Southside Park/Fire Station 4 Development Project Background Information
BHA PROJECT TIMELINE
2015
BHA is contacted by representatives from MDCPS and the City of Miami to garner our support for a project to build a new fire station (#4) in mixed use development which would also house a new middle school (upper campus location for then Southside K-8) with Southside Park serving as an outdoor/physical education facility for Southside Preparatory Academy (both lower and upper campuses)
2016
BHA officially announces our support for the proposed development
Proposed project is killed at a contentious sunshine meeting at Miami City Hall
2017-19
BHA proposes several options for developing/renovating Southside Park; all our ideas are rejected because city parks are “sacrosanct” and must be left open for public use
2020
February 26th | Commissioners approved RE.7 Resolution 7219, detailed here , and as it was included as part of a larger package of items that Commissioners may not have even reviewed, there was NO DISCUSSION. Most importantly, it included an agreement for the project that was apparently attached in error.
February 28th | BHA board of directors and staff learn of the new development proposal for Southside Park and Fire Station #4 through an article in the Miami Today (see attached materials for more information) BHA informs residents and other community stakeholders about the project
March 4th | Representatives from BHA and DNA submit initial inquiries about the project to the Miami DDA and Chairman Reyes (see attached materials for more info)
March 6th | Representatives from BHA and DNA speak on the issue at the Miami DDA’s Urbanism Committee Meeting; Chairman Reyes assured us that there was a “paperwork” mix up with the approved legislation, “he and his colleagues would never give away public land”, he would look into the issue to resolve it
April 13, 2020 | The City executed a Public Benefits Agreement (PBA) quite different from the one included in item Re.7 on February 24th – with ABSOLUTELY NO COMMISSION APPROVAL – and did not reference the resolution passed on February 24, 2020.
Therefore, there is currently a signed agreement for this project which was never reviewed by the City Commission.
April 28th | Correspondence sent from DNA representative to Chairman Reyes to follow up on March 6th commitments (see attached materials for more info). Below is an excerpt of the message that was sent to Chairman Reyes:
The agreement dated April 13, 2020 was executed without City Commission approval. In fact, it does not even reference City Resolution 7219 (item RE.7 that passed as part of consent agenda, with no discussion on February 24, 2020). That resolution (title can be found below, FYI) included a different agreement for this project that wat attached in error. Currently signed agreement was never reviewed by the City Commission. 2. There appears to be no assessment of fair market value of the property being conveyed through Special Warranty Deed to the developer. There was no public bidding or solicitation that may have produced better offers from other developers willing to get a large plot of Brickell land in exchange for constructing an $8 million fire station and a couple more mil cash contributions. The land may be worth 10 times more, for all we don’t know and what was not assessed. Here, City land is being given away to a developer with no referendum, no public hearing, and no bidding, and no valuation. 3. The agreement allows the use of Southside Park as staging and parking for construction – closing the park entirely for years, if needed (the agreement first states that the playground shall be open and then provides that it only applies if the developer doesn’t need the land for staging and parking). Similarly, all timing imitations of 18 months are subject to change as long the developer is “working diligently.” 4. Under the agreement, the developer will renovate the park which, according to the rendering, looks like a concrete jungle with only a few trees left and practically no green space/grass. Moreover, unlike presented in the agreement that was approved by the City Commission in February, the developer is not committing to maintaining the new park improvements. It is unclear who will be responsible for the maintenance of this extensive “amenity” for the project, located on city-owned parkland. 5. The historic Schoolhouse portion of the park is labeled “food and beverage” on the proposed site plan (café/restaurant/bar), with no agreement on who will operate it and collect revenue. The February agreement provided that authority to the developer with no lease/license agreements or public bidding process. 6. The proposed development will provide approximately 1000 residential units (that are not allowed on the property as of right and the city is conveying development rights to the developer), 200 micro units, 200 hotel rooms, 220,000 sf of office space, and 1,445 parking spaces (in addition to a 32,000 sf fire station). No traffic study was conducted for this already extremely congested area located across the street from Brickell’s only public school that houses nearly 1,000 kids. Alcohol sales are allowed anywhere within the development, per the agreement. 7. The project is proposed to be 752 feet tall. For comparison purposes, Panorama Tower in Brickell is 860 feet and contains 85 stories. Unlike Panorama that is surrounded by waterfront hi-rises, this building would be nearly 4-5 times taller than surrounding apartments in the west portion of Brickell where it is located. 8. Few years back, the City looked at using the fire station site in conjunction with MDCPS to build Southside Elementary expansion/middle school. Officials determined that the site was too small for it and no green space could be diminished or encroached upon, denying the proposal. 9. Per the Agreement, impact fees due from the project are slated to go towards the development of affordable housing and park projects in City Commission District 3 (Downtown Miami and majority of Brickell are in District 2).
April 1st | BHA sends message supporting DNA’s April 28thinquiry (see attached materials for more info)
May 18th | Chairmen Reyes and city staff are invited to attend BHA Virtual Membership Meeting to discuss this issue; Chairman Reyes’s office unavailable to attend but encourage city staff (representatives from DREAM) to participate
May 19th | Representative of the developers reaches out to BHA and DNA to review and solicit support for the “already approved” project (see attached materials for more info)
Developers (or their representative) are invited to attend BHA Virtual Membership Meeting to discuss this issue, unfortunately, they are unavailable on short notice but would like to schedule a presentation for a BHA meeting in the future
May 20th | Additional questions submitted to developer’s representative as a response to 5/19 correspondence; still no response to date (see attached materials for more info)
May 21st | Southside Park/Fire Station development project announced at BHA Virtual Membership Meeting, city representatives from DREAM were in attendance to provide more information about the negotiated project terms (see meeting recording for more information)
May 25th | Community stakeholders meeting convened by BHA with the support of the Urban Core Community Coalition (UCCC) to develop a public advocacy action plan in opposition of the proposed community land grab or “boondoggle”
May 29th | Press conference arranged for ? to share our public advocacy action plan in opposition of the proposed project
LEGAL ADVICE/DETERMINATIONS
Due to the Interlocal Agreement between the City and Miami-Dade County, the property is located within the County’s Rapid Transit Zone. As a result, the County will have to approve the site plan and the development is subject to county zoning/land use regulations, including CDMP. This means another set of approvals and an opportunity to speak up, participate in the public process, and work with your County Commissioners to make this right. Public records from the County on any submittals for this project should be requested immediately.
Overall, the agreement was executed by the city manager without any Commission approval, public notice (even when the February 24th resolution was advertised, the title did not convey the significant portions of the agreement, transferring public land to a private developer and allowing use/closure of the park). The project can be appealed on these grounds. These approvals would not withstand court review if an appeal was filed.
BHA’S STANCE ON PROPOSED PROJECT
The title is improper, and the agreement is wrong, the taxpayers of the City has a saying on this matter. We the people, the decent and honest taxpayers of this great city will continue challenging the lawmakers not working on our behalf.
Rest assured that Brickell Homeowners Association is a voice and will be the voice of justice which will prevail.
Ernesto Cuesta, President Brickell Homeowners Association, Inc. (BHA)