Gulfstream Appeal - The Rest of the Story

I wasn't keeping track of time, but this item consumed at least an hour and a half. For some, it probably seemed longer. As expected, Vice-Mayor Golden chaired the meeting and Mayor Clemens attended the meeting courtesy of a speaker phone. When the Vice-Mayor Golden introduced the item, Mayor Clemens immediately made a motion to deny the appeal and that was quickly seconded by Commissioner Lowe.

They were about to call Mr. Celi up to present his appeal, again, and Mayor Clemens objected - the first of a number of times - saying that Mr. Celi has already presented his case for an appeal. He didn't make the case before and shouldn't be given an opportunity again. I won't go through all the mind-numbing detail, but Mr. Celi did get to present his case again, the Gulfstream responded and Rachel Bach was the consumate professional in answering countless questions from the three commissioners (any guesses?)

The main issues they were circling around where the phasing of the project and whether the tennis courts on the western half of the lot consisted of an "interim" plan rather than a permanent "stand alone" plan. The three commissioners voiced concerns that somehow the Planning and Zoning board didn't review the plan as final since they expected the multi-story hotel/spa to eventually come along to address various issues permanently - which approval the Gulfstream has withdrawn. Ms. Bach and the Gulfstream said that it was represented to the board that it was a "stand alone" plan. This discussion went on and on, mostly driven by questions from Commissioners Jennings and Mulvehill.

One of the things that really went under-the-radar were the nine (9) conditions that the Gulfstream offered the Commission so that they could essentially deny the appeal with conditions. Here is the document as submitted by the Gulfstream:




Taken as a group, these are major concessions and serve to clear-up some of the confusion surrounding the project. They also include contributions of $20,000 for city historic preservation activities (signage?), preparation of 501.c.3 documents for a non-profit to run a museum and $25,000 to assist in the cataloging of items in the museum. They also offered meeting space for bona-fide neighborhood and city groups free of charge.

Not once was this mentioned during the meeting (except the $20,000 item that was one of the original condition of approval). Commissioner Jennings said that during one of the meetings she had with the property owners, they offered to hire workers from the labor center if she'd vote for it. The Gulfstream responded that they were willing to do anything that would be a positive for the city and wanted to be the best neighbor possible. She then asked what if this appeal is approved. The Gulfstream then said that there would be no project...period.

This is where it got interesting. Commissioner Jennings started to come around and sounded like she was ready to vote for the motion to deny the appeal. Mayor Clemens mentioned the conditions and, posturing, said that he wasn't going to vote for the conditions as they represent a "quid pro quo" and he didn't think that was a good precedent to set on the part of the city. He then disclosed that he didn't receive campaign contributions from either Celi or the Gulfstream. This forced Commissioners Mulvehill and Jennings to make the disclosures that they had received contributions from Celi, but not knowing that this would be coming before them. Hmmm.

Now, I think that was very short-sighted on the part of the Mayor and I was prepared to say, if Commissioner Jennings voted for the motion to deny without the conditions offered by the Gulfstream, that she looked a gift horse in the mouth and turned it down. The same would have gone for the Mayor and anyone else who would have voted for the motion without including the conditions. That's when Commissioner Jennings requested that the Mayor amend his motion to include those items offered by the owner of the Gulfstream. I think this was an attempt to box the Mayor in, but he ended up amending his motion to include all the conditions. That was the motion that was voted on and passed 4-1, with Commissioner Mulvehill dissenting - she hung her hat on the "interim" nature of the plan.

These conditions, while not too common, are included in many development orders. You can think of them as voluntary impact fees that benefit the entire community. We have often talked about establishing a local impact fee ordinance, but in this state of the economy that isn't going to happen. I was glad that the Commission voted to deny the appeal and include these concessions.
Unfortunately, no one there last night got to hear what they were.

Commissioner Jennings ended the discussion by commenting that she was glad that they took the time to look at every issue and did not abide by the timeline of the "developer." She also didn't like the appeals process because it put such a burden, almost impossible, to make the case on the part of the person making the appeal. She thought they should be able to look at the specifics zoning issues of the approval and not just whether or not the Planning and Zoning board had enough competent and substantive information on which to make their decision.

Finally, I respect Commissioner Jennings for ultimately making the right decision in the front of a room that was nearly 100% of her closest supporters, albeit reluctant and painfully slow to come to.