While debate
has centered on the preference for Scotty’s v.
Shula’s, the waterfront restaurant
is just one small portion of a much larger
development plan that voters must
approve or reject in November.
After
reviewing the City of Miami’s commission-endorsed
restaurant/marina development
plan, along with the proposed lease agreement for
the 7-acre project,
the City’s two RFPs (2012 and 2013), and the Coconut
Grove Waterfront and Spoil
Island Master Plan (Sasaki), I have reached the
conclusion that the Grove Bay
development proposal is not in the best interests of
City of Miami residents
and taxpayers.
Here are a few
of the departures from the Sasaki Plan (a
community-endorsed template for improvements
to the Coconut Grove waterfront) that would occur
under the Grove Bay
plan:
- The southern-most hangar will
convert from existing marine or other recreational
usage to non-specific retail.
- Dry dock stacks will be
relocated within the site, with boat entry
redirected to northern basin.
- “Floating
tourist docks” will replace existing boat entry
point on southern end.
- An unspecified “historic
aviation element” will be constructed.
- Retail space in MPA parking
garage will be changed from “marine” to general.
- “Non-historic additions” to
marine hangars will be demolished.
- The existing causal waterfront
restaurant with be demolished and a larger
replacement facility will be constructed nearby.
- Scotty’s -- the only existing
lease holder named in the Sasaki plan to be
retained: “a staple on the waterfront” -- is
removed from development proposals.
- A minimum of three new
restaurants with be constructed.
Further, the
proposed lease agreement should raise the following
concerns:
- There is no contractual limit
to the number of restaurants that can be built and
operated on the property. The lease will allow:
“one or more casual restaurants, one or more
formal restaurants” and “other related food
services.”
- There are no restrictions on
retail other than no “gun shops, pawn shops or
adult novelty.”
- The proposed restaurants as
identified – Shula’s Steak House, Oceano, and
Hangar 42 – are not designated under lease terms
and may be replaced at any time with other food
service concepts and operators.
- Restaurants, retail sites,
marine services and all other parcels within the
7-acre development site can be "subleased or
reassigned” largely at the discretion of the
leaseholder (Grove Bay).
- 80-year lease term will
restrict the City from reevaluating and
re-designating the site for emerging needs.
Viewed in its
entirety, it's my belief that the development plan
as presented by city staff,
the development team, and as defined in the proposed
lease agreement represents
a significant departure from the vision expressed by
community stakeholders
and, ultimately, conceptualized in the Coconut Grove
Waterfront and Spoil
Island Master Plan. The community-backed Sasaki plan
designates the site as the
waterfront’s “Civic Core.” The challenge faced by
the design team’s planners
was to specify limited, low-impact development in a
way that would enhance,
rather than alter the existing character of “working
waterfront.” In my view
the proposed development – both as publicly
presented and as legally
permissible under lease terms – runs contrary to the
public’s expressed
preferences for access, usage and design character.
Lastly, it
should be continually noted that despite the
existing structures and commercial
operations on the entire 7-acre parcel proposed for
development is
zoned CS (Civic Space) and the City’s land use
designation is “parks and
recreation.” In a city that ranks last among major
U.S. cities for parkland per capita,
we should move cautiously when considering best
options for a limited
public resource. The city has a long history of
leasing public land to private
development interests: Bayside, American Airlines
Arena, Museum
Park at Bicentennial Park,
Marlins Stadium, and, here in the Grove, Monty’s
mixed-use complex. While the argument
is strong to maintain
existing boat storage and entry facilities at Dinner
Key, we should be asking
if the best use of our limited recreational space
and park land is for the construction
and operation of restaurants, shops, parking
facilities and, under the
open-ended nature of this lease, other possible
commercial ventures.
I’ll hold on to
my suggestions for how this site might better serve
the civic needs of Miami residents and
taxpayers. Right now we need to encourage city
voters to reject this lease
proposal by saying “NO” in the November referendum.
That will give everybody
time to sit down and rethink a decision that will
affect us for many decades to
come.