Historic and Environmental Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

on housing, transportation, public safety, neighborhood improvements, and community services. The Commission authorized the City to accept additional state housing dollars to help advance affordable housing programs and initiatives throughout Miami. In District 4, support from the Anti-Poverty Initiative will help Sunshine for All continue its Senior Meals program, providing meals and nutrition services to older residents. In District 5, the Miami for Everyone program will support the MLK Wheels to Work program, helping residents gain access to transportation and greater economic opportunities. The commission also authorized annual support for landscaping and debris removal along portions of the Miami River Greenway, helping keep the river corridor cleaner and more attractive. A $500,000 grant from the Alliance for Aging will help expand services for older adults at the Rebecca Sosa Center in District 4. The City will also partner with the Coconut Grove Business Improvement District to provide on-demand transportation services for residents and visitors in Coconut Grove. Commissioners directed the City Manager to prepare a comprehensive report on short-term vacation rentals including properties with repeated violations and possible strategies to strengthen oversight and enforcement. Another measure supported the designation of a portion of Southwest First Street between 17th and 19th Avenues as Charles Daskal Way. Commissioners also directed the city to pursue the recovery of money Currently held in the heart of our parks fund if recovered the resources would be divided equally among the five Commission districts to benefit city parks. For the three points music festival at mana winwood the Commission authorized extended noise and alcohol sales hours through 4am during the October event district five will also reallocate resources within its Miami for everyone Program. To better respond to current community and project needs on first reading the Commission approved an ordinance establishing a trust fund for the ala potter Community redevelopment agency. the account would receive revenue generated by increases in property values within the district and help support neighborhood improvements. Finally, on second reading, commissioners approved a requirement for fire protection and life safety maintenance reports to be submitted through a city-designated electronic system, improving compliance, record keeping, and safety oversight. For more information on these and other commission actions, Visit the City of Miami's official website or follow the city on social media to stay informed.

When it comes to crossing the road, it is a corner that cannot be cut. Always cross at intersections. Use the signal of the pedestrian crossing and when crossing, be alert. Make sure that the drivers who approach see it and have enough time to stop. Drivers cannot cut these corners either. You are forced to stop for pedestrians on pedestrian crossings. I see a beautiful soul, a hardworking mom,

and someone that loves her kids.

She's everything I want to be. She's an amazing mom, an amazing worker, an amazing wife, and I see the person that I want to be in life.

It's so refreshing and exciting to have you as a father. You are your mother and I's whole world.

I don't have no doubt in my mind about the next version of yourself that you're going to be. I just love you, Sarah. I love you, too.

On average, 800 pedestrians and bicyclists are fatally injured on Florida roadways every year. Speed was a factor in approximately 30% of these fatalities. We all need to share the road responsibly. Drivers, pay attention to traffic signs and speed limits, especially in high traffic areas. Slow down and obey the signs so we don't need to use this one. Don't let one preventable act ruin countless other memories. Alert today. Alive tomorrow.

Miami. Digital scams are everywhere. Online, through texts, on phone calls, and even through social media. Scammers use omnichannel attacks to target residents every day with phishing emails, fake text alerts, impersonation scams, and fraudulent calls.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

one more member to have a quorum and then we'll begin. Please be patient with us.

Thank you.

the special meeting of the Historic Environmental Preservation Board to order and ask everyone to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and to remain standing to be sworn in by staff. Please remain standing to be sworn in by staff.

Please remain standing. All those who intend to testify on this or any other matter, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated.

Will you please take this opportunity to check your cell phone and make sure it's on silent or mute or do not disturb. And we will listen to our attorney tell us about 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 the latest 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 by Libis is available in the city clerk's office and online on municode.com. The agenda for this meeting and the 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 board liaison. Any person may be heard by the board through the chair pursuant to 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 parliament 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. Please note that board members may have generally been briefed by city staff on items on today's agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Can we have a roll call, please?

Member Bostillo? Member Cepeda? Member Campbell? Member Carley? Here. Member O'Dell? Member Perez? Member Ryan? Member Trachtenberg? Here. Member Prieta-Emuñoz?

Here.

Chair Hopper?

Here. We do have quorum. And our alternate is empowered to vote. Yes. Do we have any requests for absence waivers?

Yes, we do. Absent waivers. Member Cepeda? Member O'Dell? And Member Ryan.

I move to grant the absence waivers.

Second. Is there a motion and a second in discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? Or a motion to approve?

These are minutes for July 21st?

Yes.

I was not present, so I don't have a motion for that.

I'd like to make a motion that those minutes from the July meeting be approved.

Is there a second, Mr. Cohen?

I'll second the motion.

Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, in an effort to more effectively use our time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and to be heard without waiting until midnight for your identity call, We're going to follow the City Commission's format and hear public comments first. As usual, you should line up behind each of the two microphones, and when recognized, give your name, address, and the item you're speaking on, either by the item number or the street address, and then speak on the issue, limiting your remarks to two minutes or less. When everyone has had a chance to speak, I will read the public comments into the record that were submitted online, and then I will close the public comments. At that point, the appellants and the applicants will be heard, along with anyone they choose to call up to provide evidence. And at this point, each side will be given 10 minutes to present their case. As usual, we will start with the staff report, followed by remarks from the appellant and the applicant. There will be no additional input from the public, and the discussion will be limited to the board, the appellant, the applicant, and anyone else the board may ask for testimony. When the board has finished with its questions, a motion will be offered and voted upon. Then we will move to the next item on the agenda. Board members, we will depart from our recent format of going down the line for questions and return to our old procedures of seeking recognition from the chair to ask questions of the appellant, applicant, or staff. I will remind us that for these appeals, we do not redesign a project. We only look to Chapter 17 for guidance to grant or deny the appeal or to change the mitigation or other conditions. We may ask to what extent an applicant has considered the preservation of the subject trees or other aspects of the tree permit. We cannot act on the project itself. The question of whether or not an appellant has standing has been a time-consuming issue at past meetings. We will start with the assumption that all the appellants have standing so that the public will have the chance to express themselves on the issue. And we'll consider the standing issue if it is brought up by an applicant at the time the item is heard. Are there any changes to the agenda? Any withdrawals?

Yes. For item number one on the agenda, we have a motion for a continuous by the appellant. He's out of the country at the moment. So we need a motion to approve. Is that the only one? No. No, we have also item number two is being withdrawn. Item number seven is being withdrawn as well. Item number eight is also being withdrawn. And 10, I'll say 10 may be a continuous.

10 indicated that they would be present at tonight's meeting.

Right, right. So we only have one motion for a continuous. I move to continue item number one. Yeah, item number one.

Is the next regular or special meeting? Two, that's a good question. Our next meeting or would be to the next special meeting because I think we have an October special meeting to be scheduled But it's not determined if it's necessary yet as I understood it at the last Regular meeting of the head board do we have maybe you seem like you know something I don't I think for the it should be continued to the October meeting regular or Special the special mean that we have a few more appeals that are

are coming through as well to add. Tremendous.

I would move to, I would amend my motion to indicate that that item should be moved to the special meeting of October 15th, is it?

13th.

13th.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. That was, the ones that were withdrawn were 2, 8, and 10. 2, 7, 8. 2, 7, and 8.

Overdrawn.

Oh, 278 was withdrawn. We don't need a motion on that, do we?

Yes.

Okay. Is there a motion to accept withdrawals for items? Yes.

Second.

Second. Discussion on that motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? The motion carries. So number one is continued. Number two is withdrawn. So we will now start with public comments, please. Please line up at each of the two microphones and limit your remarks to two minutes or less.

Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Am I to understand that there will no longer be public comment at each individual item? It's just one big public comment at the beginning?

That's correct.

I'm very disappointed to hear that. You're following the very bad example of the city commission. We don't get to hear a presentation and then react to it. It's tantamount to a trial lawyer going to trial to try a criminal case, and he has to give his defense before the entire docket even appears before the court. It makes no sense. I understand why you're doing it. You're wanting to save time. That's the same reason the city commission did it, after having done it properly for decades. This is a bad move. This is suppressing public involvement. I would urge you to reverse this policy. Very disappointing. You guys were holding out as one of the last examples of how to do it right. City Commission's doing it wrong. I've told them before. They ignore me. I hope you guys don't ignore me and do the right thing for the people. Thank you. Thank you.

Other public comments? Yes, ma'am.

I had a question. You guys have something about item 10?

No.

Oh, okay. And then am I allowed to make a public comment even though I'm an appellant? Yes. Yes. Okay, so I will just co-sign what Elvis said. It's hard to make a public comment if you haven't heard.

Excuse me, please state your name for the record.

Lindsey Cain.

And your address?

333 North Street, 24th Street, apartment 1811, Miami, Florida, 33137. And then I would just like to make a general comment that all of these appeals are happening because the public is upset at the egregious tree removals in the city. And we have gotten comments from city officials about the appeals, how inconvenient they are, and the changing of the format of this hearing is also indicative of that. But this is all because of all the tree removals happening around the city. So I think that should be considered.

Any other members of the public wishing to make a comment? Please.

Sorry, just to reiterate that again.

Can you give your name and address?

Kristen Daisy of 3170 Matilda Street. We have to speak now for all of the cases going forward. We're not going to have any opportunity after a particular case to have public comment.

That's correct.

Okay. Well, I'm speaking here on behalf of the 3161 Gifford case that you're going to hear tonight. After being here until almost 2 in the morning in July, we subsequently negotiated with the developer. We've been negotiating in good faith.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you making public comment or you want to make argument to your case? Because public comment is one thing, and if you want to talk about your case, you are going to be able to talk about your case because you are the appellant. There's a difference.

And you'll have more time to also speak on it as your item is next after public comment.

Okay. But you could call her if you wish for her to make a statement during your case in chief.

Okay, so during the... But our other neighbors would speak now. This is the time that our other neighbors would speak.

Correct, for public comment. So however you want to handle that, just to be clear, this is public comment. If you are going to be called during the case in chief, you get to speak as a witness during the case in chief because either the appellant or the applicant will call you as a witness. This is just public comment.

I'm Colton Hoover Chase. I live at 3162. I'm speaking on behalf of this same case for 3160 Gifford. It's my understanding that we have worked with the developer to come to some parts of an agreement. I hope that the developer will honor what we have come to request, and I think there was an increase in the trees, so if that's the case, I'm happy that we can get something together.

Yes, ma'am.

Jennifer Bieber, 3507 St. Gaudens Way, Coconut Grove, 33133.

Can you bring the microphone down a little bit?

Okay. I just want to say I came because I got noticed that a neighbor was doing something. No idea what they were doing because we didn't get the description, but I guess that's one of the ones that were withdrawn.

Yes, the 3,300 mooring.

Yeah.

Yes, that one was wrong.

And I just want to repeat what Elvis said. I feel like the idea that you're asking for public comment before we get to hear what is actually happening, I mean, For all I, you know, maybe it was great what the neighbor was going to do. Maybe it wasn't. Now it doesn't matter. But I do think even just hearing, you know, I do care about the trees and everything that are going on. I have no idea what these guys are talking about. But it would be nice to be able to hear what the case is and then weigh in as opposed to being asked to say something ahead of time when you don't really know the facts and don't know what's going on. So I just want to reiterate. And we have been in front of this group, not all the same people before. And I did think you guys were fantastic as a group. And so it is disappointing to have the system changed.

Let me bear that in mind. Yes, sir.

Arrows Escobar, 2957 Coconut Avenue. In regards to that 3300 case that it's actually my business partner's neighbor, and we actually purchased the home that he lives in now from originally Bernardo, who's the owner of that lot. And so regarding that lot, they have some removals on that lot for some mahogany and some sea grapes. And we've been in talks with him as our immediate property line neighbor. instead of removals, we're gonna take those as a private agreement to transplant them within our lot to save three specimen mahogany as well as some 30 foot sea grapes that he has on the property. So like that, instead of removals, they're just transplants. And it's just instead of the crane taking them from his lot, that we're hoping to transplant them to our lot. We're his neighbor at 3302 South Moorings Way. So hopefully that shows some concessions that even though it is dismissed, right, there's still efforts on our end to try to help him with not removing trees and instead just transplanting them. Great, thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Evan Gilbert, 3171 Gifford Lane, here to talk about the Gifford Lane appeal. I was at the hearing last time. I'm very impressed with you all as a board. Thank you for sending it back, and I'm definitely very supportive of the deal that's come together. Obviously and I think you all you all are frustrated by this process and I am just as a homeowner on the street It seems backwards for the developer for us for you all To have it have it all come to you at the end of the process instead of the beginning I know the tree appeals now probably what you signed up for but definitely this shouldn't have been rubber-stamped and I really respect the city staff, so I don't want them to take that as a dig. It's just the system isn't working for anyone, so hopefully it changes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Anyone else from the public wishing to speak on any of the items? If not, I will read the public comments that were submitted online. Yes, sir.

Hello, Chair, board. Thank you so much for having us, city staff. Mr. Smith, I just sent my response. I meant to send it to the board liaison earlier today, but I guess this is a special meeting. My name's Silvio Pupo-Casco. I'm on the agenda today as an abutting neighbor, and I sent the email to Mr. Kalmus. I've just sent it to Mr. Sean Smith. which is acting in the same capacity as Mr. Calamas would in another meeting, which really state my case to say we're okay to withdraw. I've spoken to the property owner. I've sent you email with two things, which I'm ready to present if I'm allowed a way to connect my laptop and show you a couple of slides, make my points. This is actually better. I have another commitment. I'm able to tell you what I need to and get out of your hair.

I will say that this is item number one, and this is, we are, it's not on the agenda anymore as it's been withdrawn. We've already passed a motion for withdrawal.

Through the chair? Yes, sir. I believe we continued that item, did we not? Yes. So if I'm understanding correctly, this gentleman is the appellant, correct?

Right.

So if he's willing to withdraw his appeal and not burden, I'm sorry?

Are you withdrawing, period? Because if you're making no presentation and just withdrawing, we can accept the withdrawal. If you are making a presentation, then it is continued.

I have a presentation that I've sent through Mr. Smith that could be circulated, and I'm ready to present if it's helpful.

The matter was continued at the request of the applicant because they are out of town. Okay. So if you wish to withdraw without presentation, you are more than welcome to do so at this moment in time. If not, it is continued to 1013. Okay.

Perfect, thank you. City Attorney, that's good. You should, if you, Mr. Smith, may circulate the points of my request. You'll find that they're a good framework to help consider a general public benefits agreement that everybody's searching for.

I'm sorry, we can't hear that amounts to testimony at this point, so we can't hear that until next... Come again? What you're telling us amounts to testimony, and we can't hear that until next month.

Uh, sure. I'm just saying you'll have, you'll have no, no, no testimony. I'm not testifying to anything.

Thank you.

Yeah. You're good. Okay. Does that suffice for a public comment on my item? Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Sure.

Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak on any of the items?

Now I will read. Excuse me, chair. Uh, can we please close online public comment?

Oh, yes. Thank you. Did you have any after 2.30?

No, sir.

Okay, good. And I'll read those. The first is regarding the property at 7538 Northeast 4th Court. I respectfully support this appeal. As an interior designer with experience in architecture and urban planning, I am particularly interested in regenerative design, an approach where development works with the natural environment rather than simply replacing it. Existing mature trees should be viewed as assets that help shape a project. They provide immediate environmental benefits and contribute to the identity and quality of our neighborhoods. The question should not be simply whether a tree can legally be removed. We should also ask whether a thoughtful design could allow the project and the tree to coexist. I encourage the Board to require meaningful consideration of preservation, redesign, or relocation before approving removal. Good design should solve the conflict between development and nature, not automatically eliminate one side of it. This one is regarding the property at 131 Northwest 75th Street. I respectfully support this appeal. Replacement planning and mitigation are important, but they should not be automatically be considered equivalent to preserving an existing mature tree. A newly planted tree may take decades to provide comparable shade, canopy, cooling, and environmental benefits. As a designer, I believe preservation should be considered during the design process before mitigation becomes necessary. Sometimes a change in footprint or site layout can make an important difference. I cannot say whether this is possible in this particular case without reviewing the project, but I believe the applicant should demonstrate that those possibilities have been seriously considered. I respectfully ask the Board to prioritize preservation wherever it is reasonably achievable. This one is regarding the property at 75 Northwest 49th Street. I respectfully support this appeal and encourage the board to consider this decision as part of the larger future of Miami. Our city is growing, but it is also facing increasing heat, flooding, and pressure on its tree canopy. Mature trees are one of the most effective pieces of natural infrastructure we already have. From a design perspective, growth and environmental preservation should not be opposite goals. Projects can and should respond to the natural conditions of their sites. Before mature trees are removed, I believe applicants should demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been explored. We should continue developing Miami, but we should also design that development around the natural assets that make the city healthier and more resilient. This one is regarding the property at 3300 South Moorings Way. I'll read it into the record. I respectfully support this appeal. As a designer, I don't believe that we should have to choose between development and nature. A good design should find ways for both to coexist. Mature trees are valuable existing assets. They have taken decades to grow and already provide shade, cooling, stormwater management, habitat, and other benefits to the surrounding community. New planting is important, but it cannot immediately replace the environmental value of established canopy. I encourage the Board to carefully consider whether changes to the building footprint layout or other elements of the project could preserve more of the existing trees before approving their removal. This one is regarding the property at 4141 Northwest Fifth Avenue. I respectfully support this appeal. In design, we constantly work with constraints, setbacks, property lines, existing structures, topography, and many others. These constraints do not necessarily prevent development. They often lead us to better solutions. I believe mature trees should be approached in the same way. Instead of first asking how a tree can be removed to accommodate a project, we should ask how the project can adapt to preserve the tree. Mature trees also provide public benefits through shade, cooling, stormwater management, cleaner air, and wildlife habitat. I ask the Board to make preservation the starting point of the design process and remove the last reasonable option. This one is regarding the property at 161 Northwest 29th Street. I respectfully support this appeal and ask the Board to prioritize preservation whenever reasonably possible. As an interior designer with experience in architecture and urban planning, I believe good design starts by understanding what already exists on a site. Mature trees should be considered part of that existing environment, not simply obstacles to development. Building front prints and site layouts can often be adjusted, sometimes even through relatively small changes, to preserve important trees while allowing development to move forward. Before approving removal, I encourage the Board to require clear evidence that meaningful design alternatives have been fully explored. This one is regarding the appeal at 3161 Gifford Lane. I respectfully support this appeal and urge the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board to carefully review the proposed tree removals at 3161 Gifford Lane. The project will remove 11 mature trees, including three specimen trees affecting both private property and the adjacent right-of-way. Mature trees are part of Miami's natural infrastructure. They reduce heat, manage stormwater, improve air quality, support wildlife, and provide benefits that extend far beyond the property lines. Replacement trees cannot replicate decades of mature canopy. Before approving these removals, the Board should require clear evidence that reasonable alternatives have been fully explored, including adjustments to the building footprint and site design. Development and tree preservation should not be competing goals. Good design can accommodate both. I respectfully ask the Board to grant this appeal and prioritize preservation of Miami's mature tree canopy. This one is regarding 131 Northwest 75th Street. I respectfully support this appeal. I believe that one of the most important principles of good design is understanding and respecting what already exists in mature trees, not simply landscaping as part of the site, part of the neighborhood, and part of Miami's environmental infrastructure. Constraints are also a number part of the design process. Barbered lines, setbacks, existing structures, topography, and many other conditions influence how we design. Mature significant trees should be approached with the same mindset instead of immediately asking how a tree can be removed to accommodate a project. I believe we should ask first, how can the project be designed to preserve the tree? I respectfully ask the Board to make preservation the starting point in removal as a reasonable option.

Through the Chair. Yes. I'm just looking at these comments. These are the same person over and over and over again.

I believe they've had their two minutes. I'm sorry? I believe they've had their two minutes. Okay.

Yeah, there were two. And I don't know if, you know, from just a two-minute standpoint, if it just makes sense for everybody's time to read every one of these repetitive comments into the record.

So I'm just going to tell everyone, based on our reading of these comments, they're the same basic comments regarding the decision at the ones that I've talked about repeated twice. And I think that there's nothing else new on those.

Yeah, that's my reading. I think these are for the most part, copy paste the same comment from the same person just on different items.

Let me just read one portion of the last one regarding the 27th Avenue. It says, this concerns preservation of one of Coconut Grove's defining characteristics, its historic tree canopy and lush landscape. The mature vegetation that distinguishes Coconut Grove is not incidental to the neighborhood's identity. The appeal indicates that the proposed redevelopment would result in the removal of 26 protected trees and 15 palms, including numerous mature native hardwoods that currently form a substantial canton bee. While replacement planting is proposed, young trees cannot replicate environmental services. which have been described before several times. And that one is copy and pasted. And that one is too. So that seems to be the end of the public comments that were received online. And now we will turn to our regular agenda. Number one has been continued to the October 13th meeting. Number two is withdrawn, so we're on to number three. Will the appellant come forward and give your name and address for the record? And we'll start with the staff report. Please give your name and address for the record. I'm sorry? Please give your name and address for the record.

My name is Augusto Carvajal. I'm a landscape land examiner with City of Miami. No, we're looking for the appellant.

Sorry.

I think we need whoever's item three, Gifford Lane, we need the appellant to present themselves.

And as a preview to this one, we can take three and if, of course, if the chair, you know, you approve, we can take items three and four together. They involve the same property. And it's our understanding that they have came to some type of agreement that staff will further expound upon to their knowledge.

Okay.

I'm sorry, would you announce items three and four?

We have a tentative agreement. We have not signed anything and we want deferral until it's signed. Just a minute.

I forgot to allow staff to announce both items three and four.

Item number three, Minitrack ID 19335, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying the appeal filed by Emily Azapoulos-Dimitrio of intended decision BD25008883001 issued on May 5th, 2026 for the property located at approximately 3161 Gifford Lane, Miami, Florida. Item number four, Minitrike ID-19357, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying the appeal filed by Raul Bujil and Georgia Kanellis of intended decision BD-26-014821-001, formerly intended decision BD-25-00882. issued on May 5th, 2026 for the property located at approximately 3161 Gifford Lane, Miami, Florida. Thank you.

Thank you. And now the appellants, please give your name and address for the record.

Is there a way that we can have TV enabled, please? Yes. They will do that. But first, I need your hand.

And before we go too far with this one, I just want to ask the appellant, have you all entered into a formal agreement? Have you all entered into an agreement regarding this? No? Staff, what's your understanding that you have entered an agreement? Into the mic.

We have not signed anything.

Well, let us present our...

Yeah, staff needs to explain their understanding.

But first, I need everyone who is an appellant to give their name and address for the record.

Hi, I'm Eleni Lozopoulos Dimitrio, 3172 Matilda Street.

Thank you.

Kristen Dacey, 3170 Matilda Street.

Thank you.

Georgia Canelos, 3144 Gifford Lane.

Thank you.

Raul Bujalil, 3144 Gifford Lane.

Thank you. And now we start with a staff report.

Please speak into the microphone. Thank you.

Since there were two appeals that we separately paid the appeal fee and we have two separate appeals that we're sharing the time or sharing the slot, but I would ask that we have respective time, that we have more time to be able to present because we do have two separate appeals.

You'll have 10 minutes apiece. Absolutely. Okay, we'll start with the staff report.

Good evening, Chairperson and members of the Board. My name is Augusto Carvajal. I am a landscape plan exclamator and certified arborist. My address is 444 Southwest Second Ave. I am providing testimony on behalf of Environmental Resources Division for the intended decision appeal associated with the new construction permit application BD 25008883001 for the property located 3161 Guilford Lane. The application was submitted on April 14, 2025 The intended decision would issue after eight review cycles approximately 13 months later on May 5th, 2026. Do you want me to read the start report at this time?

Yes, please, and it will be accepted into the record.

So we have a subject property located. within T30 Urban Open and is under review for the new construction permit for a duplex residence. 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 associate improvements. The applicant proposed the removal of seven trees totaling 118 inches diameter. Three Royal Ponciana specimen trees, one Avocado, one Wombo Limbo, one Strangler Fig, and one Indian Chestnut. As mitigation, and in accordance with requirement of chapter 17, the applicant proposed the install of two hardwood trees within the lot, and one hardwood tree in the right-of-way, and I provide a three-trade fund contribution in the amount of $34,000. Three scenes of stopper, four inches diameter each, and 16 feet in height. The applicant additionally proposed the relocation of one Hong Kong orchid from Southwest Frontage to the Northeast setback. The staff recommendation is that the appeal is intended decision be denied, and that the intended decision is upheld.

Okay, thank you. We'll have the first appellant.

There we go.

Yeah.

Good evening. My name is Raul Bujalil and I live at 3144 Gifford Lane. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today regarding the proposed development at 3161 Gifford Lane and the tree preservation and landscape measures that have been tentatively agreed with the affected neighborhood property owners. As you might recall, this issue was deferred from July public hearing to further negotiate an agreement with the intended developer. I'm here today with my wife, Georgia, and our co-appellants, Emily Lasalopoulos, to respectfully ask the Board to defer action until we can have a final agreement signed in order to remove our appeals. We have negotiated in good faith, and we have reached a tentative agreement with the developer that represents the results of discussions between them and us. that potentially impacted proposed development in 3161 Guilford Lane. However, due to last minute request by the developer to review the final agreement with their lawyer, the agreement could not be finalized before today's hearing. For that reason, we respectfully ask to take the action to be fair or continuous, I don't know what's the right word, until this process complete, and then we will remove our appeals. In the meantime, the purpose of our tentative agreement is straightforward, to ensure the development proceeds while providing meaningful protection for existing trees, replacements of lost tree canopy, privacy landscaping, erosion and drainage mitigation, and protection of neighboring properties. The parties met on August 10 to discuss these concerns, and we reached a specific understanding regarding tree preservation, tree relocation, and replacement, privacy landscaping, grading, drainage, fencing, and related mitigation measures. These commitments are intended to be binding obligations for the developer, and that's why we asked to wait until these are signed. At this point, Emily, my co-defendant, will walk you through some of the main points of this tentative agreement.

Through the chair. May I ask just a quick question of the appellant? Just in the interest of time, if your intent is to ask for, your best outcome tonight is you'd like us to defer this item to the next meeting, as I'm understanding you?

We want to go over the tentative points of the agreement to have them read into record because we understand that we might not be on the same page of asking for continuance.

That's clear enough. Yeah.

Okay. Go ahead.

And, of course, if we can't get the developer to sign the agreement today, we're good to go.

I want to put something on the record just very quickly. It's important to note that we do have to stick to the intended decision itself. Their private agreement with the developer is separate. From the board.

So that's clear enough to me. I think I'm just looking at, you know, I think everybody doesn't want to be here. No one wants to be here until midnight. So I think I'm trying to be respectful of every item that does need to be fully dealt with tonight. So if you don't expect that the developer, I mean, just, I don't necessarily just want to sit there and arbitrate this just yet. So,

They will be quick, so we're not expecting to spend too much time on these. I understand your reasons for wanting to read it. I think the agreement is clear. There's been good faith on part of the developer and as well as us, so I think it's just a matter of fine-tuning their lawyer wording stuff and then just move from there. So let me just let Emily to walk you through some of the main aspects of this.

Just really quickly, I have a question for you. Am I understanding that you're asking for them to produce a signed agreement? No.

No, we provide an agreement for them to sign.

So that can be done. What would happen is that whatever agreement you were to come to today, there would be conditions and they would have to meet those conditions, right? And the project would not get approved until that takes place. But as far as any kind of a signed agreement, that would be separate and apart. The city would not be involved with that.

Right. So that's where we're going over the points. Our request is we're very close to reaching an agreement. It was not able to be signed. Mr. Otos is not the legal representative, is not able to sign for his client. And so his client wasn't able to sign. So we want to go over the points. Our ask would be for a continuance because we're close to reaching the agreement to be able to sign.

The main issue is that we're here for a tree appeal. So there's aspects of your agreement that is outside of the purview of this board. So when you talk about things like fencing,

I think we're making too many assumptions. We're focusing on the trees. We're not changing the design of the property. We're just getting agreement of the trees that have to be preserved, how they have to be preserved, and if we have an agreement. Now, there's a portion on the right-of-way of the trees, the trees are on the right-of-way of the street that we believe that the developer has come to an agreement with the city. We want to ratify that agreement and move forward from there. So there's two aspects of that. The developer agreed on the mitigation and replacement or transfer of the existing trees to the right location. And the second point is that the city works with the developer to mitigate the trees that are in the right of way. So that's the two main things that we want to accomplish.

Because we did come before the committee in July, where we were seeking an appeal, and we were told by the committee to go negotiate with the developer, which we've been diligently doing for the last few months. If you let us go through our presentation, I think it will all make sense. But we do, you know, focusing on the trees, this is a picture of the beautiful canopy that is on the lot at 3161 that we have. You know, we highlighted the dates here. Since July 21st, we've had a meeting on August 10th with the developer, and we've subsequently been negotiating. But we were told at the last meeting here that we were to negotiate with the developer and the city, which is what we've done in good faith.

Okay, hi again, Emily, 3172. So first, tree number five, the Royal Poinciana, is addressed through a meaningful replacement commitment. Our preference was to keep this tree due to the high impact of its canopy, not only in the development lot, but onto the street. The building codes have made it pretty impossible to allowing developers to construct 70% of the permeable area. So as such, we did make a concession on this for a replacement for this beautiful tree. It's the one in the center that has... huge canopy. So under the agreement our proposal is tree number five would be replaced with two live oak trees with a minimum 12 inch DBH at installation. They must have substantial canopy consistent with the purchase with the purpose of providing meaningful replacement. Second, trees three and six would be given every reasonable opportunity for relocation. The developer has agreed to make reasonable efforts to relocate these trees in accordance with the City of Miami bonding and preservation requirements. If the relocation of either tree is ultimately determined to be infeasible, the agreement requires that tree to be replaced with equivalent tree canopy. That provision provides a clear mitigation path while recognizing that tree relocation must ultimately be feasible and consistent with city requirements. Third, we'd like to address the trees that are specifically identified for preservation. Trees 1, 2, and 4 are to be preserved in accordance with the current plans. Importantly, the agreement requires the developer to coordinate with the City of Miami and Public Works so that preservation of these trees is compatible with the proposed sidewalk and the applicable triangle of visibility requirements.

We spent a lot of time with the developer going back and forth on this that there's different things, pinching of the sidewalks. We have several examples that we went over in the grove where you're able to preserve the trees and go around and that he felt comfortable that with the vision triangle, he would be able to meet those requirements. I know it was something that initially proposed by the city to remove these trees, but we are in agreement subject to the city being okay that there would be ways that we would be able to have the sidewalk and be able to preserve the trees and the vision triangle. One comment.

We also agree that tree number three will be moved to the back of the property to allow for the sidewalk to be run through that same section. So I think we have come to a compromise where we believe we're happy, but we want to be sure that the city agrees with this and that we can move forward.

Is that the end of your presentation?

Okay, and so we're almost finished. So fourth, the privacy and screenings are an important part of the agreement. The developer has agreed to help maintain substantial and continuous privacy landscaping among the property boundaries, where appropriate, Buttonwood or Coluscia. This landscaping is intended to address the concerns of neighboring properties. and provide meaningful visual buffer between development and surrounding homes. And then fifth, agreement addresses grading erosion and the rear berm. The developers committed to constructing the rear berm and performing the associated grading necessary to address the existing elevation difference and erosion conditions. consistent with city approved plans and regulations. This is significant because the impacts of development are not limited to trees. Changes in elevation and grading can affect neighboring properties, drainage and erosion. And this specifically recognizes and addresses these concerns along with protecting the neighboring fences. We want to emphasize the accountability built into this agreement agreement expressly states that the tree preservation relocation replacement landscaping and their applications are intended to be. Finding commitments of the developer, the obligations are to be sufficiently specific to allow verification of compliance and enforcement. And the agreement also provides that modifications, waivers, or releases of these obligations must be made in writing and signed by the affected parties. The revised tree and landscaping plans, including the diagram, identifying trees to be preserved, relocated, removed, or replaced, or incorporated into exhibit A, and are intended to be binding components of the agreement. So in closing, We believe this agreement provides a reasonable and concrete framework for moving forward. It recognizes that development may occur, but it also establishes specific commitments to preserve existing trees, relocate trees where feasible, replace lost canopy, provide substantial privacy, landscaping, address grading and erosion, and protect neighboring property improvements. So that's why we respectfully ask the Environmental Preservation Board to consider these commitments as part of its evaluation of the proposed development. and to defer action so we can have final agreement on the preservation and mitigation measures.

Through the chair. So basically, just in summary, we went from a plan that was losing seven trees, clear cutting the lot, basically, to, after months of negotiating in good faith, getting to a point where, although it is a beautiful, as you saw in the pictures, poinciana tree that provides lots of canopy, we were able to negotiate in good faith that we would be able to save six of those trees, and the royal poinciana that we would be losing would be replaced with two oaks with 12-inch DBH, and we would have an additional green buttonwoods on the lot. We haven't been able to sign the agreement. It's recommended to move forward with that. We would be acceptable with that, but we're very close to being able to sign an agreement. So our request is the continuance. So what we've verbally been able to do, but logistically have not been able to sign because of the power of attorney representative being in Europe. We'd be able to sign, which we think is a win-win to proceed with development by being able to preserve and maintain the canopy.

Thank you. Before I hear from staff, because I know what you're going to say, and I will elaborate further, but I'd like to hear from the applicant.

Eros Escobar, 2957 Coconut Avenue. And so I want to put a few things on the record. I want to say thank you to Mr. Santamaria and to Mr. Juvenal and Mr. Smith, who have had several meetings with me on trying to come to some serious concessions here both on the code as well as to us, the developers, who it is not easy to build around massive specimen trees and to completely change infrastructure and plans to make this work, but we put in a genuine effort to try to come to a consensus with the neighbors. To be clear, there are some big exceptions being made here. Pinching the sidewalks is something that only Juvenal and Sean can kind of pine on. It's obviously something that has to deal with people transporting blind wheelchairs, et cetera. The chestnut, which was originally a tree that by the law of the code could have been removed, we're gonna undertake saving it by preserving its root ball and planting it on the property. And so I just wanna clarify that there's been serious concessions made. We also own and are developing the adjacent lot, which we initially proposed removals of some specimen trees, and we are now gonna remove none of them. We are instead going to relocate them. Some of them are 60 foot tall by 48 inch mahogany that are incredibly difficult, but we went from removing 16, 17 trees to now proposing to remove one. We're gonna supplement it. We're actually gonna add a tree to the lot by putting two live oaks, right? And we are gonna brunt that. To be clear, right, after speaking with the neighbors, we were presented, right, a binding agreement that was given to us for review. And this binding agreement is outside of the scope of this appeal board, right? At this time, my business partner and my client is not comfortable with signing anything. It hasn't been reviewed by any of our attorneys. I've had some discussions with the neighbors that there's extremely sensitive language that there's no shot that we're signing or agreeing to anything until, if even necessary, until it is properly reviewed by our attorneys. That would put us in a very difficult position. And in this agreement, there isn't any circumstance for the neighbors.

If I, the developer, fail,

You know, for any of these agreements, I don't repair the fences. The trees that I plant are not to the heights that are designated in this agreement. I have breached this private agreement, civil agreement, right? And so we would prefer not to continue losing time on this development and push it along into another hearing because we are going to – We do have to remove the Poinciana, but we're going to replace it with oaks. We're going to go net positive on the trees on this lot instead of negative. If we have a contribution to the tree fund, I let the neighbors know that they would like instead of the tree fund going to just a random section of the city to try to advocate for keeping the beautification of what would go through that tree fund within the Gifford and Matilda areas. So like that, we get to reap the benefit of providing money towards the fund and the beautification of the street. And for the purposes of this agreement, on the record, we agree with the majority of it. We will, if we cause damage to the neighbors' fences, we will replace it. If they want us to increase the height of some of those privacy screenings, even though it's not a code requirement, we'll do it in good faith to make sure that our neighbors are happy. Like that vote for the property is, you know, give a level of privacy. But as far as like signing an agreement and it being the requirement to dropping the appeal, which continues to push back this development, It's not something that we are considering at this time.

So you are not agreeing to continue?

I am not agreeing to signing a private document, but I am agreeing to the terms that we discussed of planting additional trees, of not removing the trees that we initially requested, of brunting the difficulty of keeping specimen trees five feet away from major development, and we will absorb all of that. We will no longer remove any of those trees, We will keep all those canopies. The only tree that we were requesting to move is tree number five.

Mr. Chairperson? Yes, please. If I may. Yes. So we did hold meetings with Mr. Escobar. And just to kind of reiterate what the city is okay with, the four trees that are located in the right-of-way, three of those are to remain in place. One of those, the Indian chestnut, which I believe number three was proposed to be planted within the lot Other than that, the removal of the Royal Poinciana within the buildable footprint, we gave an administrative approval for. We're okay with everything else. The only issue we have here, the signed agreement, the city can't be involved with anything like that, obviously. Privacy screening, grade changes, all of those other things are not part of the appeal process. The only thing that's part of the appeal process is the actual tree activity.

Yes, go ahead.

Sorry, Louis, were you going to say something? No, I wanted to sort of make sense procedurally if you want to get into the merits. So just to kind of take inventory of where we are. You are here with the hope that you have this private agreement signed in the form that you've presented it, first and foremost. It sounds like you have no, you will not sign that agreement as it's been presented to you. Am I understanding that correctly?

That is correct. What we want is a binding agreement, whether if this board is going to present that or enforce that or the city, fine. But what we don't want to go is just go with a verbal agreement and then coming out of this, and then they either go above the board and change the approach, and then we're basically back on with nothing.

Understood. So for clarity, the powers of this board are to either grant the appeal in its entirety, deny the appeal in its entirety, or grant and deny it in part. there are elements here that fall outside of our purview. And I don't think we would be stepping outside of our legal bounds to involve ourselves, for example, in the issues of the fence.

No, the fence and other private things, we can take it apart.

Let me just guardrail this for a moment, just to keep this kind of flowing. Effectively, what we can address here are the issues of the trees. So what would be very helpful, I think, for us to understand is where are there elements, the final tree layout that we're seeing here, this is your preferred tree. You're happy with this arrangement as presented here?

We agreed with this drawing. That is what Mr. Ehrs presented to us, so we're in agreement with that. So if our appeal... Sorry, the main point was just the city agreed that 3-1, 2-1, 4 will remain in place for the tree's performance.

Perfect. So, Mr. Smith, this is acceptable to the city? And this is acceptable? This is your plan?

Yes, we did this plan, and obviously this was after coordinating with

So to understand, if we were to, just for a procedural standpoint, if we were to effectively grant the appeal and deny the appeal in part, because ultimately you've appealed the entire decision, so you are accepting that he does some of the remedial, so we would deny that part of your appeal. We would agree to this plan through our granting in part of the appeal. You'd be happy with that outcome.

We will be happy with that, and then we'll work the remaining agreement between both parties regarding fencing or other landscape improvements. Yeah, you guys can deal with that outside the purview of this board. We can do that.

Likewise, you would be comfortable if this board took such action?

I would be comfortable. I propose this drawing because this is something that I thought that we could achieve, and I agree.

I think unless there's anything else, I'd be very happy to promote a bifurcated appeal at appellate granting.

We all good? Right. Yes. Yes. Except we need to have the... You were number three or number four?

No, no. Number four.

She's number three.

So both three and four agree?

Yes.

Okay. Madam Attorney, I think you have something you wish to say.

I just want to make sure that I understand. So basically, in essence, what you're going to do is you're going to deny... Would you get closer?

Deny the appeal in part... See?

This is why I stand away from... Deny the appeal in part... and accepting the modification as set forth in final treaty layout that's been presented now.

Correct, so deny the appeal in part, grant the appeal in part, accepting the modifications to the permit as presented in the exhibit before us now.

Right, that's right. That's why I say deny in part, because you're accepting the modification, so that's somewhat of a granting.

However, we need that to work for the city attorney's office, I'm very happy to amend.

So we're gonna, this would be an attachment to the resolution as exhibit A. So if I understand it correct, it would be a motion to deny in part both item three and four, modifying as set forth in exhibit A, which is the final tree layout as presented here.

Correct, that is the spirit of my motion.

Just a slight clarification. There's another part of the full diagram that has the DBH requirements and everything else. So this is a snapshot. We would want the full one that if we put it on there, it was too small to read to actually be in the attachment.

Do you have that? I provided that to Sean in an email for the purpose of the presentation. Sean, if you see it there, it'll have the updated caliber of the oak trees.

Yes, that's confirmed.

Madam, just for clarity, this is the applicant's document that you're referring to that he submitted to you that you're accepting as acceptable? The one with the DBH that you're drawing reference to? Speaking to the microphone.

There's another, there's a version of it that we would want to go into record that has all the details. It was so small if you tried to project this.

I understand. So I'll amend my motion to reflect that as preferred exhibit A.

So what I would do is because I don't. This is the drawing.

And make sure that the clerk gets a copy of that as well for the record that you showed the board.

So that looks like it's L01.

I provided L01 and L02 to Sean in an email.

So L01 and L02 are the final tree layout?

That is correct, because LO2 is the one that's going to show the plantings of the new live oaks that we're proposing.

Okay, and LO1 is the same similar picture as the final tree?

Yeah, just need to be the new versions of LO1 and LO2 because there were previous versions, so this is the one dated September 10, 2026.

Let me just clarify for the record, LO1 is the plan that's going to show relocations and removals and trees to stay. LO2 will show final plantings, which include the addition of the oak trees.

Okay, so just to be clear, what revision of that is already in project docs? If any.

It has not been in project docs because it was subject to the agreement.

So if it were to go into project docs today, what revision number would it have? Do you know? I'm not sure. It'd probably be revision four or three, something along those lines.

I believe it would be three. Can we just clarify? So is it the plans that were just submitted to the clerk? Can we establish?

Well, the reason why I'm being so technical as to the revisions is that once they upload them, they will automatically already have their own designation to what it is.

I won't meddle.

Right, so I'm trying to make sure that whatever reference we put in the resolution, it's clear that it matches whatever is uploaded.

I just want to ensure that Because we're talking about a document that is not immediately in front of us, I want to make sure that both parties are referring to the same document. And just to clarify, it is the intent of my motion that it captures a document that's agreeable to the appellant and to the applicant. So I just want to clarify that for the record.

So the way that I would state it is this, is that it would be a motion to deny in part accepting the modification as set forth as in LO1 and LO2 version 3.

Mr. Smith, do you have that open on your screen?

I'm checking it now to see the versioning.

If we could just take a moment and then just have the appellants look at that and confirm that that's the version that they wish to see reflected.

Thank you. And for clarity of the record, a city through the chair, the clerk was handed these two pages. They have not been distributed to the board. Are we to accept these two pages or wait for confirmation from staff?

We're going to wait for confirmation. Thank you. Thank you.

Didn't sound like you guys were far off at all.

No, not at all. No, I think we're...

I think, no, I appreciate it.

Yeah, they just wanted to make sure that whatever agreement was bonded was something that was enforceable, and thankfully the city attorney And Sean and his team can enforce it, right, via an uploaded final document to be approved in Project DOCS.

I hope the rest of tonight's agenda is as convivial as your two interactions.

Yeah, unfortunately, we heard cases where the board has agreed, granted appeal, and then after that had been reverted. No, I appreciate where you're coming from. So, like, okay, we want to assume certainty that this is binding, that we're not going to go around this.

Mr. Smith. Yes, so in our Project DOCS system, it will be version 6. the actual drawing is version three, but in the project doc system, it's version six.

Could I ask that the appellants come look? Oh, great. I'll share my screen up here.

Give me one moment. It takes a second to load. And if it's exactly the same document that's in the possession of the city clerk, she can mark it right now, LO1 version six, LO1 version two, version six. And then that way we have a document.

Can I make a suggestion? Sure. Wouldn't Mr. Smith be able to verify that the plans that we're referring to now that are uploaded meet the intent of what we're talking about today?

To clarify, they haven't been uploaded yet because they were planning this decision.

Like, if we say something like the plans that were discussed and approved with the mitigation charts on sheets LO1 and LO2 as presented on the screen and the submitted information, and then Mr. Smith can verify that that's six or three or four or whatever it is in the project docs?

So I'm okay with that. I think that would be up to the board, though.

Right. I'm just trying to make it easier. They've made the plans. They have an agreement. Now it's just a matter of how to track those plans are submitted to the city. Correct. The same ones that we're all talking about.

I think first and foremost, I'd like to make sure that the plans that we're all referring to are the same ones. So let's get it up on the screen. And then whenever Mr. Smith finds his way onto that screen.

For whatever reason, it's stuck there and not on the PowerPoint. I do not know why.

Here we go.

And just a point of clarification. Would, at this point, since the applicant is agreeing to this, this would be binding? Because we know there was another case that was approved at the headboard and then overturned. It got appealed and overturned. At this point, if we're both agreeing, it's binding.

No, our decision is appealable. So if somebody wishes to appeal this, whether you or the applicant or a member of the public was standing, it would appeal to the commission. Yeah. So this can be appealed, but that's all we can do at this board is to decide. But there are appellate rights. I can't imagine anyone go through that effort considering that the two parties are standing here and are in agreement.

Okay. But that is a reality. This was unique because we came here back in July for a decision from the board, and we were told, go negotiate with the developer.

It worked because you guys came to a plan that worked.

But because we were negotiating, that's where there were several that came to an agreement and then withdrew. And so that's what we... understood the intent was in the negotiation with the, you know, when we were told go negotiate directly with the developer. So we just want to, our preference would be to have something binding that cannot be appealed.

There's no such thing. Every decision is appealable. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. It's like every, like a court decision can be appealed to a higher court. I mean, that's what this is.

We're in agreement on that.

I think we're clear now that the LO1 and LO2 that was handed to the city clerk, which we're gonna mark just as exhibit A, okay? We're gonna mark them as exhibit A, and then the motion can be very clear that it is denied in part as modified by the representations in Exhibit A attached here too. Something to that effect.

Yeah, I think my intent, and I'll give you a plain language motion, is I wish to deny the appeal in part on the basis that the revised tree permit is what it, sorry, the revised layout as submitted under Exhibit A is the approved layout and the tree disposition plan there is what is billed.

I'd like to second that. But any discussion on the motion? Can we have a roll call, please?

Member Bustillo?

I agree to deny and approve.

Do you just have to say yes or no?

Yes. Thank you.

Member Cawley? Yes. Member Trachtenberg? Yes. Vice Chair Munoz?

Yes.

And Chair Hopper?

Yes.

Denial passed. Denial in part. In part.

As modified.

Five-0. Perfect.

As amended, this decision is final unless appealed in the hearing board's division within 15 days and for clarity of the record, this was for HEP item 319335 and HEP item 419357.

Very good. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Great job, you guys. Thank you all.

And we're ready for item number five.

Step item number five, Minitrike ID-19633, a resolution of the Miami Historic and Environmental Preservation Board granting or denying the appeal filed by Crow Creek Impact Fund Incorporated of intended decision BD25023434001 issued on May 26, 2026 for the property located at approximately 161 Northwest 29th Street, Miami, Florida. Thank you.

Is the applicant and the appellant present?

Yes, we're here.

And please give your name and address for the record.

David Winker, and I'm here on behalf of the Crow Creek Fund, who's the appellant.

As counsel? As counsel. Yes. Thank you. And the applicant?

Good evening. David Lombardi. I'm the property owner, and I'm

And your address?

My address is 160 Northwest, 26th Street, Suite 201, Miami 33127. Thank you. And I have, is it my turn or not?

No, not yet. Okay. We're going to start with a staff report.

Good afternoon, good evening. Chairperson and member of the board, my name is Augusto Carvajal. I am a landscape plan examiner and a certified arborist. My address is 444 Southwest Second Ave. I am providing testimony on behalf of Environmental Resources Division for the appeal of permit application BD25023434001 for the property located 161 Northwest 29th Street. The application was submitted on September 29, 2025. The intended decision was issued after first review cycle. Approximately eight months later on May 26, 2026. You want me to read the staff report this time?

Yes, please, and then it's accepted into the record.

So the subject property is located within the T6 AO urban core and is under review for a new construction permit for 12-story commercial building of approximately 43,541 square feet and 173 feet in height. The lot runs street to street and measure approximately 50 feet in width and 277 feet in depth for a lot area of approximately 13,000 square feet. 1,845 square feet. As part of the proposed development, the applicant seeks approval for the removal of four hardwood trees and one prohibited species tree and one palm located throughout the lot, totaling approximately 49 inches in diameter. due to conflict with the proposed building footprint and associated site improvements. The three permit application was submitted on September 29, 2025 and proceeds through four cycles before the intended decision was issued on May 26, 2026. Retention, the trees proposed for removal are one 29-inch diameter mango, one 12-inch diameter gumbo limbo, one six-inch diameter Spanish lime, one two-inch diameter strangler fig, one chinaberry, which is a prohibited species, and one Christmas palm. The ISA-certified arborist assessment prepared by New Leaf Environmental LLC, dated August 18, 2024, and recertified April 26, 2026, following a study verification on April 14, 2026, document each of these trees in fair condition. Retention was evaluated and applied where the site permitted, three one by one, a specimen 24 DBH Mahogany in the right-of-way is retained under 16,000 tree protection bond, and two adjacent off-site trees, Arroyo Ponciana and a specimen like Ogo, 29 inches diameter, are retained under 20,000 tree protection bond. The redesign to preserve an existing tree is a condition the department may require pursuant the Section 17-5 of the City Code. The proposed development is a 12-story building, a lot 50 feet in width, carrying zero size setbacks, a front setback of 10 feet at Northwest 29th Street and five feet Northwest 30th Street. The vehicular entrance passenger loading zone accessible route and the required back of house uses are fixed by the width of the lot and by the two street frontages and the required parking is accommodated by mechanical lift rather than surface area. There is no configuration of the site plan that relocate the building footprint clear of these trees while preserving lawful ingress and egress and the required parking count. Tree design will not preserve the trees. For relocation, we basically, the tree proposed for removal is required where the practical persona section 17 5b2 of city code the lot is developed to its full width and substantially is full depth and not receiving location exists exits on site outside the proposed building footprint and its associated improvement the 29 inch mango cannot be moved With a root ball sufficient to support re-establishment and a trunk diameter and the remaining trees are of a size and condition that will not warrant transplant in the absent or receiving location. All options for relocation were explored in accordance with Section 17.5 of the City Code. Relocation is not practical. For removal, trees proposed for removal, however, fall within the footprint of the proposed building and its associated improvement. The lot is 50 feet in width with zero size setbacks and the proposed structure together with its vehicular entrance loading zone and required back of house uses occupy the full width and substantial the full depth of lot leaving no area in which the tree and their critical root zone can be preserved. Environmental resources concur with the arborist finding that determine that the trees cannot be retained without excavation within the critical root zone of the extent consistent with survival pursuant to section 7581 of the City Code. Retention in place is not feasible. Removal was administratively approved on the basis of design conflict present with the proposed development pursuant to section 75A1 of the City Code whether the tree is located in the billable area or jar area where a structural improvement may be placed on the tree or reasonable restrict the permitted use of the property. State recommendation, environmental resource that recommend the appeal of the intended decision be denied and that the intended decision be held, presented section 17A1 of the city code. The applicant proposed the removal of following four hardwood trees, one prohibited trees, and one pond totaling 49 dbh. One mango 29 diameter, one China berry which is a prohibited species 19 inch in diameter, one gumbo limbo 12 inch in diameter, one Spanish lime. six-inch diameter, one strangler feet, two-inch diameter, and one charisma palm, five and five DBH double trunk. As mitigation, and in accordance with requirement chapter 17, the removal of 49 DBH, none of which is a specimen, requires 20 replacement trees at two-inch diameter by 12 feet in height. The applicant proposed the install of 10 hardwood trees at four ponds, consisting of seven hardwood trees and two ponds within the lot, two hardwood trees and two ponds within the right-of-way at Northwest 29th Street and one hardwood tree within the right-of-way of Northwest 30th Street. Three gumbo limbus, four inch in diameter and 16 feet in height. Three silver bottom wood, two inch in diameter, 12 feet in height. Two paradise tree, two inch in diameter, 12 feet in height. One wild cinnamon bark, two inch in diameter, 12 feet in height. Pigeon plum, one pigeon plum, two inch in diameter, 12 feet in height. Two sable palms, eight in minimum deviation. a 25 to 30 feet in height, two shepherd palm, six inch in diameter, 16 feet over the height. The remaining shortfall of five trees is satisfied by the contribution to the Tree Trust Fund in the amount of $5,000. Staff determined that submitted documentation align with CD requirements. Their supporting document review would include existing 3D position plan L101, Showing the tree location proposed removal, tree mitigation planting plant L103. Showing mitigation boundary, topographic, and tree survey. ISA certified arborist assessment, new leaf environmental LLC, dated August 18, 2024, and updated April 26, 2026. Tree condition assessment, photo log, and tree map. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll hear from the appellant.

Before I get, David Winker, 4720 South Lejeune Road. Before I get into some of the unique circumstances of this case, is, did I hear that the city's calling a strangler fig a prohibited species?

No, that was a China berry.

I misheard that. Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure. So... We're kind of moving on to the next phase of these tree appeals in one way, because we haven't seen this before. But the trees that are at issue in this appeal were cut down on Monday.

Sir, can I point something out? Your complaint, the photos you sent along with your complaint are not of our property.

Please use your, can you use the microphone, please? Can you give your name and address for the record?

Brian Lombardi, 160 Northwest 26th Street, Unit 201, Miami, 33127. So the project that is in your appeal for the pictures, along with what you're referencing, is not our property, actually. I don't know if you're on Google Maps and it threw you off, but that is actually directly west of us. There's a workforce housing project that broke... Sorry, affordable project that broke ground... and those are the tree catapes that you're referencing.

So the lot where the intended decision was posted, this is what we're referencing?

So you, it was posted to the one to the east of it. Your pictures and what you're referencing is actually to the west.

Okay, so the trees are not cut? No. Okay, so they're still here.

We have a black colored warehouse on the property and frankly, I'm a little offended by this entire complaint because they didn't do their homework and they sent pictures of a neighboring property And look, I'm the chairman of the Wynwood Business Improvement District. I've been developing Wynwood for 26 years. I'm in the process of creating a dog park in Wynwood that we bought with public benefit funds. We're implementing a streetscape master plan along North Miami Avenue and Northwest Second Avenue with those public benefit funds, which I'm on the board of. And, you know, We are bonding the neighboring trees that they took a picture of. We're bonding trees on our neighbor's property to make sure that we don't damage them in our construction process. But I have letters of support from five neighbors. I have a letter from Green thumb landscape design who basically says it's impossible to relocate So if you would just hold on to that, we'll give you your chances as soon as they figure out what's going on.

You wish to proceed?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Okay, Lindsay Kane. I'm from the Crow Creek Sioux Impact Fund.

And your address?

It is my personal address or for the non-profit? Your address. 333 North Street, 24th Street, apartment 1811, Miami, Florida, 33137. Thanks. So this appeal was filed because the goal of my non-profit is preservation of trees. As an indigenous person, we are recognized as stewards of the land by the Department of the Interior. The fact that these trees are still here, that's great, and I do believe the appeal is valid. There have been too many trees cut down in the city of Miami, and they all provide benefit in terms of shade, in terms of oxygen, and should be allowed to remain.

Is that it?

So I think it would be helpful. If we can see their presentation, I'd like to reserve a rebuttal because I'm still trying to figure out exactly what trees, they said about bonding trees on the neighboring property. So I think it'd be good to see. We haven't seen this.

But this has nothing to do with the neighboring property. This has to do with their property, correct?

No, that's what we're trying to figure out. Apparently the trees.

It doesn't matter. My question is the intended decision is for their property, correct? Correct.

Correct, but they said they bonded. I understand that.

I understand that, but the intended decision that's at issue here is for their property. So the only property we can discuss is their property, okay?

Correct. Okay, that's it. That's what I want to talk about. So I'd like to see the plan to make sure that we understand what is their property. Because they're talking about bonding.

That's not what he said. He said that as part of what he does for a living, he didn't talk about it with regards to this intended decision.

Okay, so yeah, I'd like to see the presentation to understand that I'm just confused about what property this is.

Sir, you may continue.

Yeah, so as part of our project, which if you drive by later, you will see, the only actual specimen tree we have is a mahogany in the right-of-way on Northwest 30th Street. now as per the standard right-of-way we were going to have to actually remove this because it wouldn't give us the drive aisle as an entrance but we worked with mr robert diamond in public works to create a non-standard right-of-way improvement as a way to keep this mahogany tree uh the only specimen tree on our property um to show up good faith and then what was passed around was five different neighbors within one block of this property showing support for this after we had discussions with them. And also the two larger trees, if you will, on the property, a mango tree and a gumbo limbo. And as part of our due diligence, we reached out to a company to see if it is feasible to move these. And they explained why it is not. But for simplicity's sake, you would be butchering the trees and they won't live. by the time you actually relocate. Also speaking with the city of Miami, I know they do relocate to parks close by, which when they were looking at our location, even if the trees were in better shape and it was more feasible, this isn't Coconut Grove. We don't have several parks close by to go plant these in. And we are more than installing healthier, better trees, and improving the right of way in the process. I don't know if they want to look up the actual property that they're appealing, but it shows that people are obviously copying and pasting appeals in this manner, and it's not going in a personal way.

No, the sign was posted on a particular lot on 29th Street, 161 Northeast 29th Street.

Northwest is our property? Northwest 29th Street, yes. Right, but regardless, the pictures and your coming in today saying these trees were cut down are not our property. You can't walk in and say they've cut down the trees when it's not our property. Excuse me, I'm... My reputation is...

Pardon me, pardon me. Mr. Chair?

Yes?

I'm trying to keep times of both presentations. Each one gets 10 minutes. The crosstalk is making that difficult, sir. I understand. Thank you.

Okay, well, the intended decision was posted on one lot for one address, but then the project is on another address?

I can't answer. Do you have a picture of the intended decision?

Yes.

Unless we have some clarification, I'm going to open it up to the board for questions. I have one question. Can you expand what's on the screen now to show the predisposition? I want to see if it's the same one I have. Yes, sir.

Let me see if I can zoom in on that.

There we go. That's the same one I have. So you're keeping the mahogany, the Royal Poinciana, and the live oak?

The Royal Poinciana and the live oaks are not on our property. We are bonding them because... When we go vertical, we'll be responsible to make sure we don't hurt them.

I got you. Any other board members have a question? Just from my own understanding, I'm looking at the county appraiser's site to have an idea of the parceling. So the project that you're going to build spans from 29th to 30th.

Yes.

So it is that 50-foot strip, and it's spanning over. And the trees in question, for the most part, are on that green lot behind the commercial front, the commercial built lot on 29th Street.

Yes.

And the other two trees in question that you're bonding but are not on your lot are... just to the west of you.

One's to the east and one's to the west, if I'm not mistaken. I think the oak is to the east and the oil points. Oh, I see.

Yeah, I can see it now. I'm just seeing the canopies. Okay. So the large canopy I'm seeing on the aerial, I'm assuming you guys have looked at this aerial a million times. That's the mango tree. Is that the large canopy?

The largest canopy on the back tree is the mango tree. Okay, thank you.

But the photo they sent is of the neighbor to the west.

The large parking lot.

With the Royal Poinciana, the large parking lot. It's not us. Okay. You guys are not the 161 Northwest 29th Street.

Right.

Okay.

But that's not the picture you took. We don't have those trees in the front.

Sorry. Actually, can we just pause for one second? So the merits of your appeal is that, and I don't mean for this to sound belittling, I really don't, but I'm just trying to understand. You're appealing this on the basis of your indigenous heritage and being a steward for the trees.

In part, yes.

But are there specific elements to their particular plan that you're going to draw?

Yeah, the removal of all of the trees.

Okay.

We have here that they're removing the China berry, the gumbo limbo, the Spanish lime, the mango, the strangler fig, and the Christmas palm, correct?

That's correct. Use the microphone.

No, I have the intended decision here. I'm looking at it.

One of those trees is prohibited to be here, and the rest are so small. You know, there is a code we work by, a city code. So this is an as-of-right project, and all of those trees are allowed to be removed based on the code. Well, the code is not perfect.

Mr. Chairperson, if I could interject for just a second. Yes, sir. because we're going back and forth again with the crosstalk kind of thing, and I just wanted to confirm first these trees, because you mentioned the trees. So we're talking about the large tree in the back is a 29-inch mango, 29-inch DBH, a 19-inch China berry, which is a prohibited species, a 12-inch gumbo limbo, a 6-inch Spanish lime, a two-inch strangler fig, and one palm, which is a double trunk Christmas palm, all are listed in fair condition, just so that everybody knows what we're talking about here. And then just to remind everybody, we're talking about the actual tree activity on 161 Northwest 29th Street, correct? Yes. Okay. So, I'm not sure who has the floor, but... So...

In the report, it cites to the retention of trees, and it talks about that retention was evaluated and applied where the site permitted. Tree number one, a specimen 24-inch mahogany is retained under a $16,000 tree protection bond. That's correct, right? Then it goes on to say that the two adjacent off-site trees, a royal ponciana, and a specimen live oak of 20H are retained under a 20,000 tree protection bond. Is that correct? And those trees are still there.

Yeah.

As far as we know, they're not our property. The whole purpose of a bond. We were there two days ago.

The whole purpose of a bond for adjacent property is so we don't damage it during construction. So if a neighbor pulls it out, you're now just telling us we actually can reduce the amount of money we need to bond for these trees. So if that's the case, we will happily reduce the amount of money.

If I could show, I think we just need to make sure if those trees have been knocked down or not.

So just back to a couple things. Let me help you understand. The bond is required for all specimen trees that are in proximity to proposed construction. So we require bonds on adjacent lot trees all the time. all the time right and and so that was provided and in regards to whether the trees were knocked down on the adjacent property that is not what we're here to discuss today we're here to discuss the tree activity under this intended decision yep and so i just want to make sure that one of the conditions is the tree retention bond so i think it's important that we

The retention bond has nothing to do with what that property owner did. The retreat retention bond has to do with them protecting it during their construction. Correct. But that's a condition. That is not a condition. That is.

I'll read it to you.

Not the condition of the intended decision. That's of the staff report.

Okay, so the staff report says that they're proposing the retention of these trees under and requiring a tree protection bond. I'm going to show you those trees have been knocked down.

So hold on, though. There's a process for that, which we will look into and make sure and confirm that, and code compliance will be notified. That being said, we're here today for the appeal of 161 Northwest 29th Street. and the trees that are on that intended decision only. So anything outside of that, if those trees were knocked down, we will have somebody go out and visit the property. That's something totally separate.

And if you read this, sorry to interrupt, it says retention was evaluated and applied where the site permitted tree one, comma, and the two adjacent off-site trees. So it's talking about two different things. The retention of the one on the right-of-way, which is the right-of-way adjacent to your property, correct? Yes, on Northwest 30th. Thank you. And the two adjacent off-site trees are the true trees that were bonded for purposes of construction, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you.

And those were bonded or they're to be bonded?

They're bonded with regards to them and their construction.

It has been bonded.

That's what it says here.

No, it says that was evaluated and they're retained under a $20,000 tree protection bond.

For them not to damage during their construction. Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no? No, but you need to understand the premise. So if you understand the premise, whatever that bond is, is for it not to be damaged during their construction from their property. What happens on somebody else's property, it is not their responsibility. It's not their property.

Okay, that's it. I understand how a bond works. I'm asking, has that bond been placed?

has nothing to do with the intended decision as written. The intended decision only talks about the removal and relocation.

For the record, I disagree. It says here that in discussing what trees are to be retained in support of the decision, those trees have been destroyed by somebody. I don't know if it was them or not.

Mr. Chairperson, if I may. Mr. Winker. We've gone back and forth on this several times. A tree protection bond is meant to protect or preserve the trees that are in proximity to proposed development. If those trees were removed on the adjacent lot, you can notify us. You may have already notified us. Code compliant, you already have notified us, so you know the answer then. And that would mean code compliance probably has already gone out. And then we would take it from there. It will be submitted to our division and after the fact tree permit will be required for those trees. But again, and I'd like to end it here, please. Those trees are not part of this intended decision or this project, right? That's really not even up for discussion. And I think we need to end it with that because the bond for those trees, while it's part of the project and our requirements to protect trees, Those trees are not part of this project. So we need to move on.

I just want to understand. If they cut down those trees, who?

Do you have evidence of that?

No, no, I'm asking you.

Do you have evidence of that?

I don't know who cut them.

Okay, so then let's move on. Here's the evidence I have. I'm happy to put it up. The trees have been cut down. Somebody illegally cut down those trees. I think we can all agree to that.

On both sides of the property? Pardon me? on both sides of the property? Because they're not on the same side of the property.

The side where the intended decision was posted. Why was an intended decision posted on a lot that has nothing to do with the project?

No, but I just want to get to the bottom of it. So I just want to make sure that there is a bond. So if we're able to show that those were destroyed by the neighboring property, the bond is in place and we'll cover that?

No, the bond is for the applicant. For clarity, Mr. Wigler.

The applicant, and I think we need to bring this on side because we have a lot of items and we can't get bogged down here. I mean, I think there's a little bit of ambiguity, and I think we need to get this on side. The bond that they posted is to safeguard those trees, which belong to their neighbors. Belong to the neighbor. Correct. So they are posting a bond in case they, these two gentlemen here, or their azick knees, damage those trees. If the owner of that tree were to cut down its tree, his bond is not applicable. Understood. Okay.

So that's where we are with that.

Just to make sense. But if the trees were cut down, I think that's an issue for code enforcement. It's not germane to this discussion.

Thank you. Do the board members have any questions? Yes.

No, I don't have any questions, but just from looking at Google Earth and a review of the plans, I mean, it looks like there's one mango tree in the property, and if I understand Mr. Carvajal's explanation of the way the code works. Obviously, that tree is preventing any development from happening. And it's one mango tree. For common sense purposes, there's one tree remaining in the right of way on the proposed plans, which doesn't even look like it's in good shape. It's hacked up right in between power lines. And I think everything looks super legit here. And I don't know if anybody else has any questions. But if not, you know, I'd be happy to make a motion.

Go ahead. Please go for it.

Well, I'll just make a motion to deny the appeal.

I second. Motion is second. Any discussion on the motion? Roll call, please.

Member Bustillo? Yes. Member Carley?

Yes.

Member Trachtenberg? Yes. Vice Chair Munoz?

Yes.

Chair Hopper?

Yes.

Motion passes for denial, 5-0. The decision is final unless appealed in hearing board's division within 15 days.

And the motion passes as amended.

What was the amendment? There was no amendment. It was just denied.

The way that the resolution is printed on the agenda shifts with the fact that it's now a motion to denial. The change in legislation now shows the as amendment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep. Item number six minute track ID one nine six three six. A resolution of the Miami historic and environmental preservation board granting or denying the appeal filed by crow creek impact fund incorporated of intended decision bd24027148001 issued on june 2nd 2026 for the property located at approximately 4141 northwest 5th avenue miami florida thank you and the

Appellant and the applicant are present. Please come forward and give your name and address for the record. The appellant, please give your... Mr. Winkler.

David Winker, 4720 South Lejeune Road, representing the appellant.

Thank you. And the applicant?

Richard Deeb. 4141 Northwest Fifth Avenue.

Thank you. And we'll start with the staff report.

Good evening. Chairperson and member of the board, my name is Augusto Carbajal. I am a landscape plan examiner with the city of Miami and a certified arborist. My address is 444 Southwest 2nd Ave. I am providing testimony on behalf of the Environmental Resources Division on the intended decision appeal associated with the new construction permit application BD24027148001 for the property located at 4141 Northwest 5th Ave. This application was submitted on November 13, 2024. The intended decision was issued after four review cycles approximately one year and seven months later on June 2nd, 2026. Do you want me to read the report at this time? Yes, please. The property is located within the T3L sub-urban and is under review for a new construction permit for a one-story auxiliary dwelling unit approximately 1,066 square feet with an attached 121 square foot carpet and tandem parking. The existing one-story primary residence remains with no work proposed to it. The lot area is 6,625 square feet or 0.15 acres. As part of the proposed development, the applicant seeks approval for the removal of four hardwood trees located within the lot totaling approximately 78 dbh due to conflict with the proposed structure and associated improvements. The tree permit application was submitted on November 13, 2024 and proceeded through four cycles before the intended decision was issued June 2, 2026. The trees proposed for removal are one 35-inch sacred fig, one 20-inch diameter apple, one 14-inch DBA Spanish lime, and one 9-inch diameter mango. The average report prepared by Illusion Landscape and Design, dated August 25th, 2025, documented each of these trees in good condition. As a non-native FICO species, the sacred fig is not a specimen tree, notwithstanding its diameter and none of the trees proposed for removal are specimens. Retention was evaluated and applied. Where the site permitted it, five trees within the public right-of-way, consisting of two 17-inch diameter pungent tree, and one Adonidia palm, and two light oaks at 20-inch and 22-inch diameter, all remain and are protected by the tree protection zone barrier for the duration of construction. The tree proposed for removal, however, lie within the footprint of the proposed auxiliary dwelling unit is carpet, and then tandem parking and pavement access are in it. on a lot already occupied by the primary resident that is to remain. Environmental resources are concord with the arborist's findings and determine that these trees cannot be retained without excavating within the critical roots to extend and consistent with survival. Percent of section 17581 for off the city code, retention in place is not feasible. A second mango tree of six inches diameter and eight feet in height appear on the disposition plan as a removal. At less than 12 feet in height, it does not meet the regulated size threshold on the chapter 17. It's not included in diameter total and require no replacement. To preserve an existing tree in a condition that the department may require per section 75B1 of the city code, the lot measure 53 feet by 125 feet is already approved with the primary resident which is to remain. The ancillary dwelling unit is confined to the remaining rear portion of the lot by the front, side, and rear set by applicable in the T3L transect zone, and the tandem parking and its paved access must connect that unit to the northwest 42nd Street frontage. There is no configuration on the ancillary unit and is required parking within the build-over area that clear these trees under the critical root zone. Redesign will not preserve the trees. Relocation of three proposed for removal is required where practical precision section 17B2 of city code, the sacred fig at 35 inch diameter and sugar apple at 20 dbh could not be removed without rubles sufficient to support reestablishment and those drawn diameters. The balance of the lot outside the proposed improvement is occupied by the primary residence in favorite area and the required open space and not receiving location exceeds on site that will accommodate the street at the present size. Relocation is not practical. removal of what has been administratively approved on the basis of a design conflict present with the proposed development portion of Section 17.5 of the City Code, whether the tree is located in the buildable area or yard area where the structural improvement may be placed and the tree is unreasonable restrict the permitted use of the property. The recommendation is that the appeal of the intended decision be denied and that the intended decision be upheld, the removal having been approved by Section 75A1 of the City Code. The applicant proposed the removal of following four hardwood trees, totaling 78 inch in diameter, one sacred fig, 35 inches, one sugar apple, 20 inch diameter, one Spanish lime, 14 inch diameter, one mango, nine inch diameter. As mitigation and in accordance with Chapter 17, the intended decision required 10 hardwood replacement trees throughout the lot. The applicant proposed to install 1080 hardwood trees within the lot, nine of which are provided in six inch diameter by the 15 to 18 feet in height, well in excess of the two inch DBA by 12 foot minimum replacement size. No pumps are proposed at replacement and no pump were removed. The replacement quantity required by the intended decision is satisfied in full on site and no contribution to a treatment fund is required. Nine orange Geiger, six in the DBH and 15 to 18 feet height. one orange Geiger, two inches diameter, eight to 10 feet in height. Staff determined that the submitted documentation align with the CD's requirement. We present the supporting documents to you, include new disposition plan L100, showing relocation and proposed removal, new planting plan L101, showing mitigation, three survey and three protection detail include with Arborist Report and Arborist Report by Illusion Landscape Design, dated August 25th, 2025, three survey specification, condition detail, and photo log. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll hear from the appellant.

David Winker, 4720 South Lejeune Road, representing the appellant. If I could put my PowerPoint up. This is an appeal of 4141 Northwest Fifth Avenue. The legal framework is 17-1. The intent and purpose of Chapter 17 of the City Code states that the purpose is to assure 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. That's what we're charged with doing. Section 17.5 sets forth the criteria for tree permits. And this intended decision is based on subsection one. And the test is whether the tree is located in the buildable area or yard area where a structure or improvement may be placed and the tree unreasonably restricts the permitted use of the property. This is a novel issue. I have not seen this before. So this is a home that is looking to put an ancillary structure in the backyard. And I think that we need to pay particularly close attention to this because I don't think this was contemplated by the code. I think it's actually prohibited by the code, which I'm gonna go through. But the idea is, if everyone's able to put in ancillary structures, which seems like the direction we're moving in, we're gonna see everyone's backyards cleared of all the trees, right? I mean, that's the issue that we're doing. And I'm sympathetic to that. I mean, I think that it's an issue that we have to deal with where they are allowed to put in this ancillary structure, but again, it doesn't meet the code because it does not unreasonably restrict the permitted use of the property. The permitted use of the property is a single family home. I do think that this one could use a little more creativity, that we could find a way to make this work. The staff's own findings, They acknowledge that all four regulated hardwood trees are in good condition. It's 78 inches of DBH. I mean, it's a lot of trees. This is not a situation where we have failed trees. It is whether the proposed development justifies the destruction of this healthy canopy that we have. The ordinance requires more than a design conflict. Again, I think there's ways that we can make this work better. The staff's conclusion states there's no configuration of the ancillary unit and required parking that clears the trees and critical root zones. But the report does not identify the alternative footprints actually studied, dimensions tested, foundation alternatives evaluated, or any other preservation oriented configurations that were OFFERED AND REJECTED. THE BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE THAT EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE DONE OUR HOMEWORK, THAT THERE REALLY IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO THIS. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE REMAINS FULLY USABLE, OF COURSE. THE STATEMENT REPORT, THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THAT. THIS IS A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ANCILLARY DWELLING UNIT PLUS A 121 SQUARE FOOT CARPORT AND PARKING. That's maxing out this law to the full extent possible. This context matters given that they're cutting down these healthy trees. And again, the mitigation of these six-inch orange Geigers, I think it's very important that we focus on that comes after the justification of the removal, not to justify the removal. And with that, I will close.

That's time for the applicant to respond.

Good evening. Thank you for having us. My name is Dulce Conde. I'm the architect on the project, and I'm here with Mr. Deebs, the homeowner. Could you give us your address, please? 11410 North Kendall Drive, Suite 208. Thanks. The main emphasis here that I want to point out is that there are codes, like the gentleman before me stated. There is a, as you notice, there is a year and a half process that we've been through with all of the departments to make sure that this project meets all of the required codes. And we have done that through several revisions, four to be exact, on some of the departments. So the question here is, can we reconfigure the design? I guess that's what's being pointed out. In order to achieve what Mr. Deaves is requesting as a client, it is impossible to do within the requirements of zoning, for parking, for setbacks, and things like that. So we have done our best to accommodate the mitigation that is required when you are removing trees, and that is to put in a certain amount of trees. We felt it was more important to put in larger DBH and taller trees so that it would be a little bit more mature than to start with the smaller trees. So we have proposed that in our design. There's... couple of things that were said that again I'm totally for preserving trees if we could do that. We obviously did not touch any of the existing trees in the front parcel and we have not touched any of the trees in the right of way which are the big oaks and the larger canopy trees.

We are following the rules of section 17.5 it says that you know any of the trees get a little closer to the microphone any of the trees that are going to obstruct the auxiliary unit uh you know we can clear those out the way so i mean it's very simple we didn't write the code we're just following it and uh you know the home is zoned for an auxiliary unit so that's the reason we you know decided to

Proceed and build one.

We're not doing it because we wanted to come up with it. We've gone through the process and we've gone through, as Dulce said, a year and almost two years dealing with the city of Miami and the permanent department trying to get this resolved.

Okay, thank you. Board, do I have any questions?

I do. Go ahead. You mentioned that you studied some alternatives that the client's program precluded anything other than what is exactly shown to us, but it'd be helpful to understand. I mean, I believe that Chapter 17 is pretty explicit in terms of its preambles as far as 17.1, requiring that the Effectively in plain terms to the greatest extent possible preserve and restore the tree canopy of the city so and I think a Requirement to determine that a tree is removable under 50 at chapter 17-5 as mr. Winker pointed out is that we understand the practicalities of not removing, or rather the impracticalities thereof, and whether this does, in fact, unreasonably restrict your use of the property. So it would be helpful to understand what variations you studied or whether you took for granted offhand that there was no alternative.

Well, first of all, the trees are very staggered. on the remaining parcel that is left to be built. And like I mentioned, once you take setbacks into consideration, City of Miami has a requirement for parking and only be behind the second layer. so forth and so on. There's certain things that are restricting us to actually reorient or work with any part of the parcel that's left. The property that's left, again, we're not asking for any variances. This is all per our rights and per the zoning code. The only piece of parcel that's left would be in the front, which would be encroaching on the front setback. And that little piece of patio there in the back, that would be basically buildable. The parking that you see there, it's really not a carport. And I mentioned it was a carport. It's really not a carport. It's what they call a connector building in the code. And basically, it's connecting the two properties. So it looks like one property. We don't want it to look like two different properties. So basically, it's almost like just a little portico for all practical purposes that you would drive through. And then there's a parking. So if you see the concrete between the two areas, it's not fully covered, that's just a parking space. But in order to accommodate the parking requirement, we have that parcel, that parking for the home, and then we have a garage for the ADU.

Sorry, just from my own understanding, if we kind of run through this. I'm looking, I can't really tell from the drawing that I have in front of me, but I'm seeing trees five and two as two that are sort of shifted off to one side. So tree five is on the patio, correct? It doesn't overlap structure? It's already abutting the existing house?

Right, that's the little mango that I think they mentioned was not really... Could you speak a little closer?

Sorry.

I think that's the little mango that they mentioned was not even a consideration of the four trees being presented here today.

Is the mango not a part of the computation?

There is one mango that does not meet the size requirements. Yeah, number five. Okay, is it that small?

Is the six-inch mango not tall enough? It's a little baby tree like this that was not right. Okay. And, again, that can stay.

So just if you can give me then, so tree number five is not one of the ones that's discussed in the staff report?

Correct. Correct. Tree number five is the small mango. That was, it's not consideration. There's only four trees being, I guess, considered, even though we are requesting to remove that one as well. And then, yeah, tree number two is, what is it called? Even though they say it's in good condition, it is co-dominant. So basically what's happening with that tree is that it's kind of already split in two. And the arborist report is stating that in a heavy wind or something like that because there isn't like a dominant trunk. That co-dominance of those two, I guess, major branches can at any point topple over. So that tree... Can we go back to the tree disposition plan?

Yeah, just so I could... It's easier for me to see them on the plan itself and just keep narrating. This is very helpful. There we go. That's great. So that's tree number two. And which one was that?

Number two.

Yeah, but which tree? Oh, it's... Is that the sacred fig?

That is the... Yes. That's the strangler fig, yes.

Okay. It's a strangler fig or is...

Sorry, no, the... We're sure it's the same. Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Okay. And then tree one is the... Sugar apple.

And tree three is the... Mamoncillo, the...

The Spanish lawn, I guess, by default. Okay. I mean, so I think where I land, I appreciate where you guys are coming from. I understand what you're trying to do. And I will say, you know, with regards to planting the more mature trees, I think that's right on. At the same time, I'm somewhat conflicted because I do very much believe that while there are There is an element of the code here that is not being observed. I feel like this is your preferred layout, and you placed it over your site plan, and the trees were just in the way. And because they overlap the building footprint, you took for granted they could be removed. But I'm very much inclined to agree with the interpretation that Mr. Winker presented, which is that it's a bifurcated condition. It's that it overlaps the building footprint, and... It also unreasonably restricts the permitted applicability of the property. So for me, I feel like there could have been some redesign here that would have preserved some of this canopy. And just looking at the aerial, I mean, I do think that ultimately if the intent of Chapter 17 is to preserve, protect to the greatest extent possible, which is very much what this board is impaneled to do when it hears these appeals, I'm concerned about how this canopy is treated in that regard and whether there wouldn't be a way to mitigate that and still yields a usable ADU.

Please speak into the microphone.

The thing about that is those trees are in the only place you can actually build something. There's nowhere else you can build. As Dulce mentioned, you can't go to the west side of the property because that's the front of it. You can't go to the north side because you're on the setbacks already. And you can't go on the south side because you're also on the setbacks. So there's no other way to go.

No, I appreciate that. But to an extent, the code and the provisions of Chapter 17 exist to address this matter. The question is, are we interpreting Chapter 17 correctly here? And I think that's what I'm going to... Let me mull that over while I let my colleagues ask questions if they have any.

At the same time, just to touch on that point, we also are replacing... the trees. I understand that. That's something we're trying to follow.

I don't think there's any question that you're not following 17-6. That's clear enough. For me, what I'm trying to interrogate here is understanding whether I believe chapter 17-5 to be correctly applied. But I'll pause here in case my colleagues have any questions.

I had a question. Why did you choose all of the same species for your replacement trees?

Oh, sorry. Basically, for cohesion, that is up for discussion if you feel that it's something that we should variate or change. The intent was, again, for unity. The fruit trees are not desired anymore, so that wasn't an option for us. And then again, the placement of the trees was based more on the helping shade the existing structure. And then obviously some were placed in the front more for decorative and shade purposes. But that if you feel, if the board feels that a different type of species or a different cadence of trees would be better suited, that's fine. But again, we felt that this was best for the property. The Geigers offer a nice shade. They grow to be nice trees. So we felt that that was a good species too.

And where are they going?

They are being placed on the... Put that up there, that'd be great. They're being placed along the...

Between the house and the sidewalk, it looks like.

Mr. Chairperson, that's correct.

Along the west side of the back part of the, in other words, if you're looking at the screen to the left of the patio, and then we're wrapping them around that entire front area, both fronts, because it's a corner property, so we're wrapping them around the front, and then putting one over here by the entrance, again, addressing the entrance to the carport. So basically it's very visual and would serve a better public service by having them up against the property, the edge of the property, which would also help shade the sidewalks and things like that.

Okay, that's good.

Anybody else? Yes, I have a question. Yes, sir. Was there any consideration of relocating some of the existing canopy into that new planting area on the first layer? I see in your new planting plan, you don't have a north arrow, but I guess in the front of the house and on the side yard, the secondary frontage of the house, you're planting quite a bit of new trees that you're saying are to be cohesive. Was there any consideration in moving some of that existing canopy being impacted by the new addition or the new building into this portion?

The same, like I said, the same as the other gentleman that was here earlier. Moving these trees does not guarantee that they will survive. A lot of these trees, like I said, are very dominant. If you look at the arborist report, I believe three of them have this. And moving them is not... was not recommended by our arborist. So that's the choice that we have made to mitigate rather than try to relocate these trees.

Mr. Chair, if I may.

Yes, sir.

So there's a couple things. One, your question, which we would be in favor of if you guys can proffer to change some of those species to larger live oaks. And when I say larger, I mean something more along the lines of 8 inches DBH, something to that effect. In regards to relocation, it is something we look at on all of our projects, and that Ficus religiosa, it's not an invasive species, but definitely not native. It's sort of almost borderline invasive. Anyway, it's really large, so there's nowhere on the property where that would actually be able to be placed. As far as offsite, I think there's some real challenges in regards to taking that tree down the road. And then in terms of redesigning the structure in regards to, you know, what's proposed there, and I'm just kind of thinking if that was an addition rather than an ancillary, I don't know if the conversation will be any different. That being said, where it talks about redesign in 17, excuse me, 17-5-B-1, the applicant may be required to redesign the project to preserve specimen trees or any other, may be required to redesign the project to preserve specimen trees or any other tree determined by the department to be of substantial value. because of species, size, age, form, and or historical significance, and to provide an alternate plan that includes the adequate preservation of said trees and design alterations within the scope and intent of the initially proposed plan. So it's something to keep in mind.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Yes, sir. No questions? Should we Does it have to be questions or can we just make general statements? You can make a general statement. Okay. Um, well, I'm looking at the property on, um, you know, online and it, I mean, this is pretty, you know, you've got these really nice live Oaks that you've kept in the right away, which look really nice. Keeping the pond gam trees too, I guess, which are really nice. Right. And, um, just in trying to think about how this works, um, It does, with all the setbacks and everything else, I don't see how you would be able to preserve any of those trees. Seems the only thing would be to... Well, I put it this way. I think that Mr. Smith's suggestion is the most commonsensical one based on my review here. It'd be very difficult to move that ficus religiosa. I don't even, you know... But if the board... you change those other species to oak trees it'd be a lot more consistent with that feeling around the property I think you'd ultimately get a lot more canopy and it seems like it could be a really good possible option depending on what everyone thinks we'd be happy to do that and I think those would be really nice tie in very nice in the front on the long part of the property there with those other Oaks that are in the right-of-way I think that would be very desirable and very nice canopy structure those are just my thoughts

Thank you.

What's the purpose of the ADU?

I mean, if you know, sorry, if you, if anybody here knows Buena Vista, it's a historic district. This is West Buena Vista, right? It is, but still, I mean, it's not east, but it was built out that way, obviously, so it came a little later. The structure's 1940s. The closets are very small. The closets, very small the bathrooms are very small the bedrooms are very small so i have a growing family i need additional space these houses i think this is 1300 square feet i mean that's a condo in midtown you know yeah so so is is this a connect this isn't a connected structure you're gonna have two independent homes on the property yeah the adu is yeah it's an additional dwelling

So it's not a duplex connected.

It's separated.

So the purpose of this ADU is for you to live in as well as live in your home? Yeah.

You live in both structures? Well, I mean, there's three kids and a wife. So yeah, I mean, the older kids will probably get the ADU and the newborn will come to inside the house with me and my wife.

So what is it now? Is it a two-bedroom ADU? It's a two-one. I don't have the plan of the design, I just have the roof plan, site plan. I don't know if you guys submitted the design of the layout. Just curious of what that would look like. So I could put it. For the ADU? That's gonna add a one-one. Oh, so the ADU's a one-one.

Yes, it's a one-one with a garage.

One-one with a garage. My concern is somewhat echoed from what um the vice chair was speaking of earlier about you know pushing the limits of what could be done on the site based on the existing tree canopy now i understand that you have a multitude of trees that you're trying to design around for me the main canopy in question would be number two which is the ficus tree because that's the largest and probably most substantial tree and based on i think the uh the height and canopy, probably the largest. Am I correct in that?

Use the microphone.

It was taken by another tree.

You need to use the microphone so we can hear you. So that tree's been suffocated by another tree for

That tree's just, it's kind of like weird because it's two trees in one. One's going one way, the other one's going the other. I don't know if the exact... Is your arborist here? No, this is my architect.

No, no, is your arborist here? No, okay.

But we have everything here.

Documented. I see on the tree table it's considered in good condition. The tree table is listed as good condition?

Please use the microphone.

There's a photo of it in the Arborist Report, which I believe you guys have, showing the condition of that tree.

906, page 906.

Sorry, which page did you say?

906.

906. I'll look and leave it open to anybody else that wants to say anything. In the meantime, I just want to look at that.

I mean, I'll just say again, my feelings are if it was a big, beautiful, majestic oak tree or something like that that was occupying that property, we could maybe expect something really unique, you know, trying to have it come up through, I don't know, any kind of plausible architectural solution. But the city is very thorough in all of its reviews and everything. And I'm just stating from my point of view that I think that from what I can see in the evidence, Evidence, I guess you would call it, presented before us now that that tree doesn't seem to rise to the occasion of stopping this homeowner from being able to build this structure for their family. That's just my opinion, though, based on the information presented. And that's why I was saying if we get into tricky scenarios like this with the trees and the species and the condition of the trees and everything, that's why I thought Mr. Smith's suggestion might be a really good one. Because you do have room to plant new trees, right? Yes, absolutely. Obviously, the plan's a little tricky to read.

Absolutely. We can definitely accommodate a few 8-inch oaks on the property. Like I said, in the front where they could be visually appreciated. You know, where these trees are planted now, if you look at the existing, it's really like in a parking area, and they're parking around the tree.

And along those lines, I don't see any power lines along that side of the property. So that would be, it could actually work. You could actually plant the trees and create canopy that went over that... Over the sidewalk. Over that sidewalk and parkway area. I'm not trying to be overly... Those are just... That's my takeaway from the review.

Yeah, I mean, I think I'm somewhat stuck with my issues still. I mean, I think in the grand scheme of things, this is a large tree. I mean, this is a large canopy. I don't think that's not in question. I mean, the evidence in front of me from the aerials, which are recent, that that does present a large canopy. It's a tall tree. It's a very broad tree. I look at your layout, and I mean, ultimately... I mean, it's a renovation, right? You're trying to expand the living footprint of your house. I struggle with the notion that this couldn't have been, that there weren't alternatives that weren't maybe in ADU. I mean, I think that's one of the differentiators here. At the end of the day, this is your home, right? And I don't intend to tell you how to build it. And I'm sorry. You seem like lovely people. So don't take any of this to me, me trying to imply otherwise. I think from my perspective and the mandate that I understand I have before me to look at this through the prism of Chapter 17, starting with Chapter 17-1 and working down, that I can't reconcile what's in front of me with the intent of that and more relevantly with the decision tree in 17-5, A and B. And so what I would have liked to have heard is maybe some specific references to some configurations that might have preserved some of this canopy Or try to preserve some more of your green space. I mean, at the end of the day, I'm sure you'd want more yard. What's that?

In the front yard and on the side. So there's a lot of green left. And if you notice, my house is the only one with a house full of hedges. It's got hedges everywhere.

I mean, this is, I mean, I'm looking at a street now. Your front yard is your front setback, right, basically?

Correct.

Yeah, that's not discretionary.

Buena Vista, the lots are very small. I realize. I appreciate where you're coming from. I have a lot and a half in Buena Vista. This is one of the bigger oversized lots. Everybody's lot is 5,000 square feet. The guy across the street has a very small front yard and a much smaller backyard. The guy on the other opposite corner built an ADU, and he did the exact same project that I'm doing right now or I'm trying to do. So, I mean, if the cold... is written a certain way for me to go and make a decision to invest all this time and money so that I can have my ADU and then come and hit some sort of a wall when I get here because now we're deciding that we don't wanna eliminate trees that are unprotected you know, then I'm kind of like wasting my time and money here. And I'm trying to understand that, you know, why would anybody purchase real estate in Miami when they're going to have these setbacks?

I can guarantee you as a professional, I've been doing this for a couple years, that anything that I would try to put on this parcel, attached, detached, addition, one bedroom, two bedroom, whatever it is that I decide to do on this property, those trees would be mine. compromised. There is nothing I could do. And there's, I mean, there's no way that I could design, you know, around three trees that are in the middle of the property. If you're telling me, well, it's on the side of the property, and instead of doing it, I don't know, with a five foot setback, if I increase it to a seven foot setback, it would work, then I understand that. But the location of these trees makes it impossible as a professional to do anything on this parcel. Absolutely impossible with the restrictions of the code, of the zoning code. Again, there are no variances here. We have respected green space. We have respected lot coverage. We have respected everything in the code. We are mitigating the trees per the requirement of the code.

Yeah, we don't have to talk about the mitigation. I'm not questioning that at all.

Well, that's important because there is, just like there's a chapter in the code that is telling you that, you know, you have to do all these other things, there is also a chapter in the code that says if you remove a certain...

Absolutely, but it's subsequent. I mean, so it's not... If the question were mitigation, I think it would be a lot more straightforward because it's prescribed mathematically. What I'm struggling with is the more... the grayer area of it. And it's determining the qualifications for the removal. And that's what I'm struggling with. And I'm not fully convinced. I mean, I just stand there.

That's just... We've agreed to somewhat swap the desired trees you guys want. We can put them somewhere else. We can even plant the same trees in the front of the yard. Not those, but the same seeds. If you guys want Spanish lime, I'm a big fan of it. I don't want to lose the tree either. But at the end of the day, if it's going to obstruct... you know, my way of life because I'm trying to expand and get something a little bit bigger because I'm stuck in a smaller house to make my wife and my child and my children happy, then I need to get rid of the tree. And it's not an invasive, I mean, it's not a tree that's protected. So, yeah, so we're trying to We're trying to do what you guys want here. We've jumped over all the hurdles with City of Miami, all the departments, all the time.

We don't have to go through this every single time. I understand. I know where you're coming from. I get where you're coming from.

Basically, whatever tree it is you want, we'll try to put something up there.

Just a quick question. I'm an arborist. I'm familiar with these trees. Did I speak on behalf?