to expanding the UDB. Mayor Levine Cava pointed out that the application did not explain why so much acreage was needed for the proposed project and that RER noted there was available acreage in the UDB. Ms. Gomez provided more details about her department’s need analysis of all applications and the Board’s policies regarding applications. Ms. Gomez informed Commissioner Cohen Higgins that the applicant did not present a need for obtaining 350 acres of aggregated land. Mr. Bercow countered that the applicant demonstrated the need for aggregated land and also sought to duplicate Beacon Lakes Office and Industrial Park (Beacon Lakes) and other developments. After Commissioner Cohen Higgins questioned the need for the 350 contiguous acres of 790 acres were needed in the previous application, Mr. Bercow answered the reduction in the requested acreage addressed concerns raised in the previous meeting. Commissioner Cohen Higgins indicated she was not in support of the application because it did not comply with the Board’s policies, did not provide a site or development plan, and the project might not generate a large amount of jobs. She also stated that no applicant or lessees were present at today’s meeting to explain why the acreage was needed, and she opined the application was unnecessary. Commissioner Cohen Higgins also reminded the Board of the strong public opposition to it in the previous meeting. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Monestime and Ms. Gomez regarding the Board’s policies, the UDB, the Beacon Lakes development, and the methodology and analysis of reviewing applications. Commissioner Monestime voiced his concerns with the application but questioned the Board’s approach to reviewing applications. He asked Mr. Bercow if a plan was created before acquiring lessees or vice versa, and what was the timeline for developing the project. Mr. Bercow explained that with previous UDB expansion projects, the tenants were never acquired before the projects were approved. Mr. Bercow introduced the applicant, Mr. Jose Hevia, to explain his company’s experience with developing properties and that it was often difficult to provide projected dates of project completion to prospective tenants. Commissioner McGhee noted that the site was not being used for agricultural purposes. He made a motion to adopt the application as requested by the applicant, with revisions by the applicant and the standard 30-day condition to prepare a covenant. Commissioner Sosa seconded the motion. Chairman Diaz noted at the May 19, 2022 CDMP meeting, the Board requested the applicant reduce the footprint of the proposed development and questioned whether the logistics center would still be operational at the reduced size. Discussion ensued between Chairman Diaz, and Mr. Hevia about the available industrial land in the County. Mr. Hevia clarified that the development was to be a “Class A” product and advised the Board members that the size of the County market was 110 million square feet. He estimated one percent of the total market size would amount to 1.1 million square feet. Chairman Diaz commented on the need for the project, and emphasized that the development had to be located on one site because of operational and logistical reasons. He spoke about the success of other developments, including Beacon Lakes and Countyline Corporate Park. Commissioner Souto confirmed with Mr. Bercow that intended usage for the site was for light manufacturing. Commissioner Souto referred to a study conducted by Florida International University which determined that small and medium-sized industries promoted economic growth in the County. Commissioner Regalado opined that zoning applications did not necessarily require development plans and did not equate to tenancy. She sought clarification on the contamination at the site. Mayor Levine Cava stated that developers were financially responsible for the decontamination of a site and could apply for funding from the State of Florida if the site had a brownfield designation. Mr. Bercow noted that when agricultural land was converted for development it would likely become contaminated and the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management required that applicants determine if a site was contaminated, especially with arsenic. Mr. Hevia spoke regarding the level of arsenic contamination at the site. Mr. Bercow pointed out that an expert used by the applicant determined that the quality of soil at the site was poor. He added that a majority of the land was not farmable for crops and farmers in the area wanted to sell their land because farming operations were economically marginal. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the motions made by the district commissioners to approve the applications with revisions requested by the applicant, with the standard 30-day condition on the covenant to ensure the covenant is legally sufficient and in recordable form, with the discretion of the Director to extend the time for good cause. The Board proceeded to vote on the application with changes, as presented. The motion failed by a vote of 7-5 because a two-thirds majority was required for adoption (Commissioners Heyman, Higgins, Regalado, Cohen Higgins and Garcia voted no). After the motion failed, Commissioner McGhee motioned to modify the applicant’s request with the addition that the applicant would not sell the land within a ten-year period of the Board’s approval of the application. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised Commissioner McGhee that his motion could not be made based on a Florida Supreme Court case that established that property could be sold regardless of regulations that may apply to it. Mr. Bercow suggested the application be revised to reduce the size of the proposed district to 314 acres with the removal of property from Florida Power & Light. Commissioner McGhee made a motion to adopt the application with the new revision, but Commissioner Higgins invoked the four-day rule. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel explained the motion was for a pending item that was not called. Therefore, additional motions that differed from the original, failed motions were allowed until the next item was called. Vice Chairman Gilbert III supported the revision, but pointed out the new motion changed the original proposed application. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified the available options for the application after the initial vote. In response to Commissioner Cohen Higgins’ inquiry as to why the Board should continue attempting to adopt the application if it already failed during the vote, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel elaborated that the application was not denied. Instead the motion to approve failed because of a lack of a super majority of the vote. Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, further motions were allowed because the application was not fully disposed. In order to fully dispose the application, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted there either had to be a passage of a motion to deny the application or no further motions were made after the motion failed to pass and the Chairman called the next item. Mr. Bercow suggested the application be deferred to the October 6, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Commissioner McGhee requested his motion to be tabled to allow for a deferral of the application. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised the application be deferred. Commissioner Cohen Higgins sought clarification on how a third deferral affected the application. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel replied that applications were not subjected to the third-deferral rule because they were unique to the proceeding. Vice Chairman Gilbert III cautioned that the changes made by the applicant negated the argument that the application was needed. It was moved by Commissioner McGhee to defer the foregoing application to the October 6, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Sosa seconded the motion, and after being put to a vote, the motion passed by a vote of 8-4 (Commissioners Higgins, Heyman, Cohen Higgins and Garcia voted no). Following the vote, the CDMP meeting recessed at 2:01 p.m. After the CDMP meeting resumed at 3:09 p.m., it recessed again at 3:34 p.m. to reconsider the scheduled date for the application. The CDMP meeting resumed at 4:26 p.m., the date for the deferred application was rescheduled for the October 18, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. After discussion among the Board members about the deferral and re-advertising the application, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel noted there would not be a public hearing for the application when it was re-advertised. It was moved by Commissioner Sosa to defer the foregoing application to the October 18, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Chairman Diaz seconded the motion, and after being put to a vote, the motion passed by a vote of 10-2 (Commissioners Cohen Higgins and Garcia voted no). NOTE: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel noted that the Agenda Item 7A Supplement 2 and 7A Supplement 3 contained scrivener's errors. The application number has been corrected to 2022 instead of 2021. It was moved by Commissioner Sosa to defer the foregoing application to the October 6, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Chairman Diaz seconded the motion, and after being put to a vote, the motion passed by a vote of 10-2 (Commissioners Cohen Higgins and Garcia voted no). The scheduled date was reconsidered and it was moved by Commissioner McGhee to defer the foregoing application to the October 18, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting. Commissioner Sosa seconded the motion, and after being put to a vote, the motion passed by a vote of 8-4 (Commissioners Cohen Higgins, Garcia, Heyman and Higgins voted no).

County Attorney 9/8/2022 Assigned Dennis A. Kerbel 9/8/2022

Board of County Commissioners 6/1/2022 7E Deferred 9/22/2022 P
REPORT: The Board members deferred the foregoing zoning application to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)-Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP)/Zoning meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 22, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel announced the deferral was subject to advertisements, and the applicant would be required to incur advertising costs. Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, counsel for the applicant, accepted that the applicant would incur advertising costs.

BCC - Comprehensive Development Master Plan 5/19/2022 7A Deferred to the BCC following a public hearing 6/1/2022 P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the titles of the foregoing proposed ordinance and supplement into the record. He explained the foregoing application was being processed concurrently with Zoning Applications Numbers Z2021000050 (Zoning Agenda 3C), Z2021000051 (Zoning Agenda 3D), Z2021000052 (Zoning Agenda 3E), Z2021000053 (Zoning Agenda 3F), and Z2021000054 (Zoning Agenda 3G). He noted a single public hearing would be conducted for the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and Zoning applications; and advised that the CDMP hearing would be conducted in accordance with the procedures applicable to quasi-judicial applications, with all speakers sworn in prior to addressing the Board of County Commissioners (Board). Assistant County Attorney Kerbel further explained that all public hearing testimony would be transcribed and all exhibits submitted as part of the CDMP hearing would also be incorporated into the zoning record. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that a minimum of nine (9) affirmative votes were needed to approve the foregoing item which, sought to expand the Urban Development Boundary (UDB). He stated in the event the foregoing item was approved by the Board, the CDMP meeting would be concluded to reconvene the zoning meeting to consider Zoning Agenda Items 3C through 3G. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel explained if the foregoing item failed to achieve nine (9) affirmative votes, then the CDMP application would be deemed to be denied, pursuant to the County’s Rules of Procedure; and the companion zoning applications could not be considered or approved. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel clarified that while commissioners were permitted to vote on CDMP items without listening to the entire proceedings, they could only vote on zoning applications if they listened to the zoning proceedings in its entirety. In light of the number of speakers registered to speak, Chairman Diaz requested speakers to limit their comments to one (1) minute. He also announced that he was notified that several Board members were listening to the proceedings on their commute to Chambers. ALL WITNESSES AND OFFICIAL INTERPRETERS WERE SWORN IN BY THE CLERK PRIOR TO PRESENTING TESTIMONIES BEFORE THE BOARD. Discussion ensued among Chairman Diaz, Vice Chairman Gilbert III, Commissioners Sosa and Cohen Higgins, Assistant County Attorney Kerbel, Mr. Paul Schwiep (attorney for Hold the Line), Ms. Laura Reynolds (Attorney for Hold the Line), Mr. Richard Grosso (Attorney for Hold the Line), Mr. Jeffrey Bercow (attorney for the applicant), regarding the public hearing process, and Board members’ request for speakers to provide their addresses and disclose if they were registered as a lobbyist or being compensated for appearing at today’s (5/19) meeting. Chairman Diaz opened the public hearing. The following speakers appeared in support of the foregoing application: 1. Ms. Ory Dawes, 14457 SW 139 Ave, Miami, Florida 2. Mr. Derril Young, 28104 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida 3. Mr. Ken Forbes, 25121 SW 130 Avenue, Princeton, Florida 4. Mr. Nicolas Diaz, 26401 SW 107 Avenue, Miami, Florida 5. Ms. Lourdes 26401 SW 107 Avenue, Miami, Florida 6. Mr. Manuel Avila, aided by an interpreter, 2151 SW 149 Passage, Miami, Florida 7. Mr. Jose Fermin Gomez, aided by an interpreter, 2030 SW 60 Court, Miami, Florida 8. Mr. Jesus Cruz, aided by an interpreter, 1118 East Mowers Drive, Homestead, Florida 9. Mr. Jose Antonio Porto, 26401 SW 107 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 10. Mr. Daniel Urbina, aided by an interpreter, 2011 NE 40 Road, Homestead, Florida 11. Mr. Franklin Golphin, 5941 NW 23 Avenue, Miami, Florida – waved in support 12. Mr. Jovoni Joseph, 755 NW 67 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 13.Mr. Bibiano Calero, 17730 SW 175 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 14. Mr. Raymundo Cardoza, 15734 SW 304 Terrace, Miami, Florida – waved in support 15. Mr. Guillermo Castenada, 15734 SW 304 Terrace, Miami, Florida – waved in support 16. Mr. Luis Galban, 646 SW 5 Terrace, Miami, Florida – waved in support 17. Mr. Luis Lipez, 2637 SW 134 Avenue, Homestead, Florida – waved in support 18. Mr. Jesus Mejia, 20024 SW 123 Drive, Miami, Florida – waved in support 19. Mr. Ronnie Melendez, 17730 SW 175 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 20. Mr. Carlos Montpeller, 21720 SW 104 Court, Cutler Bay, Florida, waved in support 21. Mr. Jose Ramos, 2580 SW 124 Court, Miami, Florida – waved in support 22. Mr. Carlos Ruiz, 30423 SW 154 Court, Homestead, Florida – waved in support 23. Ms. Nadine Smith, 222 SW 114 Avenue, Miami, Florida – waved in support 24. Mr. Cyrus Clark, 11115 SW 220 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 25. Mr. Wenseslao Sandoval, 15320 SW 284 Court, Homestead, Florida – waved in support 26. Ms. Marilyn Perdomo, 1137 SE 23 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 27. Ms. Hattie Middlebrooks, 14301 SW 268 Street, Homestead, Florida 28. Ms. Bessie Young, 28104 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida 29. Pastor Timothy Forbes, 25208 SW 117 Place, Homestead, Florida 30. Mr. J.L Demps, 11025 SW 223 Street, Goulds, Florida 31.Mr. Llmar McMullen, 655 NW 56 Street, Miami, Florida 32. Ms. Bernice Johnson, 2590 NW 165 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 33. Mr. Belefonte Hence, 301 NW 22 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 34. Mr. Vincent Merrell, 6300 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida – waved in support 35. Ms. Elsie Hamler, 14651 SW 99 Court, Miami, Florida 36. Ms. Brooke Hyman, 9401 SW 181 Street, Miami, Florida Vice Chairman Gilbert III assumed the Chair. 37. Ms. Caroline Sturdivant, 622 SW 5 Avenue, Homestead, Florida Chairman Diaz resumed chairing the meeting. 38. Mr. Fredrick McKenzie, 2926 NW 18 Avenue, Miami, Florida – waved in support 39. Ms. Valencia Brown, 424 SW 11 Avenue, Miami, Florida – waved in support 40. Mr. Dennis Fox, 26997 SW 140 Court, Miami, Florida – waved in support 41. Ms. Carriette Rozier, 10750 SW 175 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 42. Ms. Deveta Harris, 10050 SW 170 Terrace, Miami, Florida – waved in support 43. Ms. Mamie Tucker, 10960 SW 223 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 44. Mr. Joey Bryant, 1020 N. Krome Avenue, Homestead, Florida – waved in support 45. Ms. Soraya Mosley, 3321 NW 173 Terrace, Miami Gardens – waved in support 46. Ms. Bertha Jones, 21164 SW 112 Avenue, Cutler Bay, Florida – waved in support 47. Mr. Quinton Watson, 1637 NW 59 Street, Miami, Florida – waved in support 48. Ms. Jeanette Collier, 22310 SW 109 Court, Miami, Florida – waved in support 49. Mr. George Melquiades, 1569 NW 17 Avenue, Miami, Florida – waved in support 50. Ms. Janice Saunders, 1518 E Mowry Drive, Homestead, Florida –waved in support 51. Ms. Brooks Brown, 11927 SW 218 Street, Goulds, Florida – waved in support 52. Ms. Ashika Campbell, 13530 SW 266 Street, Naranja, Florida – waved in support The following names were read into the record as being registered in support of the item: 1. Mr. Manuel Gonzalez, 26371 SW 134 Avenue, Miami, Florida 2. Mr. Ariel Hernandez, 3620 NE 30 Avenue, Miami, Florida 3. Mr. Carlos Salazar, 2850 NE 42 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 4. Mr. Carmello Uyou, 28501 SW 152 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 5. Mr. Rocky Maldonado, 131 SE 1 Street, Miami, Florida 6. Mr. Leroy Grant, 3511 NW 175 Street, Miami, Florida 7. Mr. Emanuel Torres, 1310 NW 67 Street, Miami, Florida 8. Ms. Rebecca Wade, PO Box 503, Miami, Florida 9. Ms. Linda Roberts, 593 NW 83 Street, Miami, Florida 10. Mr. Eldridge W, 12193 SW 215 Street, Goulds, Florida 11. Ms. Leora Williams, 1001 NW 54 Street, Miami, Florida 12. Ms. Nellie Haynes, 3251 NW 175 Street, Miami Gardens, Florida 13. Mr. Winston Campbell, 13530 SW 266 Street, Naranja, Florida 14. Mr. Charles Nickson, 146 NE 68 Street, Miami, Florida 15. Ms. Mikeria Everett, 28104 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida 16. Mr. Phillip Gilbert, 150 NW 56 Street, Miami, Florida 17. Mr. Hermo Larkin, 15960 School Drive, Miami, Florida 18. Mr. Brinis Surprise, 142 NE 68 Street, Miami, Florida 19. Ms. Patricia Campbell, 13530 SW 266 Street, Florida 20. Ms. Felicia Davis, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 21. Mr. Willie Dowdell, 1518 E Mowry Drive, Homestead, Florida 22. Ms. Pearl Wright, 4220 NW 198 Terrace, Miami, Florida 23. Ms. Patricia McCloud, 8000 NE Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida 24. Ms. Tara Johnson, 8400 NW 25 Avenue, Miami, Florida 25. Ms. Nicole Jackson, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 26. Mr. Kevin Gray, 8260 NE 4 Place, Miami, Florida 27. Ms. Andrea Warren, 8400 NW 25 Avenue, Miami, Florida 28. Ms. Joanne Karmade, 675 NE 17 Street, Miami, Florida 29. Ms. Ivory Robinson, 7104 NW 14 Place, Miami, Florida 30. Ms. Janet Walters, 6224 Plunkett Street, Hollywood, Florida 31. Mr. Turnette Stephens, 320 NW 66 Street, Miami, Florida 32. Ms. Johanna Robinson, 140 NW 79 Street, Miami, Florida 33. Ms. Iris Boswell, 7104 NW 14 Place, Miami, Florida 34. Ms. Lowana Wilson, 1260 NW 95 Street, Miami, Florida 35. Ms. Debbie Hunter, 6607 NW 3 Court, Miami, Florida 36. Ms. Hosea Smith, 2239 NW 102 Street, Miami, Florida 37. Ms. Janesha Kirksey, 3930 NW 207 Street Road, Miami Gardens, Florida 38. Ms. Michelle Trella, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 39. Ms. Mary Lewis, 6607 NW 3 Court, Miami, Florida 40. Ms. Digna Santiago, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 41. Ms. Pamela Brown, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 42. Ms. Carol Cohen, 184 NE 68 Street, Miami, Florida 43. Ms. Jerry Lyn Katz, 217 NW 15 Street, Miami, Florida 44. Mr. Kelvin Kirksey, 3930 NW 207 Street Road, Miami Gardens, Florida 45. Mr. Brian Phillips, 202 NW 1 Avenue, Miami, Florida 46. Mr. Kendrick Jones, 1722 NW 47 Terrace, Miami, Florida 47. Ms. Latasa Robinson, 1650 NW 2 Avenue, Miami, Florida 48. Ms. Pandora Burse, 300 NW 66 Street, Miami, Florida 49. Ms. Mary Lewis, 11401 SW 221 Street, Miami, Florida 50. Ms. Lisha Dukes, 2405 NW 135 Street, Miami, Florida 51. Ms. Elisibeth Williams, 12215 W Dixie Hwy, Miami, Florida 52. Mr. Nelson Montanez, 13711 NE 20 Place, North Miami Beach, Florida 53. Ms. Ciara Fulton, 6645 SW 57 Court, S. Miami, Florida 54. Mr. Tavaris Lamar Melton, 429 SW 8 Court, Miami, Florida 55. Ms. Lottie Lockhart, 10955 SW 214 Street, Miami, Florida 56. Ms. Zyia Johnson, 27364 SW 140 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 57. Ms. Clara Mae Sturdivant, 26043 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 58. Mr. Belvis Ringer, 27364 SW 140 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 59. Mr. Ajai Javon Sturdivant, 26043 SW 133 Place, Miami, Florida 60. Mr. Anthony Mcguire, 11290 SW 219 Street, Miami, Florida 61. Ms. Veronika Smith, 10750 SW 217 Street, Miami, Florida 62. Ms. Rosemary McIntyre, 27364 SW 140 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 63. Ms. Margaret Desir, 4104 NE 22 Lane, Homestead, Florida 64. Mr. Ted Neal, 22285 SW 109 Court, Miami, Florida 65. Ms. Pearlie Butler, 26615 SW 137 Court, Homestead, Florida 66. Ms. Sheila Moss, 250 SW 14 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 67. Mr. Frank Guerrier, 13760 SW 256 Street, Miami, Florida 68. Mr. Reginald Starling, 11250 SW 197 Street, Cutler Bay, Florida 69. Mr. Junior Bonhomme, 13760 SW 256 Street, Homestead, Florida 70. Ms. Yvone Butler, 26701 SW 138 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 71. Ms. Lynee Wright, 1011 Wilmington Street, Miami, Florida 72. Ms. Carolyn Starling, 29905 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida 73. Mr. Cornell Josey, 26601 SW 138 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 74. Ms. Brenda Hill, 7021 NW 4 Court, Miami, Florida 75. Mr. Frederick Brown, 26615 SW 137 Court, Naranja, Florida 76. Mr. John Hill, 7021 NW 4 Court, Miami, Florida 77. Mr. Ricky McFadden, 26615 SW 137 Court, Homestead, Florida 78. Mr. Ken Washington, 13100 SW 259 Court, Homestead, Florida 79. Mr. Marvin Wilson, 13795 SW 268 Street, No information provided, Florida 80. Mr. Jean Claude Elenicier, 1791 SW 3 Street, Homestead, Florida 81. Ms. Alonza Pendergrass, 14741 SW 285 Street, Leisure City, Florida 82. Mr. Willie Person, 111 SW 7 Street, Homestead, Florida 83. Ms. Marie-Ange Elyssee, 360 NE 21 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 84. Ms. Carolyn Edgecomb, 13795 SW 268 Street, Naranja, Florida 85. Mr. Jack Cephace, 4791 SW 3 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 86. Ms. Loudmia Elencier, 13644 SW 263 Terrace, Homestead, Florida 87. Ms. Juanita Jones, 11394 SW 226 Street, Miami, Florida 88. Ms. Shirley Nash, 26210 SW 141 Place, Homestead, Florida 89. Mr. Tommy Butler, 26615 SW 137 Court, Homestead, Florida 90. Ms. Deliliah Ambrister, 29905 SW 143 Court, Homestead, Florida 91. Ms. Devita Harris, 10050 SW 170 Terrace, Miami, Florida 92. Ms. Rachel Wilson, 26725 SW 138 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 93. Mr. Charles Mathis, 23725 SW 138 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 94. Mr. Ernesto Castro, 26701 SW 138 Avenue, Homestead, Florida 95. Mr. Jeremiah Grant, 2020 NW 1 Avenue, Miami, Florida The following speakers appeared in opposition of the foregoing application: 1. Ms. Nikki Fried, Florida Commissioner for Agriculture and Consumer Services, 407 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida, contended expanding the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) was not necessary for the project to be built. She stated the expansion of the UDB would negatively impact the community and the environment; and emphasized her office’s opposition to the item. 2. Mr. Adam Gelber, Director, Office of Everglades Restoration Initiatives, Department of the Interior, advised the Board members that he had submitted a letter expressing concerns about the expansion of the UDB. Vice Chairman Gilbert III assumed the Chair. 3. Dr. Steven Green, 25920 SW 193 Avenue, Redland, Florida 4. Ms. Caitlin Newcamp, Audubon Florida, 751 Cypress Lane, Deerfield Beach, Florida 5. Mr. Paul Schwiep, 6850 S. Cartee Road, Palmetto Bay, Florida – spoke in the capacity of a resident and volunteer for Hold the Line 6. Mr. Miguel Caridad, 1012 Castile Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 7. Mr. Rafael Lorenzo, 10201 SW 137 Court, Miami, Florida 8. Mr. Rolando Rodriguez, 2351 S. Douglas Road, Miami, Florida 9. Ms. Elizabeth Cardet, 11131 SW 170 Terrace, Miami, Florida 10. Mr. Terrence Salt, 1435 Miller Road, Coral Gables, Florida 11. Mr. Michael Perez, 15330 SW 155 Court, Miami, Florida 12. Mr. Curtis Osceola, 9187 Fountainebleu Blvd, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of Miccosukee Tribe Chairman Talbert Cypress urged the Board to deny the application and requested the Miccosukee Tribe be included in future discussions regarding development 13. Mr. Douglas Baptiste, 13200 SW 279 Terrace, Homestead, Florida Chairman Diaz resumed chairing the meeting. 14. Mr. George Braddock II, 9832 SW 196 Street, Miami, Florida 15. Ms. Regina Silas, League of Women Voters, 18015 NW 25 Court, Miami Gardens, Florida 16. Ms. Claudia Sebastiani, 951 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 17. Ms. Teresa Holmes, Chair for the Everglades Protection Alliance,37 Halfway Road, Key Largo, Florida noted that the Monroe County Commission and the Village of Isalamorada Council adopted legislations urging the County to reject the applications 18. Mr. Mark Merwitzer, Transit Alliance, 14730 SW 75 Avenue, Palmetto Bay, Florida 19. Dr. Stephanie Clements, Tropical Audubon Society, 6840 SW 45 Lane, Miami, Florida 20. Ms. Audrey Siu, Miami Waterkeeper, 2355 NE 191 Street, North Miami, Florida 21. Ms. Lauren Jonaitis, Conservation Director for Tropical Audubon Society, 915 NW 1 Ave, Miami, Florida 22. Ms. Samantha Morejon, 12010 SW 105 Terrace, Miami, Florida 23. Ms. Gray Read, 6820 SW 64 Court, South Miami, Florida 24. Mr. Tallman Whitler, 12811 SW 218 Terrace, Miami, Florida 25. Mr. Philip Stoddard, South Miami Special Envoy for Climate and Sustainability and Former City of South Miami Mayor, 6820 SW 64 Court, South, Miami, Florida 26. Ms. Mary Waters, 13600 SW 229 Street, Miami, Florida 27. Ms. Tiffany Grantham, Right to Clean Water and Broward Sierra Club, 1612 N. 17 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida 28. Ms. Rachel Silverstein, Executive Director for Miami Waterkeeper, 220 Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, Florida 29. Ms. Adrienne Barmann, Broward Sierra Club, 4966 SW 25 Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 30. Mr. Ray Schooley, 16311 SW 173 Avenue, Miami, Florida 31. Ms. Eve Samples, Executive Director for Friends of the Everglades, 900 SE Federal Highway, Stuart, Florida 32. Ms. Elizabeth Carpenter, Managing Attorney with Everglades Law Center, 6815 Biscayne Blvd., Miami, Florida 33. Ms. Cat Fernandez, 10875 SW 112 Avenue, Miami, Florida 34. Mr. Eric Eikenberg, Everglades Foundation, 18001 Old Cutler Road, Palmetto Bay, Florida 35. Ms. Anaruth Solache, Catalyst Miami, 6776 NW 187 Terrace, Hialeah, Florida 36. Ghislaine Fandel, 2441 SW 23 Terrace, Miami, Florida 37. Ms. Raissa Fernandez, 992 NW 5 Street, Miami, Florida 38. Dr. Martin Motes, Representative for the Redland Citizens Association on the Miami-Dade Agricultural Practices Board, 25000 Farmlife Road, Redland, Florida 39. Mr. Steven Leidner, 1130 102 Avenue, Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 40. Mr. Alberto Aran, 9225 SW 99 Street, Miami, Florida, submitted a letter disputing claims regarding the soil issues 41. Ms. Michele Drucker, Environmental Chair for the Miami-Dade County Council Parent Teacher Association (PTA), 1101 Palermo Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 42. Ms. Anya Contreras, 13001 SW 104 Avenue, Miami, Florida 43. Mr. George Garcia, 3029 SW 57 Street, Miami, Florida 44. Mr. Zach Cosner, 7180 SW 114 Terrace, Pinecrest, Florida 45. Ms. Katrina Erwin, 1470 Baracoa Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 46. Ms. Gianna Hutton, 7840 SW 168 Street, Miami, Florida 47. Ms. Sarahi Perez, 2523 NW 9 Street, Miami, Florida 48. Mr. Noel Cleland, Miami Sierra Club, 5990 SW 50 Street, Miami, Florida 49. Mr. Michael Clarkson, CEO TIT Preparedness and Relief Institution, 122 NE 78 Street, Miami, Florida 50. Professor Richard Wisscoff, 18140 NE 10 Avenue, North Miami Beach, Florida 51. Mr. Albert Gomez, 3566 Vista Court, Miami, Florida 52. Ms. Angelica Cavallaro, 329 NW 1 Street, Homestead, Florida 53. Dr. Morgan Gianola, 5833 SW 62 Street, South Miami, Florida 54. Mr. Libre Sankara, Representing Florida Conservation Voters; and Democracy for All, 540 NW 165 Street, Miami, Florida 55. Mr. James Pierce, Executive Director for Dade County Farm Bureau, 16920 SW 274 Street, Homestead, Florida 56. Ms. Jocelyn Raso, Dade County Farm Bureau, 3075 SE 7 Place, Homestead, Florida 57. Ms. Ismavil Rodriguez, 13443 SW 256 Street, Miami, Florida 58. Mr. Gary Milano, 5974 SW 59 Street, Miami, Florida The following names were read into the record as being registered in opposition of the item: 1. Mr. Jean Field, 4706 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida 2. Mr. Federico Acevedo, 1200 NE 1 Street, Ft Lauderdale, Florida 3. Ms. Esther Perceval, 1223 NE 137 Terrace, North Miami, Florida 4. Ms. Shirley Green, 5211 NW 17 Avenue, Miami, Florida 5. Ms. Angeletha Devoe, 2400 NW 159 Street, Miami, Florida 6. Ms. Phyllis Tisdol, 740 NW 84 Street, Miami, Florida 7. Mr. Gerry Johnson, 2590 NW 165 Street, Miami, Florida 8. Mr. Garnell Williams, 330 NW 19 Street, Miami, Florida 9. Ms. Shirley Toney, 2301 NW 119 Street, Miami, Florida 10. Ms. Katrina Shivers, 10960 NW 14 Avenue, Miami, Florida 11. Mr. Michael Robinson, 7104 NW 14 Place, Miami, Florida 12. Mr. Walter Fair, 839 NW 12 Street, Florida City, Florida 13. Ms. Nellie Walter, 21551 SW 113 Avenue, Miami, Florida 14. Ms. Yvonne Walter, 19800 SW 103 Court, Cutler Bay, Florida 15. Mr. Dave Doebler, 800 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 16. Ms. Dara Schoenwald, 800 West Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 17. Ms. Michelle Hernandez, 2201 Brickell Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 18. Ms. Erica Cartaya, 310 NE 78 Street, Miami, Florida 19. J. Thompson, 75 NE 89 Street, El Portal, Florida 20. Mr. Scott Pollowitz, 21190 Mainsail Circle, Aventura, Florida Mr. Jeffrey Bercow, Bercow Radell Fernandez Larkin & Tapanes Law Zoning Land-Use and Environmental Law (BRFLT), 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, appeared on behalf of the applicant, Aligned Real Estate Holdings LLC, Et Al. and requested the Board of County Commissioners (Board/BCC) approve the application. Mr. Bercow submitted 675 letters/emails supporting the item into the record, and spoke about the applicant’s efforts to revise the application and special district text to address comments and concerns made by the Board during the transmittal hearing on September 2021. Mr. Bercow with the aid of a PowerPoint Presentation, reviewed the applicant’s request highlighting the following: ~ Meet the Project Team; ~ The South-Dade Logistics & Technology District (SDLTD); ~ SDLTD Gross and Net Acres; ~ SDLTD Property Participation and Support; ~ SDLTD Applications; ~ Need for SDLTD; ~ Policy LU-8F ~ Imbalance of Supply ~ E-Commerce as Percentage of Retail ~ In the News ~ A Long-term Trend ~ Vacant Land is disappearing ~ Larger Tracts also depleting – rapid depletion likely to continue ~ South Tier is not ready for demand ~ Vacant Industrial Land Over 10 Acres ~ Logistics Center Factors ~ South Tier “Vacant Land” Supply ~ Sites Under 10 Acres ~ Copart Sites ~ County Sites ~ Remaining Sites Mr. Jose Juncadella, Principal and Senior Advisor at Fairchild Partners, 3326 Mary Street, Miami, Florida, commented on the current housing and industrial market. He contended staff’s report regarding available industrial land for development was inaccurate and cited a project he was currently working on that highlighted the lack of distribution space located south of the Palmetto area. He reiterated there was no suitable space available for modern distribution companies and noted changes in technology, e-commerce and distribution, influenced building designs and requirements. Mr. Juncadella pointed out the older available buildings were now obsolete and stated the new distribution companies needed facilities offering higher ceilings, increased parking and larger truck courses. He reported over sixty-five percent (65%) of buildings under construction were already under contract by tenants and strongly urged the Board to consider the current industrial market conditions and trend. Discussion ensued between Mr. Bercow and Mr. Juncadella regarding the condition and feasibility of the Copart properties. Mr. Ken Metcalf, Director of Planning and Developmental Services, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson Law Firm, 106 East College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida, reported the applicant’s needs evaluation and methodology was consistent with Florida’s current statutory requirements. He pointed out that the Florida’s Statute (Statute) changed in 2011, to provide local government more discretion when evaluating needs, particularly for industrial development, to promote more diversity and economic development. Mr. Metcalf explained the current Statute encouraged the exploration of outdated industrial sites, and noted the County’s CDMP included language in the “future land-use element” provisions which addressed the challenges associated with building industrial developments on smaller sites. He added that the County’s CDMP also encouraged a more diverse approach when considering need and to consider different available sites based on acreage requirements; and to consolidate lands into larger pieces to achieve economies of scale. Mr. Bercow reported the development programming contemplated over 9 million square feet for logistics, warehouses and related light industrial uses for all three phases of the project. He stated the development would also provide over 100,000 square feet of commercial space and 150 hotel rooms. Mr. Bercow advised the Board members that the developers of Phases 1 and 2 would be paying over $100 million in infrastructure fees; $72 million in impact and connection fees; $90 million to improve off-site roadways; and $30 million for on-site infrastructure. He reviewed the estimated tax revenues the new development would generate, and continued with the PowerPoint Presentation highlighting: ~ Program/Benefits; ~ SDLTD’s Transformative Opportunity; ~ Construction Jobs ~ Targeted Hiring Mr. Ed Swakon, President of EAS Engineering, 55 Almeira Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida, appeared alongside Mr. Mike Carr (Langan Engineering) and Mr. John Hall (President of Ludovici & Orange Consulting). He assured the Board members that the proposed development could co-exist with Biscayne Bay and would provide an example for resiliency for future development in the County. Mr. Swakon continued with the PowerPoint Presentation highlighting the following: ~ Environmental, Resiliency & The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Benefits; ~ Benefits of the SDLTD Project at this Location ~ Site Aerial ~ Existing Drainage ~ Biscayne Bay Report Card ~ Reduction in Pollutants ~ Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) ~ The SDLTD Project should be applauded for its Resiliency Efforts ~ Original (Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands) BBCW CERP Boundaries – Phase 1 BBCW ~ Biscayne Bay and Southeastern Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSEER) Study Area ~ Current BBSEER Alternatives ~ The SDLTD Project is consistent with LU-8G when considering land areas to add to the UDB ~ Project Consistency with BBSEER Objectives ~ Additional Project Environmental Benefits Mr. Swankon maintained that the foregoing application provided the County an opportunity to create employment opportunities and help the environment. He expressed confidence that the proposed project would not be included in any future BBSEER components, but would provide the necessary water benefits needed by Biscayne Bay. Mr. Bercow pointed out that the foregoing application shared similarities with the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland applications which, were approved by the Board in 2002. He noted the sizes and location of the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland properties, and emphasized that the projects were located outside the UDB. Mr. Bercow reviewed staff’s recommendations for both projects and spoke to the success of both developments. He contended that while the Beacon Lakes project was right for the County in 2002, the SDLTD was right for the County in 2022, and would not only create new job opportunities but also provide land to serve South-Dade residents and consumers. Mr. Juan Mayol, Holland & Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, briefly reviewed the economic and community benefit commitments proffered by the applicant. He distributed copies of the declarations of restrictions (DOR), which he explained was applicable to every phase of the development and noted Exhibit D of the DOR, detailed the proposed community benefits and guidelines. Mr. Mayol pointed out that the applicant had continued to meet with community leaders and stakeholders since the submittal of the DOR, and advised the Board members that a revised community benefits guideline had been prepared (copies provided to the Board members). Mr. Mayol reiterated the applicant’s commitment to the purpose of the SDLTD, specifically job creation for South-Dade residents. He reported the revised community benefits guideline included commitments that the applicant would provide local workforce training and placement, and ensured a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the jobs created, through construction and tenant use, would be dedicated to residents of specific South-Dade areas located in commission districts 8 and 9. Mr. Mayol stated in addition to the resources earmarked for outreach initiatives and job fairs, the applicant had agreed to pay employees ten percent (10%) more than the County’s minimum wage. He noted this condition would also be required of all contractors and sub-contractors, and tenants of the proposed development would be asked to make every effort to comply with the County’s hourly minimum wage amount. Mr. Mayol explained the “Community’s Benefit Program (CBP)” would create a revenue stream for community benefits in the area. He noted that the applicant sought to establish a “Property Owners’ Association” (POA) and proposed the property be assessed at a rate of 21 cents per building square feet, with a five percent (5%) annual increase. Mr. Mayol stated the funds would be directed to the programs outlined in the community benefits document and estimated the fund would generate approximately $62 million over the next 30 years. He reported the applicant was also asking for the “seed money” at a rate of $1500 per developable acre, to be paid in advance; with 80 percent (80%) allocated to job outreach initiatives, and the remaining 20 percent (20%) to be dedicated to the Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) program. Mr. Mayol advised the Board members that the applicant had amended the proposed district text to require the CBP to apply to all phases of the proposed project. Ms. Laura Reynolds, Hold the Line Coalition (HTLC), 6820 SW 64 Court, South Miami, Florida, appeared in opposition of the foregoing application, and submitted a report and executive summary titled “Building an Industrial Complex outside Miami-Dade’s Urban Development Boundary.” Mr. Richard Grosso, attorney for HTLC, 6919 W Broward Boulevard. Plantation, Florida, pointed out that the County’s staff, State reviewing agencies and the public strongly objected to the foregoing application. He contended that the Board’s approval of the proposed project would undo forty (40) years of planning and grant the developer leverage for future developments. Mr. Grosso with the aid of a PowerPoint Presentation spoke about the environmental impact of the proposed development and the special requests made in the application highlighting the following: ~ State and County staff have consistently advocated denial; ~ There is no demonstrated need to expand the UDB at this time; ~ The supposed benefits of this project are highly overstated and not supported by analysis of the applicant’s claims; ~ Capacity for these uses and potential jobs already exists; ~ The farmland in the area is considered farmland of unique importance; Ms. Reynolds continued the PowerPoint Presentation and reviewed the following: ~ Existing Conditions; ~ Proposed Development; ~ Impacts on Planned CERP Projects; ~ Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Alternative versus Figure 5-4 – Alternative Yellow Book; ~ Environmental Impacts; ~ CERP Project; Mr. Paul Schwiep, attorney for HTLC, 2601 S. Bayshore, Miami, Florida, recounted the various State reviewing agencies and organizations objecting to the foregoing application. He commented on the negative environmental impact of the item on Biscayne Bay protections including the BBSEER project area and spoke about the Board’s role in protecting the environment against climate change and sea-level rise. Mr. Schwiep noted that the CDMP prohibited development in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and contended the applicant’s plan to elevate the proposed development would only increase and worsen the area’s flooding risk. He argued tax-payers would be responsible for building the storm surge infrastructure, as well as all maintenance and operating costs; and maintained that the applicant’s employment opportunity representations were inflated. Mr. Schwiep urged the Board to adopt staff’s recommendations and deny the application. Mr. Bercow reminded the Board members that the CDMP process was only the first step in the entitlements process, and briefly reviewed the zoning and permitting process for the proposed project. He disputed the comments made by Mr. Grosso regarding a 2005 CDMP application which, Mr. Grosso alleged was operating at less than capacity and not producing the promised jobs; and noted the referenced project was part of the successful Beacon County Line project. Mr. Bercow spoke about the Beacon County Line project and the number of jobs generated by the development; and pointed out the Board redesignated the north part of project from industrial to business and office. Addressing comments regarding Phase 3 plans, Mr. Bercow clarified that there were currently three (3) applications filed to date representing 31 percent (31%) of the total developable area. Mr. Swakon contended the technical report submitted by the HTLC contained design and conceptual errors. He clarified that there was no “nutrient attenuation” on the subject property. Mr. Swakon assured the Board members that the applicant was making every effort to resolve the issues occurring on the subject property and improve Biscayne Bay. He pointed out that many of the objections made by the State agencies were documented before the applicant finalized the Storm Water Master Plan (SWMP) including other environmental features. Mr. Swakon informed the Board members that the applicant had met with the State reviewing agencies following the submittal of the SWMP and noted at that time, none of the agencies expressed any objections to the project. Mr. Swakon reviewed the applicant’s plans and current efforts to improve salt-water intrusion. He explained the applicant’s plans to source water from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD), and the project’s storm water retention plans, would increase aquifer recharge and improve the salt-water intrusion issue. There being no other persons registered or appearing to speak, Chairman Diaz closed the public hearing. Miami-Dade Mayor (Mayor) Danielle Levine Cava emphasized the administration’s commitment to protecting the Miami-Dade residents and environment based on environmental resiliency and sound development. She recognized the importance of preparing the County for the future and acknowledged the challenges currently facing residents. Mayor Levine Cava attributed many of the County’s issues to poor planning and misguided development, and spoke about the need to protect Biscayne Bay and the Everglades to support the County’s drinking water supply, and agricultural and tourism industries. She voiced her support for staff’s recommendation to deny the foregoing application, and noted the denial would guarantee the land needed to continue the Everglades restoration. Mayor Levine Cava stated sustainable economic development for the County, including the South-Dade area, must be built on a foundation focused on protecting the environment and providing for the current needs of the residents. Commissioner Cohen Higgins noted the subject property was 793 acres in size and questioned whether the item was the largest private request to move the UDB to date. She also asked about the location of the property in terms of commission district. Responding to Commission Cohen Higgins’ questions, Mr. Jerry Bell, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), confirmed that the foregoing application was the largest private application to date, and noted prior to the this application, the City of Hialeah along with the County, had requested to move the UBD in 2005. He noted the subject property was located in commission district 8. Commissioner Cohen Higgins commented on the size of the subject property and noted the property was larger than the Village of Virginia Gardens, Town of Golden Beach, North Bay Village, Bal Harbour Village, Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Village of El Portal, Village of Indian Creek, Town of Surfside, Village of Biscayne Park, City of West Miami and the City of Sunny Isles Beach. She pointed out that the Village of Key Biscayne was only slightly larger than the subject property. Commissioner Cohen Higgins referenced staff’s recommendations and the principal reasons to deny the application, and posed the following questions to staff: ~ Was the application contrary to the County’s CDMP policies regarding “need” (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 1); ~ Was the application contrary to the County’s CDMP Land Use (LU) element objectives, specifically LU-1, LU-1C and LU-10A, as it relates to redirecting economic development efforts away from planned areas located within the UDB (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 2); ~ Was the applicant able to substantiate their job creation claims (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 3); and more specifically provide an explanation of the discrepancy with the numbers provided by the applicant (13,423 jobs) compared to staff’s (1,222 jobs) estimations; ~ Was the application consistent with the County’s LU-8D policies and did the application fail to identify infrastructure improvements needed to support the special district (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 4); ~ When was LU-8H enacted by the County and the procedural history of policy (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 5); ~ Was the application inconsistent with the County’s CDMP policies to preserve agricultural land and manage urban expansion (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 6); ~ How would the application foreclose options for successfully accomplishing objectives of the Biscayne Bay and South Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSSER) project (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 7); ~ How would the application affect storm-water run off to Biscayne Bay (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 8); ~ Was the application inconsistent with the County’s CDMP policies regarding coastal management and development in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 9); and ~ How would the application impact urban sprawl in the area (Staff’s recommendation - Reason No. 12). Mr. Bell confirmed that the subject property was larger in size than the municipalities identified by Commissioner Cohen Higgins. He explained, pursuant to the County’s CDMP and State Statutes, the “need” to move the UDB must be established before an action could be taken. Mr. Bell noted “need” was based on land supply in the UDB and the ability of the land to accommodate development over a ten-year planning period. He advised the Board members that staff maintained “real time” information related to development patterns, land-use, availability of land, and population and economic statistics. Mr. Bell reviewed staff’s process for evaluating CDMP applications and noted that staff found the South Tier (area including the subject property) contained more than the ten-year supply of land needed to justify moving the UDB. Mr. Bell reiterated staff’s findings that there was an adequate supply of industrial land, over 500 acres, located in the County including the South Tier. He pointed out that Phase 1 of the foregoing application consisted of 203 acres. Mr. Bell stated if the application was approved by the Board, it would add 100 years of supply, making it more difficult to develop the existing available parcels located in the UDB. He reported this would create a conflict in the County’s policies to prioritize infill development and other planning policies, such as the implementation of The Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan corridors and urban centers. Mr. Bell contended the applicant’s representation that 13,423 construction jobs was inaccurate and explained that staff considered construction over a seven (7) year period to arrive at staff’s estimate of 1,222 construction related jobs. He maintained that the applicant’s “direct” jobs estimate (11,428) was unsubstantiated and there was no economic plan or tenant strategy to justify the numbers. Mr. Bell pointed out that the job numbers were also dependent on Phase 3 of the project, which at this point was not guaranteed. Mr. Bell explained that the proposed special district text called for the site to be developed parcel by parcel which was inconsistent with the County’s LU-8D policies. He further noted that the phased approach could result in certain portions of the site not being elevated or infrastructure not being built. Mr. Bell reported that LU-8H was implemented by the Board in October 2022 as a staff amendment following input from the Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Task Force. Mr. Bell advised the Board members that the foregoing application was inconsistent with the County’s CDMP policies to preserve agricultural lands because it called for the redesignation of 800 acres of agricultural land. He pointed out that not all the land would be developed immediately and noted the land was currently zoned as farmland of unique importance. Mr. Bell maintained that the careful management of urban expansion was the best way to preserve agricultural lands. Mr. Bell explained that a large portion of the land involving the BBSEER project was situated within the subject property, therefore any development of the land prior to the completion of the study would foreclose potential options related to improving Biscayne Bay. Addressing Commissioner Cohen Higgins’ question as to how the application would impact storm-water run off to Biscayne Bay, Mr. Lee Hefty, Assistant Director, RER, reviewed the difference in agricultural water use and developed area’s water usage and processing. Mr. Bell pointed out that the CDMP policy changes requested by the applicant was not limited to the application but could effectuate changes County-wide. He reviewed the applicant’s CHHA exemption request and explained that approval of the application would encourage development in vulnerable areas. Mr. Bell reiterated that the applicant’s request was inconsistent with the County’s policies to reduce development in CHHA areas and noted the CHHA was governed by State Statute and granting the exemption could result in future conflicts with the County’s CDMP. Mr. Bell defined urban sprawl as discontinued, scattered development. He explained that staff evaluated the foregoing application for sprawl and found three (3) indicators that the item would discourage urban sprawl and six (6) indicators that it failed to discourage urban sprawl. Mr. Bell contended the phased approach for the development would lead to urban sprawl. Responding to Commissioner Cohen Higgins’ question as to the Department of Transportation and Public Works’ (DTPW) opinion of the application, Ms. Claudia Diaz, Division Chief, DTPW, stated the department recommended the application not be approved based on three (3) failing links located outside the special zone, and for the unknown elements of Phase 3. Ms. Diaz explained that the CDMP identified three (3) roads for failure in the future (SW 248 Street between 127 Avenue and US-1, SW 112 Avenue between 216 Street and 232 Avenue, and SW 127 Avenue between SW 216 and 232 Street). She noted the roadways were currently two (2) lanes and RER had determined that the aforementioned roads would have to be widened into four (4) lanes. Ms. Diaz reported one of the roadways included a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) right of way. In response to Commissioner Cohen Higgins’ question as to Mr. Leonard Abess’ interest in the foregoing application, Mr. Leonard Abess, 100 SE 32nd Road, Miami, Florida, stated that he was the current owner of 160 acres which represented twenty percent (20%) of the subject property identified by the applicant as Phase 3 of the development. Mr. Abess voiced his support for staff’s recommendations and his strong objection to the foregoing application, and representations by the applicant that his property would be included in Phase 3. Commissioner Cohen Diaz requested clarification regarding the status of zoning applications allegedly filed by Mr. Abess. Mr. Abess noted that he owned 1776 acres of agricultural land located South of Kendall Drive. He reviewed the various agricultural enterprises occurring on his property and emphasized the importance of agricultural land to protecting the environment, and the significance of the County’s agricultural industry to the State and country. He reiterated his objections to being associated in any way with the foregoing application or developer, and maintained that the applicant included his property as part of the application without permission. Mr. Abess expressed his frustration regarding representations being made by the applicant spoke about his family’s commitment to the community and saving agricultural land. He stated that while his family stood to benefit financially if the application was approved, he was not interested in selling his property for industrial development, and noted that he had invested $10 million into the Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy. Commissioner Sosa voiced her concerns regarding comments and allegations made by Mr. Abess that his property was included in the application without consent, and requested the applicant be provided an opportunity to respond. Chairman Diaz reviewed the rules of decorum. Mr. Bercow denied sending any threatening correspondence to Mr. Abess. He clarified that the special district (Chapter 163) development agreement did not prohibit existing farming. Mr. Bercow advised the Board members that several of the other land owners had spoken to Mr. Abess prior to the filing of the foregoing application and Mr. Abess advised them that while he did not wish to be a part of the project as an applicant or co-applicant, he would not object if the application sought to expand the UDB and include his property. Mr. Bercow reported that Mr. Abess had filed zoning applications in August 2021, which were consistent with the applicant’s special district text. He noted the applicant’s request was consistent with the LU-8H requirement that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be a minimum of 0.25; and pointed out that Mr. Abess’ zoning application FAR request was more intense (between 0.35 and 0.40). Mr. Bercow stated that the applicant had met with Mr. Abess’ attorney to ensure the creation of the special district would provide the Phase 3 development parity with the applicant’s proposals; and advised the Board members that Mr. Abess’ zoning applications have been “on-hold” since December 2021. Responding to Commissioner Sosa’s request for clarification as to whether there were any pending zoning applications filed by Mr. Abess, Mr. Kogon, Assistant Director, Development Services, RER, confirmed that there were zoning applications filed and put “on-hold” at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Sosa cited comments made by former County Commissioner Dennis Moss regarding the best use of CHHA land, and asked whether the Board previously recommended the area be zoned for industrial use. Mr. Kogon stated that the area was currently a part of the UEA with recommendations from the UEA Task Force that it remain as such. He pointed out that residential development was prohibited due to area’s proximity to the CHHA. Mr. Kogon confirmed that the Board recommended the area be considered for industrial uses. Commissioner Sosa inquired about the approval of the applicant’s storm-water master plan, and if the applicant’s plan considered sea-level rise. Mr. Hefty advised the Board members that the applicant’s storm-water master plan had been approved by DERM and the applicant’s plan did take into account sea-level rise. He confirmed that the area would be elevated to deal with sea-level rise issues. In response to Commissioner Sosa’s question as to whether the subject property was located in the wetlands area, Mr. Hefty explained that the applicant had not submitted the wetland delineation document. Commissioner Sosa asked if there were instances where farmers and other agricultural enterprises in the area were negatively impacted by sea-level rise issues. She commented on the use of pesticides and other chemicals in the farming process and questioned whether the proposed industrial use would reduce water consumption when compared to farming. Mr. Hefty acknowledged that salt intrusion in the South-Dade aquifer continued to be an issue. He stated water consumption was dependent on the type of business. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Sosa and Mr. Hefty regarding the water consumption and use of chemicals and fertilizers in agriculture versus that in residential and/or industrial centers. Addressing the effects of the foregoing application on Biscayne Bay, Mr. Hefty explained that the issue was less about water consumption and more about the management of the water and drainage from the site. He reiterated the importance of drainage in industrial areas to avoid flooding, and emphasized that water usage in farming and industrial developments differed greatly. Commissioner Sosa pointed out that the farming industry was regulated by the State of Florida, and noted the industry was exempt from the recently adopted fertilizer legislation. She asked about the run-off produced by agriculture and concluded that the foregoing application would reduce the amount of nutrient run-off to Biscayne Bay. Mr. Hefty explained that the County was preempted from regulating the agriculture industry locally and confirmed that run-off from farming eventually made its way to Biscayne Bay along with urban run-off. Responding to Commissioner Sosa’s inquiry about the presence of septic infrastructure on the subject property, Mr. Hefty opined that in the event the property did have a waste-water system it would most probably be a septic tank. He further noted that the applicant would be required to install sewer systems in the event the application was approved. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Sosa and Mr. Hefty regarding the applicant’s storm-water drainage plan. Mr. Hefty explained that the applicant would be required to retain the water on-site which then drains into canals and into Biscayne Bay. Commissioner Sosa asked whether there was any land located within the UDB in other areas of the County, to accommodate a development of the magnitude proposed by the applicant. She also inquired if there was a contiguous parcel of the same size available in South-Dade. Mr. Kogon advised the Board members that there was land available in the County and in the South-Dade area, to accommodate the project. Commissioner Sosa requested staff provide the Board members a copy of the map identifying the land available. Mr. Robert Hesler, Planning Section Supervisor, RER, assured the Board members that staff would provide them with pictures of the sites available. He reported there was over 416 acres of property available in the South Tier that would easily accommodate Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development. Mr. Hesler pointed out Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed development were not contiguous. Commissioner Sosa spoke about the job opportunities the proposed development would bring to the South-Dade region. She reviewed the merits of the item and pointed out that the subject property was not included in the Environmental, Resiliency & The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) plans. Commissioner Sosa voiced her support for the item. Responding to Commissioner McGhee’s question as to if any of the subject property (793 acres) was owned by the County and if there had been any attempts by the County to purchase the land. Assistant County Attorney Kerbel advised that none of the land was County-owned, and Mr. Bell indicated that he was unaware of any attempts by the County to purchase the land. Commissioner McGhee asked whether there was public funds allocated to preserve the subject property and questioned whether the infrastructural improvements on the site would be paid by the private sector. Mayor Levine Cava responded that no attempts had been made to purchase the property since she assumed office. She also noted, aside from general County operations, that there had been no specific requests for funds to be allocated to preserve the land. Ms. Diaz stated the developer would not be responsible for paying for the infrastructural improvements, per the current application. She explained the applicant was not guaranteeing the construction of the infrastructure during Phases 1 or 2 for the proposed special area. Ms. Diaz advised the Board members that the applicant proposed building the infrastructure during Phase 3, a phase of which was not guaranteed to be built. She pointed out that the applicant was also seeking credits for road impact fees which they were ineligible to receive. Commissioner McGhee requested clarification as to representations made that the private sector/developer was prepared to spend approximately $72 million in impact fees for storm management infrastructure. Mr. Bell explained the impact fees were specific to the proposed development’s impact. Mr. Hefty noted that the applicant would be required to design, build and finance a storm water management system, but was unable to provide a cost estimate for the project. Mr. Bercow confirmed that the applicant was prepared to pay a total of $72 million in impact fees with $19 million allocated for off-site roadways, and $30 million for on-site infrastructure including the storm water management system. In response to Commissioner McGhee’s question as to the amount of property taxes currently being collected from the subject property, Mr. Bercow stated $50,000 in property taxes was generated from the entire site, including Mr. Abess’ property. Later in the meeting, Mr. Bercow estimated the proposed development could generate approximately $6.7 million in property taxes for Phases 1 and 2; and $13 million upon build-out. Addressing the applicant’s representations regarding employment opportunities, Commissioner McGhee asked for a realistic estimation of the number of jobs the proposed development would bring to the area. Mr. Bercow reported the applicant’s economic consultant, Mr. Andrew Dolkart, estimated a total of 30,000 jobs would be created; of which 17,000 would be permanent jobs and 13,000 construction jobs. He explained the applicant’s original estimation was higher but the estimate was modified following staff’s review and comments. Commissioner McGhee referenced Page 19 of the 2020 Strategic Economic Development Plan for South Miami-Dade, which stated over 72 percent (72%) of the current South-Dade workforce (240,000) population worked outside the area. Mr. Bercow confirmed that the plan’s statistics were accurate. Commissioner McGhee spoke about his efforts to ensure there was no misinformation surrounding the representations made to the public regarding the proposed development. He noted that he had requested the applicant develop and fund a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) in the amount of $250 million; and asked whether the applicant had agreed to the terms of the CBA. Commissioner McGhee also inquired if the applicant was prepared to incorporate the CBA into a covenant. Mr. Bercow, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the terms of outlined in the CBA. He explained the applicant was prepared to bind Phases 1 and 2, and would continue to work with staff and the County Attorney’s Office (CAO) to legally incorporate the commitments into the special district text. Referencing comments made by Mr. Mayol regarding the applicant’s intent to dedicate a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the jobs created by the development to residents of specific South-Dade areas located in commission districts 8 and 9; Commissioner McGhee requested the applicant increase the minimum threshold to 25 percent (25%). Mr. Bercow, on behalf of the applicant, agreed that a minimum of 25 percent of the jobs created by the proposed development would be dedicated to residents of commission districts 8 and 9. Addressing comments made by staff regarding anticipated level of service failures for identified roadways, Commissioner McGhee asked whether the applicant was prepared to assist the County to expand and/or maintain the identified roadways. Mr. Bercow confirmed that the applicant was prepared to make any necessary infrastructural improvements needed for the proposed development. He contended that Ms. Diaz’s comments regarding the failing roadways were incorrect and maintained that the three (3) identified roads were not located within the district, and were not physically connected to the subject property. Commissioner McGhee requested clarification regarding the applicant’s representations that $19 million in impact fees would be allocated to off-site roadway improvements. Mr. Bercow confirmed that while the applicant was prepared to allocate $19 million to facilitate improvements to the three (3) roadways identified by Ms. Diaz (SW 248 Street between 127 Avenue and US-1, SW 112 Avenue between 216 Street and 232 Avenue, and SW 127 Avenue between SW 216 and 232 Street); at least one (1) of the roadways would fail with or without the traffic generated by the proposed development. He reiterated that the roadways were located outside of the district, however based on CDMP policy LU-8D, the applicant was required to program the funding for the roadways and to ensure the roads did not fail. Mr. Bercow pointed out that the applicant’s CDMP request included modifications to the long-range, traffic circulation and capital improvement plans and further noted that $19 million would be funded by Phases 1 and 2. Discussion ensued between Commissioner McGhee and Mr. Bercow regarding the timeframe and process for the generation and payment of the $19 million. Responding to Commissioner McGhee’s question, Mr. Bercow confirmed that the applicant was prepared to immediately provide prorated funding to the County to address the failing roadway issues. Commissioner McGhee pointed out that the CBA also required the applicant to allocate funds to protect endangered land. Mr. Bercow confirmed that the applicant had agreed to provide funding to acquire and maintain environmentally endangered land. He further noted that the funds would be provided into perpetuity and funded through the Property Owner’s Association. Commissioner McGhee recognized the sensitive nature of the foregoing application and acknowledged the concerns voiced by the HDLC and other objectors. He argued that the South-Dade region and residents continued to suffer despite the County’s efforts to study area’s needs over the past forty (40) years. Commissioner McGhee emphasized his commitment to protecting the environment and indicated his support for the foregoing application. He pointed out that while the subject property was currently zoning for agricultural use, the current land owners were free to develop the property as they wished without any recourse available to the County. Commissioner McGhee noted there was currently no storm water management systems in place on the subject property and urged his colleagues to review the 2020 Strategic Economic Development Plan for South Miami-Dade, and consider whether the South-Dade area had been provided a fair opportunity for growth and development. Vice Chairman Gilbert III asked whether there was any project other than agriculture that the administration, staff and objectors would support. He also questioned what type of project and safeguards would be considered for the subject property. Mayor Levine Cava noted that the CDMP governed the Board and County policies related to responsible growth and development. She emphasized that there was no demonstrated need to justify the proposed development. Mayor Levine Cava clarified that while residential use was removed from consideration, the administration did not endorse redesignating the area for industrial use. She explained that when “need” was established, which was estimated to occur in 2040, industrial use would be considered at that time. Vice Chairman Gilbert III stated that the comments made by the administration regarding demonstrated need was contradictory as to whether development could be done safely today. Mayor Levine Cava clarified that industrial development on the subject property would be considered in 2040 based on demonstrated “need,” but it did not address safety. Mr. Bell reviewed the process for evaluating CDMP applications and “needs” analysis reports. He pointed out the “needs” analysis for the foregoing application was submitted on May 9, a day after staff’s report on the item was compiled. Mr. Bell advised that the applicant’s analysis was reviewed by staff and no “need” was demonstrated. Vice Chairman Gilbert III questioned, in the event the Board established “need,” what type of development would be deemed appropriate and safe for the site. Mr. Bell stated any application that demonstrated “need” and complied with the County’s policies regarding infrastructure, development programming, impact mitigation, and addressed the CERP issues in a better framework would be considered. Mr. Grosso urged the Board members to consider the significance of farmland to the County. Vice Chairman Gilbert III disclosed that he visited the subject area in question and commented on the negligent state of the some of the properties in the area. He stated that while he acknowledged the importance of agriculture to the County and the environment, more needed to be done to clean up the surroundings. Responding to Vice Chairman Gilbert III’s question as to what variable would allow development on the subject property to be considered safe in 2040, Mr. Grosso opined that there would be more information available by then to determine what type of environmental protections were needed for Biscayne Bay. He contended an appropriate project for the area would be significantly smaller than the proposed development and would not be developed in phases. Mr. Grosso also commented on the use of impact fees to build infrastructure and asserted that the infrastructure was needed to mitigate the impacts of development, and were not “gifts” to the County. Mr. Swakon noted that the proposed development’s design considered resiliency concerns such as sea-level rise. He pointed out the same design elements would have to be incorporated in any future developments and maintained that there was minimal likelihood of the subject property being selected to be a part of the BBSEER project. Mr. Swakon contended the foregoing application was a unique opportunity for the County to benefit from economic development while saving Biscayne Bay and being consistent with CERP. Vice Chairman Gilbert III questioned why the subject property was more suitable for the proposed development compared to any other site located in the County or South-Dade. Mr. Bercow pointed out that the subject property was located directly adjacent to the turn-pike at a unique interchange. He explained the expansive size of the subject property was needed to facilitate the successful construction and operations of an industrial park, as seen in Beacon County Line, Beacon Lakes or International Corporate Park. Mr. Bercow stated the critical mass was critical to attracting major tenants and “feeder” companies. He noted the space to provide flexibility to tenants and accommodate growth and development. Mr. Bercow maintained that there were no other comparable properties available in the County or South-Dade area despite staff’s representations. He reiterated that the 550 acres identified by staff was not suitable for the proposed development because 24 percent (24%) of the property was owned by the County with prior commitments; 26 percent (26%) was owned by Copart and currently being developed; which left less than 100 acres available.

BCC - Comprehensive Development Master Plan 9/9/2021 Special Item No. 1A1 Adopted on first reading 10/20/2021 P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Dennis Kerbel read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and a public hearing will be scheduled on October 20, 2021 before the Board of County Commissioners.

Jimmy Morales 9/3/2021 Assigned Office of Agenda Coordination 9/3/2021 9/3/2021

Office of Agenda Coordination 9/3/2021 Assigned County Attorney 9/9/2021
REPORT: RER- No sponsor- No Cmte- County attorney: Denis A. Kerbell- CDMP First reading- Pgs:

County Attorney 9/3/2021 Assigned Dennis A. Kerbel 9/3/2021

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. CDMP20210003, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE HOMESTEAD EXTENSION OF THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE (HEFT), BETWEEN SW 107 AVENUE AND SW 122 AVENUE, AND NORTH OF SW 268 STREET (MOODY DRIVE), FILED BY ALIGNED REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC, ET AL., AS AN OUT-OF-CYCLE CYCLE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, EXCLUSION FROM THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners (�Board�) adopted the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (�CDMP�) in 1988; and

WHEREAS, the Board has provided procedures, codified as section 2-116.1, Code of Miami-Dade County, to amend, modify, add to, or change the CDMP; and

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County's procedures reflect and comply with the procedures for adopting or amending local comprehensive plans as set forth in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes; and

WHEREAS, applications to amend the CDMP may be filed with the Planning Division of the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (�Department�) by private parties or by the County; and

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County's procedures classify applications as either standard or small-scale amendment applications, set forth the processes for adoption of small scale and standard amendments, and require any application seeking adoption as a small-scale amendment to clearly state such request in the application; and

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County's procedures provide that applications may be filed for processing in the January, May, or October CDMP amendment cycles or filed at any time for out-of-cycle processing; and

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County's procedures also provide that applications seeking to amend the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the CDMP may only be filed in odd numbered years during the May CDMP amendment cycle or during the period from January through May for out-of-cycle processing; and

WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County�s procedures also provide for the processing of CDMP amendment applications concurrently with zoning applications, and

WHEREAS, Application No. CDMP20210003 (the �Application�) was filed by a private party as a standard Out-of-Cycle Application (�Out-of-Cycle Application�) to amend the text and adopted 2030 and 2040 Land Use Plan (LUP) map of the CDMP, including a request to expand the Urban Development Boundary, and is contained in the document titled �Out-of-Cycle Application No. CDMP20210003 to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan�, dated May 2021, and kept on file with and available upon request from the Department; and

WHEREAS, the Application was filed for concurrent processing with Zoning Application Nos. Z2021000050, Z2021000051, Z2021000052, Z2021000053, and Z2021000054, and a Development Agreement No. Z2021000089; and

WHEREAS, as required by section 2-116.1, Code of Miami-Dade County, the Department issued its initial recommendation addressing the Application in a report titled �Initial Recommendations Application No. CDMP20210003 to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan�, dated August 2021 and kept on file with and available upon request from the Department; and

WHEREAS, the Department�s initial recommendation addressing the Application is individually available in a Portable Document Format (PDF) file entitled �Initial Recommendations Appl CDMP20210003� on the Department�s website at https://energov.miamidade.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/home by searching for plan number �CDMP20210003,� and selecting the tab for �Attachments,� or at the following weblink to the Attachments tab: https://energov.miamidade.gov/EnerGov_Prod/SelfService#/plan/daa9f46a-bb7d-4a9d-952c-37c44eb552ee; and

WHEREAS, the directly impacted Community Council and the Planning Advisory Board, acting as the Local Planning Agency, have acted in accordance with the applicable State and County procedures and have conducted public hearings and issued recommendations for the disposition of the Application; and

WHEREAS, at the public hearing conducted to address transmittal of the standard Application to the State Land Planning Agency and other state and regional agencies (�reviewing agencies�), the Board by resolution, transmitted the Application to the reviewing agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Board must take final action to adopt, adopt with change, or not adopt Application No. CDMP20210003 to amend the CDMP no later than 45 days after receipt of written comments from the reviewing agencies addressing transmitted applications, unless a greater time period is deemed necessary by the Director of the Department, pursuant to section 2-116.1(4)(a) of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida; and

WHEREAS, the approval of an amendment to the CDMP does not assure favorable action upon any application for zoning or other land use approval but is part of the overall land use policies of the County; and

WHEREAS, this Board has conducted the public hearing required by the referenced procedures preparatory to enactment of this ordinance;

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:

Section 1. All matters set forth in the preamble are found to be true and are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim and adopted.

Section 2. This Board hereby takes action on the Application as follows:

Application Number Applicant/Representative Location and Size Requested Amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan Map or Text
CDMP20210003 Aligned Real Estate Holdings LLC / Jeffrey Bercow, Esq., Graham Penn, Esq., Emily K. Balter, Esq., Bercow Radell Fernandez Larkin & Tapanes, PLLC and

South Dade Industrial Partners, LLC, Bedrock South Dade 112 Avenue, LLC, Bedrock South Dade 268 Street, LLC/ Juan Mayol, Jr., Esq., Joseph G. Goldstein, Esq., Pedro A. Gassant, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP

Located south of the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike (HEFT), between SW 107 Avenue and SW 122 Avenue, and north of SW 268 Street (Moody Drive) / �793.93 gross acres/ �722.33 net acres

Requested Amendment to the CDMP
1. Expand the 2030 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) to include the application site.

2. Redesignate the application site on the Land Use Plan map from �Agriculture� to �Special District�.

3. Amend the interpretative text of the Land Use Element to create the �South Dade Logistics & Technology District�.

4. Amend Policy LU-8H in the CDMP Land Use Element.

5. Amend Policy CM-9A in the CDMP Coastal Management Element.

6. Add the proffered Declarations of Restrictions in the Restrictions Table in Appendix A of the CDMP Land Use Element, if accepted by the Board

Pursuant to section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, this application is being processed concurrently with five separate but related zoning applications (Z2021000050, Z2021000051, Z2021000052, Z2021000053, and Z2021000054), and a Development Agreement (Z2021000089) per sections 163.3220-163.3243 of the Florida Statutes.

Standard Amendment

Final Action
Adopt with Changes and with Acceptance
of the revised Proffered Declarations
of Restrictions (covenants)

[Changes are to reduce the application site to �379 gross acres (�311 net acres) by removing the original Phase I properties and the Phase III properties east of SW 117 Avenue, except the FPL parcel (Folio 3060300000120) north of theoretical SW 260 Street and to: 1) revise Policy LU-8H to reduce the acreage threshold and limit the change to Urban Expansion Area No. 3;

2) revise proposed Special District text to address the reduced acreage and revised development program and
associated development requirements and public facility impacts;

3) revise proposed changes to various CDMP figures and maps (2030-2040 Future Land
Use Map, Transportation Element Figure 1 � Planned Year 2030 Roadway Network, Transportation Element Figure
2 � Roadway Classification 2012, Transportation Element Figure 3 � Roadway Functional Classification 2030, and Transportation Element Figure 6 � Planned Non-Motorized Network 2030) to reflect the reduced scope of the application; and

4) revise proposed changes to the Capital Improvements
Element Table 10A to reflect the reduced scope of the application. Revisions to the proffered covenant are to accept the applicants' revisions to provide that: prior to the approval of the first tentative plat for the Property or any portion thereof, the Phase IIA Owners shall, at their cost, convey to Miami-Dade County or the appropriate state or federal agency no less than 622 acres of land, the entirety of which shall meet at least one of the following (1) the land is on the Priority A EEL Acquisition list depicted on Exhibit E to the Declaration, or (2) the land is determined by the County or the appropriate state or federal agency conducting the applicable Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) project to be appropriate for the CERP Biscayne Bay Southeast Everglades Ecosystem Restoration (BBSEER) project; or (3) the land is determined by the County or to the appropriate federal agency
to be outside the
UDB and surrounding the Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB) and to be capable of being developed with uses that are incompatible with HARB, as determined by HARB; for all such land, the Phase IIA Owners shall coordinate with the applicable County departments and federal and state agencies to select such properties; that these conveyances shall not be credited toward any mitigation required by the County or other state or federal agencies for existing or proposed environmental permits; that HARB-related conveyances may take the form of fee simple title, easement, or other instrument acceptable to the County and to HARB or other
applicable federal agency; and with the condition that the applicant submit a legally sufficient and fully executed covenant in recordable form and legally sufficient opinion of title and necessary joinders within 30 days unless additional time is granted by the Director of the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources for good cause shown by the applicant, or the application will be deemed withdrawn.]

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

Section 4. It is the intention of the Board, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall be excluded from section 2-116.1, Code of Miami-Dade County.

Section 5. Pursuant to section 163.3184(3)(c)4, Florida Statutes, the effective date of any plan amendment adopted in this ordinance shall be 31 days after the State Land Planning Agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete, if the amendment is not timely challenged. If timely challenged, the plan amendment shall become effective on the date the State Land Planning Agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on the adopted amendment may be issued or commence before the plan amendment has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, the plan amendment may nevertheless be made effective, subject to the imposition of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes, by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Board and sent to the State Land Planning Agency.

Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

HEADER
Date: Agenda Item No. 4(A)1

To: Honorable Chairman Jose �Pepe� Diaz
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Daniella Levine Cava
Mayor

Subject: Ordinance for Out-of-Cycle Application No. CDMP20210003 to Amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The attached ordinance addresses a Comprehensive Development Master Plan private application that, under rule 5.05(b)(1) of the Board�s rules of procedure, is exempt from commissioner sponsorship. The staff analysis and fiscal impact statement for this application are discussed in a separate memorandum that appears on this agenda, which, together with this ordinance, were prepared by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources.

_________________________
Jimmy Morales
Chief Operations Officer



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2024 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site � 2024 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.