Historic and Environmental Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

The Historic Environmental Preservation Board, I'd ask everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing to be sworn in by staff.

Pledge of Allegiance.

To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please remain standing to be sworn in by staff.

All those who intend to testify on any matters, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated.

You can take this opportunity to check your cell phone and make sure it's on do not disturb or vibrate or off. I'm going to ask the city attorney to give us a note on lobbying.

Any person who is a lobbyist pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 6 of the City Code must register with the city clerk and apply for related city requirements for lobbyists before appearing before the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. A person may not lobby a city official, board member, or staff member until registering. A copy of the code section about lobbyists is available in the city clerk's office or online on municode.com. The agenda for this meeting and materials for the items on the agenda were published and made available to the board. in advance of the meeting. The materials are also available online at miamigov.com. Please silence all cell phones and other noise-making devices. Any person with a disability requiring assistance, auxiliary aids, or services for this meeting may notify the hearing board liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair in pursuance of the published notice for not more than two minutes. on any proposition before the board unless modified by the chair. When addressing the board, the member of the public must first state his or her name, address, and what item will be spoken about. When the board takes action or votes on any proposition, it shall do so by a roll call vote to be recorded and included in the record. Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's have a roll call, please.

Dr. William Hopper?

Here.

Mr. Robert Powers?

Here.

Mr. Christopher Colley.

Here.

Mr. Najeeb Campbell. Miss Julie Odell.

Here.

Mr. Luis Frito y Munoz. Mr. Hugh Ryan. Mr. Jordan Trachtenberg.

Here.

Mr. John S. Perez. I have an absence waiver request for Brito y Munoz and Hugh Ryan.

Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming out this evening. Let me lay the groundwork, the ground rules for what we're going to be doing tonight. Staff will announce each item in turn. The appellant will come forward, give your name and address for the record, and you will have five minutes to do your presentation after the staff report, which will lay out the basics of the intended decision. After which, the property owner or the city may have an opportunity to rebut. When that is finished, we will open it up to the public for comments. Please limit your comments to two minutes and come to each of these podiums to make your remarks and we'll recognize you in order. We want everyone to be able to express their opinions, but we have to be out of here by 10 o'clock and there are a lot of us here tonight. We want to hear from everyone who wants to speak, but if you heard someone make your point already, feel free to say I agree with my neighbor who is before me and I either support the appeal or support the intended decision. And that way we can all hear what you have to say and also get out by 10 o'clock. When everyone has had a chance to speak, and you get to speak once on an item, once for two minutes, when everyone's had a chance to speak, we will close the public hearing on that item Leave it up to the board to have questions or comments for the appellant, the applicant, or the city, or anyone else they may decide to ask a question about. When that is finished, we will have a motion and a vote. When the vote is taken, that will be final and let's appeal to the City Commission. Please remember that the board is here to follow the conditions of the law. We're not here to make new law. We're here to follow the law that's already in place. Before we start, are there any changes to the agenda?

Yes. Yes, sir. With respect to items six, seven, and eight, the city recommends taking those items out of term because especially considering HEP item number seven, as that one will There's a motion from the applicant regarding certain issues that they have with standing. So we want to take item six, seven, and eight out of turn with preference to item number seven if the board approves. So we'll do seven, six, and eight in that order? Yes, seven, six, and eight in order. What about items two and three?

Are we going to hear those together?

Repeat that one more time so I can hear you.

Are we going to hear items two and three together since they do? Yes.

Those can stay in order.

So are we going to hear them together?

Yes, yes. So item two and three regard the same property.

So we're going to hear those together at the same time. Appellant number, or item number two will go first, and then appellant number three, after the staff report, which will be given once. In addition, oh, excuse me, Chair. And then we will proceed as usual. And we'll have a vote on each of those items separately since they're separately listed.

And I will also make a no-no for item five for the order to be seven, excuse me, seven, five, six, and eight. The only reason for that is because we have the mayor of South Miami here along with his city attorney and there's some scheduling concerns.

Okay, so the

7, 5, 6, and 8. 7, 5, 6, and 8. Is the order. We recommend it to the board. Is there any objection to that order?

Seeing none, let's start, please, with item number 7.

Item number 7, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying The appeal filed by David Winker, Esquire, of intended decision BD25-021627-001 issued on 05-29-2026 for the property located at approximately 3101 Grand Avenue, Miami, Florida. Thank you. And we'll start with the staff report.

Which concerns, I believe, the question of standing.

Chair, if I may. Chair, members of the board. Joe Ruiz is the law officer at 396 Alhambra Circle. I would ask that before we get into the staff report, we address the limited issue of standing. That's what I just said.

Is someone on the city staff going to raise the, clarify the issue of standing, the question of standing?

Yes, that's, as far as standing, that's a threshold question that must be considered before we guys get to the merits. And it's my understanding that the applicant has a presentation that they wanted to provide to go over some issues that they have with standing. And essentially, if the board finds that there's no standing, then the appeal will be dismissed. If the board finds that there is standing, then the board can then consider the merits of the appeal.

And before we hear from your presentation, I believe I asked for a reading of the section of the code which deals with standing.

Yes, no worries. I'll read it right now.

Thank you.

All right. This section is 17-8, where it states that the property owned by the applicant or any agreed party having a standing under state law may appeal to the head board in decision of departmental matters relating to applications for tree permits, except for tree permits granted to departments of public works or capital improvements by filing a written notice of appeal to the preservation officer as established in Chapter 23 within 10 days. Specifically with respect to this application, if you skip to the sentence where it says, the person who's interested in the proceedings who are adversely affected in any manner greater than those of the general public may request intervener status. And with respect to this particular appeal, it involves a nonprofit organization who is asserting that they are in a grief party under state law.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair, members of the board. Again, just for the record, Joe Ruiz with Law Offices at 396 Alhambra Circle. On behalf of the Appellee Coconut Grove Condo LLC, with me today is co-counsel, Mr. Javier Fernandez with SMGQ Law.

If, there we go.

So, as the City Attorney's Office just said, before discussing the merits, the board must answer a threshold question and that is who is entitled to bring an appeal under Chapter 17 of the City Code. Section 17.8a limits appeals to the property owner, the appellant, or an aggrieved party having standing under state law. Neither appellant is the property owner nor the applicant. Therefore, the only issue is whether either organization has established that it is an aggrieved party. The city code doesn't define the term, so we look to Florida law. Florida law requires more than simply disagreeing with a government decision or supporting a particular cause. And a grief party must possess a legally protected interest that is adversely affected by the decision. And this is important, and that interest must be different in degree from the generalized concerns shared by the public. General environmental concerns standing alone are insufficient. The burden of establishing standing rests with the appellants. Yet notice of the appeal never identifies how either organization is adversely affected. Instead, the notice of appeal expressly states that the organizations are filing the appeal, quote, on behalf of many community members, close quote. It does not identify who the community members are, whether they belong to either organization or organization. Most importantly, how either organization itself possesses a legally protected interest adversely affected by the intended decision. That showing has not been made. These are the undisputed facts. Notice that the appeal was filed by Mr. Winker on May 29th, 2026 at 12.09 p.m., the final day of the appeal period. Miami Tree Preservation Action Committee was also incorporated on May 29th, 2026 by Mr. Winker. The articles establish only the filing date. They do not establish when the corporation first became authorized to act. I'm not asking the board to speculate. I'm asking the board to recognize what the record does and does not show. The corporation did not exist until the final day of the appeal period. The record contains no evidence when it first became authorized to act, whether it authorized the appeal, or whether Mr. Winker was authorized to act on his behalf. The issue is not whether Mr. Winker timely filed the notice of appeal. The issue is whether the appellant established standing before invoking the board's jurisdiction. Standing cannot be created by filing a notice of appeal. If standing could be established after the appeal deadline simply because a notice of appeal was timely filed, the jurisdictional limitation in Section 17.8a would have very little practical meaning. Beyond the timing issue, there's another problem. There's no evidence that MTP possesses the characteristics of an aggrieved party. There are no members, no organizational activities, no legally protected interests. no explanation of how MTP itself is adversely affected. On this record, MTP has not carried its burden. Similarly, Logos presents a different factual situation, but the same legal problem. Logos has existed since 2023, yet nothing in its articles or the notice of appeal explains how Logos qualifies as an aggrieved party. Again, we're left with generalized assertions rather than evidence. The appeal never explains how Logos is adversely affected, what legally protected interest is impacted, or how Logos differs from the general public. Standing cannot be presumed. It must be established. Lastly, I just wish to preserve one additional procedural objection. The city's published appeal instructions contemplate documentation demonstrating organizational authorization. None accompany this appeal. I'm not asking the board to resolve the issue today. I simply wanted to preserve it for the record. So, members of the board, I'll conclude by saying standing is not a procedural technicality. It's the jurisdictional prerequisite established by 17.8a. Because neither appellant has demonstrated that it is an aggrieved party, having standing under Florida law, we respectfully request that this appeal be dismissed.

Thank you. Before you go, did you tell us who you were representing?

I'm sorry?

Did you tell us who you are representing?

Yes, the appellee, Covington Grove Condo LLC. The appellant? Yep, the appellee. Yeah, the applicant.

There's a big difference. Representing the applicant. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Yes, David Winker on behalf of the appellant. I represent... Can we have your address, please? I'm sorry.

Can we have your address?

Winker Law Offices, 4720 South Lejeune Road. Thanks. Thank you for being here. To address this preliminary issue of standing, I have a couple things that we need to lay on the record. And obviously, this is the point where we establish standing. We don't establish standing in the actual appeal. You guys have to make an independent decision whether the appellant has standing. I would start with, I'm here with Arlene McCreary, who lives at 3189 Florida Avenue. I'm going to elicit testimony from her, but she lives within 500 feet, and she is one of the people who has been affected by this.

Chair, I object to this testimony.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Through the chair, are we just interrupting each other?

I'm going to where you're going to be introducing evidence that is not admissible. The point of order. You're going into the merits of the case.

Are we just going to interrupt each other?

You're trying to establish interviewer status right now.

Apparently they did not give me the monitor today to mute the microphones. You have a presentation to make. We'll have testimony if that comes to that. Please do not interrupt. Thank you.

But before I get to the testimony, I would like to bring to the board's attention the Citizen Bill of Rights, which is contained in the City of Miami Charter. The Citizens Bill of Rights begins, this government has been created to protect the governed, not the governing, in order to provide the public with full and accurate information, to promote efficient administrative management, to make government more accountable, and to ensure to all persons fair and equitable treatment. The City of Miami adopts the provisions of the Miami-Dade County Citizens Bill of Rights, as applied, and guarantees the following additional rights. And one of the additional rights is contained in item six, environmental protection. The city shall promote the right of the people to clean air, pure water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and aesthetic qualities of the environment. That's in our charter. Importantly, at subsection C, there is a provision for remedies. It reads, remedies for violations. Residents of the city shall have standing to bring legal actions to enforce the city charter, the Bill of Rights, and the Miami Dade Citizen Bill of Rights. We're here today to advocate for trees. My client, Arlene McCreery is here to answer any questions about the impact on her within 500 feet. I would also bring to the attention of the board that the city itself has traditionally taken the position that anyone living within 500 feet has standing. JUST AS A MATTER OF LAW. AND I WOULD QUOTE FLORIDA BROCK PROPERTY VERSUS KAISER 709 SOUTHERN SECOND AT 177. RESIDENTS WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE SPECIFIC AND ARE GREATER THAN THE GENERAL INTEREST IN COMMUNITY WELL-BEING. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ELICIT THE TESTIMONY OF MY CLIENT, ARLEAN MCCREARY. who began this process, who is the one behind this appeal, so she can put into evidence to allow you to make a decision whether she has standing to bring this. But again, I don't even think that's necessary because the Bill of Rights gives us as residents the standing to bring, the standing to be here before this board, the standing to challenge these decisions. So I'll look to the board how you want to proceed.

Yes, perform. Yes, I have a question. Is your witness a member of either of these two organizations?

She is represented by one of the organizations and by me. That's the Miami Tree Preservation Action Committee.

What do you mean she is represented by them?

By me. I'm the lawyer, and that's my not-for-profit.

Is she a nonprofit or an organization?

Nonprofit. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. It's a Florida nonprofit.

Nonprofit organization?

Yes.

Is she a member of that organization? Yes.

Yes, yes. With this issue, I think the main issue here is that the appellant is the organization. So we need to first establish whether the organization itself has standing, and we can't bring in testimony because she's not part of the appeal is the main issue. She would likely come in under public comment, but she's not a party. at this stage. So I'm wondering, that I understand.

My question is, if she is a member of the corporation, the committee, does she then give that organization standing if she lives within 500 feet?

Well, yes and no. But the first that needs to be established and this is kind of just to say the least kind of, this wasn't part of the appeal packet and this is just information that's now being brought in that wasn't part of the appeal. The main question is where the organization itself has standing because at the time that the appeal was actually filed, The appeal was on behalf of the organization. So David Winker, according to all the paperwork, is representing the organization itself, not a specific abutting property owner who happens to be a member. So before we hear testimony, I think we need to first establish that the organization, who's actually the appellant, has standing to bring this forth. And as was mentioned throughout the presentation, one of the, I think, the issues that we do need to address is that in the article of incorporation, there's no members actually listed. Yeah, there's no members, managers, or anyone listed through some business being a member or a manager. The only individual listed is the attorney before us at the moment. So I think we should, you know, it's obviously up to the board's discretion, but I think we should limit outside testimony to parties who are actually a part of the appeal.

So a member of the organization would not be automatically part of the appeal?

Right.

Chair, if I may, there are two separate issues of standing, one for the organization and then one for Ms. McCreary. Ms. McCreary is not a party to this matter as of right now. It is solely the organization. And as I stated before, this is an organization that was created the last day of the appeal period solely for purposes of filing this appeal. There's no way, there's no facts in the evidence that establish that they are an aggrieved party under the requirements of the city code.

Board members have any questions?

I have a question. Oh, go ahead. Mr. Ruiz, these are pretty complex legal topics. Can you just put this into plain language? We understand what's going on. There's an appeal against this project regarding trees. So what exactly are we trying to figure out here?

So under the city code, it limits who can actually bring forward an appeal. And as I have on the screen, it's limited to the property owner, the applicant, or an aggrieved party having standing under state law. So neither the appellant to the property owner or the applicant, so they're left filing as an aggrieved party. And based off of their appeal and the facts that have been submitted into the record, they have not met the burden of showing that they are aggrieved. And I go back to the fact that this organization was created on the exact same day that the appeal was filed by Mr. Winker. The organization was created by Mr. Winker as well on the very last day of the appeal.

Thank you. Is this like basically the question as to who filed the appeal? If Ms. McCrary filed the appeal herself, then would we be still having the conversation or would we be talking about the project?

It would be a different set of facts. But Ms. McCrary is not part of the appeal. She did not file personally. It was this organization.

I mean, I've... I mean, at the end, it boils down to what we're recommended by our city attorney. Because at the end, no matter what we end up doing, in theory, could be appealed or pushed back against if this is the correct standing or incorrect standing.

Right, right. But the determination, is it independent of the board? I can, you know, I can keep...

Please use your microphone. We can make exceptions to this, is what you're saying.

Well, we have to stay narrowly with the issue of standing right now, because we haven't gone to the mayors or anything like that.

Well, it's the spirit in which it was done. Right. Okay, so there's a spirit in which things are done. I'm just saying. I mean, listen. We sit in a building that's filled with people who say things all the time that they don't even mean. And they never meant it. And they're commissioners. And they say shit all the time that they don't even mean. I'm just saying. Thank you for coming out, by the way. We love seeing this many people. That means you care about your community.

Patricia Arias, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Just to clarify something so we're clear. So I am never accused of not being heard. So I'm going to go use my loud voice, which isn't always the best thing. But we're going to do that. So I understand the question to be because do we have to follow what the Code says, or do we follow the spirit? Unfortunately, we have to follow the code. The code allows for an appeal as Mr. Ruiz has set forth and has been put up on the screens that it has to be a property owner, an agreed party, a person with X, Y, blah, blah, blah, right? All of these things. That is who it is. So this is no different than when you get a speeding ticket, let's say. So you get a speeding ticket, you show up in front of the speeding ticket judge and the first thing you tell the judge is the ticket doesn't have the Florida statute in which I was supposedly stopped for that creates an issue automatically where the facts of whether you were speeding or not never come into question the first thing the judge has to say is did that speeding ticket tell you what you were doing wrong if the speeding ticket doesn't say it to you, then it gets dismissed because presumably the law wasn't followed. You were not properly informed of what you were speeding for, right? Let's assume that the speeding ticket did have the Florida statute that says you were speeding. The judge is going to say, no, I told you right here. You could have gone to the Florida statute, read that section, and it would have told you what you were speeding for. Then the case moves on. Your motion to dismiss is denied. This is in essence what's happening right here. So the first thing that this board has to determine is whether or not the language of the code was followed. That is the first question. If that question is yes, then you go forward. If the question is no, it does not go forward. With you, it doesn't go forward.

But usually this sort of interpretation is provided by you to us.

Technically, yes. There is an applicant and there is an appellant. The applicant is making the argument because they are the ones who received the intended decision to go forward. This is the person who is saying, I don't want it to go forward. So therefore, their argument is the argument that is before you, that this appellant does not have standing. Now, as it was filed, it was not Ms. McCreary. We are just learning of Ms. McCreary Whenever this meeting started at 540 something, the appeal was filed under an incorporation, as Mr. Ruiz has said, that it was the day of the filing. If you go to some biz right now, there are no officers, there's no directors. And there's nothing before us, nor nothing in that appeal for anybody to interpret prior to right now for standing. So that's why you have to decide standing on what's before you, not evidence that is being given.

So, thank you, Ms. Attorney. So, does this just matter who actually went online and filed the appeal? It does. That's all we're talking about? That is correct. So, in other words, if Ms. McCreary filed the appeal, we wouldn't be having this conversation?

The conversation you would be having had Ms. McCreary filed the conversation is whether or not she was an abutting property owner.

Okay, may I, through the chair? Yes. So, okay, so like, we have people here to talk about trees. She lives within 500 feet of those trees. She hired an attorney to do something for her, apparently, because she's standing behind him. So she hired an attorney to do something for her. You can't give us anything. You have to give it through them. So I'm just saying. So the thing here is like, then what we have to determine is whether it's legal for us to hear this or not hear this. Okay. So Patty, I've worked with you for many, many years. So, and I've worked with these guys and all the rest of this. So the thing here is this is like this. That's why I said the spirit of it. Okay. And, um, you know, we have to find out through this board, this board has to approve whether this we're going to hear this or not. Is that not correct? That's where we stand right now.

Yes. You have to determine standing based on what's before you. Again, Ms. McCreary is not the person who filed the appeal.

But who paid for it?

It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. That doesn't matter right now. That doesn't matter because the person I got it right. I'm saying it matters. And if it was a nonprofit, there's a certain filing fee. Yes, those things matter. But for the purposes of what's before you, the person who filed the appeal was not Miss McCreary. It is this corporation. That is the decision you need to make right now based on what's been presented. I have a question. Yes.

Were you noticed, Ms. McCreary, about this intended decision?

Yeah. Give your name and address for the record first.

Oh, sorry. Arlene McCreary, 3189 Florida Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida. Thank you. And the question is, did you receive a notice in the mail about this intended decision? Yes, about the appeal date and everything, yes. Okay, so you're definitely within the 500 feet of the property, of the trees? Yes. Okay, so isn't that part of the procedure?

But she's not the person who filed the appeal. That's the problem. And what you just did is that you established that she had knowledge and could have done that, but yet this organization filed it. Right now, on this agenda, we have an appeal, two appeals of the same intended decisions. Clearly, those two people didn't speak to each other. They still appealed. They're both before us. Do you understand? So the problem becomes just an issue of what's before you right now.

Can I ask you a procedural question? Go ahead. Assuming we listen to their appeal, and we go through the whole motion, we hear all of the public comments, and we make a decision. The decision is something that they don't like. Do they then have rights based on what we present? Everybody has. That's what I'm saying. So there is a world in which this is a, in theory, waste of time because what we're standing on actually has no ground. We're going to make an interpretation. That interpretation could be false.

We're not legally... I understand that. But unfortunately, the way that the system works, right, is that there are things that need to be determined before you can go forward.

So... And could I jump in with one point? Could I get my PowerPoint on? I want to point to the application process. So this is from the city website for filing appeals. And you can see in number two, if you're filing an appeal as a non-profit corporation dedicated to conservation and protection of the natural and physical environment, which there is no question this non-profit is, that's in its purpose, it sets forth the fees that are required. So clearly the city contemplates a nonprofit being able to bring the appeal. So I think that, again, we're going in a circle here where I would point you to the reason, I believe that the reason this is so broad is because this is how this has always worked, and this is what is in the Citizens' Bill of Rights, right? The residents have the right to bring this. You wouldn't have this in here. This is nonsensical language that allows a nonprofit and sets forth the fee that a nonprofit pays if a nonprofit could not have standing.

May I ask a follow-up question, Mr. Chair? Sure. So what if it was determined that the pellet doesn't have standing? They could just turn around and somebody else could file next month and we could be here hearing the same conversation, correct?

No, the 10-day appeal period has passed. And I do want to say something about Mr. Powers. You mentioned that the spirit in which things are done. I just want to reiterate that the spirit of this appeal was that on the very last day of the appeal, Mr. Winker created an LLC solely for purposes of filing the appeal and is now trying to substitute parties by bringing in an abutting neighbor. So putting the law aside, where they're clearly not in a grief party, in the spirit of what's happened, they're not following the law. They're not following the spirit, and this matter should not be heard.

So I have a question for City's legal staff. When we looked at the fee structure that was just on the screen, Does an organization that's dedicated to the preservation of natural and environmental conditions or whatever it's in qualify as an agreed party?

Chair, they don't under the code. And I will say that the language was with respect to a reduced filing fee. And in this particular case, I was not asking you.

I was asking city staff.

Understood.

I can't take advice from you. I only take advice from city staff. Sorry.

The language with respect to the fee structure is purely administrative. Nonprofits can bring forth these type of appeals, but they still have to establish, they can't just be any nonprofit, they still have to establish that they have standing in the matter. So thank you, that's good. So how would a nonprofit establish that they have standing? they would establish that they have standing by expressing that either the organization is facing some type of injury or let's say they're representing their members, for example. But in this case, we don't have any members that are actually a part of The the the nonprofit and we haven't and right now we don't have any facts You know that have been presented to us that the organization itself is receiving some type of experience some type of harm as a result of this Intended decision, so let's take an outrageous example say friends of the zoo Would they just pretend the organization

If they felt aggrieved by an intended decision, could they make an appeal even though it was not related to the zoo because they were concerned about the environment in general?

No, there can be general grievances that could be shared amongst the general public. So just because, for example, you know, you don't like what's going on at the zoo, you can't file an appeal as a nonprofit saying, hey, you know, we don't like what's going on at the zoo. They still have to establish. Ultimately, it's up to the board to determine, you know, if the parties, you know, before you have established whether through the facts presented that they have suffered some type of injury or not. or they're representing members um but at at the moment in special respect to this this appeal we don't have any there's no members that were there are no members that were part of the appeal um and there's no no alleged injury to the actual um non-profit that is the appellant in this situation so in this case the in the hypothetical case the friends of the zoo would have to

responding to something that's happening in 500 feet of the zoo or an established member of the organization?

Yes. But in this situation, it's slightly different, mainly because of, well, as has been presented before you, especially from the articles of incorporation, you don't see any members that the nonprofit is you know, representing the interest of, and there haven't been any facts before the board that the organization itself is experiencing some type of harm. Ultimately, it's up to the board to, you know, hear these things and make a determination whether or not, you know, there has been enough evidence to determine whether or not standing.

So in that case, it would be, an appeal would be filed, Friends of the Zoo on behalf of John Doe, who is the aggrieved party within 500 feet.

That's an option. That's not the facts that we have before us right now. No, that was in the hypothetical example. Right, right. In the hypothetical, that changes it a bit, but under the circumstances, you know, the material that we have before us, the actual intended decision appeal, we don't have those facts in front of us. So the lack of those facts kind of, you know, leans one way or another. It depends on how the board interprets it.

When I can, can I just clarify something?

Yes, sir.

You know, the testimony is that she is a member... of the nonprofit. I just want to make sure that's clear, that's on the record.

There has been no testimony because you're an attorney. She hasn't testified to that, and you have not provided any document other than what is in the appeal to support that. So at this moment, this motion is being determined based on what is in the documents that were filed with the appeal.

But I'd be happy to have her testify.

I understand that, but technically testimony has not been given. Let's be clear.

Chair, there's one other point I want to make. The provision that Mr. Winker put up on the screen as written in the statute is a fee provision. It is not a provision with respect to how to establish standing. It allows a reduced fee if you meet certain requirements. And in fact, as shown in the backup to your packets, Mr. Winker's clients did not even pay the reduced fee. They paid the full filing fee. So I don't understand his line of rationale for bringing this up.

And I think it's also important for the board to recognize, I mean, common sense. You know, you're hearing arguments, these technical arguments, outstanding. Here in South Florida, Friends of the Everglades, Miami Waterkeepers, Sierra Club, All these lawsuits are brought on behalf of these nonprofits. They have standing. It's clear they have standing. They're nonprofits dedicated to these issues. So please don't fall for this narrow, legalistic argument that flies in the face of our own Bill of Rights, which gives standing to the residents to be here today.

Chair, he's referencing organizations that have a long track record. This is an organization where he has not even established that the organization has authorized him to file this appeal because it was created the very same day that the appeal was filed.

Through the chair? Yes, sir. All right, so, like, I don't care about that because I've already been on the other side of this where I had to create a corporation to protect myself from being sued by people I was suing when something happened in our neighborhood, and I sat as the historic, when I was involved in my neighborhood association, and we filed that at the last minute, and that was simply to protect us from being sued again by the landowner who had done something really kind of screwed up. So I'm not really, the thing about this is that this is the first time any of this stuff is being heard this way. Really, correct me if I'm wrong, Sean. I mean, we don't hear these too often.

Is that not correct? In regard to standing?

Yeah, just, well, not even the standing, but like even trees coming before this board. It's not very often that we have to do these meetings, these appeals. There are not very many. So the thing is, this is a unique situation we find ourselves in. And we want to do right by the citizens of the city of Miami. This is an issue. Look, we've never had this many people in this room before. Not for these meetings. Never. I wish you showed up for trying to save some of the buildings in the city. I wish you'd show up for those because they're ripping down this city at a colossal rate and none of you guys show up for that. But I'm just saying to you, don't dare hear it as a criticism. Do not be quiet. Do not hear it as a criticism. I'm happy to see you here. But I'd like to see you here at our standard meetings. You have beautiful buildings in this city that are being ripped down wholesale throughout the city. And nobody in the city shows up for them. I would like to hear what they have to say. So whatever we need to do to do that, I would like to hear it.

Wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. Hold on a second. Hold on. No, no, no, no. This is what I'm going to say. We're not going to continue to clap, unfortunately. You guys can do jazz hands. You can do whatever you want, but we're not going to have these outbursts because it just delays the situation. It takes time. So just please, if we could just, we can wiggle all we want.

So this is to hear about an appeal. What's being removed?

That's the issue. Before we get into the mayors, we have to have a vote on the standing issue.

Right. The standing can be determined only by what's been presented in the application.

Correct. not testimony or anything like that, just what we have before us.

On the record or in the application?

Correct.

I need a motion on whether or not to recognize the appellants as having standing in this item to be heard or not.

Can I ask a follow-up question? Of course. Thanks, Mr. Chair. This is the one of many tree appeals that are here this evening, correct? So I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, because this is a tricky position you're putting us in as city attorneys. It seems like you're making a recommendation that we may not have this standing. but yet we're being asked to decide at the same time. I think as Mr. Powers has suggested, we all know that we're here to hear about the tree issues, and so it puts us in a funny spot to all of a sudden make us do some sort of strange legal interpretation on our own when we're not here to be lawyers. We're here to talk about the environmental resources, but as a follow-up to that, So if this appellate, if it was determined that this appellate has standing, then wouldn't it also mean that the only person that can testify on that as an aggrieved party would be that particular appellate and not every member of the community? Because how are we supposed to make this decision? I mean, clearly everybody's affected by tree issues in their neighborhood. So.

Excuse me. The first part to your question with respect to the board's determination, it's important to note that the board sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, so it operates similar to how a courtroom will operate. So we have to consider the facts before us and we have to make, the board has to still take up these issues of standing just like you would in a court of law. Additionally, You made another point with respect to repeat the second part.

It's just the idea that this concept of standing is very tricky. And so my question is, if we theoretically had to determine whether somebody has standing for a tree appeal, then to me, we would be talking about people that were within that 500 foot radius only, or things of that nature, and it doesn't seem that that's the kind of testimony that we typically hear. So if it was determined that this organization has standing, and then we're gonna start hearing the merits of both sides, my question is, then should the testimony be limited to the appellate and not every single member of the community that wants to testify about this thing? Because that's what's going to happen.

That's why we have a public comment. We're still going to have public comment on this, even though it's an appeal. And it's also important to note that even if this board determines that there is no standing or however way the board swings, the appellants, they don't lose their rights. They still have appellate rights, so it doesn't necessarily I completely both sides, you know, have rice.

Thank you, Mr. Attorney. I guess what I'm just trying to say in its simplest form, if somebody files a tree appeal against a project in their neighborhood, that sounds like that person always has to have standing or be some sort of a great party. They live next door. Can they live across the street?

Within 500 feet.

Yeah, who? Okay, within 500 feet. So it sounds like this is, we're just debating a total technicality right now. And it has to do with the filing of this application. So, I mean, that's my interpretation. Thank you for answering the questions.

Yes, yes. It's more of a legal issue that we just have to tackle with respect to if the appellant before us, which is the nonprofit, has standing to bring this type of action forth, and we have to just constrain, the board has to constrain the decision to the facts before us, how the appeal was filed, who the parties are, and we can't hear testimony. We just have to make that determination first before anything else. And they don't lose their rights. They still have appellate rights, but... It's something that the board does have to, a decision that the board does have to make.

Which means that regardless of how the board votes on standing, both the appellant and the property owner can appeal to the city commission and from then to the district court.

I have two, one question and one statement. One question is, if it does go through a motion to see if this is standing, is it a unanimous or is there, no, it's majority.

Majority.

That's one. The other is, you know, I've been doing this for 10 years. Never once have I been put in this position. So I found it extremely odd that... Except last month. Except last month. But you weren't here this month.

I wasn't here last month.

But I have a very good attendance record. But regardless, I've never seen this position where we are making the decision on behalf of the appellant.

Understood, but that's because we're going under Chapter 17. I think you normally work within Chapter 23. So... But each chapter has its version, right, of what is the basis for how you do things.

We've heard lots of tree appeals on Chapter 17.

I understand that. And I wasn't there, so I can't tell you the facts of those. On this one in particular... We obviously have the applicant who has made an argument as to standing. We have the appellant who has rebutted that argument, right? And we have set forth what the code says. So you have to stay within those parameters at this stage. You make your decision, and it's either we move forward or we go on to the next one. That's all that needs to be done at this point.

So we need a motion. I make a motion to move this forward.

Your motion is that they have standing. They have standing, yes. Okay. That's your motion.

Yes, ma'am.

That the appellant has standing. Is there a second?

Second.

There's a motion in the section. Is there any discussion on the motion to recognize that this appellant is having standing? Can we have a roll call, please?

Mr. Robert Powers?

Yes.

Mr. Christopher Carley?

No.

Ms. Julie O'Dell? Yes. Mr. Jordan Trachtenberg?

No.

Dr. William Hopper? No. That is two to three. Motion fails.

So at this point, you have determined that they don't have standing, so this is So this matter has concluded. You obviously have the ability to appeal to the city commission based on this decision. You have what's in the code, which I believe is 10 days.

Correct.

Correct.

You want to go ahead and make the statement? Go ahead.

This decision is final unless appealed in the hearing board's division within 15 days. Thank you, Chair and members of the board.

I stand corrected, 15 days.

Who remembers which one was next? Which one was next?

Item number five, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying the appeal filed by Felicidad Avellera of intended decision BD25-028988-001 issued on 05-12-2026 for the property located at approximately 3151 Southwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. Is this also a question of standing?

No, I believe not.

Good.

Okay.

So just to be clear, because we had set the ground rules beforehand, I just want to make sure. This is address 3151 Southwest 27th Avenue, correct? Okay. Just to be clear. You want staff to make the presentation first. You want to hear from the appellant. You want to hear from the applicant. And then you want to hear public comment?

That is correct.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure that we all had the ground rules. So staff will make their presentation.

I have analysis.

He's going to go first.

Excuse me, David.

Yes. 3151 Southwest 27th Avenue. Yeah, you can use that podium, but I'll just unplug it so there's no confusion.

Okay, so you're just unplugging it right there.

Mr. Chair, can I please close online public comment?

Yes.

Thank you so much.

Never mind guys.

They need this one.

Good evening, Board. Would you like me to read the... Please give your name and address for the record. My name is James McCluskey. I'm employed with the City of Miami. I am an environmental landscape plan reviewer at ISA Arborist for over 25 years now. Would you like the staff report? Yes, please. Okay.

Okay.

This subject property is located within a T5-0 urban core zone and is under review for a standalone tree permit for a multi-family residential building phase permit. As part of the proposed development, the applicant seeks approval for the removal of trees on site due to direct conflict with the building footprint and associated improvements. The applicant proposed removal of the following 26 trees totaling 286 inches of DBH and plus 15 palm trees. That includes seven gumbo limbos, one madras thorn, four live oaks, one pangam, two bridal veil, eight tropical almonds, one royal poinciana, one orange geiger. one strangler fig, two queen palms, four Montgomery palms, six Chinese palms, one Alexander palm, one royal palm, one Brazilian pepper, and one weeping fig, and one chef Lara. As mitigation, and in accordance with the requirements of chapter 17, the applicant proposed to install 13 hardwoods trees within the lot, three within the right of way, and four palms within the lot. Remainder of the tree requirement for mitigation are to be planted within the city parks and district too. Mitigation breakdown is four bridal veils, they're four inch DBH by 16 foot height. Four green buttonwoods, four inch DBH by 16 foot height. Two Simpson stoppers, a two inch DBH, 12 foot height. Three pigeon plums, a two inch DBH, 12 foot height. One Vitechia Palm, six inch DBH at 18 foot height. Three Live Oaks, six inch DBH and 22 foot in height. That will be in the right of way. Offsite mitigation breakdown is five Tahun Hollies at four inch DBH and 16 foot height. Six Gumbo Limbos at six inch DBH and 20 foot height. Five Orange Geigers at four inch DBH, 16 foot height. six live oaks, six inch DBH, 20 foot in height, and eight sea grapes, six inch DBH and 20 foot height. A site inspection was completed to verify existing conditions, confirm the arborist report findings, and review the proposed mitigation. Staff has determined that the submitted documentation aligns with the city requirements. All the supporting documents that were reviewed include proposed landscape plan, Drawing L1, showing the mitigation. Landscape legend, L2, that's also the landscape legend. Tree survey disposition on plan L3, showing tree locations and proposed removals. The boundary topographical and tree survey, the ISA certified arborist report, root exploration and tree conditions assessments. These documents confirm the proposed construction conflicts validate root impacts and conclusions and support the applicant's mitigation and preservation plan. Staff recommendations, environmental resources recommend that the appeal of the intended decision be denied and that the intended decision be upheld.

Thank you. Let me ask staff before we get to the appellant. Who's running the clock?

That is a good question, sir. I can do that.

Thank you very much. Okay. Please give your name and address for the record.

This is the applicant.

Pardon me. I'm the applicant.

You want the appellant first or the applicant?

Yes, the appellant.

The appellant. We need the appellant back up.

Thank you. So I guess I'll take out your PowerPoint. I'll put mine in.

And while you're doing that, you can give us your name and address for the record again.

I've got mine plugged in. Are you on? Is IT back there?

I was working on that one. I think somebody may be on their way.

Can I ask a question to city staff real quick? Sure. All right, so can I ask you a couple questions? How long is this, what's there presently, a single family home?

It's a, I believe it's multi. Yes. Yes, it's a multi-residential.

All right, and what year was that house built? Do we know?

It's a commercial building.

It's a commercial building. There's nothing there.

All right. I'm just asking questions.

Okay, and it's now a T5. Is that not correct?

It is T5.

All right.

Okay. Ready to start? Yes, give us your name and address. David Winker, law office is at 4720 South Lejeune Road. Thank you.

If I could have my client...

So I'd like to start on a couple just kind of housekeeping items on this. One of the first things is The meeting notice that each of the appellants in each of these cases paid for contained the incorrect time, the mail notices. contained a start time of 3 o'clock. So I'd like for you guys to take that under advisement to see. This is something that the residents paid for. It was obviously incorrect. I don't know if it's something we could do to try to get them refunded those fees. Out of the eight appeals, it's thousands of dollars. Begs the question why they should be paying for that. Begs the question if they're successful on the appeal, should it be refunded? But in this case, The wrong notices were sent out, so I'd like the board to consider that. Second of all, we're here on this special night doing eight of these appeals. And I think that it begs the question why there are so many appeals. And somebody gave a very thoughtful, someone on the dais at the meeting when we were doing the El Prado tree case. articulated kind of how clunky this system is. I mean, we just saw it, right? Who has appeal? Who has the standing to appeal? The interplay of all of these legal concepts. And I think one of the reasons that we're having so many tree appeals now is the city should be, and as I will explain later, the city should be denying these. They don't meet the code requirements. And I'm going to go through why that is. But that's why we're here today. We're here with arguments of people struggling to, residents struggling to find a way to deal with this. And there's no other way to fight back and try to protect the trees than to do it this way. I'm sorry.

Remember, you only have five minutes.

Oh, sorry. This should be coming up here. I don't know why that's coming up. I'll stick it up there. But to get to the substance of the appeal here, Okay, sorry about that, I'm ready. So I recommend, I mean, I represent Felicidad Avalera, who has filed this objection and We believe that the staff report should be afforded little evidentiary weight because it consists primarily of conclusory statements rather than factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence. The report never analyzes Chapter 17, never explains Why removal of dozens of mature trees is unavoidable never evaluates feasible alternatives and never explains why the public interest favors removal of approximately 286 inches of tree canopy and 20 additional palms. Instead, staff simply concludes that the submitted documents quote, align with the city's requirements without identifying those applicable requirements or explaining how they are satisfied. That sentence is a legal conclusion. It is not a factual finding. The report never identifies which Chapter 17 criteria were applied, which facts satisfy each criterion, how each individual protected tree was evaluated, why preservation is impossible, whether redesign alternatives were considered, or why removal is preferable to preservation. Without these findings, the Board is not able to perform a meaningful review. The report fails to analyze alternatives to removal. The report states only that the trees conflict with, quote, building footprints and associated improvements. That statement is insufficient. Missing from the report is any analysis regarding reduced building footprint, relocation of improvements, modified foundation design, retaining walls, root barriers, cantilever construction, utility relocation, revised parking layout, preservation easements, phased construction. The existence of conflict does not establish that removal is necessary. Failure to evaluate individual trees. Nearly 40 mature trees are proposed for removal, including live oaks, gumbo limbo, royal poinciana, strangler fig, orange geiger, tropical almonds. Yet the report provides absolutely no discussion regarding age, canopy, health, environmental contribution, specimen status, historic significance, ecological value, wildlife habitat, condition ratings. Instead, every tree is grouped together. This collective treatment prevents meaningful review. Improper reliance on applicants' experts. Staff states it reviewed arborist reports, landscape plans, tree survey, root exploration reports. Every one of these documents was submitted by the applicant. The report does not indicate that the staff conducted any independent analysis, retained an arborist, questioned any assumptions contained within these reports, or verified root excavation conclusions independently. Even if the Board decides that the criteria are met, there is inadequate mitigation analysis. The report lists replacement trees, but never explains why the proposed mitigation offsets the environmental loss. Specifically, absences any discussion of canopy replacement, ecological equivalency, mature canopy loss, heat island effects, stormwater impacts, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, or neighborhood character. Planting small replacement trees decades from maturity is not equivalent to removing mature canopy. Offsite mitigation does not replace the existing canopy. Staff recommends that many replacement trees be planted in city parks rather than at the project site. Offsite mitigation may increase the City's total tree inventory, but does not replace shade at the property, neighborhood canopy, existing habitat, buffering, visual character, and stormwater interception. The report does not address these distinctions. Failure to explain why removal serves the public interest. The staff report never weighs environmental impacts. No, the five-minute timer.

You need to wrap it up.

Yep. I'm sorry. It does not address those. So I would just finish with, I'll be just one minute. If I put my PowerPoint back up. The legal framework, chapter 17. Couldn't be clearer, 17.1. The purpose of this article is to assure that the design and construction of all development activity is executed in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing trees to the greatest extent possible. I don't know why it's not showing up. To the greatest extent possible. Then, under 17-5, The criteria is whether the tree is located in the buildable area where a structure or improvement may be placed and the tree unreasonably restricts the permitted use of the property. That's where this fails. There's nothing that shows that the permitted use of the property is in any way restricted by these trees. They need to do better. They need to come back with a plan that saves these trees. Thank you.

Thank you. Your turn.

Thank you. Yep. Can you guys hear me on the mic? Yes. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon and appreciate you all being here. My name is Tony Restio with Law Offices at 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard. Ponce de Leon Boulevard in Coral Gables. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. 3151 Southwest 27th Avenue, Propco, LLC. I'm joined by the project team, including our project manager, Vivian Bonet Rubio, our landscape architect, Bud Martin, our project arborist, Mike McCoy, actually, David DeLoach, his partner is here. Mr. DeLoach is one of the former lead reviewers for the City of Miami Environmental Resources Section. And I'm here with project architect, Frank Paredes.

Okay, just a little housekeeping.

Mr. Martos has submitted a letter for the record, just kind of outlining these same arguments, just so that we have it for the record. It's very clear, as well as a copy of our presentation. Yeah, thank you. Okay, the outset. And I know you guys had a long conversation about standing, so I'm just gonna touch on it real quick, just for the record. The appeal alleges generalized impacts The code is very clear in 17-8. It says it has to be an aggrieved party with standing under state law. State law talks about a definite interest exceeding the general interest in community good shown in common with all city residents. I believe Mr. Cawley had raised that concern that All people have some interest in trees. There's a generalized interest. What the appellant has established, and Mr. Winker did not change any of that, was generalized harms. The Notice of Appeal refers to impacts to the grove's urban canopy and ecological value, localized environmental and community benefits of the existing canopy, and longstanding environmental character of Coconut Grove. So I just want to have that for the record.

Our project.

I want to start with the support that our project enjoys. First and foremost, the city's own arborists have reviewed this application twice under two different administrations before issuing the intended decision. They reviewed it again for this appeal as well. Second, the applicant's professional arborists came to the same conclusion about these trees and about the compliance with city code. And third, this is rare, the project has received petitions supporting the project from the owners of 33 different properties in the area. We have submitted those petitions for the record. And just to walk you through that, the neighborhood petition mentions that new replacement trees are native. Most are thicker and more viable. They're four to six inches in diameter, most of them. Actually, all of them are four to six inches in diameter. The six inches are the... the majority of them. Trees are part of what makes the Grove special, but trees that the public can enjoy directly close to streets and inside parks deliver on the Grove's promise, and they can be enjoyed by everyone. They support this project and the replacement trees both on the property and at Kennedy Park. What you see before you is some red dots as to where many of those residents live. The supporters, here's the list of the supporters, and we appreciate their participation in this. So who are we? This development team. We are Grove residents, first and foremost. I live in the Grove. I've been here for almost 25 years. In fact, I live right next door to the project. I am personally affected by this, and I'm here. My partner, Mr. Martos, lived in the Grove for close to 20 years before he recently moved, much to his sadness. The project principals, one of them has lived here for 25 years. We believe in the Grove, okay? That same principal developed the Glass House, which is where the appellant lives, directly across the street from this project. So we love the Grove. We want to continue to work here on behalf of the community. You cannot live in Coconut Grove without constantly preaching about how great it is. We're promoting the Grove. And you can't develop and sell residential units without knowing that buyers are drawn by the quality of life. And that quality of life, of course, includes trees. We believe in that tree canopy. Balancing of interests. While we value the Grove and its canopy as residents, developers of the Grove, we can't ignore the obvious. Living in the Grove and loving this place means needing places to live, for people to live. The appellant here lives in Glass House on 27th Avenue, directly across the street, as I mentioned. That's a five-story building. That site, at some point, had trees. That site was developed. There are now many homes in the area, and they contribute to the urban fabric.

She and many of the... We're still at the five-minute mark.

I'll move it along. So... Not all trees are equal. That's what I want to drive by, and then I want to get to the code. Balancing this process means there are different types of trees. There are healthy trees versus at-risk trees. There's native versus non-native, invasive, prohibited. Private trees, deep in a lot, versus public trees that can be enjoyed by the neighborhood. Trees on the perimeter of the property, trees in the right-of-way. Tree replacement is not inherently bad. Invasives can be removed to make room for natives. New, more resilient trees can grow in place of others. The other side of this balance is private property rights. Private property rights are important. Federal and state laws, cities' comprehensive plan, they all protect private property rights. The city code strikes that balance for us. Chapter 17 of the city code balances tree protection and property rights and the need for new development. It is less than perfect, I'll grant you that, but it is the law. It is the law of the city commission adopted and it's their policy. City staff has applied Chapter 17's criteria, determined that the tree permit should be issued. This board's role is to see if they did it right, okay? It's not to strike a different balance. I'm getting there, but this is important. These are property rights at issue, so I appreciate it. I would appreciate your indulgence, Dr. Hopper. I'll move fast. Here's the code, 17.5. Mr. Winker mentioned the code. I want to walk you through some of the specifics of the code. First, buildable area. Are the trees in the buildable area of the yard where structure improvement may be placed? That's protecting private property rights. Are they within the area where you can build? Unsafe conditions, where the tree is in danger of falling or interferes with utility service or is in a site triangle. High risk disease and dead, that's easy. Prohibited species, whether it's a prohibited tree species. Health or environmental hazard, that includes any negative impacts to land features, it includes invasive trees. And then staff's judgment, any other relevant criteria. So I'll walk you through the potential conditions that are listed in the code. Redesign, the first one, that may be required specifically for specimen trees and trees of substantial value, provided, and this is important because Mr. Wigger forgot to mention this, provided the redesign is within the scope and intent of the initially proposed plan. That's the protection on property rights. That's the only time that redesign can be supported. Relocation is where practical. It may be required specifically for specimen trees and trees of substantial value. Those are the two types of trees. Replacement, if it is impractical to redesign or relocate for any of these types of trees, you can mitigate. The project itself is, I'll just give you a quick picture of the project. It was approved back in November of 2024. There was public notice. There were no objections. There was no appeal of the project. Any member of the public could have appealed it. They did not. The buildable area. As I mentioned, that was the criteria. Where are the trees with respect to the buildable area of the site? And I want to walk you through why this area is important here, okay? This is the portion of the site exclusive to the required yard areas as defined by the zoning ordinance. That's in 17.2. That's a direct quote out of 17.2.

You need to run through instead of walk through.

I'm sorry, sir?

You need to run through and not walk through.

Running through. You got it. The project is not maxing out. I want to make that very clear. 48 units instead of 72 units provides greater setbacks, provides much greater open space, and that's after the city and county take a dedication of about 8% of the lot. So these are the property lines of the site as they exist right now. If you were to drive by it, that's where the fence is. That's where the construction fence is. We have to give up 8% of the lot, so that shrinks the buildable area a little bit more. We have to give up at least 10 feet on each street frontage, but our required setback is zero feet on the interior lot lines. That's what you see there. And then this is the additional setbacks that were provided, shrinking the buildable area, or the area that we built. Didn't shrink the buildable area, it shrinks the area that we built, okay? Even after we did all that, and provided 26% open space where 10% is required, these trees are still within the area to be built. Now, I have Mr. DeLoach here to walk you through the three specimen trees.

Good evening. David DeLoach, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist.

Wait.

You have exceeded your time.

You've exceeded your time, and if he's going to start to give any form of testimony, then we need to bring back Mr. Winker so that he can then rebut your argument, since we didn't give him as much time as we gave you, and if there's one thing I'm going to be, it's fair. Exactly. So, that being said... We would accept that. Okay, that being said, okay, if he's going to give testimony, right, we're going to have to wait, and where's Mr. Winker?

And all future speakers, please adhere more closely to the five-minute limit.

Now, I'm going to ask Mr. Winker a procedural question. Would you like to hear his testimony before you rebut, or would you like to rebut first?

I'd like to hear the testimony, please.

Okay, fine. Is the board okay with that?

Yes.

Okay, so were you sworn in?

Yes, I was.

Okay. Please state your name for the record.

David Deloach, board-certified master arborist, landscape inspector of Florida, municipal arborist. Address? Tree risk assessment qualified. Address? 3121 Northwest 164th Street, Miami Gardens, Florida.

Thank you.

Mr. Brescia, would you like to ask him questions or you want him to make a statement?

He's ready to make a statement. Okay. He's going to walk you through, yeah.

No, he's going to run through.

Right there are 67 trees and large woody plants on site of 18 of these are not regulated by the city code 49 regulated trees on site 5 are prohibited species 14 are category 2 invasives 11 trees are low decay in the dedicated right away where the cities require an expansion of adjacent roadway on street parking and new sidewalk construction Site trees, accordingly, there are 19 located within a property that are regulated and within the control of the applicant to propose to remain, remove, or relocate. Of the regulated trees on site, three are specimen size, two live oaks, and one strangler fig. Based on section 17.5, the city can only require alternative site designs in order to retain or relocate specimen trees. Let's examine those three specimen trees. Tree number one, in which the Fencing has been removed from this tree. A little closer to the microphone. I'm showing it in this picture. Get closer to the microphone, please. Yes, sir. The tree has a very small canopy on it. It's growing at quite a steep angle, probably because of other trees that were on site before. It's not a good candidate for relocation. Specimen tree number two is in poor condition. It's a 31-inch diameter, has two trunks. which are co-dominant leaders, very low to the ground, which makes it a very bad risk for relocation. It also has a very severe trunk wound. Besman tree number three is an offsite tree actually, not being proposed for removal. They're proposing some trimming of aerial roots and limbs that are hanging over the site for construction. Looking at the proposed trimming and removal of aerial roots, I don't see where these would affect the stability or the viability of the tree moving forward. On the appellate's claims, These trees contribute significantly to the grove's urban canopy, ecological value. Moreover, this parcel of land is the last remaining lush green space on the entire stretch of 27th Avenue up to US 1 and provides rare opportunity to enjoy green corner that contributed to shade, beauty, stormwater absorption, and wildlife habitat. Various bird species rely on this last space as a source of food and nesting site. In response, the canopy's ecological value is minimal compared to most other canopy trees in the grove because the vast majority, 69%, of it is non-native. Non-native trees contribute less to ecological and wildlife value and are discouraged or even prohibited by code. More than 10% of the trees on site are strictly prohibited and must be removed according to the code. In addition, 47% of the trees are classified as Category 2 are cloud category one invasive species by the Interagency Florida Invasive Species Council, which specifically states that they encourage local government to eliminate impediments to removing invasive species by exempting exotic pest plants from tree cutting permit requirements.

Did you perform a site visit and a site assessment?

I did two site assessments of this site for the trees that are on site. The two oak trees that are on site, if you were to build on site, would rise to the level of potential high-risk trees, which would present a danger. They're only not high-risk trees now because there are no targets for them to hit because it's a vacant site that's fenced off.

Thank you, and I'll run through this just to sum up here. The tree locations are really not an option here. The code section only requires for specimens or trees of substantial value. There are three specimens that you just heard about that are the ones that are not really good candidates for, actually two of them are not good candidates for relocation. The other one is not even being removed. It's actually being trimmed back. We are still mitigating for it. The mitigation for those trees, for the trees that are being removed, is 115 trees with a 2-inch diameter at breast height, 12 feet in height. We're providing substantially greater mitigation than that. As you can see, they are mostly four- and six-inch trees. There are a few two-inch Simpson Stoppers, but they are substantial trees, including live oaks that are six inches across and 22 feet in height, both on the site and at Kennedy Park. There are 20 trees that are being installed on the site. There are 30 trees that are being installed at Kennedy Park, plus there's a $5,000 contribution to the trust fund. What does that mean for the tree canopy? There's 694 square feet of canopy at planting. That grows to 4,500 square feet after five years. That's on the site itself. At Kennedy Park, it starts off at 1,500 square feet of canopy projected to grow to over 10,000 square feet of canopy over five years. This is what it looks like in Kennedy Park as you proceed. These are sunny areas along the pathways, which will eventually be shaded areas. They are exposed to the sun. It's very hot. This will be a vast improvement to the park. So after five years, new plantings will exceed the canopy removed by over 1,000 square feet, and the trees will keep going. Just to show you what five years means, this was the property that we're talking about here in 2014. The property had some trees, a few trees. This is when it was demolished. Those homes were demolished. As you can see, the site was cleared. In 2015 and 2019, the sales office for Glass House, where the appellant lives, that brought new plantings to the site. That site, that was 2019. In 2024, this is what it looks like now. Those are those trees. Now, those trees were installed, sad to say, in a bit of a haphazard fashion. They were not a well-thought-out landscape plan. What we are proposing right now is a well-thought-out landscape plan by Mr. Martin. It's been informed by Mr. McCoy and Mr. DeLoach as to what trees will work in this site with mostly native trees. Again, this balance analysis, the code directs the applicant staff in this board how to do the balance. The applicant's professional arborist, the landscape architect, applied the code, developed a mitigation plan that meets both the letter and spirit of the code. The city's professional staff applied the code, came to the same conclusion. The appellant has provided no evidence or analysis. To the contrary, what they've provided is generalized statements. There's been no testimony as to what the actual impacts are. There's no expert analysis.

I think you're abusing your time.

The new development will result in the removal of trees in the interior of the subject property. The new trees will be installed along the perimeter where they can be enjoyed by many. And again, that's why these supporters, and that doesn't even show my dot just south of the site. So that's why these supporters are supporting this tree. We are available to answer any questions you have. Thank you very much. Appreciate your indulgence.

Okay, Mr. Winker, I don't know how much time he took, but I'm going to gauge it. It's your turn.

I'll make it really quick. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Again, I go back to nearly 40 mature trees are proposed for removal. The code is very clear as to the property rights of this applicant. Everyone that lives, the neighbors here, all the neighbors who live close by, bought their property with an understanding of what our tree canopy would look like. The code is very clear. They have to show that there's not an alternative to preserving these trees and that this adversity impacts the development. You saw the development. It's a big square box. It completely decimates the canopy on this project. It does not meet the code requirements. Thank you.

Before we go to public comment, I believe staff wants to make a statement. So I want them to make the statement if the board is okay with that so that then the public comment can be based on all of the presentation.

Yes.

Good evening, members of the board. My name is Sean Smith. Oh, sorry about that. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Sean Smith, Acting Chief of Environmental Resources. Address is 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue. I wanted to just quickly address some of Mr. Winker's comments in regards to our review process. If anybody here has applied for a tree permit, you know it's not as simple. Just, you know, check a box and it's done. This particular project was under review for approximately eight months. And we go back and forth several times. Mr. McCluskey stated he is an ISA certified arborist for over 20 years. We conduct site visits on all projects where there are... The only time we don't do a site visit is if it's like one palm. Other than that, we're always doing site visits. And all of our staff, I'm very proud of what they do, but they're very knowledgeable and experienced in what they do. And we simply just follow the code. So when we provide a staff report, it's just a synopsis of all that has taken place throughout the review, so we're not going to provide a breakdown of all the impacts to the environment in regards to heat island effect or carbon sequestration or things of that nature. We're simply doing a review and looking at all the landscape plans, what is proposed, any conflicts. Our first objective is to see what trees are able to remain on site. And we have that conversation about redesign. Our second option would be for relocation, right? And then of course mitigation, which in this case, it was already stated that the mitigation actually exceeds the requirements of chapter 17. And so that staff report is just providing a synopsis of that. It's what took place throughout that review process. But anyway, that's I think all I have. Thank you.

You know, I went up to the public for your comments. Please limit your comments to two minutes or less. And if you are going to repeat something that was said already before, please make it brief. Please start by giving your name and address for the record. Yes, ma'am.

And just to be clear, when you hear that little beep sound, that's the two minutes. So try and wrap it up. We're going to try to give everybody the opportunity to finish speaking, but we're trying here. This is a work in progress.

Thank you. My name is Felicidad Avellera. I'm the appellant. I live here in the Coconut Grove area in 3156 Southwest 27th Avenue, right in front of the property of these people. Good evening, everyone. I want to thank this board for listening to us, the neighbors of Coconut Grove. Our neighborhood has been a good home to me and my family. It has been the place I feel good to raise my daughters because of several reasons, but one of the main ones is because of the natural environment it still preserves. The variety of trees, plants, lizards, butterflies, and birds we get to watch when we walk our own makes us feel connected to the earth, gives us peace of mind, and lets our children get to appreciate it and learn to take care of it. We have chosen to live in the city. Both my husband and I are used to the convenience that it means, but we're also aware of the difficulties that represent living in one. But Coconut Grove has the best of both, living in a city and living closer to nature. In any book or movie, when a dreamy place is described or presented to the audience, be it a town, a vacation site, a house, or any wondrous place, it always is a place surrounded by nature. When most people think of the house of their dreams, it is sent in a desertic environment. I don't think anyone with purchasing power would look into buying a house that consisted only of man-made structures. Maybe most people don't give it a thought in a conscious way, but I'm sure they are naturally attracted to places that vibrate life. Mother Nature is real for me. It is where I see what some could call God. Let's be aware of the destruction we as a species have been causing to this beautiful planet. Every beach and little town I knew as a child has changed radically because of the same reason, money. Big companies buying pieces of land and building massive structures that not only disrupt the view, but the lives of the inhabitants of all those once dreamy places. Today, as a mother and as a citizen, I'm thankful for being able to give a voice to our noble, resilient, giving, and silent trees. I consider them grandpas and grandmas that keep their ground standing beautifully while giving us shade, food, oxygen, and much more. I'm going to make it briefer, I'm sorry. It's just because we have four oaks that are going to repuff. I just want you to know that one of them is 150 years old, the youngest one is around 70 years old, and now grows for 300 years, lives for another 300, and then starts dying 300 years more. Even a fallen oak continues to host hundreds of species for decades as it rots into the soil. I call that a meaningful life, wouldn't you? in the entire removal we're talking about today are included for oaks. And thinking that it is okay to replace them with new trees is just not true. All their trees are irreplaceable. All trees fulfill vital ecological functions that neither young trees nor artificial structures can replicate.

And so you're in favor of the appeal?

I'm the appellant. I don't want them to be removed. Okay. Please be the heroes today. More than your lifespan, just like an oak tree.

Thank you.

Members of the public, you can also line up at this podium over here and we can alternate between the two. Well, Mr. Cruz is setting up.

Go ahead. Okay, Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. What I'm gonna say applies not just to this particular appeal. but to all the appeals you're gonna be hearing. And it has to do with mitigation and specifically the way the city decides how many trees should be used to mitigate. I'm using this example. This is something that I researched. We had a tree appeal a month or so ago. You may recall 1837 Northeast 4th Avenue. The appellant withdrew before we were able to present. But this is what I found out. In this particular case, the DBH of the trees that were to be removed, it's not just DBH, you have to use geometry. Pi times radius squared tells you the area of the cross section of the trunk that's being removed. That's the true determinant of the size of the tree, the area of the cross-section. And in this case, it added up to 4,858 square inches. The mitigation that the city asked for only added up to 180 square inches of cross-section, which means that there was a net loss of 4,678 square inches of DBH area. In other words, The existing trees had 27 times the DBH area of the replacements. So that's an example of how the formula the city is using doesn't really work. And in this particular instance, they're removing 286 inches of DBH, but that's a linear measurement. It's not the squared measurement. And they're only calling for putting back 84 inches on site. So there's a huge discrepancy in how much they're putting back on-site. Off-site, they're going to be putting back elsewhere 160 DBH inches. So that adds up to, by their attorney's count, 230 inches. So even there, they're far below the 286 that they are removing. The last thing I would mention, there's emphasis that was placed on native trees. Please don't fall for that propaganda. Non-native trees contribute wonderfully to our city. The most beloved trees in this town are the banyan trees down the middle of Coral Way, Main Highway, et cetera. The banyan tree is non-native. It's from India. And in this era of heat island effect and global warming, please know that the banyan tree produces the largest canopy of any tree in the world. And yet, not only is it considered non-native, Miami-Dade County considers it an invasive, and it's a prohibited tree, and if Miami-Dade County had their way, all of them would be cut down. So please, don't give in to that insanity that just because a tree is native, it's somehow better. And please, make mitigation meaningful. Follow the mathematics. Thank you.

Thank you. Someone on the side? Yes, ma'am.

Hi. Carolyn Bankston, 2678 Tigertail. I just want to speak specifically to the live oaks. It's very disturbing to me. I'm not an arborist. I grew up in Florida. I lived in Winter Park, Florida for 26 years. And my experience with live oaks is that they are very strong, hardy trees, and they are long livers. I built a house in 2001, and I had a 150-year-old live oak five feet from my house. The canopy was directly, is directly still over that roof. I trimmed it probably three times in 20 years, 24 years. So I just want to speak directly to the Live Oak in this nonsense about how they're a hazard or even with disease, it's exceedingly rare. So that's all I have to say. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, Mariela Lopez-Delbert, 661 Northeast 68th Street, 33138. I would like to address the board to let them know that progress is important in our city, but we also have to understand that progress cannot destroy and has to preserve and work with the environment. Because we live in an environment, we live in a planet and not a zip code. We're here to protect it and to preserve it. And oak trees that are 100 and 150 years old will not be replaced with whatever they're proposing in five years. That's not gonna happen. The developers need to learn to have imagination, collaboration with the environment, and to build around it and within it, not to destroy it, not to do away with it, to make their big box cement fit in a space. We need to understand the value of our canopy, the value of our planet, and work with it, not destroy it. So I am asking you to please not allow this and to help to preserve what we have and not destroy it for development to fit in it. We cannot keep letting developers try to fit things and destroy them. They need to learn how to fit things and not destroy them and work with the environment. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Andy Parrish, 3940 Main Highway. Speaking on behalf of all the items that are on your agenda today, thank you for being here. We heard today about balance in the city. Since I'm now retired, I get to go to the PSAB, HEP Board, and the City Commission. If anybody hadn't noticed, the natives are starting to get restless. And the reason they're getting restless is that the intense section of chapter 17, chapter 23, Miami 21, all strongly speak about preserving and protecting neighborhoods, the environment, all the things that are dear to the citizens. However, before the pandemic happened, there was a case that came out of PSAB that went to the 11th Judicial Circuit, and regarding the intense section of the NCD3, which is about Coconut Grove, and the 11th Judicial Circuit there opined that the intent section of the code provides no discernible practical guide for making determinations about any other section of the code. And I think that has upset the balance of all of our chapters, 1723 and Miami 21. It means that the intense section, which is meant, as Mr. Winker pointed out, to protect citizens' rights, is given no weight whatsoever by our city staff, by planning and permitting department, and the result is we get this discontent with every board in our city commission because the balance is out of whack. We need to have the city stand up and either revise the code to make the intent section clearly applicable to every other section of the code, like the rudder on a boat, or somehow we need to get cube 3585 versus the city of Miami overturned. Without that, I'm afraid you're going to see more and more discontent from the citizens of this city. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Lindsay Kane. I'm a resident of Miami at 333 Northeast 24th Street. I'm also a member of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. I've stated before this board before, in my culture, all of our trees are alive and they are our relatives. Other cities and countries have given trees and rivers personhood because scientifically they are also alive. I'd like to say this is also the second time I've seen this board use vague language against citizens who are allowed to file appeal, money was accepted, notices were mailed out, hearings scheduled, all to say there is no standing. To me, this is a form of corruption and giving the residents the illusion of a voice. When you file these appeals, if something is in PDF format instead of Excel, it's immediately notified and your application is rejected. So I don't understand how it got this far to the point of sending out notices, filing a hearing, scheduling a hearing, only to be told you don't have standing. I'd also like to say to everyone here, we may need to take more direct action to protect the trees, because we've been too peaceful about our rights being violated, as stated in the Citizens Build Rights. In the Charter, there is nothing about being 500 feet away from a tree, but it does say civilians can file lawsuits about environmental violations and public officials found in violation shall be removed from office. We are seeing trees being removed as well as our historic buildings being destroyed. We are harmed by the removals of trees physically, mentally, and this is scientifically proven. And the applicant may have a petition, but we also have a petition of 2,000 people who don't support non-emergency tree removals. These recommended replacements aren't adequate because these trees can never be replaced in our lifetime. And once they are dead, they are dead, and the canopy is suffering now. We don't have years to wait for these trees to go to maturity. And the Tree Trust Fund, which is being abused as per the last audit, has money for relocations, which should still be the last resort. Animals also occupy these trees and are running out of places to go. The canopy is nowhere near 30%. It's more like 17% was the last number. and removal of these mature trees would represent a tremendous loss that will not be replaced in our lifetime. We saw language manipulated today, so how do we know city arborists aren't manipulating information? Elected officials are to be the servants of the public and not developers. I was told by a city official that these appeals will cause developers to work around the process, but it is our right to file these appeals. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am. No, no, no. Wave your hands. Go ahead.

Good evening.

Paola Poli.

Get a little closer to the microphone.

Sorry.

Here you go.

I'm not used to this. Paola Poli, 1227 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Miami. I'm an interior designer and I work in the past in architecture and urban planning. In my opinion, as a designer, we have to work with nature and not against it. There are many solutions to preserve what already exists that cannot be replaced with mitigation, especially in a place like Coconut Grove. Trees are just the symbol of this community. Everyone loves the Grove because of this. Trees of Coconut Grove are one of the reasons because I moved to this city, not because of the ocean, of the... The weather is just history. Everyone that visit me from Europe love this place because of the balance that find between nature and architecture. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Genevieve Block-Apaza. I live at 3701 Irvington Avenue in Miami, 33133. I actually have an appeal in front of you tonight, and I'm just going to say a little bit of what I was going to say then, because I have a feeling I might not get to say it. So, as Lindsay mentioned, in 2007, the City of Miami set a goal of 30 percent canopy coverage by 2020, which I'm sure all of you know. But just for the record, when a survey was done in 2020, the city had an average of 17 percent coverage. And actually, Chris Bartoletto, who's here tonight, was quoted in WLRN—or by WLRN—saying it was probably closer to 15 percent. And every single tree that we remove takes us further from that goal of 30 percent. I think that some of us living here in Miami, and maybe especially those of us who spend a lot of time in Coconut Grove, are kind of spoiled by our access to these beautiful trees, specifically, in my opinion, the live oaks. Because we see them every day. But when you really stop and look at them, they're gorgeous. They're awe-inspiring. And... These trees, they're not just beautiful, they provide habitats for hundreds if not thousands of species of organisms. They also provide us with an incredible amount of public benefit, public being the operative word there. Studies show that access to trees have profound effects on our mental and physical health. They help with drainage and stormwater mitigation. They sequester carbon and improve air quality. And they help to lower surrounding air temperatures. And in a city in the middle of a record-breaking heat wave whose very future depends on our ability to become climate resilient, I cannot imagine anything more important. And just also, today marks the 40th day in a row with temperatures in Miami reaching 91 degrees or higher. That was reported today. I also think it's really important to note that when these larger specimen trees go, that's it, they're gone, and they will not be growing back in that same capacity within any of our lifetimes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon.

It's a pleasure being here. I don't come here very often. My name is Yvonne Bayona. I am the president of Miami East Historic Shenandoah Association. I have resided in District 3 for 60 years. So I have seen the changes in Miami. So nobody can tell me that the trees need to be native. What in Miami is native?

Can you give us your address, please?

We are a melting pot. So the trees are a melting pot.

Ma'am, can you give us your address, please?

Excuse me?

Your address, please.

1150 Southwest 13th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33135. Sorry, I forgot. I got passionate about the whole thing. That's okay. 20 years ago, I fought a commissioner, Joe Sanchez, regarding a redevelopment on Southwest 13th Avenue, which a lot of you might be aware of, which now is a beautiful avenue. It's one of the most beautiful avenues in a residential neighborhood. Thank God I saved those trees because expanding the walkway And cutting all these trees that we had, ficus trees that are 60 and 70 years old that were planted by people that lived in that avenue, which were a lot of them immigrants. And we have a beautiful canopy. So if we didn't have that shade, people wouldn't walk. exercise, ride bike, skateboard. People run in that avenue. You should go visit it if you haven't seen it. So we need to protect our trees, not only for us and our health, but for future generations to come. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Ingrid Vega and I'm actually an Edgewater resident.

My address is 1800 North Bay Shore Drive.

Thank you. I'm actually here today because Miami is actually losing one of its greatest assets, our trees. And it's not in one dramatic event, it's one so-called trim at a time. From Coconut Grove to Morningside to Brickell, Edgewater and neighborhoods all across our city, mature trees are disappearing to make way for what else? New development. Listen, I understand Miami's growing. We need housing. We need economic development. But development should add to Miami, not subtract from what makes it livable. Growth and green spaces are not opposing ideas. The world's most successful cities invest in both. Trees are not decoration. They're actually infrastructure. I'm gonna say it again, trees are infrastructure. They cool our neighborhoods, they improve air quality, they absorb storm water, they reduce flooding and they provide shade during extreme heat, strengthen our resilience and make our streets safer. The question isn't whether Miami should grow, it's whether Miami can actually grow wisely. Protecting trees also makes economic sense. Tree-lined neighborhoods actually attract neighbors, residents, customers, and investment. Guess what? Studies consistently show that mature trees increase property values and encourage people to spend more time in commercial districts and support local businesses. So protecting trees is not anti-development. It's pro-economy, it's pro-public health, and it's pro-quality of life. Right now, as a Miami resident, we are watching mature trees disappear while asking one simple question. How are you going to protect them? Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good evening. Ian Wogan, 2360 Overbrook Street. First and foremost, I'm a father of three. I'm a professional arborist and a registered consulting arborist. I just want to say that Miami is a spotlight and an opportunity for representing trees as infrastructure. They do a lot to manage our stormwater, keep the city cool, and when designed appropriately for, have longevity in the urban canopy in a way that is safe and safe for residents and improves the quality of life. I've participated in numerous projects citywide with city staff and former city staff or different city staff, along with developers, community members, residents, and seen many examples in which trees are incorporated into the built environment as infrastructure. I gave a presentation to the Florida chapter of the ISA titled Trees as Infrastructure because they are a critical tool that we can utilize within our built environment to improve things. I think the city has a long way to go in managing the city trees. There's many instances of mature specimen size native canopy that goes untended and ends up failing or causing a risk to the public safety because the resources aren't plugged into maintaining and managing our urban forests. There's many methodologies to improve the way that we manage trees as infrastructure. And I think a project like this, in the testimony that was provided by the board-certified master arborists of New Leaf and the efforts that are going forward, they're doing a good job of increasing tree canopy while building within their property rights. And I think we need to see more of that public-private partnership compromise, or solution seeking. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Hello, board members. My name is Sophia Maya, address 33172 Fulton Blue Boulevard, Miami, Florida. I wanted to speak in defense of the trees. Miami's environment is constantly being threatened by harmful developments, and we need more protections for our trees and our ecosystem. We need to coexist with it, not pave it over for developer interest. Developers have the right to build, but it shouldn't be at the expense of wildlife and our environment. I also want to say that people are passionate about this topic because we all care about South Florida's environment. We want to protect that. We see lots of developments happening, and we are afraid to see more of our environment lost. And once it's gone, it's almost impossible to retake that back. Our concerns highlight a bigger problem. On a personal level, Miami is my home, and it's changed so much. And unfortunately, sometimes it's been for the worst. Even in front of my house, there are green spaces that I am afraid to be threatened for development. These green spaces provide walkability for our communities, which helps to reduce traffic because residents won't have to rely on cars and they have space to live peacefully and not be extremely crowded. Open green spaces give relief for our communities and flood protection. Green spaces provide fresh water, biodiversity, and balance for all of us. Even today, it was extremely hot and humid, and I honestly wish we had more trees in our parking lot because we cannot trade our essential needs like water, shade, and flood protection for development. So in conclusion, our environment and our trees are more valuable than our proposed luxury houses or high-rises with skyrocketing rents that our residents won't be able to even afford. Trees are priceless, and our voices matter more than a dollar sign. And always remember that change is always possible. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes sir. Good evening to the board and good evening to my neighbors. Carla Ricordi at 3049 Orange Street. I'm a Coconut Grove native. I've lived here since I was two years old. I grew up on Matheson Avenue under the shade of a banyan tree planted by David Fairchild. Even today, I can find my childhood home from Key Biscayne by looking for that tree. As a little boy, I named the birds outside my window. I would lie beneath the canopy and make shapes out of the branches the way other children make shapes out of clouds. I remember the patterns of light and shadow it cast across my bedroom wall. That tree didn't just stand behind my home, it helped define my childhood. I worked hard to buy a home in Coconut Grove. God willing, one day I will raise my own children under that very same tree. To me, that tree is as much a part of my home and my heart as the house beneath it. I stand before you as your children grown up. I stand on the shoulders of giants. I invoke the names of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, David Fairchild, Ralph Monroe, and the countless naturalists and civic leaders who fought to protect this extraordinary place. They understood that Coconut Grove is not defined only by its buildings, but by its living canopy. This is my only home. I ask that we honor their legacy by protecting the trees that have protected generations of us. Thank you. Yes sir.

Good evening, Chris Baralotto, 3752 Kumquat Avenue. And I will invoke, as the chair suggested, the right to repeat that I agree a lot with what has been said this evening, and I really love seeing all the passion. I also appreciate that Elvis brought up this idea of geometry, because I think geometry and compromise, as Ian brought up, are extremely important. Our code is broken. Everyone's doing their best here, arborists, city staff, even developers are making an effort, and we don't have the tools to evaluate and make decisions. Let's get back to the case at hand. We're starting to develop a tool based on the data we've put together at the university, where we try to take these esoteric terms about ecological benefits and create a quantitative index based on the data the arborists are putting together. That's what you see on the y-axis of these graphs. We then can use that data to project what happens through time under different scenarios. In the case at hand, we need to make decision rules about how to move forward. What we can see is immediately after removal on this property, we lose 94% of the ecological benefits of this property. The planting plan here calls for some planting on site, which mitigates well, and an innovative idea that Sean's staff has come up with to also mitigate within the neighborhood nearby in public spaces. And there's mitigation in Kennedy Park here, charitable donations that are going to be managed by this development group on the public's behalf. It's somewhat distant. We're suggesting a little bit of a distance decay penalty of a 0.7. It's based on distance for that, and that's why it doesn't return. That mitigation then can grow through time. There are suggestions of how this canopy is going to grow. This puts together that geometry and projects how it grows through time. And in this case, we still don't get back. And I think what we all need to decide is what's acceptable to us. Do we need to grow back the canopy immediately? And where do we need to get within a certain time? I would suggest we'd like to get to 100% within 20 years of the ecological benefits. This particular property doesn't, even with the mitigation at Kennedy Park. I've talked to them a little bit. There's a suggestion from the appellant to save Tree 1, a gumbo limbo, either by relocation or by saving it. Tree 67, the ficus aurea, the strangler fig, is now going to be saved. That's incorporated in this analysis, and that's helping us to get there. I would also suggest we take a look at one or maybe both of those live oaks to determine if they can be saved as well. We need to leverage geometry, make intelligent, educated decisions, and also embrace the idea that we can find compromise together to grow the canopy and not see it decrease. Thank you.

I just want to make a statement that it's 8 o'clock at night, and they have a hard stop at 10 o'clock. I understand that all of you want to make your statements, but if you could try and stay within the two minutes, we would greatly appreciate it, because we have multiple cases, and if you want to hear them, then public comment has to stay within those two minutes, because we've got two hours to go.

And six more cases. Yes, sir. Come ahead.

Good evening, board members, stakeholders. My name is Gabriel Arcana. I reside in zip code 33142. Having been living in Miami for 20 years, observing the urban expansion and disregard for the interrelationship with our surrounding nature, we stand here as 69 to 7% of Americans who have lost trust in their government, government that has forgotten the principles of the land we were founded on. Governments are not standalone independent institutions. They are supposed to be the representation of the people, and the people have been voicing their opinion on deaf ears and being ignored over economic interests of entities, some that don't even have skin in the game. Let us witness governance through direct representation tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Hello, all. My name is Damien. I live in 4291 Northwest 2nd Street. I'm a resident in Miami since I was eight. I wanted to show my concern about these trees being cut. They're alive and just as important as animals and us. They give us oxygen, shade, and filter our water. For example, stormwater runoff can increase people's exposure to pollution, but trees intercept and filter it. improving the water quality of runoff. Over time, the stormwater is released back into the earth and atmosphere via transpiration. With less contact with pavement, stormwater that has been absorbed and released by trees is cooler and has fewer pollutants when it enters local waterways. Florida is hot enough as is. Even me coming down here feels cooler than my neighborhood with less trees. Also, think about our birds. If these are cut, then how much more till Florida is nothing but concrete? And I and many others agree that we are not anti-progress. What we want is for resources and money to go where it actually benefits the community, like parts. So please listen to us and don't contribute to the harm. Every decision counts. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Amy, 11710 Southwest 110th Lane. So I recently learned that mangroves used to span about five miles off the Florida coast, but forget that. Forget those five miles. We're cutting down our neighbor's trees, the trees that took decades to grow, and you can't really get them back. We were promised a canopy coverage of 30%, and right now we're only at 17%. Why is that? I had the pleasure of living in Atlanta for four years for school, and the urban tree canopy coverage is about 47.9%. So what's the excuse? Are we just being lazy? We hire all these outside developers with zero input from FIU, UM, MDC students, and other young future architectures. In fact, what all this overdevelopment fails to realize is that you cannot buy time. You cannot force these trees to grow on hyper mode, just like you cannot force your kids to grow up faster. or how most people would desire, wish their kids could stay young and innocent forever. I drive around Miami, and all I can think about is the impermanence of all the nature around me. And there's already a lot of impermanence in the world, trust me. I work at a hospital, and every day I see terminally ill people every day, and we still fight to preserve every fiber of their life. And all this is happening, in my opinion, just because some people want a little extra money in their pockets. And you say you cut it down for development, which a lot of people have already mentioned. And no one's thinking outside the box. No one's thinking about how to include these trees. And clearly they do in Atlanta. They got almost 50 percent of coverage. So please, I beg you to just keep the trees and maybe take some time to sit under them, have a picnic, listen to the birds, follow the sway of the branches, and maybe you'll come to realize that the branches look a lot like our human lungs. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Luis Alvarez Vila, resident of 3156 Southwest 27th Avenue. My wife and I, my family and I, our girls and I were here supporting the trees in Coconut Grove, we filed this appeal for one simple reason. We believe that trees, mature trees, on this property, in Coconut Grove, and in the world, need to be preserved whenever possible. We've spent a pandemic years here in the Grove, and every time we walked outside, we were so grateful for the scenery that surrounded us. And if we found out something during COVID was that what happens in Wuhan, China affects me, affects each and every one of us here two weeks later. Trees are connected by a web of fungi underneath the ground. They talk to each other, they speak to each other, and they look after their best interest and our best interest. The oxygen we breathe is given off by the trees. The air we breathe is coming directly from the trees. The oxygen we breathe comes directly from the trees. Do we need any further proof of our responsibility as individuals and collectively to preserve trees wherever possible? I appreciate the developments reaching out to us. We met on a couple of occasions. The people we met with were lovely people and they're trying to work with us. We really value that. We also feel like as individuals that are not experts in this, we need to defer to you guys to this Conservation Environmental Board to make a decision to help us navigate this. Please help us navigate it constructively, consciously, for the benefit of everyone in this community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Angelica Harrison. I live at 4911 Northwest 8th Avenue in Miami. Mr. Powers said members of the public should attend more meetings overall and not only for tree preservation. In response to this comment, I offer testimony of my attendance on May 21st. for the Kirk Monroe Park Community meeting number four here in City Hall. I was in the hallway outside of this room awaiting a text message when a man I'd never met spoke to me briefly, circled the lobby, and returned a loiter within a few feet of my person multiple times. When I entered this room, he followed soon after, sat two rows in front of me, and remained. I assume he's an associate of that meeting's presenters as they spoke to him during the session. After Q&A, I left to the ladies' room where I was alone, and soon after, I heard a single set of footsteps enter. This unknown person didn't use the bathroom's utilities, but quietly remained out of sight in a stall close to mine. I waited a few moments to exit the ladies' room, then the building entirely, without confronting this unknown person or seeing their face. Some might minimize these interactions as coincidence, but I attended that session as an interested member of the public, and I left feeling unsafe and unwelcomed as I felt aggressively monitored and profiled. I impart to the public and to this board my personal experience regarding the welcome I received while present at a meeting here as a member of the public. I swear this to be the fullest extent of the truth that I'm able to share under two minutes. So help me God.

Yes, sir.

Hi. I'm Sam. I live at 6301 Collins Ave. I want to tell you a little bit about my background. I did my undergraduate degree in neuroscience at MIT, and then my MD and my PhD at Columbia. And for my work now, I develop new treatments for patients with mental and psychological conditions, as well as neurodegenerative disorders. What I wanted to talk about today is the mental impact of these trees and the impact on both mental and physiological health of people who use these trees as a form of mental health treatment. This is important because I wanted to raise some of the studies that have been done in this area. In 2004, researchers at Illinois University did some studies showing that in children with ADHD, exposure to green spaces actually lowered their symptoms. Then there was a large meta-analysis, a study of studies done in 2019, where they showed that patients who were essentially exposed to trees, forest bathing, had lower levels of stress hormone and cortisol. But perhaps even more exciting was there was a big study that showed, in 2022, another large meta-analysis, so a study of many studies, that showed that when these tree exposure was then added to people who lived in cities who had higher rates of hypertension, psychological stress, the practice actually reduced their stress and significantly reduced their blood pressure. And so This is important because mental health issues also disproportionately affect people who are from low income or minority communities. And we've seen here in Miami that lower income and high minority areas have a disproportionately lower canopy coverage. So I just wanted to urge the committee today to take these things into consideration. I'm talking not just about this one item, number seven, but all of the items up for tree removal. And keep in mind that there are people who are relying on these trees as a form of mental health treatment and also to help their physiological conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Katrina Morris, 4130 Liebayer Avenue, Coconut Grove. I just got off a plane from Chicago. where between 1890 and 1910, Aaron Montgomery Ward had to file four suits against Chicago, the city of Chicago, to prevent private and public development in Grant Park. His efforts successfully secured the legal precedent that the lakefront must remain forever open, clear, and free of buildings, and it is magnificent. I was not here when the appeal for the Ziggurat was overturned on a technicality, but much of this pertains. The developer did meet with us They brought Chris Berilotto and Madison Kinder from the Institute of Environment at FIU. Their assessment that the canopy and biodiversity could ultimately be strengthened is promising, but it remains unproven without clear enforceable commitments. At this point, too much of what was presented remains conceptual or implied rather than clearly documented. There were assurances, but not enough specificity. And when it comes to removing mature trees, assets that take decades to replace, this board and the public deserve more than general intentions. We are here to ensure that any loss of canopy is responsibly managed, transparently planned, and meaningfully mitigated. To that end, we have outlined reasonable conditions for the HEP Board to consider for all. First, we need updated and detailed schematics with projects. that clearly identify which trees will be preserved, relocated, or removed. These must be precise and unambiguous. Second, we are requesting a defined planning schedule for the proposed courtyard garden, along with a minimum list of species to be installed. This ensures that replacement is not just promised, but planned. Third, there's so much more. We believe... In working together, this is a new world. We don't have the luxury of bickering over dollars and cents. I know there's no guarantee to profit in the Constitution. There just isn't.

So, okay, thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, members of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board. My name is Madison Kinder of 5815 Alton Road, Miami Beach. I work in the city of Miami with Dr. Chris Barilotto at FIU, and I've been spending my time in Coconut Grove since I went to middle school here. I respectfully urge the board to deny this tree removal request and require the applicant to return with a design that better preserves the existing mature trees on site. Mature trees are not simply landscape features, they have critical public assets. They replace urban heat, improve air quality, manage storm water, support wildlife, and preserve the historic character of our neighborhoods. They also provide significant economic value. Numerous studies have shown that mature trees increase property value, make neighborhoods more desirable, attract investment, and support local businesses. Protecting our tree canopy is not anti-development, it's pro-economy and an investment in the long-term resilience of our prosperity of our community. Unfortunately, the proposed design does not appear to have meaningfully incorporated the existing trees into the site plan. Instead, the trees seem to have been considered as constraints to be removed rather than valuable assets around which thoughtful design could occur. The proposed replacement plantings are also not truly commensurate with what is being lost. Newly planted trees cannot replace the canopy, environmental services, or economic value of mature trees for decades. And according to our calculations, these plantings do not reach the stated goal of replacing the canopy even after 20 years. I also want to address the applicant's argument that the building plans were approved in 2024. Respectfully, that is precisely my concern. Tree preservation should be integrated into the design process from the very beginning, as the code states, not treated as a separate hurdle after the building plans have been already approved. If development approvals are granted before meaningful consideration is given to preserving existing mature trees, then the tree review process becomes little more than a formality and you will continue to be dealing with a room full of meeting rooms rather than carefully environmental review that this board is charged with providing. I encourage the board to uphold its responsibility by requiring a redesign that genuinely prioritizes tree preservation and by rejecting mitigation measurements that do not truly compensate for the loss of mature tree canopy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. My name is Julia Sanchez, 1950 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale. I'm not going to use words because trees do not speak. I'm going to try to communicate as they communicate. And not just trees, but all the life that they hold. Squirrels, peacocks, iguanas. So as a tree, because we are trees, I'm going to honor them in this way.

Your way, oh. Yahweh, Yahweh Yahweh, Yahweh Yahweh, Yahweh Yahweh, Yahweh Yahweh, Yahweh Yahweh, Yahweh

And may whoever needs to make this decision realize that you do have lungs, that you do have a heart, that this is what is needed right now in our world to really, to really remember who we are, where we come from, and what we need to protect so that life continues. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, Joanna Zehner, 22, Las Flores, Boynton Beach. I live in Palm Beach County, and I thought it was really important to come down here today and talk to you guys. I've seen a lot of destruction with the trees recently, and it's been gutting. I've been trying to create awareness with people everywhere. Because things have been just going on down here and I'm glad to see a lot of people showed up today. And I would love to come back and defend the buildings that are getting destroyed as well. But I just wanted to come down here and everything is beautiful, old, and irreplaceable is really what we need to protect. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, Sandy Moise, 5910 Northeast 6th Court. Out of respect for the board, I will follow what Mr. Hopper suggested. I agree with what everyone prior to me stated, and I support this appeal. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Silvio Pupo, Chair, members, thank you so much for making some space for us. Miami resident, I'm a member in D1, 33142, a board member of the Logos Impact Foundation, economics appointee to the Climate Resilience Committee, but I'm here in my personal capacity today. I want to just mention something on the record. First of all, thank you, Rob and Julie, for voting the right way. And I'm a little bit disappointed to the rest, but I understand the decision. So I want to just go back and talk about the Florida Constitution for a second. Article 2, Section 7 makes conservation the policy of the state. Florida Statute 403412 gives every citizen every citizen the right to enforce it. When an organization exists specifically to protect the environment, its standing is not the question, it is the point. And everybody that is here, as you can see, really cares about this. So we're asking the board going forward that any environmental nonprofits do have standing as a matter of course, not on a case by case, not on a permit by permit, but as a matter of principle.

I want to get that on the record.

Going forward, we have certain expectations we would like to see of different developers, right, to reconcile these differences. Number one, preserve first. Removal's the last resort, not the first calculation. Two, mitigate geometrically. Basal area, canopy volume, not inch for inch. Like for like. Three, replace with climate-ready species, heat-tolerant, salt-tolerant, built for Miami's future. Four, use public land. When private sites can't absorb replacements, parks and rights-of-ways must be on the table. We would really like for anything that's possible on the city side to enable us to move these trees, particularly near the locations where they're being removed from. We're not going away. We're going to be here continuing to support, continuing to fight for the rights of the environment, and again, let's not get processed, get in the way of purpose. Thank you so much. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, esteemed members. My name is Joanne Monet, 2252 Southwest 17th Street. Sorry. I'm here actually because you say that we don't show up, but to be honest, I don't really know about these things until they come into my face on social media. So I don't know what list I need to get on to be more involved, but I'm happy to join. Also, I believe that the historic buildings should not be being abolished as they are. I am very scared for the city and for my future generation of grandchildren. To be honest, Miami is a beautiful place and the trees are an integral part of that. I cannot tell you how many times I've seen trees taken down and people take them down and then they go, oops, and then the city finds them. That's not okay. There needs to be some severe penalties for that. I don't know what's going on, but something needs to change. If anybody's not read the Lorax in a very long time, we are here. It is live and happening here, and I'm scared. And that's why I came tonight. I had my little sign. I encourage everybody to read the Lorax again and see exactly what's being done, because it can't be undone. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Steven Lightner, 1131 O2 Street. I support this appeal as well. What I didn't hear from the applicant was, were attempts to preserve the existing canopy and to build around the existing canopy and to keep the trees on site, on site. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening, my name is Cardinal Alfonso, address 14229 Southwest 97 Terrace. I'm here because I care about our trees just like many others here today. I've lived in Miami my entire life, and something that has always captured me is the beauty of our nature and our trees here. Growing up, I've watched our nature degrade. Not only have I noticed less and less trees over time, but I've noticed less earthworms, butterflies, birds, and many other insects crucial to our ecosystem. Don't you think that's strange? Our land is hurting and slowly slipping away. We have to try our best to protect it and ensure that our tax dollars are going somewhere that is beneficial to our communities. Trees are an extremely crucial part of our lands and our quality of life. If we keep allowing developers to destroy our trees and our green lands and our nature, little by little, the city will become a concrete jungle. And that is something that will not be beneficial to anyone here. We can't let that happen, not only for us, but for our future generations. Think about your kids, your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren, and so on. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good evening, Board. James Torres, president of Downtown Neighbors Alliance at 253 Northeast 2nd Street. I want to thank Coconut Grove for showing up here tonight because they realized one thing that maybe the City of Miami Commission does not. It's soon going to become another downtown, the concrete. It's very simple. We're being decimated with all these trees being cut down throughout the entire city, specifically this specific district of two. We're now going to be called the Home Depot District because there's a commissioner that just lets it happen. We need you guys to push back on this We need you guys to literally send a message to the city administration and the commission that this is unacceptable. We're never going to have a plaque that says, welcome to Tree City USA. We're never going to have that. Why? Because of the failures of the administration that is not allowing to preserve and protect these trees. Something that you said earlier that I saw on the television. Same thing with buildings, historical sites. Doesn't exist. And it's shameful, shameful to the administration that they put you guys in a very peculiar situation. You spent 45 minutes at most with the administration's attorney trying to figure out who has standing and who doesn't. It's embarrassing, it's shameful. It should never happen. You should have a clear directive of what is happening here. The community is speaking and is telling you, enough is enough. Maybe you guys do the right thing and say, let's put a monitorium on this thing, which is shameful that our own commissioners won't have the balls to do that. And that's the problem here. That is the problem here, folks. Because when a commissioner or the administration doesn't want anything done, what do they do? They create a committee to push it on to someone else. And it's just wrong. Now, looking at everything else at the end of the day, let's preserve and protect. If these individuals have the opportunity to remove these trees and transplant them somewhere else or anything, let that happen. Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Last chance.

Now I'll close the public hearing and open to the board for questions, comments. Starting with Mr. Cauley.

Mr. Winker. I think staff needed to rebut, so I'm going to go ahead and let staff do it now before, or do you guys want to make your statements first?

Or do you have anything else to say? I'm okay with staff speaking first. I'm happy to speak after. Likewise, thank you. Okay.

Didn't you already have your rebuttal time?

Yes, I already did. Sorry. Thank you. Okay, just wanted to make sure because, so then...

Through the chair. Through the chair, guys. Yes. For you to decide what you're doing.

I did. I closed the public hearing and I'm having a... Mr. Colley has a question.

Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everybody, for all of the passionate testimony. I'm pretty sure that we all feel the same way as you do about the tree canopy and about the importance of preservation of tree canopy. So with that said, for example, we're here to talk about this particular project now, right? So I went by the project site today. I don't think that, well, let me start by saying this. Let me ask a couple questions. So you mentioned that there's three canopy trees on the site. And Sean, maybe you can help with this too. One of them is on an adjacent property. It's the big, giant ficus tree, correct? So that's on the adjacent property abutting this property. So from my take on it, it looks like the majority of the property is fairly clear inside, with the exception of some of these oak trees, and then the vegetation at the perimeter. I have to say that I'm not a huge fan of the site plan, obviously. It certainly maximizes the site. There's a beautiful rendering. along the street, and it's a very large building. So I think that discussing the merits of this appeal should be based on the merits of this appeal. But I would say that I think obviously we're going to have to do a lot better as a community to start making sure that our development projects capture the essence and the spirit of what our community wants and are preserving our canopy as much as possible. So when I look at this property, it's not very large. It doesn't seem very large. It's on a prominent corner. And my thoughts are, I would be curious to hear, like, what is the strategy by which tree preservation and going beyond what the zoning code allows would be applicable in a situation like this? Now, I know that those aren't questions. But I think that generally speaking, a better job could be done. And I have a hypothetical question with regards to this particular project. So you mentioned that the city was requiring a substantial new portion of land to be set aside for parking, I believe, and some other things like that. Or did I gather something of that extent?

The county pool requires a substantial right-of-way dedication. Right. About 8% of the site.

So I'd like to hear what our other board members think, but I guess in my mind, with the size of the building and with the style of the building, I mean, I feel very confident that if, for example, you wanted to, there would be a way to make some substantial adjustments at the perimeter to include more large tree canopies. Whether that means that you could relocate any trees on the site, the two, I don't necessarily think so from the testimony of the arborist. But, you know, I think that would go a long way towards helping to alleviate some of this disappearing tree canopy. So, and a lot of that has to do with our code. Our code is not a smart code. Our code bases on inches. That's not the best way to do it. The best way to do it is based on canopy. I'd be curious to know what our community would think if a couple, I'm not saying to do this, but what if a couple very large oak trees were along the perimeter of this project? You'd have more shade. You'd have more tree canopy at the human scale. You'd soften the environment. In some way, we're going to have to find a way to work together to accomplish these goals. So those are my thoughts so far based on the plan.

Through the chair, if I may address Mr. Cawley's comment. So just to set the stage, there are Two oaks that are planned for the perimeter of the property. They are bigger than the current oak that is on the perimeter of the property. The current oak is four inches of DBH. These are six inches, 20 feet high. Actually, 22 feet high. There is a tree. You mentioned one in the interior. If we could move I think, and Mr. Barilotto, I believe, who gave some good analysis, talked about a tree. There's a gumbo limbo that's established. That's tree number one. It's 15 inches wide. I think we could commit to, I can tell you, we can commit to moving that tree out to the perimeter. I think that's a good thing. The other trees I would caution, our arborists looked at this our uh the city's staff and and i i do want to take exception to some of the things that were said about city staff city staff works really hard to to uh apply this code and and to analyze this as as mr smith said it took eight months to get through this process this is not something we came up with yesterday um before mr smith we met with uh miss uh miss uh uh kwatisha And Quatisha was the same way. Both of them determined very early on these trees were not good for relocation. We followed their lead. We followed our arborist advice. That's what the experts said. So we could move that gumbo limbo, but I would be reticent. Oh, and the strangler fig, we are pruning the aerial roots, but the tree will remain in place. The majority of the canopy will remain in place.

Thank you. Ms. O'Dell.

I'm in agreement with Mr. Cauley. I believe that moving some of those larger trees to the exterior would be very helpful. I also think you were very thoughtful in your consideration of what they had presented to us as well, Chris. Thank you.

Mr. Powers.

Well, as you know, I'm not a fan of any of this. So, well, no, I think that the property and the, way the trees are on the property, that the building should be built around the trees. I mean, you guys hear that? This is not new to you. We've known each other for many years. And I have had this argument with you multitudes of times. The thing is is that it's Coconut Grove. It's not the Upper East Side. It's not Shenandoah. It's not on 8th Street where there are no trees. This is in a neighborhood that's known for its trees. The people go mad about their trees. And then you guys come in and want to build another monolith in the middle of a thing, and then you come to us and go, oh, well, you guys will figure it out. I'm sick and tired of figuring this out for you guys. We shouldn't have to do it. They should know that they're buying a piece of property in a tree-sensitive area. where the people who live there, I mean, I agree. Listen, Biscayne Boulevard fought for huge trees to be put on Biscayne Boulevard. Nobody listened. And in the middle of summer, nobody's walking down Biscayne Boulevard. It's too freaking hot. But they took off a thousand royal palms that had been planted for World War I and World War II veterans and never bothered to put them back as a Blue Star Memorial Highway, historically. This city does a horrible job, and we shouldn't be in this position at this stage of their development. They should have come to us first before they even put pen to paper about what they were gonna design there. I'm just saying, for shits and giggles. You guys could go out of your way if you said, you know what, I know the city wants us to do this way, but you know what, we're gonna bring this to the Historic Preservation Board first. I know it's not your call, I get it. It's not your call. Dude, I get it, it's not your call. I'm just saying, you're asking me for my opinion in a perfect world? This should have come to us first. The trees should have been mitigated before you ever designed anything. And it would have made you, placed you in a better position. It would have placed your client in a better position. And they would have built a better product. Okay? Because bigger isn't always better. Highest and best use is a bullshit argument for making money. We're not here to make you money. We're here to protect the trees. That's our job. We're not here to make your project worth money. It's not you. It's not you personally. And don't, guys, please. Because... This is endemic to how the city does business, okay? And you vote for these clowns all the time, the same ones, over and over again. And you still keep on getting the same result. So you come to these meetings, you want us to make decisions for you, and the whole kettle of worms places all these people, these are good people who work for the city, in a shit position because now we've got to do this because they don't listen to them, to staff, because the people who sit up here think they know what they're doing and they don't. I'm just saying, they don't. It's abundantly clear because you've watched city commissions, and they like to give away money to everybody, but they certainly don't think about too many things. But nonetheless, this project could be done better. I think that you should make... Listen, I also understand. I was a landscape designer for years. I agree with Mr. Cauley. There's trees that just can't be moved. They're not in a good shape, so forth and so on. My suggestion... Is North Florida and other places around the city, even when they take down houses or they're doing other clearing, is for us to have a tree bank, Chris, or Sean, like have a tree bank where we know we've got trees coming up that they need to be moved someplace else. And then you have somebody who's doing this kind of a project pay to have the tree moved. I'm just saying. So I think that we could do a much better job of using our resources better. Okay, that's all I'm saying to you. And it's a sin. You don't like to cut down the trees either. I know you don't. And I've had to remove trees that were in a bad shape as well. And it killed me to do it. But they were going to fall over. They weren't done. So I just think that they could design a better project and move some of those trees around and make it look a little bit better. I think... I think they could do a little bit of a better job of just tweaking it a little bit and not making that edifice so massive. That's my own.

I did want to clarify. We followed the procedure at the city. I know you did. And we met early on with Quatisha. I know. Like years ago.

I called her. Dude, I called her about a lot of this stuff.

Yeah, and these trees are just not relocatable. It's unfortunate. You got it.

But what I would say to you is find the largest trees that you can. Yep. And if you want me to, I'll talk to you after this, and I can tell you a bunch of nurseries where you can get really large oak trees from them at a fairly reasonable price. But I'm just saying, like, really massive trees. That's what we're missing here is everybody wants to put in this, like, third-rate crap, you know, two-inch trees. No. No. And these have to be massive trees.

We agree with you. All right, very good, thank you. We're not proposing two-inch oak, folks. We're proposing six-inch.

Mr. Winkler, do you have something to add? No. Okay.

Mr. Trachtenberg.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think this is going to be a difficult evening in general. And I would imagine the next hour and a half, we're probably not going to be able to get to all the items because it's a hard stop at 10, right? Is that correct? That's correct. So I think this goes for all of the items that came before in our package today. We're only provided what is given to us. So your design intent of your structure or your design site plan, all I have seen is what's in the package. So I have no way of critiquing it from a design standpoint or from an architectural perspective in relation to how it's been used from site strategy. From what I've seen, there is substantial canopy removal. That's clear. What I haven't seen is the idea to mitigate that beyond just placing new trees. You mentioned the Gumbo Limbo. Yeah, there's a gumbo-limbo. What else can we do to maintain the tree canopy beyond replacing what you're taking out? Are there any ways to move things to the perimeter?

As I had explained before, we had already... Look, we lose a big piece of the site to right-of-way dedications. We lose another piece of the site to setbacks. We've increased those setbacks to provide more space. So we do have space, and that's why we've proposed six-inch oaks. Do you have some kind of overlay that you can... Yeah, absolutely. We can put that up before. Let's go to that.

While he's sitting down, I preface the time because I think this is going to take a bit of time to get through this. And I'm not trying to rush this item, and I know we have several left.

And just to be clear, chapter 17 clearly says that the decision that you need to make is to affirm, modify, Affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the department. So if you're talking about moving trees, it's modification within that intended decision. So if you need instruction as to what can be done based on what they have suggested with regards to what you are inclined to do, you need to get the input from staff. At least that would be the best way to go about it in an effort to... So if there's something that you want to do now, this is the moment to ask staff so that you can start considering it as we go. if you think you're going to take longer.

So you mean, just to be clear, because there was a lot of legal argument from your side there. It's not legal argument.

It's statements.

Referencing our Chapter 17, what he's about to show me and his suggestions or what he's recommending, what you're saying is that after he states this, I should get staff's recommendations.

Yeah, to see if whatever it is that he's saying can be actually done within the intended decision that was provided, because it's either... Right?

I'm trying to help you navigate so that... Yeah, no, this is what I was hoping for the last item.

Affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the department. Okay? Okay. If I may.

So just to... reiterate a little bit of what I discussed earlier. And if you're able to relocate that one gumbo limbo, I don't recall if that was tree number 15, maybe? Tree one. Oh, I'm sorry, tree number one, 15. 15 inches DBH.

Yeah, 15 inches, okay.

So I would obviously be in favor of that and support that. In regards to the two live oaks, as much as I would love to see those remain, Just from the report provided from Mike McCoy and Mr. Deloach, who are very experienced, and from our site visit and from my knowledge, the one tree with the basal decay with a co-dominant stem at the base of the tree makes that a really poor candidate to relocate. It will likely fail. Half of it will likely break off. And you're not going to have much of a tree left. The other tree If you recall, the photos had a fence growing into it and it had a relatively heavy lean or bend to that with very little canopy, most likely because it was phototropic and it was fighting to reach the sunlight and was covered by other trees. And so it doesn't have much of a canopy. So neither of those trees, in my professional opinion, will be good candidates for relocation. But what I would say, if you're open to this, Because I know one of the things I always push for, and it was mentioned earlier, is larger trees. Can those six-inch trees go to 10-inch live oaks? Can they go to something even a little bit larger? Because what the community wants is canopy replacement now to the greatest extent possible. Is that something that is doable and that would make sense?

So with that said, can you take that information and locate on the plan where we can apply larger canopy trees?

Yeah, absolutely. So number one, that button, I'm sorry, that gumbo limbo, thank you, that we are relocating, that is a large tree. Look, we've worked collaboratively with staff. The fact that they're suggesting the 10-inch variety, we can replace the 6-inch oaks with 10-inch oaks, and we would come back with, there are buttonwoods on the site and bridal veils that we were proposing for the mitigation. We could increase the height of those, the size of those.

Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to get to is not limiting the DBH to 610 or whatever it might be. What is the maximum that we can achieve based on your site plan? Right. If you can walk us through that overlay. like let's say we had the opportunity to move the trees that are unmovable, where would those trees go?

If they could be removed, they would... If they could be moved. They would go into the location where those oaks, where the current oaks are...

Okay, so let's just talk about that for one second. So the large, let's say the large live oak has a DBH of what?

31 inches.

Okay, so if it was suggested by city that you could move that, where would that tree go?

If we could move that, the problem with a tree like that.

Good evening. My name is Bud Martin. I'm the landscape architect. Sorry, you were sworn in? Yes, I was. Thank you. Your address? I'm sorry. My name is Bud Martin. I'm the landscape architect for the project. Concerning the relocation of the trees,

I want to be clear about something. I'm not asking about relocating that tree. I'm saying if that tree could be relocated, where on the site would that tree go?

The gumbo limbo could be relocated. The live oak. The live oak, the small one could be relocated. We have limited opportunities due to the site visibility triangles imposed on the site by the FDOT requirements. However, we could It would be the right-of-ways, basically, because every relocated tree is going to have a root ball that's going to be 10, 12 feet. There's just no room on the site to do it other than the right-of-ways. And then we're trapped by site visibility triangles on the driveway and the FDOT triangles that are shown on the plan. So there's very limited options. Can I ask a question, Jordan, Mr. Chair? Not to interrupt.

Just a second. Sir, could you please, I don't think you ever gave us your address. Pardon me? Your address.

I'm sorry. Herbert L. Martin, landscape architect, home office at 5965 Southwest 38th Street in Miami.

Thank you.

Yes, Chris.

Okay.

Thanks a lot. Since I kind of started with the questions here, I just want to be clear about something. There's a lot of Tree appeals here this evening, right? And the way by which the code and everybody evaluates this stuff, it's like we're talking, it's very hard to talk in common sense. The common sense thing that I was trying to get at, and I think that Jordan's trying to ask and Mr. Powers and everybody's trying to ask is, if you had to rethink this and explain to us in the community what you were doing, how would you do that? And it's not going to be with this one PDF on the screen in front of us now. and then talking about four-inch trees to six-inch trees, or no one's suggesting that you relocate trees that your arborist report says cannot be relocated. What I'm suggesting before this just goes on and on and on is I think, from my perspective, you have an option. You've heard all of this feedback from everybody here. I think you have an excellent opportunity with a really beautiful parcel of land here to show some good faith and maybe come up with a scheme that we can all buy into, showing that you're willing to modify your building footprint if necessary to maybe carve out some more space or something so that you can actually have tree canopy for the neighborhood instead of just decorating the edges of this big building with small trees. So you're not, that's not, in my opinion, I'm not going to be able to be convinced of that here.

I'll second that. One moment, Chairperson Hopper. Yes, Mr. Smith. We, I believe, will need to know specifically if they are going to, if the appeal gets upheld, right, and you're going to be modifying the replacement plan. We have to have the specifics here. today, right? So we need to know the sizes of the trees, and we need to know the specifics. Like, in other words, these three six-inch DBH Live Oaks will be up-sized.

So can we continue, though, to let them figure it out, Sean?

No, no, we have to have the specifics.

Excuse me, today. So here's the problem. They have filed an appeal. It was scheduled today. The applicant is here, right? If in the end, right, you cannot make the decision as to whether, and I want to keep reading it just so it's clear, affirm, modify, or reverse, yes. Could you continue it? You could, right? I'm not saying you could not move to do that, right? But the only way that I would recommend that you do that is if the appellant and the applicant are accepting of that continuance under the circumstances.

Would you be?

So we think, look, we think we can address this pretty quickly based on the input that we've gotten from staff and from all of you. We would increase the, look, the 10-inch trunks, we can put it there.

Okay, I think what Mr. Cawley and my other person want, if you need to push that building back 5 to 10 feet, To achieve, I'm just saying, to achieve what it is or move something around or push something out.

Right, but hold on. You can't.

Well, it says modify.

Only the intended decision.

Well, you know what? That means the trees.

That means the trees. So what was being suggested was trying to relocate or remove or something like that. You can modify within the intended decision. That is the parameter.

I understand. And that's why I'm going to go back to where I started. Back to the question about the 32-inch DBH live oak, where that would fit. And it's been told to me that there are areas, but it's hard. That's what I've received so far.

I'm reticent to say that there are areas. I think we can get 10-inch trees in there.

10-inch trees is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about planting proper canopied. replacement trees. So if you had the opportunity to move the tree, where would it go? That was the question. And it was getting there, but I think we got tangentially sidetracked here. So where would that be? The right-of-way. The right-of-way.

The right-of-way adjacent to the site, along 27th Avenue, provided there were site triangles that were not impacted.

So if we're looking at the drawing here, we're talking about... I can't see where the compass is or the directional, I'm sorry, but the four trees on the left side, or five actually, and then one tree up on the top there. We're talking about all of those trees, correct? That's right. Yep. And we're talking about upsizing all of those from six to ten inches. There's one thing I did not add that one of my staff, amazing, brought to my attention, which is that they should be installed with silva cells or structural soil. Okay. But that's what we're talking about. So I think it's pretty simple. They're all live oaks, correct? Yeah. So there's no need for a species change. You should be able to find 10-inch live oaks in a nursery.

Can I ask a question about, from a professional arborist standpoint, and Chris, maybe you can opine here, why only 10 inches?

I mean, if you want to go even larger, I don't know that there's anything. I don't know if there's anything larger available.

There are available. Absolutely available. Look at the design districts. There's huge trees were planted right adjacent to the faces of those buildings, and it's in the city of Miami. And they're vertical gumbos and relocated trees, and they're beautiful canopy. And the design district is spectacular.

And just to add another little wrinkle that was pointed out to me, you know, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Southwest 27th Avenue is a state road. So... I personally don't know whether there is... Where would that be?

So basically it's the one circle all the way to the left?

27th Avenue.

But it would be the one tree all the way to the left? Presumably.

If I may, maybe we can narrow this down. There are four trees that you see in this area, and there's another tree along Lincoln Avenue. There are four trees in 27th Avenue that are marked in red. And there's another tree on Lincoln Avenue. Look, the max we could fit in there is a 12-inch tree, 12-inch DBH, which is a substantial tree that's probably going to be, what, 30-some feet high. And again, subject to everything that Mr. Smith suggested about the adipave and the structural soil, we would have to do that. But we could do that. And we would propose doing that and relocating that gumbo limbo.

I feel like I'm talking too much, but that's the question of our city attorneys, though. So modify, uphold, or deny. If we're not comfortable and we just uphold the appeal, then what happens? They've got to redesign the whole thing and come back.

Okay. You guys have clapped several times, and I haven't said anything. But please, please do not do that, because it disrupts the flow of it. And I understand that you guys want to make yourselves known, and I'm okay with that, but please do not clap.

And the reason why I'm asking that, and this is what I'm trying to tell you, gentlemen, is I'm not trying to be... unduly uh difficult it's this the site plan that's on the screen i can't read it it's all black and white no one can tell where the green areas are if i was here for this tree appeal i would have a landscape plan and all i mean not that you don't have mr martin here with this but i mean We don't have elevations. It's what Mr. Trachtenberg was mentioning before. We don't have the information before us to be able to talk about this in an educated manner as far as the trees. So like, and when you guys are talking about the right-of-way, and I look at what's on the plan, what is that whole hatched area between the site triangle on the front of the building on Lincoln Avenue? Is that paving? Is that grass? It's paving.

So you could eliminate... That's a 15-foot setback. Yeah, but you can have a tree and a setback.

You can have a tree and a setback. We can, we can absolutely. There's no trees. So that's all I'm trying to say.

Like I said, if you want to continue it, that's fine. But again, they would have to be in agreement to do it. And whatever that continuing is, right? That's what you guys want to do because you want more information. I don't have, I don't see an issue with that, but I just believe that the appellant would have to agree to that and so would the applicant. Only because it is his appeal.

We'd love for them to take some time and

So you have no objection for having the appeal continued under the circumstances?

Correct. We're getting mired down in stuff. We don't have the information.

And that's fine. So if that is the motion you want to make, then somebody needs to make that motion.

That is a motion.

May I ask what meeting that would be to? We'll have to pick a meeting in September, but if obviously you're going to meet with staff, we will get the input of the appellant with regards to the appeal, but it would be September.

Mr. Collier? Our concern is that being pushed to September, I... Look, we have a solution. We understand where you're coming from. You know, we've proposed it. We've met the code, and that's what we're running up against. I would love to confer with Mr. Winker and see if we can work something out.

I understand, Mr. Reccio, and I mean, again, not trying to be, but you understand my point. That whole landscape area in front of the building on Lincoln Avenue, you could have a big tree. I mean, I was just at this site today. There's no power lines or anything, if I'm not mistaken. So you have the ability to actually, I mean, that's one of the big problems is a lot of times when you want to put trees, there's a power line, and then you're in trouble, and you don't have that here. So I think it... The one thing that I would caution, though, if things go that direction is that this stays on trees and it doesn't turn into another avenue by which to just, you know, I mean, I think that you should have a chance to present potentially a scheme as much large tree canopy as possible to blend this building into the community and then explain it. So I'm not trying to be obstructionist, but there's not enough information for me here to just say, yeah, sure. Do X, Y, and Z. It's too prominent of a property and too beautiful of an area. Understood, Mr. Cawley. I mean, you, everybody may have to help me with this, but I would just make a motion that we allow the applicant time to continue the project. The appellant. The appellate. Well, applicant.

Well, technically, it is the appellant's appeal. Therefore, they brought this. They are making their case as the applicant with regards to the intended decision. We need to get the input of both. Both of them have stated they have no objection to the continuance. But it is Mr. Winker's client's appeal.

Well- So I would make a...

So all you got to do is make a motion for continuance.

Yeah, I mean... Just make it. I would make a motion to continue the project. Second. Second.

Do we not have to have a... I would like to clarify one question. If this is continued, we'd like the opportunity to continue work with Mr. Winker and his client. And if we can resolve this and take you all out of it, out of this process... That can happen. We would appreciate that opportunity. That can happen.

We would appreciate it too. Yeah, we would also appreciate that. We'd appreciate you doing that, absolutely.

I would, before, wait, discussion amongst the, motion and seconded, we can discuss amongst ourselves now?

Yes. Yes, okay.

I just want to make it clear, and Chris, maybe back it up, is the intention that our goal is to increase the canopy. Understood. With larger trees. What that would mean, like Dr. Hopper just said, is larger trees. And I think the design district is a great example of that. So this is an opportunity to do that, and hopefully through your...

Fireside chats you can make as long as mr. Winker will part I don't know that I will be the person sitting here or even You know co-chairing here when it comes to this when it comes to the continuance But when we come back, this is the only thing we're gonna talk about whatever the modification is, correct? Yay But I have a question if we come back Right, right, right And if we come back, what date would that be? I don't know what the date it would be but it would be sometime in September

The date for September would be the 15th. The board voted on it at the last meeting. Right.

There you go. So September works for you? Mr. Winker?

Yes.

Agreement. Any other questions on the motion? Okay. We have a roll call, please.

Just for the record, the continuance is for not only the applicant and the appellant, To communicate with city staff with regards- Of course. To that, because what would be modified is the intended decision. We're clear? Everybody's clear?

Clear. Excellent. Thank you.

Can we have a roll call, please?

Mr. Robert Powers? Yes. Mr. Christopher Colley?

Yes.

Miss Julie Odell? Yes. Mr. Jordan Trachtenberg?

Yes.

Dr. William Hopper? Yes. Motion passes. The item will be deferred to September 15th.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an hour and seven minutes left.

Okay, so item six.

A resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying the appeal filed by Silvio Frank Pupo Casco of intended decision BD20-022966-00 issued on May 12, 2026 for the property located at approximately 3301 McDonald Street, Florida.

And the appellant is present. Who represents the appellant?

And with this one, I would like to bring to the board's attention that there's a standing issue here as well as the applicant, excuse me, the appellant filed this in his individual capacity. as an abundant property owner. So that's the first discussion that we need to have to determine if the appellant actually has standing to bring this forth. And who is the appellant? Silvio, Mr. Silvio. So I could give a few more details. If you look on page nine of the materials I gave you, you'll see that the appellant filed in his individual capacity says, I am the citizen of Miami-Dade, an abundant neighbor, filed this appeal on concerns for environmental impact to the community on behalf of many community members. But as the city looked into this further, we don't see that the appellant is actually an abundant property owner. So that's the issue, is that he's filing this appeal, but he's not an abutting property owner.

So therefore, right. So you're saying that when the appeal was filed, it was filed as an abutting property owner? Yes. And in the end, it's not an abutting property owner?

Yes.

So then why was it brought forward? Because appeals are accepted ministerially. The clerk who accepts the appeal, right, is not in the position to review that, if that's the best way I can say it. Because we've got to follow the way that the code is written right now. I got it.

I understand that, Patty.

But we need to change that.

Because we're wasting a lot of people's time and money.

I understand what you're telling me. But unfortunately, right now, I've got to work with what's in front of me. I got it.

No, no.

Yeah. That's the problem.

Mr. Santa Maria, is that something that we... Because this board, this is like the fourth or fifth... And we look like assholes when this happens. We do. And then people say shit to us.

By the way, just like I tell them not to clap, you should not curse.

I understand, but you know what? Everybody knows what that is. Most people have one, and they all stink. Okay, so the thing is this. No, no, no, listen. The thing is... Listen, you've known me for many, many years. The thing about this is nobody looks good when this gets done. And I got news for you. You've known it for a month. We've known it for a month and nothing got managed. It wasn't managed. So, because somebody could have easily said, that house is next door to there. The address they gave us is, that's not the right one. And they would have saved the attorney. They're $800 an hour attorneys. Hello? Money? But I'm just saying, and then we look like we don't know what we're doing. We feel like we don't know what we're doing, and then you guys look at us like, well, what is this all about?

I can so appreciate everything that you're saying, but I cannot, and we cannot...

In 2026, this is the kind of manure that goes on in this town. I just cannot... Like, I just don't understand how those dots work.

Mr. Powers, if I may, as it relates to these tree appeals, as you can tell, this is kind of a new thing, the volume that we're receiving. And I can tell you that one of the things that we're doing is there is a tree advisory committee that is in panels. And that recommendation about changing the appeal process would be a very valid one to make. So I encourage each and every one of you to participate in that committee if you like. There are gonna be public meetings, I'm sorry? Well, you have been, and you were at the last meeting. So if you continue to come and have some input, that would be great. And so I strongly encourage you to reach out and perhaps state your opinion on the appeal process. We agree with you. There should be a better way to do this. Unfortunately, we are hemmed in right now by the code as it stands.

All right, so where does this person live? Is the person present? And is the person who made the appeal present?

He's currently outside.

Well, he needs to be inside.

So while he's walking to the dais area, city attorneys, very quickly, is this then the same scenario as the first item we looked at today?

Yes. Yes, it's a standing issue for different reasons. Right. Keep going. So basically it's going to end in the same way. It's up to the board, but ultimately based on the fact that the city has seen, it seems to be a standing issue as in he's not a button property owner. So the board has to make that determination based on the facts that they present. So where do you live? May I ask the question, please?

Please give your name and address for the record. Are you the appellant? I'm in District 1. Are you the appellant? I am the appellant. Please give your name and address. Silvio Pupo, District 1. That's not your address.

I understand, but I wish to let it be known that I've already been attacked with my home address, so I don't want to have it on the record, but I am a member of District 1, and... Do you live within 500 feet of the... I don't. I don't. So, that being said, Chair, if I may, the appeals that are submitted today, as I understand, in any personal capacity, needs to be in a budding neighbour. I do have an appeal before you today that is meant to be in a budding neighbour appeal. The other appeals that were submitted where we're not abutting neighbors were submitted as our foundation, which is focused on environmental preservation and conservation. Maybe there's a mix up here with this particular property. That being said, and in cases like this, what I would like to do is be able to make sure that we can be reimbursed for the cost of the appeal if there is no appeal. That's beyond our capability. Just for future consideration, so that we're not wasting your time, not wasting my time, and that we make sure that we're submitting the right... Should I get reimbursed?

Excuse me, should I get reimbursed for the time? Excuse me.

I don't know who you are, and you don't speak until addressed. And he should not be interrupted as much as he shouldn't interrupt you. Are we good? Yes, ma'am.

So... It's okay. Just wanted to make sure we go with the process, Chair.

So, Mr. City Attorney and other staff.

Well, at this point, before we get into that, first we have to talk about standing, whether or not he pretty much already established that he doesn't have standing, so we should get a motion towards determining if he has standing or not, but it seems like he admitted that he didn't have standing. As for the actual reimbursements, that's not something that, you know, city attorney's office decides, but ultimately, it's my understanding that there's no refunds.

Not something that that board decides either.