Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-96-0796i J-96-1149 10/24/96 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), ADOPTING THE REPORT ENTITLED "SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH l RESPONSES BY THE CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING i REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 199611, AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ON THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1989-2000 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1995; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE FLORIDA. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. t i WHEREAS, the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP) was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Miami on November 16, 1995 pursuant to Resolution No. 95-830 and submitted i to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) December 1, 1995 for review in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes (1995) and Rule 9J-5 Florida 4' Administrative Code; and WHEREAS, DCA review of the proposed EAR revealed a number of points on which further information and/or explanation was necessary before the EAR could be found sufficient, and the City j of Miami was advised of these by DCA January 29, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami responded to DCA's comments with a draft report entitled "SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY !' CITY OF MIAMI" submitted to DCA July 1, 1996; and CITY CODF'60 MEETI A,T�`AC11,11 ���� �r�� OCT Resolu r t WHEREAS, DCA reviewed the draft response and, on September 13, 1996, recommended three additional issues to be addressed; and WHEREAS, responses to these additional issues, which include (1) additional discussion and clarification of dredge/spoil disposal sites for the Miami River and Wagner Creek waterways, (2) modification of a map to show the Coastal High Hazard Area within the City of Miami, and (3) acknowledgment that one of the adopted Objectives in the Natural Resource Element is not measurable and needs to be amended, have been incorporated into the attached document entitled "SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO DCA LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1996"; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on October 16, 1996, Item No. 3, following an advertised public hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 52-96, by a vote of eight to zero (8-0), RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the proposed supplement to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report; and WHEREAS, City Commission adoption of this final response to sufficiency issues, as a supplement to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report adopted November 16, 1995, will fulfill the State requirements for preparation and adoption of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on the Miami Comprehensive Plan 1989-2000; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, deems it advisable and in the best interest and - 2 - 96--� general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to approve the supplement to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report as recommended by the Planning Advisory Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings set forth in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. i Section 2. The supplement to the 1995 Evaluation and Appraisal Report on the Miami Comprehensive Plan 1959-2000 entitled "SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI, INCLUDING REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO DCA LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 13, 199611, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Attachment All and incorporated herein by reference thereto, is hereby adopted as a supplement to the 1995 Evaluation and E i Appraisal Report, in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 9J-5 and 9J-33 of !` the Florida Administrative Code. I Section 3. The City Manager is hereby instructed to direct the Director of Community Planning and Revitalization to transmit copies of this Resolution and the accompanying supplement to the 1995 Evaluation and Appraisal Report" "Attachment All to James F. Murley, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida, as mandated by law. - 3 - W1181.BSS i I SUFFICIENCY ISSUES ' WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI 1 i Including revisions in response to DCA letter of September 13, 1996 A Supplement to the CITY OF MIAMI 1 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT E Adopted November 16, 1995 z TABLE OF CONTENTS I i INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... .. .2 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.........................................3 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT .................................................. .......8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT ...................... CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT ...................... COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT .................14 CONSERVATION ELEMENT ....................................... ............:.......... ........................... 26 GENERAL .................. ............... ........ ........................................29 APPENDIX { k is Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 ' Response to sufficiency Issues Page 1 of 29 S 9 6 - "796 5M SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI Including revisions in response to DCA letter of September 13, 1996 A Supplement to the CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT Adopted November 16, 1995 INTRODUCTION The proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on the Miami Comprehensive Neighbor- hood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP) was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Miami on November 16, 199 6'and submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) De- cember 1, 1995 for review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3191 F.S. DCA's review of the proposed EAR. revealed a number of points on which further information and/or explanation was necessary before the EAR could be found sufficient. The City of Miami was advised of these by DCA's letter of January 29, 1996 (copy in Appendix). The City responded to DCA's comments with a draft report entitled "CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI" received by DCA July 15, 1996 and acknowledged by letter of July 29, 1996 (copy in Appendix). DCA reviewed the draft response and, by letter of September 13, 1996 (copy in Appendix), rec- ommended three additional items to be addressed, and responses to them have been incorporated into this document. City Commission adoption of this response to sufficiency issues, as a supplement to the EAR adopted November 16, 1995, completes the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 2 of 29 i i i i i j i I r x FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Provide an analysis of the social and economic effects of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and location of land uses, such as the accuracy and use of population projections, actual vs. anticipated rate of development, and the effect of concurrency requirements. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.1 [Guidebook Pages 33- 38] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Accuracy and use of the population projections. The issue of accuracy and use of popula- tion projections has been discussed in the previous chapter addressing the conditions of the elements at the time of this report. The current projections will be used in the 1995-96 update of the MCNP. Projected population growth: New projections prepared for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report predict a continuing slow rate of population growth for Miami, reflecting the built -out characteristic of its land area. The 1980-1990 actual, 1995 estimated, and 2000-2005 fore- casted growth is shown on Table LUT-4. Table LUT-4 Population Change,1980-2005, City of Miami and Dade County Miami % Increase Dade County % Increase 1980 346,865 1,625,781 1985 380,446 9.68 1,770,769 8.92 1990 358,548 (5.76) 1,937,094 9.39 1995 (Estimate) 366,665 2.26 2,056,625 6.17 2000 (Projection) 374,782 2.21 2,291,452 11.42 2005 (Projection) 385,955 2.98 2,530,515 10.43 Miami's population growth will be mostly through net in -migration. The September 1994 federal agreement with Cuba allows a minimum of 20,000 immigrants a year to the U.S. from Cuba alone, and it is likely that actual levels will substantially exceed the minimums. Many of these immigrants will settle initially in the city of Miami, which is assuining the tra- ditional, coastal center -city role as the main port -of -entry for immigrants. Some offsetting out-iigration from the city can be expected, thus keeping the recorded population figures at modest levels, but the net effect will be an increase in the annual inflow. Moreover, census and other population counts tend to under -record populations in immigrant port -of ---entry cit- ies; Miami is no exception to this phenomenon. Undercounts of as much as 35% are sus- pected in many neighborhoods of the city. As the level of immigration from abroad increases, pressure will mount to increase residential densities in the city by conversion of low -density -structures to higher density development. Together with the commercial and institutional facilities and places of employment necessary to serve this increasingly dense urban place, these land use pressures and changes constitute Miami's greatest opportunity —and its correspondingly greatest challenge —in the years ahead. If the City of Miami simply stopped permitting higher -density residential development, many families would crowd into substandard units, housing prices would become increasingly un- affordable to a greater percentage of the population, homelessness and crime would increase, the areas would become unattractive to new business as well as established firms and the economy would founder, contributing to broader social problems. The alternative to this un- acceptable scenario is a city of revitalized residential neighborhoods containing a variety of housing styles, types, and densities, served by neighborhood and regional commercial facili- ties connected by adequate transportation services. Miami has developed in such a direction over its 100-year history; continuing to do so will be its challenge for the 21 st century. During the past two decades, several of Miami's residential neighborhoods have been losing middle -income families, and the city as a whole is becoming increasingly a home for the very well-off and the very poor. Despite this trend, there is evidence that many of Miami's mid- dle -income neighborhoods are halting their decline —often through citizen efforts —and are becoming more, rather than less, attractive to families. A high priority needs to be placed on planning for the protection of these neighborhoods, and the revitalization of areas that are in need of similar improvement. Physical deterioration of buildings and structures in the commercial, residential, and industrial land categories. In the absence of field survey data about the condition of com- mercial and industrial buildings, the city relies on requirements of the South Florida Building Code, which mandates that all buildings that are 40 or more years old have to apply for a re- certification for occupancy. These certificates are issued only if the building meets the cur- rent code criteria. Therefore, 40 years is a structure age considered to have potential for signs of physical deterioration. Any building requiring recertification has to undergo inspections every 10 years. Miami does have a problem of physical deterioration of industrial and com- mercial buildings since the certificate of occupancy is only issued once a building is habitable as per code. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 4 of 29 9Lc - 96 The location of development with regard to existing infrastructure. All of Miami is served by infrastructure that was typically built to meet the demands of the highest -density uses that would be allowed under the then -current zoning --in most cases, these densities are the current ones, as well. For most of the city, this "build -for -maximum" policy has resulted in excess infrastructure capacity. This allows the city to encourage higher densities in many of its neighborhoods without requiring addition, or replacement, of costly infrastructure. All of Miami is designated for urban growth, as it has been for most of this century. In the next century, the growth will typically be redevelopment of earlier uses, at higher (and hence "more urban") densities. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide an assessment of the impact of unanticipated and unfore- seen problems and opportunities related to land use planning which have occurred since the adoption of the plan. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 5.1 [Guidebook Pages 39-401 CITE' OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Since the adoption of the MCNP, there have been two un- anticipated and/or unforeseen problems and no opportunities as it relates to Land Use Plan- ning. (1) In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 4 or 5 storm, hit the South Florida area creating mass destruction from the City of Miami south to the Upper Keys. In terms of land use planning, there were little to no changes made. (2) In 1993, the central section of Dade County, including the City of Miami, was under a sewage moratorium. This moratorium was the result of enforcement actions imposed on the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) by the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). For more than two years, the City of Miami and other neighboring municipalities were under a construction restriction while a new trunk line was installed under Biscayne Bay. This moratorium, although it caused a major slowdown in the con- struction and building industry, did not have an effect in terms of land use planning. 3. DCA COMMENT: Provide an evaluation of the effect on the adopted element of the following changes to Rule 9J-5 F.A.C.: [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.1 [Guidebook Pages 40-42] a) analyze the need for additional dredge/spoil disposal sites as required by Rule 9J- /' 5006 (1) (f) 3. Special consideration should be given to the dredging of the Miami River, the Little River and Wagner Creek. b) analyze the need for a new objective or revised existing objectives to coordinate land uses with hazard mitigation report recommendations as required by Rule [9J- 5.006(3) (b) 6. c) analyze the need to revise existing policies to ensure adequate facilities (such as stormwater drainage capacity and quality) are available concurrent with impacts of development as required by Rule9J-5.006 (3) c 3. d) indicate the need for a new future land use map or map series which includes the new definition of the coastal high hazard area as required by Rules 9J-5.006 (4) (a) and (b) 6. and 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.c. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 5 of 29 96- 796 'r _'Y U fr 1AM I _ J, D USE N LAN" N X1 Sm'111 'L N Ca N i IP Single Family Residential Duplex (Two Family) .ow Density Multi Family <=25du/ga sigh Density Multi Family>25du/ga Aobile Homes ,ommercial & Service .ransient-Residential (Hotel/Motel) idustrial tstitutional 'arks/Recreation/Open Space/Conservation ransportation/Communication/Utilities griculture ndeveloped/Vacant land/Coastal Water IRc •t._ ^ ��9D°J tail<w rJ°�"'9i41�_u ,/ty •'+ �'"" CA+,en. '.Y L S! Y !' ° _ - S9.ry:kF1 — _. C' t;'" ai 7 S� n R _ -�v �� .mod � cr� 9a .,r.�: r 7r •-ter rt r _ �j �.. ^ . 7 0u6ry �'� ��. ��� t �,... � _. � I.'�r'�" u s F: _"• 'rocs ,r-- w-�-'s-c _-_ _� _ . _. Ii. �.,�.m..• .....I 7;eam aauax'tt .ter. `y' us as R - to t �T,.r e��.}� [�"`' "t• y erxi, ta.�a, _. usna a rFve fi WiE NATIONAV_.-` i �- ` I f3aP � g c'L '• ; �[. -tlA� 'MS h1538'-il , � -.t ® .rJ®IL.aIN, 797ar.1 air _ . low.��art t a�iF�tdeS -. n a ;tu 1 oavw�. Exvr�--_.: .' �"�'..-.---�`-- -.._ e ' rS'„ (i<73 .{ '$A1 ,•• ri �a m eot 1 �' O � 441.6.� �_F ?i J' --. �'- .:ate` � .a_: n i °.3>" :� � g�a� vi eK...i _Fq C5 Y i a ,9 �� �°`^ �.. p m t�9a La° - ,•- • �M r-r,°G�r+� t� ra 4 � .m�s.: _ _ A G 7 ilAY 1 J �_ � f :J � �i � d F8 ]�tr F ■ V,,nf;�pa/ _ /'� �� �. ' • � t+e .� rlPs ..t >=rc,+.e mss:.;.aa�ss ka.t.,;aa�_�a xi' "`- t`;dua•- `-'- } +� ?� .. .. ��'. 1 �� r r�`4 ✓ .yam r'.rrr �� . (�; _ ' if I ,.J13 -• " A�2a ■ �`w' r ,�. ice, .,_. Y ,o�' '',� _r°4i..- '� ° � 0 =� m.3z�t9.. f.9i'R'sP4sc ^'r ..==5-.'Grimm � �•. � y S � �Y. V w •..®-.rya I..a ei`"a '49r._.__ df7/ r }{1 g p Al :NEAY e(e NIB E f `•�-L tF t .a Source: Dade County, 1990 J - N W. 79 ST. NORTH 8AY 3 KW. 'n _ cs T COASTAL AREA N.W. S• ST. I - KW 34 ST. z 41 _ 4OUA tUTTU - I - CSWY ' H.W. 20 ST. tR ed6 eisurN[ ,sAN x1ARca iSt.AN[S - ,ISLAND N.9L 7 ST T ND )LER ST GNTON MAND '. ( VI M i ir S.W. 22 sr. �y LAND _ RICcSWOeCKEq WATER - - BIRO RD Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area, ✓,rF,� B DINNER KEY A G i POINCIANA AVE Ci PROSPECT DR CH LW Is (: .S 1 h J i 3 N M— la ■1 ,. 611 li INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report and identify anticipated plan amendments to address to implement changes to Mule 9J-5. Specifically, evaluate the effect on the adopted element of those changes that require the City to revise the existing policy or establish a new policy to establish water quality standards for stormwater discharge (9J-5.0011(2)(c)5.). The City's level of service standard for drainage needs to include a water quality component. [9J- 5.0053(6)(a)6., 7., and 8.1 [Cuideboolc Page 421 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The Public works Department has recently acquired the services of Camp Dresser & McKee as consultants to update the Stormwater Master Plan. for the City of Miami. The report is due in mid 1997. An analysis of existing policies compared to with the impact of present and future development will be a part of this report. Projections for 20-30 year buildout for the stormwater system and level of services standard for water quality component will also be included in the report. Additionally, the City of Miami has re- ceived the National Discharge Elimination System Permit. This permit, issued by the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, has establish a monitoring program with the Capital Improve- ment Element to be reviewed on a 5 year interval. This included the installation of pollution protection devices to insure sanitary sewer separation from stormwater sewer system. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide all figures attachments that are referenced in the text, spe- cifically: drainage "sub -basins" and sanitary sewer flows (Sub -attachments T1, T2, U1, U2, V1; and Figures 11-3,11-2,1-2, and 11). t CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Refer to the following exhibits: SWD-1 through SWD-3; ` and Figures I.2, I.3, 11, and 11.2. 1 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues r a� rcr+cn 4 ar Qi 4 P - B D AJUA TUTTLE CSaY H2 A YraTTt.M 6l� PORT ray+ CLAV,HTON tv,"40 t C`J b � Kxt(Sx Y x[n ySW"m or Kry i 3, 1 4} I 96-- 796 r^�. 4C 31! C1 C� }" 36 F- U n c Q 34 U W t- U W 32 O o: a 3C 2f " DEP PERMITTED CAPACITY " MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND FLOW PROJECTIONS MONTH/YEAR --e-Treatment Capacity - Flow Projections ' ----Actual AADF Notes: Additional Notes: 1. Flow Diversion 2.25 MGD to Homestead Permitted Additional Capacity is 32.5 MGD 2. North District Phase lb - 10 MGD Expansion Capacity Under Construction is 32.5 MGD 3. South District Phase !a -10 MGD Expansion (interim Rating, TOP issued 7118194) Capacity Pending DEP Operating Permits is 25 MGD 4. Central District 10 MGD Rerate (Operating Permit Issued 3/22/95) Benefit of 29.64 MGD flow reduction from the 5. North District 10 MGD Rerate III Program is not included 6. South District Phase 1- 15 MGD Expansion (Interim Rating) November 1994 high flows are a result of the heavy 7. North District completion of two injection wells & interim pumping facilities rains associated with tropical stom Gordon -10 MGD Recertification (Application Pending) An expasion of 18.75 MGD is planned for the South District 8. Flow diversion of 3 MGD to Homestead WWTP to be completed in 2009 9. South District Phase 11- 12.5 MGD Expansion 10. North District Phase Il - 20 MGD Expansion 11. North District Rerate - 5 MGD MAJOR WATERSHEDS N.W. Tf St: C NX Tl ST. N.W 94 ST. Z c ld W—r';71 T4MlAMi CANAL ,V, 661M0�Vv.�OC�'0000�000w VIRGINIA KEY 0000000000000 COMFORT CANAL O00000 0000 O 000000000000°O n o o MIAMI RIVER CANAL 0 �0 000000000o 0000000000a �1 O ®Moto �� NO (O 000000000 wl-e JCANAL°o a 000 o y ® LITTLE RIVER CANAL 00000 0000 0 00 00 &SCAYNE BAY 00000 000 h 00 0 O INNER KEY 000000 G i 00 00 ..^�.i i POINCIANA AVL � 0 °� pq 000000000 00000 u0000 Cioo°O O °° 0 O Cltr Llmlls PROl�OGT DR. p I 796 � Fiur_e .#1' g .�_ 51 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT I. DCA COMMENT: Provide a comparison of the element's adopted ICE objectives with actual results to determine whether the objectives were achieved. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] [guidebook Pages 25-331 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Following are the element's adopted ICE Objectives and results. OBJECTIVE IC-1.1: To establish formal procedures for coordinating City planning and operating functions that are directly related to the City's Comprehensive Plan with the Dade County School Board, Metro Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department, Metro Dade County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division, Metro Dade County De- partment of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), the Seaport Department (Port of Miami), Aviation Department (Miami International Airport), the Dade County Metro- politan Planning Organization, the Dade County Shoreline Development Review Commit- tee, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Division of Historical Resources, Departmcnt of State, and any other state, local or federal agency whose cooperation is required to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. MEASURABLE TARGET: Establishment of formal procedures for coordination among the listed agencies. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1959): No formal procedures existed for coordination related to the City's Comprehensive Plan; coordina- tion took place on an ad hoc basis, or under the direction of other agencies such as the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community Af- fairs. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Coordination continues to exist on a largely informal basis. However, state requirements for review of proposed amendments to the City's Compre- hensive Plan by Metropolitan Dade County has had the effect of formalizing at least that part of the process. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? No, but some progress has been made. FUTURE ACTION: Continue to work toward achievement of this Objective. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following two Policies continue to be relevant: Policy IC-1.1.1: An intergovernmental coordination officer, with the approval of the City Manager and the concurrence of the Planning Director, will identify contact per- sons either within the Planning Department or within other appropriate City depart— ments that will serve as liaisons with those state and local agencies listed in Objec- tive 1.1 herein. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 9 of 29 06-W 796 Policy IC-1.1.3: The City will continue to seek membership on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), either formally or informally, and parallel member- ship on the Transportation Planning Council (TPC) in order to express its policies on land use and transportation through appropriate legislation. OBJECTIVE IC-2.1: To establish a planning coordination mechanism to ensure that con- sideration is given to both the impacts of land development and transportation policies within Miami on areas outside the City's jurisdiction and the impacts of land development outside the City's boundaries on the City of Miami. MEASURABLE 'TARGET: Establishment of a planning coordination mechanism for the stated purposes. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): No coordina- tion mechanism existed. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as baseline conditions. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? No. FUTURE ACTION: Continue to work toward achievement of this Objective. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following Policies continue to be relevant: Policy IC-2.1.2: The City will support Metropolitan Dade County in the establish- ment of a technical advisory committee, comprised of professional planning person- nel of the County and adjacent municipalities to review, evaluate, and reconcile dis- crepancies and to recommend compromise solutions to appropriate governing bodies of local government, to share inforrnration and to help evaluate the local impacts of proposed land development and transportation policies. Policy IC-2.1.3: The City will support the South Florida Regional Planning Council in developing informal coordination mechanisms such as regional issue study groups that coordinate land development and transportation policies among local govern- ments; and to establish mediation mechanisms to resolve potential regional conflicts. OBJECTIVE IC-2.2: Coordinate with state, region, and Metropolitan Dade County in es- tablishing levels of service standards for public facilities, infrastructure and services and reconcile differences by 1990. MEASURABLE TARGET: Reconcile differences in LOS standards by 1990. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Difference's existed between traffic LOS standards adopted by Metropolitan Dade County and those adopted by the City of Miami. CURRENT CONDITIONS: The differences were successfully reconciled. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 10 of 29 96- 796 i OBJECTIVE IC-3.1: Maximize the use of informal, cooperative agreements as mecha- nisms for intergovernmental conflict resolution within Dade County and minimize the use of litigation. MEASURABLE TARGET: Minimize conflict by using informal cooperative agree- ments. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLANT ADOPTION (1989): There was lit- tle conflict to address, and it was usually handled successfully through informal coopera- tion.' CURRENT CONDITIONS: Informal agreements continue to be the mainstay of inter- governmental coordination within Dade County. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following Policy continues to be relevant: Policy IC-3.1.1: The City will exhaust all efforts to solve intergovernmental con- flicts arising from adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans through in- formal mechanisms, including but not limited to utilizing the Dade County League of Cities and the South Florida Regional Planning Council's mediation process, before seeking remedies through the judicial system, provided that efforts at informal reso- lution do not prevent the City from seeking legal remedies, or jeopardize the City's ability to prevail in any legal action. 2. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised by the City in the report, such as: increased coordination with the local and federal govern- ment; encouraging all levels of government to work together to ensure adequate and timely shelter for people residing in the hurricane evacuation area; addressing the con- stant influx of immigrants to the area; and obtaining financial support from local, county, state, and federal social agencies. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.1 [Guidebook Pages 43-441 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) Coordination with the local and federal government occurs largely on an ad hoc, project- oriented basis. This process has worked well in the past, and there appears to be no need to develop any additional mechanisms to increase coordination. It should be borne in mind that Metropolitan Dade County acts as the local government on many matters in- volving the federal government such as transportation —which greatly reduces the op- portunity or need for coordination at the municipal level. For these reasons, no changes are indicated. b) Hurricane and all emergency management issues are handled by the responsible agency in Metro -Dade County, namely the Office of Emergency Management. This office is re- sponsible for all evacuation plans countywide as well as revising evacuation boundaries. Ongoing meetings with local officials, particularly prior to and during hurricane season, ensure familiarity with the evacuation plan and any revisions. Should the situation require Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Pagel 1 of 29 96 - 796 it, the Office of Emergency Management communicates the need for evacuation directly to the City Manager, who in turn, issues an evacuation order within the municipal juris- diction. This has proved satisfactory, therefore no changes are indicated. c) The City of Miami has taken strong initiatives, both at the State and federal level, to ob- tain adjustment assistance to compensate the City for the increased service load imposed by heavy flows of immigrants into the area. These efforts, in general, have been only modestly successful, thus the City has had to absorb the financial impact of continued immigration. Fortunately, due to the current situations in both Cuba and Haiti, projected immigration flows to Miami are expected to be more moderate. The City of Miami re- ceives periodic updates of the estimated number of immigrants within its jurisdiction from the demographic analysis performed by the Metro -Dade Planning Department. The impact of immigration and population growth, in general, is periodically analyzed with respect to level of service standards. No further changes are indicated. d) The City of Miami just 18 months ago formed a Grants Section, within the Finance De- partment, precisely to maximize financial support that the City receives. This section works in conjunction with operating departments to obtain funds for needed projects. This arrangement has resulted in improved success at obtaining funding from the shrink- ing grant pool. There is no need for further coordination at this level. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the needed actions related to the planning issues raised in the report. 19J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.1 (Guidebook Pages 45-461 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There are no actions needed that would require plan amendments to either address or implement. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Provide a summary description of the condition of the element at the date of the EAR addressing the following analyses: (a) fiscal implications of existing deficiencies; and (b) use of capital improvements to support efficient land use. 19J- 5.0053 (6) (a)2.; 9J-5.016(2) (b) and (e) (Guidebook Pages 21-231 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) The only Level of Service (LOS) objective that the City of Miami did not satisfy is that for Storm Sewers for which improvements are behind schedule. Current projections, based on historical record, indicate that by the year 2000, the City will have completed 51 percent of the 20 percent coverage standard. This will cost approximately $22 million. Due to the enormous difficulty of passing bond issues, the only dedicated funding source is the Stormwater Utility Trust Fund. Given the expected continuation of higher levels of construction activity relative to the late 1980's and early 1990's within the City, it is es timated that approximately $33 million in revenues will be generated by the year 2000. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 12 of 29 ti 50-- 796 �A Assuming that no catastrophic maintenance costs are incurred, funding will be sufficient to achieve the stated objective. b) The City of Miami has for many years been a built -out urban area with a fully -developed roadway system from local streets to interstate highways, with good local rapid transit in the form of both fixed rail and bus lines. No capital improvements to support efficient land use are needed. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide an evaluation of the need for or revised policies to meet the provisions of the Concurrency Management System (CMS). The City should include in- formation on how the new Rule 9J-5 requirements have been addressed through the adoption of a CMS and evaluate how the implementation of the CMS is progressing. [9J-5.0055; 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.; 9J-5.016 [Guidebook Page 421 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City of Miami's concurrency management system is not adopted as a separate entity, but instead relies upon the authority of the MCNP 1989- 2000 and the City's existing land development regulations and procedures, which have proven sufficient to address all requirements of the CMS. All the new Rule 9J-5 requirements are readily incorporated into these administrative procedures. Implementation of the City's CMS has been accomplished without any significant problems, and not once during the six years since its inception has a development permit been denied due to deficient levels -of -service. This is due, of course, to the often -mentioned fact that the city is almost entirely built-up, with more -than -adequate infrastructure to serve much more dense development than now exists. Most "development" in Miami is actually redevelop- ment" of land that has already been developed, placing much lower demands on infrastruc- ture than does new, suburban development, which is actually the main target of level -of - service and concurrency requirements. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as a new capital improvements element that includes the cost of needed capital replacement for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the Future Land Use Element, and forecasting of revenues and ex- penditures for the next five years. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.1 [Guidebook Pages 43-441 CITY OF MIA.MI RESPONSE: Given that current population projections are considerably' lower than at the time of adoption, the City of Miami has actually increased its surplus in re- gard to four of the five applicable LOS standards, (see attached table.) The earlier projections had factored in a heavy immigration component, based on the experience in the early 1980s, far in excess of the actual results. In fact, based on current projections, the City's infrastruc- ture will continue to have excess capacity for parks, potable water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste at least until the year 2017. Assuming that Metropolitan Dade County continues its policy of providing water and sewer treatment at a level -of -service standard minimum of 2% in excess of demand, and that the City continues to provide solid waste collection service as demand requires, excess infrastructure capacity for these services will be available well be- yond the next MCNP horizon year of 2020. Transportation service adequacy will depend on Metropolitan Dade County's commitment to continued capacity enhancements in its mass Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 13 of 29 transit services; the existing services will have satisfactory capacity (within the city of Mi- ami) only until about 2015, if present projections are accurate. In the case of storm sewers, the city is on schedule to achieve 51 percent of the 20 coverage standard by the year 2000. The projects necessary to achieve this standard have already been identified within the exist- ing Capital Improvement Element and Capital Improvement Program. The latter contains all capital improvement projections, not only those necessary to sustain LOS standards, and pro- vides expected revenues and costs for all capital projects over a five year time horizon. 4. DCA COMMENT: Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified changes that are needed (note above). [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.1 [Guidebook Pages 45-461 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There are no plan amendments required to implement identified changes. The only proposed revision, requires internal accounting refinements. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Include a new land use map, a conflict analysis, a summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution, and data for natural disaster planning from the coastal management element at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a)2; 9J-5.012 (a), (d) and (e) [Guidebook Pages 21-221 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) New land use map (future). The City of Miami Future Land Use map, following this page, shows the land use categories for uses along the coastal areas. b) Conflict analysis among shorelines uses. The City of Miami is a city in which most of the shoreline uses are already developed and almost no vacant land exists within the city limits. Shoreline land uses were established decades ago based upon acceptable land uses for coastal areas at that time, which was prior to the present escalated cost of recovering from a natural disaster and emphasis on retreating from the coast. In intensely developed areas, such as the City of Miami, it would be unfeasible economically and politically to change shoreline land uses to substantially relieve existing density. c) A summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution. Between 1988 and 1994, Dade County substantially increased its pollution enforcement in the Miami and Little Rivers which impact the coastal waters of Biscayne Bay. The Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Florida Marine Patrol have taken the lead in coordinating an interagency effort to curb water pollution in the Miami River and Biscayne Bay. The Miami River Interagency Enforcement Program identifies point and nonpoint sources of pollution and focuses on enforcement activities. Since 1987, the Program has expanded in both personnel and scope of work. The Miami River Enforcement Group is comprised Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 _ Response to sufficiency Issues Page 14 of 29 96- 796 CITY OF MIAMI FUTURE LAND USE MAP jI NW 7ZL �t ,J W i' LAND USE LEGEND a�F�t smk —y wa:aaar OLJ1 ,r-z t, f r L� ows unaam�d as �f!� r " t i 9.'..]•,', wane„ a.My .wroh.:ry ud.ml oen t w Kith o .y nA,MF. il, ndas.r- c , om. p1 > v R—w C---W t I ' I1� --I C—W IC-21 ` �sra arrKe t7rWtt J w;s I—neiaul PIHk F.d11ea t� .va ue�ne IGi1 Np ndv.n.1 m _ r rm I INTERNATIONAL } { I i., w m .^"^^'.""'i •�.�.t 1� II�iN .x�tYid� AIRPO]b- 9M � d� BISCAYNE BAY JU& 2LttL- Ca m j, IF Ay 4 - .. POy-- ti �I �_} r- ___ I `q- 1 '� ;''` m - .•'.�^ � .�,"".r r ,rr.� � ua, � i'i'\ 1`., f �4 2�5 r 9 r jp h- # n�i i I :t+f✓+a, t� �' .i ,.+i.+, M 14 1 S { r s �. �Y f 1 �t < — ,I. a ' A 3. { . �r r +`� r 1 il a°ls; 'rw ayh +t ,wC,y �i "- . t +: r,iJ� I IFaE..i `• %€ .. ie I.T, B/SC4) .VE i 77. SOURCE: Planning, Building, and Zoning Department o f \ ,•-----•---•— —•___ _ %, ` (Revised July 1994) Li of representatives from municipal, county, state and federal agencies with surface water jurisdiction. It meets monthly to improve interagency coordination, communication and enforcement. Table A, following, shows a summary of enforcement actions from Decem- ber 1988 through the third quarter of 1993. Table A Miami River Interagency Enforcement Program Enforcement Action 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Violation Complaints 97 200 201 233 284 206 1,221 Violation Notices 18 10 7 24 23 53 135 Field Notices 42 51 63 53 55 59 323 Tickets 38 43 24 32 42 45 224 Final Notice Prior to 6 6 5 9 9 2 31 Court Action New Sources 46 16 19 9 8 4 102 Total Per Year 247 326 319 360 421 369 2,036 The Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement Management Plan (SWIM) was developed in 1988 by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) with input from Dade County, other governments, and the private sector. The intent of the Plan is to protect, restore, and en- hance Biscayne Bay. The 1988 SWIM Plan led to the completion of 50 projects administered by the SFWMD at a cost of over $12 million. During 1994, the SFWMD revised its 1988 SWIM Plan. This Plan also incorporated Dade County input throughout its development. The revised SWIM Plan targets three areas: the Miami River, Arch Creek, and Black Creek. Table B repre= sents the period of time from 1988 through 1994. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues (Text continues on page 20) �i Table B Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement Management Plan (SWIM) Project Implementation 1988 - 1994 Original Recommendation 1994 Status 1)Reclassify the Miami River The Miami River was reclassified from Class IV to a Class III water body in 1989. 2) Separate Sanitary from Stormwater Sewers 3) Improve Stormwater Drainage 4) Improve Sanitary Sewers 124 stormwater connections to the sanitary sewer were identified, 71 were eliminated by the City of Miami, Wa- ter and Sewer Department (WASA) have disconnected 30 more, and Flor- ida Department of Transportation will remove the remaining 23. 1,900 acres were retrofitted by the City of Miami. Additional areas were retro- fitted by the Cities of North Miami Beach and Hialeah. In 1994, Dade County established a stormwater utility program to fluid stormwater improve- ments Countywide. i Video Inspections of 24,932 feet (4.72 miles) of sewer lines were completed by 1994. A sewer main, an interceptor and four smaller systems were repaired and four more systems are scheduled. An estimated 20 MGD of infiltration has been eliminated. WASAD replaced the Virginia Key pipeline, continuing regionalization efforts, improved fa- cilities and methods, and repairing de- fective equipment. Transmission ca- pacity has been improved by upgrad- ing pump stations and collection sys- tems i 5) Improve Marine Sewage Contamination Standard A project was initiated to develop a criterion for fecal pollution in marine waters. 6) Specific Water Quality Problems and areas of contamination investigations and remediation actions were undertaken in the Miami River, Wagner Creek, Tamiami Canal, Mi- ami -Canal, Military Canal, Goulds Canal, Black Creek, Little River, Bis- cayne Canal, Munisport, Virginia Key, Snake Creek, Maule Lake and Arch Creek. Contaminant analyses were ' tailored to each area and target con- taminants. 7) Monitoring Monitoring now includes 90 stations in the Biscayne Bay and its tributaries. Projects were funded to examine sedi- ments in major tributaries and marinas, pesticides and metals in South Dade canals, and organic compounds and metals in 14 marinas. 8) Local Standards The monitoring program was modified to include Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Results indicate a need to re-examine state standards for Class III waters. Efforts are also underway to develop interim Pollutant Load Re- duction Goals. 9) Permitting Requirements for Marina In 1989, Dade County adopted an or- .' dinance that requires boat docking and storage facilities with more than ten. slips to obtain operating permits. About 300 marinas have been permit- ted. Dade County has developed monitoring requirements for all per- mitted facilities. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 17 of 29 1. 96� 796 10) Compliance Monitoring of Existing 11) Funding for Additional Enforcement 12) Enforcement Responsibilities 13) Freshwater Inflow 14) Circulation and Flushing 15) Shoreline and Bottom Stabilization 16) Restoration and Preservation of Natural Habitats Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues All marinas, boat facilities, new out - falls coastal construction and systems dredging operations must obtain per- mits from DERM; most must also obtain permits from FDEP or USCOE. Compliance monitoring is usually conducted by DERM and other permitting agencies. DERM has four firll-time staff who target Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. The FDEP provides a part-time inspector and Marine Patrol officers. A multi -agency task force meets monthly to coordinate water related enforcement activities in Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. The SFWMD is developing a pilot project to restore sheet flow east of L- 3 1, into Biscayne Bay National Park. Connections between the various sec- tions of north bay remain unob- structed. A major marina project, however, was constructed in an area that has very poor circulation. DERM has stabilized over five miles of shoreline with rip -rap or man- groves. Twelve artificial reefs have been established in formerly dredged or barren areas of Biscayne Bay. 17 acres of mangroves were restored near the Oleta River and 3 more acres were created along unconsolidated shorelines. Exotic vegetation was re- moved from large portions of the 240 acre Nature Conservancy Tract in South Dade to its natural depth with dredge spoil and a deep trough is be- ing filled to encourage sea grass growth in North Biscayne Bay. Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 18 of 29 AIR;- 799 2 17) Land Use 18) Mangrove Restoration Areas 19) Manage Preservation Areas 20) Submerged Land Ownership 21) Card Sound and Barnes Sound Management 22) Develop Centralized Data Bases Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Dade's Comprehensive Plan recom- mends a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres in the environ- mentally sensitive lands bordering Biscayne National Park. Lands have been purchased for preservation by Dade County, Save Our Rivers and the National Park. Arrangements for management of preserved and restored areas have been made with other state and fed- eral agencies and Dade County. Four Save Our Rivers tracts are within the Biscayne Bay SWIM area. Purchase of the C-III Basin is nearly complete, These are managed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Remaining private lands in WCA's, 3A and 3B, the Dade/Broward levee and the Model Lands basin are yet to be acquired Digitizing of state-owned, submerged lands has been assigned a high prior- ity by FDEP. Card Sound, Little Card Sound, Bar- nes Sound and Manatee Bay have been included in the boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Santu- ary. A management plan for Card Sound was approved in 1991. FDEP is assembling a geographic re- source data base that includes bottom habitat maps and water quality data. Water quality data is being recom- piled in a SFWMD database. Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 19 of 29 96� 796 23) Public Education/Awareness 24) Historical Contamination Source: Biscayne Bay Swim Plan Completed projects include environ- mental "flash cards," instructional videos, a multilingual brochure, river tours and the annual Baynanza and Riverfest festivals, public service an- nouncements, interpretive brochures, and educational curricula. A study was initiated in 1993 to lo- cate and assess water quality impacts from historical or active dump sites, landfills, construction debris sites and study pits. (Text continued from page 15) d) Data for Natural Disaster Planning: Evacuation and sheltering is based on the "population -at -risk", which is the total population in each of the evacuation areas, hurri- cane categories 1-5. A floating percentage (between 15-25%) of this population is applied to determine the number of people expected to evacuate early, mid and late, based on be- havioral studies and the number of people who would seek refuge in public shelters. Roadway clearance times to evacuate the Dade-Broward line are developed according to these numbers, as are the number of public shelter spaces required. The hurricane evacuation areas map shows the hurricane vulnerability zoned evacuation areas in Dade County. Within the City of Miami, these evacuation areas are located adjacent to Bis- cayne Bay, the Miami River and the islands. For population figures within Dade County and shelters see tables C and D. 2. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and the location of land uses in the coastal management element, as re- quired by Rule 9,I-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.a. through l., F.A.C. The City analyzed subsections m. through o. Subsections a. through 1. should also be analyzed, or the City should pro- vide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. [Guidebook Pages 33-38) CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) The accuracy and use of the population projections. The population projections used in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are accurate. b) Actual vs. Anticipated rate of development. The City of Miami —especially its coastal areas —is already developed. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 20 of 29 96- 796 e) The effect of concurrency requirements. Adequate infrastructure capacity exists to maintain adopted level of service standards for the entire city area. Concurrency require- ments have had no effect on development or redevelopment. d) The maintenance and/or achievement of adequate level of service standards. See above. e) Coordinating the provision of public facilities and services with development. Within the coastal areas the public facilities and services are already available. f) The actual vs. projected revenues and expenditures regarding capital improve- ments. The City of Miami has a Capital Improvement Program that identifies projects and funding sources to implement capital projects. g) The generation and status of new revenues services. See the Capital Improvement element. h) Physical deterioration of public buildings, utilities, infrastructure, recreational fa- cilities, and parks, and the need for replacement or rehabilitation. The City of Miami has a Capital Improvement Program that identifies an implementation schedule for physi- cal public projects that are deteriorating and need replacement or rehabilitation. i) Physical deterioration of buildings and structures in the commercial and industrial land use categories. Most of the buildings and structures within the commercial and in- dustrial land used categories are in relatively good physical condition. The City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County have incentive programs to improve buildings in these land use categories. j) Physical deterioration of the housing stock including mobile homes. Most of the housing stock within the coastal areas is in relatively good condition; however, the City of Miami has housing incentive programs for housing rehabilitation, if needed. k) The location of development with regard to existing infrastructure. Within the coastal area of the City of Miami there is existing infrastructure to serve development. 1) The location of development in relation to where development was anticipated in the adopted plan, such as within areas designated for urban growth. As the City is al- ready developed, this does not apply. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed action to address the planning issues raised in the, coastal management element, such as: manatee protection (identify completion of the new manatee protection plan), operation of the water drainage management system, shoreline access, and natural disaster planning, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.a. through f., F.A.C. (Guidebook Pages 43-44) CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Manatee Protection. Metropolitan Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) completed a Dade County Manatee Protection Plan in December 1995 which also applies to the City of Miami. The plan provides a series of measures to protect the manatees within the City of Miami. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 21 of 29 96 796 ' 1 Operation of the Water Drainage Management System. Need to quantify the flood pro- tection and water quality levels of services currently provided; to reduce urban stormwater loads discharged to the environment; to improve to outfalls in the Miami River; to meet all applicable regulatory requirements; to provide a rationale for flood protection and water quality level of services (LOS); to develop plans for future stormwater facilities that will im- prove the level of flood protection and water quality where necessary, and to prioritize identi- fled stormwater facility needs. Shoreline Access: Need to continue public access to the Bay and the Miami River, including the expansion of the rivertwalk. Need a ten-year plan for marine development. Natural Disaster Planning: The regional responsibility for natural disaster planning lies with the Metro Dade County Office of Emergency Management. This office coordinates ef- forts and receives input from the different municipalities in Dade County. The City of Miami Office of Emergency Management, located within the Fire Rescue Department, prepared an ' Emergency Response Plan in 1995. The plan represents a concerted effort by all city depart- ments to ensure that the response effort by the City of Miami to a catastrophic event will be a conditioned and effective one. The purpose of the plan is to ensure that the safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Miami is maintained in the event of a disaster including a natu- ral disaster. The plan is reviewed and updated annually 4. DCA COMMENT: Provide updated data and analysis of evacuation times and shelter capacity. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.m.; 9J-5.012 (2) (e)1.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The Metro Dade County Planning Department map "Hurricane Evacuation Areas", following this page, shows the Coastal High Hazard Area, and hurricane vulnerability zones for various categories of storms. Table C shows clearance times and sheltering as developed using the population figures as reported in the 1990 Lower Southeast Hurricane Evacuation Study: Teelmical Report. Tables D, E, and F list the General Population Shelters in Dade County, Hurricane Shelters Located in the City of Miami, and Shelters for Persons With Special Needs, respectively. (Text continues on page 26) i 1 i Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 22 of 29 - 796 �A h Nly nn2 _T DA;)ECo4U wl u U, cc cc w to Cc WATER CONSERVAT N REA .j Z LU TAVIAMITRAIL US 41 cc it% 10 t ffl N. KENt C-1 N Zi, > L V FLORIOA BAY Z 0 1101M 0 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK HURRICANE EVACUATION AREAS Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) Category 3 Hurricane Evacuation Area Encompasses CHHA (Cat. 1-3 in total) Hurricane Categories 4 and 6 Sources: Chapter 9j,5.003(19)(60) Regional and Local Evacuation Plan METRO-DADE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 96- 796 �A TABLE C 1994 HURRICANE EVACUATION AND SHELTERING Evacuation Shelter Shelter Spaces Population -at -Risk Clearance Times Requirements Existing (Deficit) Category 1 Hurricane (Evacuation of Coastal High Hazard Area and Mobile Homes) 196,927 12 to 15 hours 29,120 42,747 spaces (no deficit) Category 2 & 3 Hurricane (Evacuation of Hurricane Vulnerability Zone and Above) 408,740 21.5 to 27.25 hours 47,020 2,747 spaces (4,273 space deficit) Category 4 & 5 Hurricane (winds 131 mph or more) 450,354 26 to 31.5 hours 75,185 42,747 spaces (32,438 space deficit) Source: Dade County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 1994 i r j Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 23 of 29 96- 796 TABLED AMERICAN RED CROSS GENERAL POPULATION SHELTERS DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Faeili Address Ca aci Allapattah Elementary 4700 NW 12 Ave., Miami, 33127 415 Allapattah Middle 1331 NW 46 St., Miami, 33127 960 Ashe, Bowman Elementary 6601 SW 152 Ave., Miami, 33193 395 Auburndale, Elementary 3255 SW 6 St., Miami, 33135 627 Bent Tree Elementary 4861 SW 140 Ave., Miami, 33175 637 Biscayne Gardens Elementary 5600 NW 151 St., Miami, 33169 503 Blanton Elementary 10327 NW 11 Ave., Miami, 33150 965 Brentwood Elementary 3101 NW 191 St., Miami, 33056 754 Bright, James Elementary 2530 W. 10 Ave., Hialeah, 3010 392 Dunbar Elem. 505 NW 20 St., Miami, 33136 520 Glades Middle 9451 SW 64 St., Miami, 33173 825 Good, Joella Elem. 6350 NW 188 Terr., Hialeah, 33015 300 Greenglade Elem. 3060 SW 127 Ave., Miami 33175 840 Hall, Joe Elem. 1901 SW 134 Ave., Miami, 33175 559 Kendale Elem. 10693 SW 963 St., Miami, 33176 920 Kinloch Park Middle 4340 NW 3 St. Miami, 33126 960 Miami Coral Park HS 8865 SW 16 St., Miami, 33165 2031 Miami Lakes Elem. 14250 NW 67 Ave. Mia. Lks, 987 33014 Miami Northwestern HS 7007 NW 12 Ave., Miami, 33126 1120 North Miami Middle 13105 NE 7 Ave., No. Miami, 1072 33161 Orchard Villa Elem. 5720 NW 13 Ave., Miami, 33147 274 Palm Lakes Elem. 7450 W 16 Ave., Hialeah, 33014 793 Poinciana Park Elem. 6745 NW 23 Ave., Miami 33147 571 Sheppard, Ben Elem. 5700 W. 24 Ave., Hialeah, 33016 500 Skyway Elem 4555 NW 206 Tr, Opa-Locka, 430 33055 Stirrup Elem. 330 NW 97 Ave., Miami, 33172 578 Southwest Miami HS 8855 SW 50 Tr., Miami, 33165 271 Sunset Park Elem. 10235 SW 84 St., Miami, 33173 570 Sweetwater Elem. 10655 SW 4 St., Sweetwater, 33174 630 Winston Park Elem. 13200 SW 79 St., Miami, 33183 440 (BOLD - Shelters located within the City of Miami limits.) Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues i a i s i ti l y i { { Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 24 of 29 11. Table E HURRICANE SHELTERS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI General Population Shelters American Red Cross Facili Address Capacity Allapattah Elem. 4700 NW 12 Ave. 415 Allapattah Middle 1331 NW 46 St. 960 Auburndale Elem. 3255 SW 6th Street 627 Dunbar Elem. 505 NW 20 St. 520 Kinloch Park Middle 4340 NW 3 St. 960 Northwestern H.S. 7007 NW 12 Ave. 1120 Orchard Villa Elem. 5720 NW 13 Ave. 274 Poinciana Park Elem. 6745 NW 23 Ave. 571 Primary Special Needs Shelters Facili Address Kesley Pharr Elem. 2000 NW 46th Street Miami Edison HS 6161 NW 5th Ct. Shenandoah Elem. 1023 SW 21st Ave Table F i SHELTERS FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS (PSN) Facili Address 1 Lake Stevens Middle 18484 NW 48 Pl., Miami, 33055 Jose Marti Middle 5701 W. 24 Ave., Hialeah, 33016 North Miami Beach H.S. 1247 NE 167 St. NMB, 33162 Ruben Dario Middle 350 NW 97 Ave., Miami 33172 Kesley Pharr Elem. 2000 NW 46 St., Miami, 33142 Miami Edison H.S. 6161 SW 21 Ave., Miami, 33135 Shenandoah Elem. 1023 SW 21 Ave., Miami, 33135 W.R. Thomas Middle 13001 SW 26 St., Miami, 233175 Miami Coral Park H.S. 8865 SW 16 St., Miami, 33165 McMillian Middle 13100 SW 59 St., Miami, 33183 Miami Killian H.S. 10655 SW 97 Ave., Miami, 33156 i (BOLD - Shelters located in the City of Miami limits.) r Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 25 of 299 1i (Text continued from page 22) 5. DCA COMMENT: Identify the need for post -disaster redevelopment plans, or that the City intends to use its Future Land Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.c.; 9J-5.012 (2) (e) 2.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City intends to use its Future Land Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. 6. DCA COMMENT: Indicate the need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal plan- ning area populations with local hurricane plans. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.m.; 7. And 8.; 9J- 5.006 (3) (b) 5.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There is a need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal planning areas population with local hurricane plans. However, it cannot be imple- mented until a master plan for hurricane events has been adopted by Dade County. 1. DCA COMMENT: Include a comparison of the element's adopted objectives with ac- tual results using measurable targets to determine whether objectives were achieved. The targets provided are not measurable and the statements of actual results and condi- tions for each objective are vague and incomplete. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 3.1 [Guidebook Pages 25-291 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: OBJECTIVE NR 1.1: Preserve and protect the existing natural systems within Virginia Key, the Dinner Key spoil islands, and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries. MEASURABLE TARGET: Preserve and protect these existing natural systems. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): The cited natural systems are on lands or waters controlled by governmental agencies. Specifically, the parts of Virginia Key and the Dinner Key spoil islands lying within the City are owned by the City of Miami. These areas cannot be changed in use without approval,by the City. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the date of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-1.2: Improve the water quality of, and ensure health safety within, the Miami River, its tributaries and the Little River. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues MEASURABLE TARGET: Improve water quality and ensure health safety within the cited waterways. However, this Objective does not contain a water quality standard to be met, and a time frame for meeting that standard. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Water quality in the Miami River was unsatisfactory. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Water quality has improved, but the improvement is not measurable against a standard. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Pail:ially. FUTURE ACTION: Amend this Objective to include a measurable standard of water quality, an acceptable level for the Miami River waters, and a time frame for achieving that level. OBJECT117 E N.R-1.3: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora. MEASURABLE TARGET: Ensure that land development proposals are consistent with maintenance of conditions necessary to preserve and protect native flora and fauna. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Land devel- opment proposals are reviewed to identify potential adverse effects on adjacent areas with distinctive vegetative features or natural wildlife. There are few such areas within the City of Miami. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the time of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-2.1: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city. (See Potable Water Objective PW-1.2) MEASURABLE TARGET: Provision of an adequate and safe supply of potable water. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Adequate and safe supplies of potable water were available to city residents. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the time of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-3.1: Improve the monitoring of air quality within areas perceived to have the highest potential for air quality problems. MEASURABLE TARGET: Air quality monitoring and enforcement of standards in Miami is the responsibility of Metropolitan Dade County. The City of Miami cooperates with the county toward the improvement of air quality. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Dade County, which includes the City of Miami, was a non -attainment area. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 27 of 29 9 6 ' 796 96 i CURRENT CONDITIONS: Dade County, including the City of Miami, is an attain- ment area. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-3.2: Prevent the degradation of ambient air quality within the city. MEASURABLE TARGET: No degradation of ambient air quality in the city. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Dade County, which includes the City of Miami, was a non -attainment area. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Dade County, including the City of Miami, is an attain- ment area OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. 2. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, location of land uses and the social and economic effects for the major problems in the conservation element, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.a. through o., F.A.C. Only subsections d., n. And o. Were analyzed. Subsections a., b., c., e., f , g and h should also be analyzed, or the City should provide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Only subsections d., n., and o. are directly applicable to this Conservation of Natural Resources element. Subsections a., b., c., e., f., g and h are, at best, only tangentially applicable, and are therefore addressed elsewhere in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the Conservation Element, such as air quality, wellfield protection, water storage capacity and stormwater drainage, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.a. through f., F.A.C. CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Metropolitan Dade County is the only governmental i agency empowered to address the planning issues of air quality, wellfield protection, and water storage quality as they relate to urban land within the City of Miami. Stormwater drainage issues are addressed by both Dade County and the City of Miami. These stormwater issues, as they relate to the City, are discussed in the Infrastucture and Coastal Management Element of the EAR. 4. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the impacts of development on natural re- F sources, such as Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.c./ 9J-5.013 (1) (a), (b), and (c)] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: No significant impacts of development that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Miami are anticipated that would adversely affect Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. It should be pointed out again that the City of Miami is fully - Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 I Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 28 of 29 _ c i 6 developed; there is virtually no vacant land of any significance that can be developed with high -intensity urban uses; and environmental controls are in effect that minimize the danger of redevelopment that might jeopardize natural resources such as Biscayne Bay and the Mi- ami River. Indeed, as pointed out elsewhere in this report, the cumulative effects of compre- hensive planning and implementation of monitoring and control mechanisms has resulted in the significant improvement of air, water, and general environmental quality during the past two decades. GENERAL 1. IDCA COMMENT: Include a schedule for transmittal and adoption of the plan amendments identified in the adopted EAR. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.b] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The few amendments that are contemplated will be pre- pared for the second amendment cycle of 1996—probable transmittal by December, 1996— with adoption early in 1997 following DCA review and comment. (This schedule assumes that the City will request, and be granted, approval of the six-month extension allowed by law.) I Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 29 of 29 r �y S S d I STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Governor Secretar y January 29, 1996 The Honorable Stephen P. Clark City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Post Office Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: City of Miami Adopted BAR Sufficiency Review Determination Dear Mayor Clark: The Department has completed ,its sufficiency review of the City of Miami as Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), as adapted on November 16, 1995, and has determined that it does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for sufficiency, as defined in Subsection 163.3191(9), F.S. We met in Miami on January 23, 1996, with members of the City's planning staff to go over preliminary findings prior to finalizing this report. I believe the meeting was a success because it enabled us to better understand the future the City envisions and the difficulties your staff faced in preparing the appraisal. At the same time, we were able to more effectively explain why our findings indicate several areas that were not sufficiently addressed; for example, an evaluation of the effect of rule changes on several elements of the Miami Comprehensive:- Neighborhood Plan is missing; identification of proposed amendments to carry out EAR recommendations is needed; and new, revised minimum five and ten-year timeframes and population projections are required.• A complete list of the Department's findings and recommendations is attached. 3 2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • T A L L A H A S S E E, FLORIDA 3 2 3 9 9- 2 1 0 0 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRF M STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA REMRY OFFICE GREEN SWAW AREA OF MTICAL STATE CON(1:1tN FIELD OFFICE P.O.6% 4022 HELD OFFICE 2796 OJaems Hig6ray, Suite 212 8600 N.W. 3bdi Shed 155 Eat Swunedin Maradm, F" 330 2227 Miami, Florida 331594022 6u tow, Florida 3MO 4641 96- 796 The Honorable Stephen P. Clark January 29, 1996 Page Two We believe that these outstanding issues can be quickly resolved and we pledge to assist the City in whatever way needed. Please be aware that pursuant to Section 163.3187(5), F.S., and Rule 9J--5 0053(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, the City is precluded from further amendment to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan until the EAR is found sufficient by the Department. However, the City may adopt amendments to implement recommendations in the EAR and submit them to the Department for review. We appreciate your staff taking the time to meet with us last week to discuss these issues. ..The Department is prepared to provide any additional technical assistance necessary for the City to adequately address the EAR sufficiency requirements. Please contact David Dahlstrom, Planning Manager, or Kay Carlson, Planner TV, at (904) 487-4545 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Charles G. Pattison, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management i CGP/kc Enclosures cc: Clark Turner, Chief, Community Planning Division Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council /V i i I • 96- 796 1i CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1995 SUFFICIENCY ISSUES The following is a list of the Department's recommendations to resolve specific Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. requirements that were not addressee) in the City of Miami's'adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Where applicable, page numbers of the Department's EAR Guidebook (enclosed) are provided for reference in addressing. rule requirements. Future Land Use Element 1. Provide an analysis of the social and economic effects of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and location of land uses, such as the accuracy and use of population projections, actual vs, anticipated rate of development, and the effect of concurrency requirements. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)4.] [Guidebook Pages 33-38] 2. Provide an assessment 62 the impact of unanticipated and unforeseen problems and opportunities related to land use planning which have occurred.since the adoption of the plan. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a.) 5. ] [Guidebook Pages 39-40] . 3. Provide an evaluation of the effect on the adopted element of the following changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.: [9J-5.0053(6)(a)6.] [Guidebook Pages 40-42] a) analyze the need for additional dredge/spoil disposal sites as required by Rule 9J-5.006(l)(f)3. Special consideration should be given to the dredging of the Miami River, the Little River and Wagner Creek. b) analyze the need for a new objective or revised existing objectives to coordinate land uses with hazard; mitigation report recommendations as required by Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)6. c) analyze the need to revise existing policies to ensnare adequate facilities (such as stormwater drainage capacity and quality) are available concurrent with impacts of development as required by Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)3. d) indicate the need for a new future land use map or map series which includes the new definition of the coastal high hazard area as required by Rules 9J-5.006(4)(a) and (b)6. and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.c. 96•- 796 �i 4. Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as population growth and the pressure to increase residential densities. [9J- 5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages 43-44] 5. Include new, revised minimum 5-year and minimum 10-year timeframes and population projections as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.a. 6. Identify proposed or anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified rule changes. [9J-5.0053(6) (a) 8.] [Guidebook Pages 45-46] 7. Provide in tabular form the appropriate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use for the gross land areas included in each existing land use category from the adopted plan as well as from the plan at the date of the EAR. Compare the results from .these, two timeframes and provide an analysis of the success or failure of land use policies, trends, problems and future opportunities. [9J- 5.006(1)(c); 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] 8. Identify the natural resources on the existing land use map from the plan at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.006(1)(b)] Infsrtsueturo Element 1. Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report and identify anticipated plan amendments t© address or implement changes to Rule 9J-5. Specifically, evaluate the effect on the adopted element of those changes that require the City to revise the existing policy or establish a new policy to establish water quality standards for stormwater discharge (9J-5.0011(2) (c) 5.). The City's level of service standard for drainage needs to include a water quality component. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6., 7., and 8:] (Guidebook Page 42) 2. Provide all figures and attachments that are referenced in the text, specifically: drainage "sub -basins" and sanitary' sewer flows (Sub -attachments T1, T2, U1, U2, V1; and Figures II-3, II-2, I-2, and 11). ' Intergovernmental Coordination Element 1. Provide a comparison of the element's adopted ICE objectives with actual results to determine whether the objectives were achieved. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] [Guidebook Pages 25-33] 2 L 96-- 796 t' i 2. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised by the city in the report, such as: increased coordination with local and federal government; encouraging all levels of government to work together to ensure adequate and timely shelter for people residing in the hurricane evacuation area; addressing the constant influx of immigrants to the area; and obtaining financial support from local, county, state, and federal social agencies. i` [9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages 43-44] 3. identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the needed actions related to the planning issues raised in the report. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.] [Guidebook Pages 45-46] Capital Improvements Element 1. Provide a summary description of the condition of the element at the date of the EAR addressing the following analyses: ' (a) fiscal implications of existing deficiencies; and (b) use of capital improvements to support efficient land use. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 2. ; 9J-5.01.6 (2) (b) and (e) ] [Guidebook Pages 21-231 2. Provide an evaluation of the need for new or revised policies to meet the provisions of the Concurrency Management System (CMS). The City should include information on how the new Rule 93-5 requirements have been addressed through the adoption of a CABS and evaluate how the implementation of the CMS is progressing. [9J-5.0055; 9J-- 5.0053(6)(a)6.; 9J-5..016] [Guidebook Page 42) 3. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as a new capital improvements element that includes the costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the Future Land ; Use Element, and a forecasting of revenues and expenditures for the next five years. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages 43-441 4.- Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified changes that are needed (note above). [937- 5.0053(6)(a)8.] [Guidebook Pages 45-46] r r: • i i E F 3 s` f 96= 796 Coastal Management Element 1. Include a new land use map, a conflict analysis, a summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution, and data for natural disaster planning from the coastal management element at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)2; 9J- 5.012 a), (d) and (e)] [Guidebook Pages 21-22] 2. Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and the location of land uses in the coastal management element, as required by Rule 9J- 5.0053(6)(a)4.a. through 1., F.A.C. The City analyzed subsections m. through o. Subsections a. through 1. should also be analyzed, or the City should provide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. [Guidebook Pages 33-38] 3. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the coastal management element, such as: manatee protection (identify completion of the new manatee protection plan), operation of the water drainage management system, shoreline access, and natural disaster planning, as required by Rule 9J--5.0053(6)(a)7.a. through f., F.A.C. [Guidebook Pages 43-441 4. Provide updated data and analysis.of evacuation tunes and shelter capacity. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)4.m.; 9J-5.012(2)(e)1.] 5. Identify the need for post -disaster redevelopment plans, or that the City intends to use its Future hand Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. [93-5.0053(6)(a)6.c.; 9J- 5.012(2)(e)2.] 6. Indicate the need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal planning area populations with local hurricane plans. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)4.m., 7. and 8.; 9J-5.006(3)(b)5.] conservation Element 1. Include a comparison of the element's adopted objectives with actual results using measurable targets to determine whether objectives were achieved. The targets provided are not measurable and the statements of actual results and conditions for .each objective are vague and incomplete. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] [Guidebook Pages 25-29) 2. Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, location of land uses and the social and economic effects of the major problems identified in the conservation element, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a) 4.a. through o., F.A.C. Only subsections d., n. and o. were analyzed. Subsections a., b., c., e., f., g. and h. should 4 96- 796 8 ' 1:;90 AUG -2 k'l 10: 2G STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Govemor Secretary July 29,.1996 Mr. Jack Luft, Director Department of Community Planning & Revitalization City of Miami P.O. Lox 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: Response to Evaluation and Appraisal Report Sufficiency Issues Dear Mr. Luft: The Department has received three copies of your response to the issues raised in our review of the City of Miami's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated January 29, 1996. We received the response on July 15, 1996. This letter is provided to inform you of the Department's policies for reviewing EAR sufficiency responses. The Department will review your response and provide comments within 60 days. If your response is determined to address all sufficiency issues, then the City may proceed to either: , (1) adopt the changes addressed in the response by resolution or ordinance as a supplement to the adopted EAR; or (2) incorporate the changes addressed in the response into the EAR and then adopt the revised EAR by resolution or ordinance. The City must then transmit the adopted changes to the Department for final sufficiency determination. Once the Department has issued a final sufficiency determination on the changes, the City may then amend its Comprehensive Plan at any time. Please keep in mind that, pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0053(3), Florida Administrative Code, the City is required to submit EAR -based amendments within one year of adoption. These EAR -based amendments will count toward the twice per year amendment allowance. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE P.O. Box 4022 FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 8600 N.W. 36th Street 155 East Summedin Marathon, Florida 33050.2227 Miami, Florida 33159.4022 Barlow, Florid a(33B_30-4641 7 9 c Li STATE OF F L 0 R I D A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Governor Secretary September 13, 1996 Mr. Jack Luft, Director Department of Community Planning & Revitalization City of Miami P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: City of Miami Proposed Revisions to the Adopted EAR Dear Mr. Turner: The Department has completed its review of your response to the issues raised in our review of the City of Miami's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated January 29, 1996. This letter is to provide further comments on your proposed revisions and to recommend adoption of these changes prior to final sufficiency review by the Department. k The Department commends the City for its thorough response to our concerns. We believe that the City has addressed most of the Department's sufficiency issues. In particular, the City did a good job of identifying needed actions to address the issue of stormwater management. z However, staff has identified three items which need to be addressed by the City prior to adoption t of these changes. We have discussed our concerns with your staff, who have agreed to make these changes. In reading the following comments, please refer to the Departineni's letter dated January 29, ,1996 (attached): f CL- 1 uJ—"1 i:.. i 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE P.O. Sox 4022 FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 8600 N.W. 36th Street 155 East Summerlin Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 Miami, Florida 33159-4022 Bartow, Florida 33830.4641 ��- 796 Mr. Jack Luft September 13, 1996 Page Two Future Land Use Element 1. In response to the Department's comment #3a. of the Future Land Use Element, you have indicated that the Miami River and Little River waterways are governed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Wagner Creek is governed by the City of Miami Public Works Department; and presently, the Dade County landfill serves as the dredge/spoil disposal site for these waterways. The spoil is considered non -hazardous material, even though it may or may not be contaminated. After speaking with City staff, we understand that the City does not have a site available for dredge materials from the Miami River, and that you are currently investigating the best possible method of disposal --either by encapsulation and disposal at sea or land transportation to a remote location. Until the City finds a suitable method of disposal, you will not be able to dredge the Miami River. This issue should be discussed within the adopted EAR and appropriate recommendations made. 2. In response to the Department's comment #3d. of the Future Land Use Element, you have indicated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has produced a map series which is adequate for all of Dade County, including the City of Miami. In addition, you attached a copy of Dade County's Hurricane Evacuation Areas map, which shows the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). However, Rule 9J-5.003(19), F.A.C., defines the CHHA as the evacuation zone for a category 1 hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government, not as established by FEMA maps. None of the maps in the City's Future Land f Use Map series include the newly defined CHHA. We have discussed this with your staff and have recommended that the City include the CHHA as shown on Dade County's Hurricane Evacuation Areas map on the Coastal Area map within the adopted EAR. 4 \ R Conservation Element 3. In response to the Department's comment # 1 of the Conservation Element, the City has provided objectives, measurable targets, baseline conditions, current conditions, whether the objectives were achieved, future actions, and policy relevance for the element's adopted objectives. However, Objective NR-1.2 is not measurable in that it does not indicate what water quality standards need to be met in order to improve water quality and ensure health safety within the cited waterways, and a time frame for meeting those standards. We have discussed this with your staff, who agree that the EAR should indicate that this objective needs to be amended to make it more measurable. z The Department recommends that the City make the above changes to the EAR and proceed with adoption of these changes by resolution or ordinance, either as a supplement to the adopted EAR or incorporated as part of the adopted EAR. The adopted changes must then be submitted to the Department for a final sufficiency determination. Once the Department has issued a final sufficiency determination on the adopted EAR, the City may proceed to amend its Comprehensive Plan. M +�- 796 1i APPLICANT APPLICATION DATE REQUEST/LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION PETITION PLANNING RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS PLANNING FACT SHEET Department of Community Planning and Revitalizatiun October 16, 1996 Request for endorsement of resolution to adopt the report entitled "Sufficiency issues with responses by the City of Miami, including revisions in response to DCA letter of September 13, 1993" Not applicable Consideration of endorsing resolution to adopt the report entitled "Sufficiency issues with responses by the City of Miami, including revisions in response to the Department of Community Affairs letter of September 13, 1993, as a supplement to the evaluation and appraisal report on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000" Approval. The attached document has been prepared in order to address all outstanding issues of sufficiency regarding the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan addressed to the city by the Florida Department of Community Affairs on September 13, 1996. Upon adoption 'of this document by the City Commission state requirements for preparation and adoption of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report shall have been fulfilled. PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CITY COMMISSION APPLICATION NUMBER 96-269 VOTE: October 16, 1996 Item #3 Page 1 96- 796 SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI Including revisions in response to DCA letter of September 13, 1996 t` A Supplement to the CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT Adopted November 16, 1995 a TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................ ...2 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT ........' ...............3 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT .......................................................8 .. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT .............................. ......... 9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT .............................. ....... ..... ..................... 12 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT .......:.......... ...........14 t= 1 t S CONSERVATION ELEMENT ................................. .26 GENERAL............................................................. ............29 APPENDIX s i i Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 1o119Q _ Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 1 796 �i SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI Including revisions in response to DCA letter of September 13, 1996 A Supplement to the CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT Adopted November 16, 1995 INTRODUCTION The proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on the Miami Comprehensive Neighbor- hood Plan 1989-2000 (MCNP) was adopted by the City Commission of the City of Miami on November 16, 1995and submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) De- cember 1, 1995 for review in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 163.3191 F.S. DCA's review of the proposed EAR revealed a number of points on which further information and/or explanation was necessary before the EAR could be found sufficient. The City of Miami was advised of these by DCA's letter of January 29, 1996 (copy in Appendix). The City responded to DCA's comments with a draft report entitled "CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT SUFFICIENCY ISSUES WITH RESPONSES BY CITY OF MIAMI" received by DCA July 15, 1996 and acknowledged by letter of July 29, 1996 (copy in Appendix). DCA reviewed the draft response and, by letter of September 13, 1996 (copy in Appendix), rec- ommended three additional items to be addressed, and responses to them have been incorporated into this document. { City Commission adoption of this response to sufficiency issues, as a supplement to the EAR adopted November 16, 1995,, completes the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. f - Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 2 of 29 96- 496 1i r FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Provide an analysis of the social and economic effects of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and location of land uses, such as the accuracy and use of population projections, actual vs. anticipated rate of development, and the effect of concurrency requirements. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.1 [Guidebook Pages 33- 38] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Accuracy and use of the population projections. The issue of accuracy and use of popula- tion projections has been discussed. in the previous chapter addressing the conditions of the elements at the time of this report. The current projections will be used in the 1995-96 update of the MCNP. Projected population growth: New projections prepared for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report predict a continuing slow rate of population growth for Miami, reflecting the built -out characteristic of its land area. The 1980-1990 actual, 1995 estimated, and 2000-2005 fore- casted growth is shown on Table LUT-4. Table LUT-4 Population Change,1980-2005, City of Miami and Dade County Miami % Increase Dade County % Increase 1980 346,865 1,625,781 1985 380,446 9.68 1,770,769 8.92 1990 358,548 (5.76) 1,937,094 9.39 1995 (Estimate) 366,665 2.26 2,056,625 6.17 2000 (Projection) 374,782 2.21 2,291,452 11.42 2005 (Projection) 385,955 2.98 2,530,515 10.43 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1980,1990 and Metro Dade Planning Department Re- search Division, 1995. i Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues �i Miami's population growth will be mostly through net in -migration. The September 1994 federal agreement with Cuba allows a minimum of 20,000 immigrants a year to the U.S. from Cuba alone, and it is likely that actual levels will substantially exceed the minimums. Many of these immigrants will settle initially in the city of Miami, which is assuming the tra- ditionaI, coastal center -city role as the main port -of -entry for immigrants. Some offsetting out -migration from the city can be expected, thus keeping the recorded population figures at modest levels, but the net effect will be an increase in the annual inflow. Moreover, census and other population counts tend to under -record populations in immigrant port -of -entry cit- ies; Miami is no exception to this phenomenon. Undercounts of as much as 35% are sus- pected in many neighborhoods of the city. As the level of immigration from abroad increases, pressure will mount to increase residential densities in the city by conversion of low -density -structures to higher density development. Together with the commercial and institutional facilities and places of employment necessary to serve this increasingly dense urban place, these land use pressures and changes constitute Miami's greatest opportunity —and its correspondingly greatest challenge —in the years ahead. If the City of Miami simply stopped permitting higher -density residential development, many families would crowd into substandard units, housing prices would become increasingly un- affordable to a greater percentage of the population, homelessness and crime would increase, the areas would become unattractive to new business as well as established firms and the economy would founder, contributing to broader social problems. The alternative to this un- acceptable scenario is a city of revitalized residential neighborhoods containing a variety of housing styles, types, and densities, served by neighborhood and regional commercial facili- ties connected by adequate transportation services. Miami has developed in such a direction over its 100-year history; continuing to do so will be its challenge for the 21 st century. During the past two decades, several of Miami's residential neighborhoods have been losing middle -income families, and the city as a whole is becoming increasingly a home for the very well-off and the very poor. Despite this trend, there is evidence that many of Miami's mid- dle -income neighborhoods are halting their decline —often through citizen efforts —and are becoming more, rather than less, attractive to families. A high priority needs to be placed on planning for the protection of these neighborhoods, and the revitalization of areas that are in need of similar improvement. Physical deterioration of buildings and structures in the commercial, residential, and.' industrial land categories. In the absence of field survey data about the condition of com- mercial and industrial buildings, the city relies on requirements of the South Florida Building Code, which mandates that all buildings that are 40 or more years old have to apply for a re- certification for occupancy. These certificates are issued only if the building meets the cur- rent code criteria. Therefore, 40 years is a structure age considered to have potential for signs of physical deterioration. Any building requiring recertification has to undergo inspections every 10 years. Miami does have a problem of physical deterioration of industrial and com- mercial buildings since the certificate of occupancy is only issued once a building is habitable as per code. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 4 of 29 9 6 — 1i The location of development with regard to existing infrastructure. All of Miami is served by infrastructure that was typically built to meet the demands of the highest -density uses that would be allowed under the then -current zoning —in most cases, these densities are the current ones, as well. For most of the city, this "build -for -maximum" policy has resulted in excess infrastructure capacity. This allows the city to encourage higher densities in many of its neighborhoods without requiring addition, or replacement, of costly infrastructure. All of Miami is designated for urban growth, as it has been for most of this century. In the next century, the growth will typically be redevelopment of earlier uses, at higher (and hence "more urban") densities. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide an assessment of the impact of unanticipated and unfore- seen problems and opportunities related to land use planning which have occurred since the adoption of the plan. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 5.1 [Guidebook Pages 39-401 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Since the adoption of the MCNP, there have been two un- anticipated and/or unforeseen problems and no opportunities as it relates to Land Use Plan- ning. (1) In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 4 or 5 storm, lit the South Florida area creating mass destruction from the City of Miami soudi to the Upper Keys. In terms of land use planning, there were little to no changes made. (2) In 1993, the central section of Dade County, including the City of Miami, was under a sewage moratorium. This moratorium was the result of enforcement actions imposed on the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority (WASH) by the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). For more than two years, the City of Miami and other neighboring municipalities were under a construction restriction while a new trunk line was installed under Biscayne Bay. Tlus moratorium, although it caused a major slowdown in the con- struction. and building industry, did not have an effect in terms of land use planning. 3. DCA COMMENT: Provide an evaluation of the effect on the adopted element of the following changes to Rule 9J-5 F.A.C.: [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.1 [Guidebook Pages 40-42] a) analyze the need for additional dredge/spoil disposal sites as required by Rule 9J- 5006 (1) (f) 3. Special consideration should be given to the dredging of the Miami River, the Little River and Wagner Creek. b) analyze the need for a new objective or revised existing objectives to coordinate land uses with hazard mitigation report recommendations as required by Rule [9J- 5.006(3) (h) 6. c) analyze the need to revise existing policies to ensure adequate facilities (such as stormwater drainage capacity and quality) are available concurrent with impacts of development as required by Rule9J-5.006 (3) c 3. d) indicate the need for a new future land use map or map series which includes the new definition of the coastal high hazard area as required by Rules 9J-5.006 (4) (a) and (b) 6. and 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.c. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 5 of 29 1i CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) (3a.) The Miami River and the Little River waterways are governed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wagner Creek is governed by the City of Miami Public Works De- partment. Presently, the Dade County landfill serves as the disposal site for non- hazardous spoil from these waterways. Dredging of the Miami River navigation channel --sorely needed to restore and maintain channel depth —has been delayed because the characteristics of the material to be dredged make it unsuitable for disposal at the Dade County landfill, or any other locally available disposal site. A plan for disposal that meets current EPA requirements exceeds available funding, so alternatives —including consideration of spoil encapsulation and disposal at sea or land transportation to remote disposal sites —are being evaluated to determine an optimum method. Until an affordable disposal solution has been found, Miami River dredging will continue to be delayed. b) (3b.) Presently, the need for a new objective or revised existing objectives to'coord hate land uses with hazard mitigation report recommendations is not required. c) (3c.) The Public Works Department has recently acquired the services of Camp Dresser & McKee as consultants to update the Stormwater Master Plan for the City of Miami. The report is due in mid 1997. An analysis of existing policies against the impact of pres- ent and future development will be a part of this report. Projections for a 20-30 year buildout for the stormwater system will also be included in the report. d) (3d.) Map NRM-la entitled "Coastal Area" has been modified to show the Coastal High Hazard Area (Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area) as defined by the Dade County Regional and Local Evacuation Plan; and the map has been added to the Land Use Map Series. 4. DCA COMMENT: Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as population growth and the pressure to increase residential densities. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a)7.1 [Guidebook. Pages 43-441 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City of Miami Zoning Ordinance presently allows for densities equal to or greater than the projected increase in population. Additionally, zoning districts which allow greater densities are continuously being reviewed based on the number of zoning amendment requests. Therefore, no actions are required. 5. DCA COMMENT: Include new, revised minimum 5-year and minimum 10-year time - frames and population projections as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a) 7.a. CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City of Miami's population is projected to increase by 8,117 people from approximately 366,665 in 1995 to 374,782 in the year 2000, and by an- other 11,173 people to 385,955 by the year 2005. See table LUT-4, page 2. 6. DCA COMMENT: Identify proposed or anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified rule changes. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.1 [Guidebook Pages 45-461 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 6 of 29 96- �96 i CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There are no plan amendments required to implement identified changes. 7. DCA COMMENT: Provide in tabular form the appropriate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use for the gross land areas included in each existing land use category from the adopted plan as well as from the plan at the date of the EAR. Compare the results from these two tinieframes and provide an analysis of the success or failure of land use policies, trends, problems and future opportunities. [9J- 5.006 (1); 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: At the time of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, it is not practical to conduct a detailed analysis on the density/intensity of the land use. This is due to a lack of information available on land use density/intensity at the adoption of the MCNP. It was not until the establislunent of the GIS that our staff was able to identify the various land uses by density/intensity, as illustrated in LUT-3. The density/intensity analysis will be done in 1997 when these data have been quantified properly. Review of the raw data reveals apparent increases in the total existing land use acreage, including residential, com- mercial, industrial uses and other development, and a small decrease in vacant land. IIow- ever, these changes are due to technological advances provided by GIS, and not to any sig- nificant change in the land use, pattern or quantities, which remain largely unchanged from the time of plan adoption. Water and utilities were excluded from this analysis due to the lack of information available at the adoption of the MCNP, but are reflected in the 1995 table of existing land use/acres. S. DCA COMMENT: Identify the natural resources on the existing land use map from the 'r plan at the date of the TEAR. [9J-5.006(t)(b)] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Due to the complexity of the existing land use map, natu- ral resources could not be shown clearly at a scale appropriate for publication, so a separate natural resources map was used in the adopted MCNP. The original of that map has been lost, and the only copies are of poor quality; therefore, the following map series has been substi- tuted. It consists of the Existing Land Use Map, and a series of five maps, NRM-1 a through NRM-le depicting the significant natural resources in detail. Map NRM-1a, Coastal Area, also shows the Coastal High Hazard area as required by Rule 9J-5, and has been included in the Land Use Map Series (see response to DCA Continent 3d., page 6). { i f i I ir M i Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 7 of 29 96- 796 EA T1 Single Family Residential Duplex (Two Family) h_z Low Density Multi Family <=25du/ga High Density Multi Family>25du/ga Mobile Homes E Commercial & Service Transient -Residential (Hotel/Motel) Industrial Institutional Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Conservation Transportation/Communication/Utilities Agriculture Q Undeveloped/Vacant Inland/Coastal Water C ' ._ ,A an=g Q:{�'rttE 41:�E:Y K ruu r O c l?c Source: Dade County, 1990 me Low s a 0 a Mon lot COASTAL AREA N W. F9 ST "M BAY CSWY IM, 71 ST F KW. 54 ST. KV4 34 st OBI 11� N.W. 20 ST ill = c_c�c� .�q j�� sm. a ST. rs 3i 0 3 S.W. 22 Sr. LAND WATER BIRO RD Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Category I Hurricane Evacuation Area, POINCIANA AVE PROSPECT OR z N � 61m s 131SCAYNE ISAND 7tl-AY JUUA TUTTLE CSWY SAN MARCO ISLAND Q3IT / - WATSON CLAUGHTON ISLAND a P 0 w :NRACKER CSWY ISLAND l PORT OF MIAMI . LIRGWIA KEY t f l I 1 i 4 i s f I s ® AUSTRALIAN PINE MANGROVE 1i INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report and identify anticipated plan amendments to address to implement changes to Rule 9J-5. Specifically, evaluate the effect on the adopted element of those changes that require the City to revise the existing policy or establish a new policy to establish water quality standards for stormwater discharge (9J-5.0011(2)(c)5.). The City's level of service standard for drainage needs to include a water quality component. [9J- 5.0053(6)(a)6., 7., and 8.1 [Guidebook Page 421 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The Public works Department has recently acquired the services of Camp Dresser & McKee as consultants to update the Stormwater Master Plan for the City of Miami. The report is due in mid 1997. An analysis of existing policies compared to with the impact of present and future development will be a part of this report. Projections for 20-30 year buildout for the stormwater system and level of services standard for water quality component will also be included in the report. Additionally, the City of Miami has re- ceived the National Discharge Elimination System Permit. This permit, issued by the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency, has establish a monitoring program with the Capital Improve- ment Element to be reviewed on a 5 year interval. This included the installation of pollution protection devices to insure sanitary sewer separation from stormwater sewer system. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide all figures attachments that are referenced in the text, spe- cifically: drainage "sub -basins" and sanitary sewer flows (Sub -attachments T1, T2, U1, U2, V1; and Figures 11-3, 11-2, I-2, and 11). CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Refer to the following exhibits: SWD-1 through SWD-3; and Figures 1.2, I.3, 11, and 11.2. - - avrs�r. CO ••.: 7��: C p RR ^ lR A R .••'. •'. N i iit•: mi Cg�I: C i a POSITIVE DRAINAGE ZONES R! Ra ,. d 1.00 A p Olt A.:: taM R. • ma ... ARMtvrru CR+T :n .........z AR :G •• twi.o fi . :. .:"4 r • S]9 rUan n. �r uu��yy 5� :6J :•'•':. IF PO :10: F?d a Q2 •� i�: �.. uz 8;: '' • Xx ui �• ROUTE •a POSITIVE SYMM Pi •° ::• '� { ;: ;.;� w R. ; W 0A ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 0' POSITIVE DRAINAGE nONE9 •�E1�; ^�•1010•'n'�r"' l LL� rMonw xR / U ORRINACE ZONES /AS SUSCATCHMEHT AREAS Ri --� woo 33 bi w...w R2 IRS 96-- 796 SWD-2 A 61 " DEP PERMITTED CAPACITY " MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY AND FLOW PROJECTIONS 400 380 C� 360 U Q a Q 340 U Co w U w 320 O W a 300 280 Notes: Additional Notes: 1. Flow Diversion 2.25 MGD to Homestead Permitted Additional Capacity is 32.5 MGD - 2. North District Phase lb -10 MGD Expansion Capacity Under Construction is 32.5 MGD 3. South District Phase la - 10 MGD Expansion (interim Rating, TOP issued 7118194) Pending DEP Operating Permits is 25 MGD Capacity Pendi 4. Central District 10 MGD Rerate (Operating Permit Issued 3/22195) Benefit of ends MGD flaw reduction from the 5. North District 10 MGD Rerata III Program is not included 6. South District Phase i - 15 MGD Expansion (Interim Rating) November 1994 high flows are a result of the heavy 7. North District completion of two injection wells & interim pumping facilities rains associated with tropical stom Gordon -10 MGD Recertification (Application Pending) An expasion of 18.75 MGD is planned for the South District 8. Flow diversion of 3 MGD to Homestead WWTP to be completed in 2009 9. South District Phase II - 12.5 MGD Expansion ( 10. North District Phase it - 20 MGD Expansion 'A 11. North District Rerate - 5 MGD Now _ Projected increase in flow is 4 MGD from existing permits for the first year and 5 MGD for the second year. R Thereafter, the projected flows are in accordance with the December 1994 Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment. MONTH/YEAR --e- Treatment Capacity --: Flow Projections • -----Actual AADF ..ai 41 3 " a o00 A _ ... ~ 00 BANDY iH Kw. 7! 9T .o C --`"-- G CSwY ` : ;J- JUUt N.W. n ST. >d .�..r. 00OC 0 000 0 5 000 G oG MAJOR WATERSHEDS 0 00t OOC O )00 )0000000000 O �000000000000C �00000 00 )0000000000 O )000000 n Onr DO0000 N.W s• ST. )�' OOO ° 00°OC o 00 Lp0o-000 Ip = JOG 0000 0 00 1000� ��n(O°O dUl1A 711RLE NA S6 ST.'U�OC) J00000000 J 00C CSWY i OU( Ool U ❑ ❑ 1000601 00 �O 00, ❑ ❑ ❑ �000 00 00 00 0U0 OU N W. 20 ST. / c, 000 C ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ i,, OOO L G Goo CO r c > > n > , �� L ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ❑ a /� ° ❑ ° ° ° 1C 0000 00 RMARCO ISANAY E SANISLAND > L c ❑ ❑❑anaa Qo00 00 3R ej6 ^ ,yv �''i..p.�r.('r •= hi.,�+`yI a ° ❑ ° ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ❑ )000000 Y > n < < , �N L"(l'(.( t-�*( "MR--k )� ??; ❑ ° 1000000 WATSON ISLAND g , rcYaS�j: ti; ti ",��C4tt�J . v.r r T�I-I ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ° - ❑ a a I °-000000 N.w. 7 ST •+ 1. ^ > Yc v ^ L �i�7T,,( ♦ V- �.• n M' I ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ° 000000 L > L L t , V v L> J 'f `�i ���1"^, �r-ll/�iK`. 4.�[•:•.0 - ° > yt>^ ❑OU r>.ly; Y ^ < L )J <n r L JritY".}L�r�i i ',}1 •1 I' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GCI y A V A L >Y r V J L Iy��" , :-T ); �i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ° IOGO ) '.VJ1.FA ST. ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 1000 ) 70OC ❑ ❑ ❑ ° ❑ ❑ ° o ❑ ❑ ° 000 to 0 �c^<>^n`J^r,a cy rLc r^c ,cL vp��(00 &� aa❑❑❑❑❑ °❑❑ ❑ ❑Oi� AI p t ^ L , < L t r Y > , tom. 0)O OC )O _u_ ❑ ❑ c)O) PoIRT OF �cp,(�C.'LLAA)UGHTONISLAND SW B ST 'al ^ ^ �)O CC°J�� �O S yy� ❑ (DO Jo O V DoSc O` O J UO )0 J VI yj w )O OCq �O`` UOJ - 0 oc H )OC oCE )o - 00� )OC c" )O O •J V S.W. 22 ST. w ccl +U 0 0 ' )0 0` )0 �0 )O 00 Do „�p� - 0000000 RICKENBKKER )O OC O C 00000oo CSWY )O UCO OOGOOOOUO TAMIAMI CANAL OU 00 J0000000000 VIRGINIA KEY 00 0000000000000 F]fS�iILY COMFORT CANAL �000 0000000000000000 If(,000000000000 00 000 d O 0000000000 a o ❑ MIAMI RIVER CANAL QO OOOo0000GU0 �1 - ® 91R0 RD 0000000000 5_�,801D CANAL, o: 00000 e�}0'J00000 000 ®00000 00 LITTLE RIVER CANAL 00000 00 0 co coo ® BISCAYNE SAY O INNER KEY 0°0000 G • 00 00� g % POINCIANA AVE 000000 (0000 iii)0000 c0000 000 O PROSPECT DR. )U CITY umH. •+ I i i i i i I 96- 796 Figurif-IL2_ W INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Provide a comparison of the element's adopted ICE objectives with actual results to determine whether the objectives were achieved. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.1 [Guidebook Pages 25-331 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Following are the element's adopted ICE Objectives and results. OBJECTIVE IC-1.1: To establish formal procedures for coordinating City planning and operating functions that are directly related to the City's Comprehensive Plan with the Dade County School Board, Metro Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department, Metro Dade County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division, Metro Dade County De- partinent of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), the Seaport Department (Port of Miami), Aviation Department (Miami international Airport), the Dade County Metro- politan Planning Organization, the Dade Comity Shoreline Development Review Commit- tee, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Division of Historical Resources, Department of State, and any other state, local or federal agency whose cooperation is required to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. MEASURABLE TARGET: Establishment of formal procedures for coordination among the listed agencies. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): No formal procedures existed for coordination related to the City's Comprehensive Plan; coordina- tion tool: place on an ad hoc basis, or under the direction of other agencies such as the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Community Af- fairs. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Coordination continues to exist on a largely informal basis. However, state requirements for review of proposed amendments to the City's Compre- hensive Plan by Metropolitan Dade County has had the effect of formalizing at least that part of the process. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? No, but some progress has been made. FUTURE ACTION: Continue to work toward achievement of this Objective. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following two Policies continue to be relevant: Policy IC-1.1.1: An intergovernmental coordination officer, with the approval of the City Manager and the concurrence of the Planning Director, will identify contact per- sons either within the Planning Department or within other appropriate City depart- ments that will serve as liaisons with those state and local agencies listed in Objec- tive 1.1 herein. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 9 of 29 96- 796 r LL1 Policy IC-1.1.3: The City will continue to seek membership on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), either formally or informally, and parallel member- ship on the Transportation Planning Council (TPC) in order to express its policies on land use and transportation through appropriate legislation. OBJECTIVE IC-2.1: To establish a planning coordination mechanism to ensure that. con- sideration is given to both the impacts of land development and transportation policies within Miami on areas outside the City's jurisdiction and the impacts of land development outside the City's boundaries on the City of Miami. MEASURABLE TARGET: Establishment of a planning coordination mechanism for the stated purposes. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): No coordina- tion mechanism existed. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as baseline conditions. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? No. FUTURE ACTION: Continue to work toward achievement of this Objective. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following Policies continue to be relevant: Policy IC-2.1.2: The City will support Metropolitan Dade County in the establish- ment of a technical advisory committee, comprised of professional planning person- nel of the County and adjacent municipalities to review, evaluate, and reconcile dis- crepancies and to recommend compromise solutions to appropriate governing bodies of local government, to share information and to help evaluate the local impacts of proposed land development and transportation policies. Policy IC-2.1.3: The City will support the South Florida Regional Planning Council in developing informal coordination mechanisms such as regional issue study groups that coordinate land development and transportation policies among local govern- ments; and to establish mediation mechanisms to resolve potential regional conflicts. OBJECTIVE IC-2.2: Coordinate with state, region, and Metropolitan Dade County in es- tablishing levels of service standards for public facilities, infrastructure and services and reconcile differences by 1990. MEASURABLE TARGET: Reconcile differences in LOS standards by 1990. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Differences existed between traffic LOS standards adopted by Metropolitan Dade County and those adopted by the City of Miami. CURRENT CONDITIONS: The differences were successfully reconciled. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 10 of 29 0q-- i i I i I OBJECTIVE IC-3.1: Maximize the use of informal, cooperative agreements as mecha- nisms for intergovernmental conflict resolution within Dade County and minimize the use of litigation. MEASURABLE TARGET: Minimize conflict by using informal cooperative agree- ments. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): There was lit- tle conflict to address, and it was usually handled successfully through informal coopera- tion. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Informal agreements continue to be the mainstay of inter- governmental coordination within Dade County. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. POLICY RELEVANCE: The following Policy continues to be relevant: Policy IC-3.1.1: The City will exhaust all efforts to solve intergovernmental con- flicts arising from adoption and implementation of comprehensive plans through in- formal mechanisms, including but not limited to utilizing the Dade County League of Cities and the South Florida Regional Planning Council's mediation process, before seeking remedies through the judicial system, provided that efforts at informal reso- lution do not prevent the City from seeking legal remedies, or jeopardize the City's ability to prevail in any legal action. 2. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised by the City in the report, such as: increased coordination with the Iocal and federal govern- ment; encouraging all levels of government to work together to ensure adequate and timely shelter for people residing in the hurricane evacuation area; addressing the con- stant influx of immigrants to the area; and obtaining financial support from local, county, state, and federal social agencies. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages 43-441 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) Coordination with the local and federal government occurs largely on an ad hoc, project - oriented basis. This process has worked well in the past, and there appears to be no need " to develop any additional mechanisms to increase coordination. It should be borne in , mind that Metropolitan Dade County acts as the local government on many matters in- volving the federal government such as transportation —which greatly reduces the op- portunity or need for coordination at the municipal level. For these reasons, no changes are indicated. b) Hurricane and all emergency management issues are handled by the responsible agency in Metro -Dade County, namely the Office of Emergency Management. This office is re- sponsible for all evacuation plans countywide as well as revising evacuation boundaries. Ongoing meetings with local officials, particularly prior to and during hurricane season, ensure familiarity with the evacuation plan and any revisions. Should the situation require I Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Pagel 1 of 299[j 6�++ 796 { i + it, the Office of Emergency Management communicates the need for evacuation directly to the City Manager, who in turn, issues an evacuation order within the municipal juris- diction. This has proved satisfactory, therefore no changes are indicated. c) The City of Miami has taken strong initiatives, both at the State and federal level, to ob- tain adjustment assistance to compensate the City for the increased service load imposed by heavy flows of immigrants into the area. These efforts, in general, have been only modestly successful, thus the City has had to absorb the financial impact of continued immigration. Fortunately, due to the current situations in both Cuba and Haiti, projected immigration flows to Miami are expected to be more moderate. The City of Miami re- ceives periodic updates of the estimated number of immigrants within its jurisdiction from the demographic analysis performed by the Metro -Dade Planning Department. The impact of immigration and population growth, in general, is periodically analyzed with respect to level of service standards. No further changes are indicated. d) The City of Miami just 18 months ago formed a Grants Section, within the Finance De- partment, precisely to maximize financial support that the City receives. This section works in conjunction with operating departments to obtain funds for needed projects. This arrangement has resulted in improved success at obtaining funding from the shrink- ing grant pool. There is no need for further coordination at this level. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify :anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the needed actions related to the planning issues raised in the report. 19J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.1 [Guidebook Rages 45-461 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There are no actions needed that would require plan amendments to either address or implement. i CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT 1. DCA COMMENT: Provide a summary description of the condition of the element at the date of the EAR addressing the following analyses: (a) fiscal implications of existing deficiencies; and (b) use of capital improvements to support efficient land use. 19J- 5.0053 (6) (a)2.; 9J-5.016(2) (b) and (e) [Guidebook Pages 21-231 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) The only Level of Service (LOS) objective that the City of Miami did not satisfy is that for Storm Sewers for which improvements are behind schedule. Current projections, based on historical record, indicate that by the year 2000, the City will have completed 51 percent of the 20 percent coverage standard. This will cost approximately $22 million. Due to the enormous difficulty of passing bond issues, the only dedicated funding source is the Stormwater Utility Trust Fund. Given the expected continuation of higher levels of construction activity relative to the late 1980's and early 1990's within the City, it is es-. timated that approximately $33 million in revenues will be generated by the year 2000. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 ` Response to sufficiency Issues Page 12 of 29 796 i Assuming that no catastrophic maintenance costs are incurred, funding will be sufficient to achieve the stated objective. b) The City of Miami has for many years been a built -out urban area with a fully -developed roadway system from local streets to interstate highways, with good local rapid transit in the form of both fixed rail and bas lines. No capital improvements to support efficient land use are needed. 2. DCA COMMENT: Provide an evaluation of the need for or revised policies to meet the provisions of the Concurrency Management System (CMS). The City should include in- formation on how the new Rule 9J-5 requirements have been addressed through the adoption of a CMS and evaluate how the implementation of the CMS is progressing. [9J-5.0055; 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.; 9J-5.016 [Guidebook Page 421 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City of Miami's Concurrency management system is not adopted as a separate entity, but instead relies upon the authority of the MCNP 1989- 2000 and the City's existing land development regulations and procedures, which have proven sufficient to address all requirements of the CMS. All the new Rule 9J-5 requirements are readily incorporated into these administrative procedures. Implementation of the City's CMS has been accomplished without any significant problems, and not once during the six years since its inception has a development permit been denied due to deficient levels -of -service. 'Phis is due, of course, to the often -mentioned fact that the city is almost entirely built-up, with more -than -adequate infrastructure to serve much more dense development than now exists. Most "development" in Miami is actually redevelop- ment" of land that has already been developed, placing much lower demands on infrastruc- ture than does new, suburban development, which is actually the main target of level -of - service and Concurrency requirements. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as a new capital improvements element that includes the cost of needed capital replacement for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the Future Land Use Element, and forecasting of revenues and ex- penditures for the next five years. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.1 [Guidebook Pages 43-441 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Given that current population projections are considerably lower than at the time of adoption, the City of Miami has actually increased its surplus in re- gard to four of the five applicable LOS standards, (see attached table.) The earlier projections had factored in a heavy immigration component, based on the experience in the early 1980s, far in excess of the actual results. In fact, based on current projections, the City's infrastruc- ture will continue to have excess capacity for parks, potable water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste at least until the year 2017. Assuming that Metropolitan Dade County continues its policy of providing water and sewer treatment at a level -of -service standard minimum of 2% in excess of demand, and that the City continues to provide solid waste collection service as demand requires, excess infrastructure capacity for these services will be available well be- yond the next M CNP horizon year of 2020. Transportation service adequacy will depend on Y Y p q Y p Metropolitan Dade County's commitment to continued capacity enhancements in its mass Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 13 of 29 6 796 transit services; the existing services will have satisfactory capacity (within the city of Mi- ami) only until about 2015, if present projections are accurate. In the case of storm sewers, the city is on schedule to achieve 51. percent of the 20 coverage standard by the year 2000. The projects necessary to achieve this standard have already been identified within the exist- ing Capital Improvement Element and Capital Improvement Program. The latter contains all capital improvement projections, not only those necessary to sustain LOS standards, and pro- vides expected revenues and costs for all capital projects over a five year time horizon. 4. DCA COMMENT: Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified changes that are needed (note above). [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.1 [Guidebook Pages 45-461 CITE' OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There are no plan amendments required to implement identified changes. The only proposed revision, requires internal accounting refinements. 1. DCA COMMENT: Include a new land use map, a conflict analysis, a summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution, and data for natural disaster planning from the coastal management element at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a)2; 9J-5.012 (a), (d) and (e) [Guidebook Pages 21-221 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) New land use map (future). The City of Miami Future Land Use map, following this page, shows the land use categories for uses along the coastal areas. b) Conflict analysis among shorelines uses. The City of Miami is a city in which most of the shoreline uses are already developed and almost no vacant land exists within the city limits. Shoreline land uses were established decades ago based upon acceptable land uses for coastal areas at that time, which was prior to the present escalated cost of recovering from a natural disaster and emphasis on retreating from the coast. In intensely developed areas, such as the City of Miami, it would be unfeasible economically and politically to change shoreline land uses to substantially relieve existing density. c) A summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution. Between 1988 and 1994, Dade County substantially increased its pollution enforcement in the Miami and Little Rivers which impact the coastal waters of Biscayne Bay. The Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Florida Marine Patrol have taken the lead in coordinating an interagency effort to curb water pollution in the Miami River and Biscayne Bay. The Miami River Interagency Enforcement Program identifies point and nonpoint sources of pollution and focuses on enforcement activities. Since 1987, the Program has expanded in both personnel and scope of work. The Miami River Enforcement Group is comprised Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 14 of 29 96- 796 CITY OF A I"I FUTURE LAND USE MAP G a e c+rr �r 1. - - ----------- LAND USE LEGEND l Iw3�1 - '�, k F�F' 4 h a I 1 }L CJ "b F.y wma.ri.l ocu f o- in d rp [ oww uar W na 'u " ti� ..a1 a.. y wwF. �a .�;.mr Rdl + P r Fit i ._..ra 3 EM Ifi� W -Y AWMF 'ly R.W-W m'p�a......ul t _: G �1 ® 4me.l c—'J.11C-77 10 'Ell 1.1•p Imnueaul twlk r dl k, x Ri11.. Nomir i1Piy � A�=^y i p - TnenpvlC,m and uefoe Ielp - ,j 9 NW a 1 i t { MIAMI - -- -'k ti r 'INTF,RNATIONAL '. AIRPORT -- — 1 -y P S'tta 7. - � �Lnns I s I 14 i p it t I rs� 3 t 1 I f Y FP ¢ 4 J `{ r 77 x at L77 _ t 111 ( y I F�Mcxrr Gc T�: Sa' -IJ'n i � r i y DISCA)WE i DIU 1 f ,f f SOURCE: Planning. Building, and Zoning Department (Revised July 1994} L ` 27JUN-1996 %J BISCAYNE BAY J-& h1'sk ^aar.ay i r ° .; venetian j .., Canxwey \ 0 4 \� V, A. 95- 796 Y of representatives from municipal, county, state and federal agencies with surface water jurisdiction. It meets monthly to improve interagency coordination, communication and enforcement. Table A, following, shows a summary of enforcement actions from Decem- ber 1988 through the third quarter of 1993. Table A Miami River Interagency Enforcement Program Enforcement Action 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Violation Complaints 97 200 201 233 284 206 1,221 Violation Notices 18 10 7 24 23 53 135 Field Notices 42 51 63 53 55 59 323 Tickets 38 43 24 32 42 45 224 Final Notice Prior to 6 6 5 9 9 2 31 Court Action k New Sources 46 16 19 9 8 4 102 fi Total Per Year 247 326 319 360 421 369 2,036 The Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement Management Plan (SWIM) was developed in 1988 by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) with input from Dade County, other governments, and the private sector. The intent of the Plan is to protect, restore, and en- hance Biscayne Bay. The 1988 SWIM Plan led to the completion of 50 projects administered by the SFWMD at a cost of over $12 million. During 1994, the SFWMD revised its 1988 SWIM Plan. This Plan also incorporated Dade County input throughout its development. The revised SWIM Plan targets three areas: the Miami River, Arch Creek, and Black Creek. Table B repre= sents the period of time from 1988 through 1994. (Text continues on page 20) Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 15 of 2 6- 796 Table B Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement Management Plan (SWIM) Project Implementation 1988 - 1994 Original Recommendation 1)Reclassify the Miami River 2) Separate Sanitary from Stormwater Sewers 3) Improve Stormwater Drainage 4) Improve Sanitary Sewers Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues 1994 Status The Miami River was reclassified from Class IV to a Class III water body in 1989. 124 stormwater connections to the sanitary sewer were identified, 71 were eliminated by the City of Miami, Wa- ter and Sewer Department (WASA) have disconnected 30 more, and Flor- ida Department of Transportation will remove the remaining 23. 1,900 acres were retrofitted by the City of Miami. Additional areas were retro- fitted by the Cities of North Miami Beach and Hialeah. In 1994, Dade County established a stormwater utility program to fund stormwater improve- ments Countywide. Video Inspections of 24,932 feet (4.72 miles) of sewer lines were completed by 1994. A sewer main, an interceptor and four smaller systems were repaired, and four more systems are scheduled. An estimated 20 MGD of infiltration, has been eliminated. WASAD replaced the Virginia Key pipeline, continuing regionalization efforts, improved fa- cilities and methods, and repairing de- fective equipment. Transmission ca- pacity has been improved by upgrad- ing pump stations and collection sys- tems 5) Improve Marine Sewage Contamination Standard 6) Specific Water Quality 7) Monitoring 8) Local Standards 9) Permitting Requirements for Marina Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues A project was initiated to develop a criterion for fecal pollution in marine waters. Problems and areas of contamination investigations and remediation actions were undertaken in the Miami River, Wagner Creek, Tamiami Canal, Mi- ami -Canal, Military Canal, Goulds Canal, Black Creek, Little River, Bis- cayne Canal, Munisport, Virginia Key, Snake Creek, Maule Lake and Arch Creek. Contaminant analyses were tailored to each area and target con- taminants. Monitoring now includes 90 stations in the Biscayne Bay and its tributaries. Projects were funded to examine sedi- ments in major tributaries and marinas, pesticides and metals in South Dade canals, and organic compounds and metals in 14 marinas. The monitoring program was modified to include Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Results indicate a need to re-examine state standards for Class III waters. Efforts are also underway to develop interim Pollutant Load Re- duction Goals. In 1989, Dade County adopted an or- dinance that requires boat docking and storage facilities with more than ten., slips to obtain operating permits. t About 300 marinas have been permit- ted. Dade County has developed E monitoring requirements for all per- mitted facilities. i I . z ffF t Revision Date: 10/07/96 6 Page 17 of 29 06- 796 �i 10) Compliance Monitoring of Existing 11) Funding for Additional Enforcement 12) Enforcement Responsibilities - 13) Freshwater Inflow 14) Circulation and Flushing 15) Shoreline and Bottom Stabilization 16) Restoration and Preservation of Natural Habitats Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues All marinas, boat facilities, new out - falls coastal construction and systems dredging operations must obtain per- mits from DERM; most must also obtain permits from FDEP or USCOE. Compliance monitoring is usually conducted by DERM and other permitting agencies. DERM has four full-time staff who target Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. The FDEP provides a part-time inspector and Marine Patrol officers. A multi -agency task force meets monthly to coordinate water related enforcement activities in Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. The SFWMD is developing a pilot project to restore sheet flow east of L- 3 1, into Biscayne Bay National Park. Connections between the various sec- tions of north bay remain unob- structed. A major marina project, however, was constructed in an area that has very poor circulation. DERM has stabilized over five miles of shoreline with rip -rap or man- groves. Twelve artificial reefs have been established in formerly dredged or barren areas of Biscayne Bay. 17 acres of mangroves were restored near the Oleta River and 3 more acres were created along unconsolidated shorelines. Exotic vegetation was re- moved from large portions of the 240 acre Nature Conservancy Tract in South Dade to its natural depth with dredge spoil and a deep trough is be- ing filled to encourage sea grass growth in North Biscayne Bay. Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 18 of 2 66- 796 rA 17) Land Use 18) Mangrove Restoration Areas 19) Manage Preservation Areas 20) Submerged Land Ownership 21) Card Sound and Barnes Sound Management 22) Develop Centralized Data Bases Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Dade's Comprehensive Plan recom- mends a maximum of one dwelling unit per five acres in the environ- mentally sensitive lands bordering Biscayne National Park. Lands have been purchased for preservation by Dade County, Save Our Rivers and the National Park. Arrangements for management of preserved and restored areas have been made with other state and fed- eral agencies and Dade County. Four Save Our Rivers tracts are within the Biscayne Bay SWIM area. Purchase of the C-III Basin is nearly complete. These are managed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Remaining private lands in WCA's, 3A and 3B, the Dade/Broward levee and the Model Lands basin are yet to be acquired Digitizing of state-owned, submerged lands has been assigned a high prior- ity by FDEP. Card Sound, Little Card Sound, Bar- nes Sound and Manatee Bay have been included in the boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Santu- ; any. A management plan for Card Sound was approved in 1991. FDEP is assembling a geographic re- source data base that includes bottom habitat maps and water quality data. Water quality data is being recom- piled in a SFWMD database. Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 19 of 29 96- 796 23) Public Education/Awareness 24) Historical Contamination Source: Biscayne Bay Swim Plan Completed projects include environ- mental "flash cards," instructional videos, a multilingual brochure, river tours and the annual Baynanza and Riverfest festivals, public service an- nouncements, interpretive brochures, and educational curricula. A study was initiated in 1993 to lo- cate and assess water quality impacts from historical or active dump sites, landfills, construction debris sites and study pits. (Text continued from page 15) d) Data for Natural Disaster Planning: Evacuation and sheltering is based on the "population -at -risk", which is the total population in each of the evacuation areas, hurri- cane categories 1-5. A floating percentage (between 15-25%) of this population is applied to determine the ntunber of people expected to evacuate early, mid and late, based on be- havioral studies and the number of people who would seek refuge in public shelters. Roadway clearance times to evacuate the Dade-Broward line are developed according to these numbers, as are the number of public shelter spaces required. The hurricane evacuation areas map shows the hurricane vulnerability zoned evacuation areas in Dade County. Within the City of Miami, these evacuation areas are located adjacent to Bis- cayne Bay, the Miami River and the islands. For population figures within Dade County and shelters see tables C and D. 2. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and the location of land uses in the coastal management element, as re- quired by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.a. through 1., F.A.C. The City analyzed subsections m. through o. Subsections a. through 1. should also be analyzed, or the City should pro- vide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. [Guidebook Pages 33-38) CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: a) The accuracy and use of the population projections. The population projections used in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report are accurate. b) Actual vs. Anticipated rate of development. The City of Miami --especially its coastal areas —is already developed. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 20 of 29 96- 796 c) The effect of concurrency requirements. Adequate infrastructure capacity exists to maintain adopted level of service standards for the entire city area. Concurrency require- ments have had no effect on development or redevelopment. d) The maintenance and/or achievement of adequate level of service standards. See above. e) Coordinating the provision of public facilities and services with development. Within the coastal areas the public facilities and services are already available. f) The actual vs. projected revenues and expenditures regarding capital improve- ments. The City of Miami has a Capital Improvement Program that identifies projects and funding sources to implement capital projects. g) The generation and status of new revenues services. See the Capital Improvement element. h) Physical deterioration of public buildings, utilities, infrastructure, recreational fa- cilities, and parks, and the need for replacement or rehabilitation. The City of Miami has a Capital Improvement Program that identifies an implementation schedule for physi- cal public projects that are deteriorating and need replacement or rehabilitation. i) Physical deterioration of buildings and structures in the commercial and industrial land use categories. Most of the buildings and structures within the commercial and in- dustrial land used categories are in relatively good physical condition. The City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County have incentive programs to improve buildings in these land use categories. j) Physical deterioration of the housing stock including mobile homes. Most of the housing stock within the coastal areas is in relatively good condition; however, the City of Miami has housing incentive programs for housing rehabilitation, if needed. k) The location of development with regard to existing infrastructure. Within the coastal area of the City of Miami there is existing infrastructure to serve development. 1) The location of development in relation to where development was anticipated in the adopted plan, such as within areas designated for urban growth. As the City is al- ready developed, this does not apply. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed action to address the planning issues raised in the. coastal management element, such as: manatee protection (identify completion of the new manatee protection plan), operation of the water drainage management system, shoreline access, and natural disaster planning, as required by Rule 9d-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.a. through f., F.A.C. [Guidebook Pages 43-44) CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Manatee Protection. Metropolitan Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) completed a Dade County Manatee Protection Plan in December 1995 which also applies to the City of Miami. The plan provides a series of measures to protect the manatees within the City of Miami. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 21 of 29 96- 796 Operation of the Water Drainage Management System. Need to quantify the flood pro- tection and water quality levels of services currently provided; to reduce urban stormwater loads discharged to the environment; to improve to outfalls in the Miami River; to meet all applicable regulatory requirements; to provide a rationale for flood protection and water quality level of services (LOS); to develop plans for future stormwater facilities that will im- prove the level of flood protection and water quality where necessary, and to prioritize identi- fied stormwater facility needs. Shoreline Access: Need to continue public access to the Bay and the Miami River, including the expansion of the riverwalk. Need a ten-year plan for marine development. Natural Disaster Planning: The regional responsibility for natural disaster planning lies with the Metro Dade County Office of Emergency Management. This office coordinates ef- forts and receives input from the different municipalities in Dade County. The City of Miami Office of Emergency Management, located within the Fire Rescue Department, prepared an Emergency Response Plan in 1995. The plan represents a concerted effort by all city depart- ments to ensure that the response effort by the City of Miami to a catastrophic event will be a conditioned and effective one. The purpose of the plan is to ensure that the safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Miami is maintained in the event of a disaster including a natu- ral disaster. The plan is reviewed and updated annually 4. DCA COMMENT: Provide updated data and analysis of evacuation times and shelter capacity. 19J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.m.; 9J-5.012 (2) (e) 1.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The Metro Dade County Planning Department map "Hurricane Evacuation Areas", following this page, shows the Coastal High Hazard Area, and hurricane vulnerability zones for various categories of storms. Table C shows clearance times and sheltering as developed using the population figures as reported in the 1990 Lower Southeast Hurricane Evacuation Study: Technical Report. Tables D, E, and F list the General Population Shelters in Dade County, Hurricane Shelters Located in the City of Miami, and Shelters for Persons With Special Needs, respectively. (Text continues on page 26) Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 22 of 29 96- 796 �i NTY '--'—�----- ' ` 0. a' DADECO O r sn e:s �t w 1 � cam.----•--� 1r J I 1 —ti J i 1 v i Gy cc W NIALEAFt cm N Z W 1 0. WATER CONSERVAT N REA z w « r 1 •1 Z •! W Z MIAM1'x. 1<x� SW TwAM TRAIL US 41 i1! ^` G I �- I L) �° G m N. KEN 1 = a i •- Uj 1 w C•iN WLi 1 `� 1 • 1 W I - C•� ' ; \ \ ` \ ` \ ;.. V A BISCAYNE NATIONAL !' \\gag\ PARK , �\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ HURRICANE EVACUATION AREAS \ \ \ \ \\ Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) � Category 1 Hurricane Evacuation Area �-4 Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) Category 3 Hurricane Evacuation Area \ !: 1 4° 4 �4 12 Encompasses CHHA (Cat. 1-3 in total) Hurricane Categories 4 and 5 FLORIDA BAY Sources: Chapter gi-5.003(19)(60) at t? / ' Regional and Local Evacuation Plan ° . 5 METRO-DADE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. 96- 796 TABLE C 1994 HURRICANE EVACUATION AND SHELTERING Evacuation Shelter Shelter Spaces Population -at -Risk Clearance Times Requirements Existing (Deficit) Category 1 Hurricane (Evacuation of Coastal High Hazard Area and Mobile Homes) 196,927 12 to 15 hours 29,120 42,747 spaces (no deficit) Category 2 & 3 Hurricane (Evacuation of Hurricane Vulnerability Zone and Above) 408,740 21.5 to 27.25 hours 47,020 2,747 spaces (4,273 space deficit) Category 4 & 5 Hurricane (winds 131 mph or more) 450,354 26 to 31.5 hours 75,185 42,747 spaces (32,438 space deficit) I Source: Dade County Office of Emergency Management (OEM), 1994 4 Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 23 of 29 96- 796 [A TABLE D AMERICAN RED CROSS GENERAL POPULATION SHELTERS DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Faeili Address Ca aci Allapattah Elementary 4700 NW 12 Ave., Miami, 33127 415 Allapattah Middle 1331 NW 46 St., Miami, 33127 960 Ashe, Bowman Elementary 6601 SW 152 Ave., Miami, 33193 395 Auburndale, Elementary 3255 SW 6 St., Miami, 33135 627 Bent Tree Elementary 4861 SW 140 Ave., Miami, 33175 637 Biscayne Gardens Elementary 5600 NW 151 St., Miami, 33169 503 Blanton Elementary 10327 NW 11 Ave., Miami, 33150 965 Brentwood Elementary 3101 NW 191 St., Miami, 33056 754 Bright, James Elementary 2530 W. 10 Ave., Hialeah, 3010 392 Dunbar Elem. 505 NW 20 St., Miami, 33136 520 Glades Middle 9451 SW 64 St., Miami, 33173 825 Good, Joella Elem. 6350 NW 188 Tern, Hialeah, 33015 300 Greenglade Elem. 3060 SW 127 Ave., Miami 33175 840 Hall, Joe Eletn. 1901 SW 134 Ave., Miami, 33175 559 Kendale Elem. 10693 SW 963 St., Miami, 33176 920 Kinloch Park Middle 4340 NW 3 St. Miami, 33126 960 Miami Coral Park HS 8865 SW 16 St., Miami, 33165 2031 Miami Lakes Elem. 14250 NW 67 Ave. Mia. Lks, 987 33014 Miami Northwestern HS 7007 NW 12 Ave., Miami, 33126 1120 North Miami Middle 13105 NE 7 Ave., No. Miami, 1072 33161 Orchard Villa Elem. 5720 NW 13 Ave., Miami, 33147 274 Palm Lakes Elem. 7450 W 16 Ave., Hialeah, 33014 793 Poinciana Park Elem. 6745 NW 23 Ave., Miami 33147 571 Sheppard, Ben Elem. 5700 W. 24 Ave., Hialeah, 33016 500 Skyway Elem 4555 NW 206 Tr, Opa-Locka, 430 33055 Stirrup Elem. 330 NW 97 Ave., Miami, 33172 578 Southwest Miami HS 8855 SW 50 Tr., Miami, 33165 271 Sunset Park Elem. 10235 SW 84 St., Miami, 33173 570 Sweetwater Elem. 10655 SW 4 St., Sweetwater, 33174 630 Winston Park Elem. 13200 SW 79 St., Miami, 33183 440 (BOLD - Shelters located within the City of Miami limits.) Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues j i } } I i i L Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 24 of 29 96- 796 Table E HURRICANE SHELTERS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF MIAMI General Population Shelters American Red Cross Facili Address Allapattah Elem. 4700 NW 12 Ave. Allapattah Middle 1331 NW 46 St. Auburndale Elem. 3255 SW 6th Street Dunbar Elem. 505 NW 20 St. Kinloch Park Middle 4340 NW 3 St. Northwestern H.S. 7007 NW 12 Ave. Orchard Villa Elem. 5720 NW 13 Ave. Poinciana Park Elem. 6745 NW 23 Ave. Primary Special Needs Shelters Facili Address Kesley Pharr Elem. 2000 NW 46th Street Miami Edison HS 6161 NW 5th Ct. Shenandoah Elem. 1023 SW 21st Ave Table F SHELTERS FOR PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS (PSN) Facili Address Lake Stevens Middle 18484 NW 48 Pl., Miami, 33055 Jose Marti Middle 5701 W. 24 Ave., Hialeah, 33016 North Miami Beach H.S. 1247 NE 167 St. NMB, 33162 Ruben Dario Middle 350 NW 97 Ave., Miami 33172 Kesley Pharr Elem. 2000 NW 46 St., Miami, 33142 Miami Edison H.S. 6161 SW 21 Ave., Miami, 33135 Shenandoah Elem. 1023 SW 21 Ave., Miami, 33135 W.R. Thomas Middle 13001 SW 26 St., Miami, 233175 Miami Coral Park H.S. 8865 SW 16 St., Miami, 33165 McMillian Middle 13100 SW 59 St., Miami, 33183 Miami Killian H.S. 10655 SW 97 Ave., Miami, 33156 (BOLD - Shelters located in the City of Miami limits.) Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Ca aci 415 960 627 520 960 1120 274 571 �i (Text continued from page 22) 5. DCA COMMENT: Identify the need for post -disaster redevelopment plans, or that the City intends to use its Future Land Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.c.; 9J-5.012 (2) (e) 2.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The City intends to use its Future Land Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. 6. DCA COMMENT: Indicate the need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal plan- ning area populations with local hurricane plans. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.m.; 7. And 8.; 9J- 5.006 (3) (b) 5.1 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: There is a need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal planning areas population with local hurricane plans. However, it cannot be imple- mented until a master plan for hurricane events has been adopted by Dade County. .. ginilig �• a 1. DCA COMMENT: Include a comparison of the element's adopted objectives with ac- tual results using measurable targets to determine whether objectives were achieved. The targets provided are not measurable and the statements of actual results and condi- tions for each objective are vague and incomplete. 19J-5.0053 (6) (a) 3.1 [Guidebook Pages 25-291 CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: OBJECTIVE NR 1.1: Preserve and protect the existing natural systems within Virginia Key, the Dinner Key spoil islands, and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries. MEASURABLE TARGET: Preserve and protect these existing natural systems. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): The cited natural systems are on lands or waters controlled by governmental agencies. Specifically, the parts of Virginia Key and the Dinner Key spoil islands lying within the City are owned by the City of Miami. These areas cannot be changed in use without approval,by the City. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the date of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-1.2: Improve the water quality of, and ensure health safety within, the Miami River, its tributaries and the Little River. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 26 of 29 96- 796 i MEASURABLE TARGET: Improve water quality and ensure health safety within the cited waterways. However, this Objective does not contain a water quality standard to be met, and a time frame for meeting that standard. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Water quality in the Miami River was unsatisfactory. CURRENT CONDITIONS. Water quality has improved, but the improvement is not measurable against a standard. i OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Partially. FUTURE ACTION: Amend this Objective to include a measurable standard of water quality, an acceptable level for the Miami River waters, and a time frame for achieving that level. OBJECTIVE NR-1.3: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora. MEASURABLE TARGET: Ensure that land development proposals are consistent with maintenance of conditions necessary to preserve and protect native flora and fauna. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Land devel- opment proposals are reviewed to identify potential adverse effects on adjacent areas with distinctive vegetative features or natural wildlife. There are few such areas within the City of Miami. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the time of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-2.1: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city. (See Potable Water Objective PW-1.2) MEASURABLE TARGET: Provision of an adequate and safe supply of potable water. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Adequate and safe supplies of potable water were available to city residents. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Same as at the time of plan adoption. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. i FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-3.1: Improve the monitoring of air quality within areas perceived to have the highest potential for air quality problems. MEASURABLE TARGET: Air quality monitoring and enforcement of standards in Miami is the responsibility of Metropolitan Dade County. The City of Miami cooperates with the county toward the improvement of air quality. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Dade County, f which includes the City of Miami, was a non -attainment area. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency Issues Page 27 of 29 796 CURRENT CONDITIONS: Dade County, including the City of Miami, is an attain- ment area. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. OBJECTIVE NR-3.2: Prevent the degradation of ambient air quality within the city. MEASURABLE TARGET: No degradation of ambient air quality in the city. BASELINE CONDITIONS AT DATE OF PLAN ADOPTION (1989): Dade County, which includes the City of Miami, was a non -attainment area. CURRENT CONDITIONS: Dade County, including the City of Miami, is an attain- ment area OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED? Yes. FUTURE ACTION: None needed. 2. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration , location of land uses and the social and economic effects for the major problems in the conservation element, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.a. through o., F.A.C. Only subsections d., n. And o. Were analyzed. Subsections a., b., c., e., f., g and h should also be analyzed, or the City should provide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Only subsections d., n., and o. are directly applicable to this Conservation of Natural Resources element. Subsections a., b., c., e., £, g and h are, at best, only tangentially applicable, and are therefore addressed elsewhere in' he Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 3. DCA COMMENT: Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the Conservation Element, such as air quality, wellfield protection, water storage capacity and stormwater drainage, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 7.a. through f , F.A.C. CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: Metropolitan Dade County is the only governmental agency empowered to address the planning issues of air quality, wellfield protection, and water storage quality as they relate to urban land within the City of Miami. Stormwater drainage issues are addressed by both Dade County and the City of Miami. These stormwater issues, as they relate to the City, are discussed in the Infrastucture and Coastal Management Element of the EAR. 4. DCA COMMENT: Include an analysis of the impacts of development on natural re- sources, such as Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. (9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 6.c./ 9J-5.013 (1) (a), (b), and (c)] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: No significant impacts of development that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Miami are anticipated that would adversely affect Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. It should be pointed out again that the City of Miami is fully - Evaluation and Appraisal Report Response to Sufficiency Issues Revision Date: 10/07/96 Page 28 of 29 96- 796 developed; there is virtually no vacant land of any significance that can be developed with high -intensity urban uses; and environmental controls are in effect that minimize the danger of redevelopment that might jeopardize natural resources such as Biscayne Bay and the Mi- ami River. Indeed, as pointed out elsewhere in this report, the cumulative effects of compre- hensive planning and implementation of monitoring and control mechanisms has resulted in the significant improvement of air, water, and general environmental quality during the past two decades. GENERAL 1. DCA COMMENT: Include a schedule for transmittal and adoption of the plan amendments identified in the adopted EAR. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 8.b] CITY OF MIAMI RESPONSE: The few amendments that are contemplated will be pre- pared for the second amendment cycle of 1996—probable transmittal by December, 1996— with adoption early in 1997 following DCA review and continent. (This schedule assumes that the City will request, and be granted, approval of the six-month extension allowed by law.) E Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revision Date: 10/07/96 Response to Sufficiency issues Page 29 of 29 9 -" 796 [i STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES Goverrwr January 29, 1996 The Honorable Stephen P. Clark city of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Post Office Box.330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: City of Miami Adopted EAR Sufficiency Review Determination Dear Mayor Clark: )AMES F. MURLEY Secretary The Department has completed its sufficiency review of the City of Miami's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), as adopted on November 16, 1995, and has determined that it does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part IS, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for sufficiency, as defined in Subsection 163.3191(9), F.S. We met in Miami on January 23, 1996, with members of the City's planning staff to go over preliminary findings prior to finalizing this report. Y believe the meeting was a success because it enabled us to better understand the future the City envisions and the difficulties your staff faced in preparing the appraisal. At the same time, we were able to more effectively explain why our findings indicate several areas that were not sufficiently addressed; for example, an evaluation of the effect of rule changes on several elements of the Miami Comprehensive,.,., Neighborhood Plan is missing; identification of proposed amendments to carry out EAR recommendations is needed; and new, revised minimum five and ten-year timeframes and population grojections are required. A complete list of the Department's findings and recommendations is attached. 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITiCAI. STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA REMRY OFFICE GREEN SWAMP AM OF MTIGIL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE P.O. BOK 4022 FIELD ONCE 2796 Overseas Hi , Suite 212 0600 N.W. 3(b Street 155 Est Sunumrlin Marathon, Fbrida 3110 0.2227 Miami, Florida 331S9�4022 Bartow, Florida 33ti30 4W1 96- 796 The Honorable Stephen P. Clark January 29, 1996 iPage Two ' can be quickly - We believe that these outstanding issues qu y resolved and we pledge to assist the City in whatever way needed. Please be. aware that pursuant to Section 163.3187(5), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.0053(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, the City is precluded from further amendment to the Miami Comprehensive j Neighborhood Plan until the. EAR is found sufficient by the Department. However, the City may adopt amendments to implement recommendations in the EAR and submit them to the Department for review. We appreciate your staff taking the time to meet with us last week to discuss these issues. _.The Department is prepared to provide any additional technical assistance necessary for the City to adequately address, the EAR sufficiency requirements. Please contact David Dahlstrom, Planning Manager, or Kay Carlson, Planner IV, at (904) 487-4545 if you have any questions. Sincerely, t� Charles G. Pattison, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management i CGP/kc i Enclosures cc: Clark Turner, Chief, Community Planning Division Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council ,i 96- 796 �i CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ADOPTED NOVEMBER 16, 1995 SUFFICIENCY ISSUES The following is a list of the Department's recommendations to resolve specific Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. requirements that were not addressed in the City of Miami's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report'(EAR). Where applicable, page numbers of the Department's EAR Guidebook (enclosed) are provided for reference in addressing. rule requirements. Future Land Use Element 1. Provide an analysis of the social and economic effects of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and location of land uses, such as the accuracy and use of population projections, actual vs. anticipated rate of development, and the effect'of concurrency requirements. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4. ] [Guidebooks Pages 33-38] 2. Provide an assessment 6f the impact of unanticipated and unforeseen problems and opportunities related to land use planning which have occurred . sinnce the adoption of the plan. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)5.] (Guidebooks Pages 39-40] 3. Provide an evaluation of the effect on the adopted element of the following changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.: [9J-5.0053(6)(a)6.] [Guidebook Pages 40-42] a) analyze the need for additional dredge/spoil disposal sites as required by Rule 9JJ-5.006(1)(f)3. Special consideration should be given to the dredging of the Miami River, the Little River and Wagner Creek. b) analyze the need for a new objective or revised existing objectives to coordinate land uses with hazard mitigation report recommendations as required by Rule 9J-5.006 (3) (b) 6. c) analyze the need to revise existing policies to ensure adequate facilities (such as stormwater drainage capacity and quality) are available concurrent with impacts of development as required by Rule 9J- 5.006(3) (c)3. d) indicate the need for a new future land use map or map series which includes the new definition of the coastal high hazard area as required by Rules 9J-5.006(4)(a) and (b)6. and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.c. 96- 796 4. Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as population growth and the pressure to increase residential densities. [9J- 5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages'43-44] 5. Include new, revised minimum 5-year and minimum 10-year timeframes and population projections as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.a. 6. Identify proposed or anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified rule changes. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.] [Guidebook Pages 45-46] 7. Provide in tabular form the appropriate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use for the gross land areas included in each existing land use category from the adopted plan as well as from the plan at the date of the EAR. Compare the results from .these, two timeframes and .provide an analysis of the success or failure of land use policies, trends, problems and future opportunities. [9J- 5.006(1)(c); 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] B. Identify the natural resources on the existing land use map from the plan at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.006(1)(b)] tnfraBtructure Element 1. Identify the needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report and identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement changes to Rule 9J-5. Specifically, evaluate the effect on the adopted element of those changes that require the City to revise the existing policy or establish a new policy to establish water quality standards for stormwater discharge (9J-5.0011(2)(c)5.). The City's level of service standard for drainage needs to include a water quality component. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)6., 7., and 8:) [Guidebook Page 42] 2. Provide all figures and attachments that are referenced in the text, specifically: drainage "sub -basins" and sanitary sewer flows (Sub -attachments T1, T2, U1, U2, V1; and Figures II-3, II-2, I-2, and 11). Intergovernmental Coordination Element 1. Provide a comparison of the element's adopted ICE objectives with actual results to determine whether the objectives were achieved. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] [Guidebook Pages 25-33] 2 x; 96- 796 r 2. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised by the city in the report, such as: increased coordination with local and federal government; encouraging all levels of government to work together to ensure adequate and timely shelter for people residing in the hurricane evacuation area; addressing the constant influx of immigrants to the area; and obtaining financial support from local, county, state, and federal social agencies. [9J--5.0053(6)(a)7.] [Guidebook Pages 43-44] 3. Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the needed actions related to the planning issues raised in the•report. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.] [Guidebook Pages 45-46] Capital Improvements Element 1.. Provide a summary description of the condition of the element at the date of the EAR addressing the following analyses:' (a) fiscal implications of existing deficiencies; and (b) use of capital improvements to support efficient land use. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)2.; 9J-5.016(2)(b) and (e)] (Guidebook Pages 21-231 2. Provide an evaluation of the need for new or revised policies to meet the provisions of the Concurrency Management System (CDIS). The City should include information on how the new Rule 9J-5 requirements have been addressed through the adoption of a CMS and evaluate how the implementation of the CMS is progressing. [9J-5.0055; 9J- 5.0053(6)(a)6.; 9J-5..016] [Guidebook Page 42] 3. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the report, such as a new capital improvements element that includes the costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the Future Land ; Use Element, and a forecasting of revenues and expenditures for the next five years. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.] (Guidebook , Pages 43-44) 4: Identify anticipated plan amendments to address or implement the identified changes that are needed (note above). 5.0053(6)(a)8.] (Guidebook Pages 45-46) ' 3 96- 796 r f I s i t F i Coastal Management Element 1. Include a new land use map, a conflict analysis, a summary of data and analysis of estuarine pollution, and data for natural disaster planning from the coastal management element at the date of the EAR. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)2; 9J- 5.0 2 a), (d) and (e)] [Guidebook Pages 21-22] 2.' Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, and the location of land uses in the coastal management element, as required by Rule 9J- 5.0053(6)(a)4.a. through 1., F.A.C. The City analyzed subsections m. through o. Subsections a. through 1. should also be analyzed, or the City should provide an explanation why these subsections do not apply. [Guidebook Pages 33-383 3. Identify needed actions to address the planning issues raised in the coastal management element, such as: manatee protection (identify completion of the new manatee protection plan), operation of the water drainage management system, shoreline access, and natural disaster planning, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7.a. through f., F.A.C. [Guidebook Pages 43-441 4. Provide updated data and analysis.of evacuation times and shelter capacity. [9J-5.0053 (6) (a) 4.m. ; 9J-5. 012.(2) (e) 1. ] 5. Identify the need for post -disaster redevelopment plans, or that the City intends to use its Future Land Use Map as a basis for redevelopment. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)6.c.; 9J- 5.012(2)(e)2.3 6. Indicate the need for a revised objective to coordinate coastal planning area populations with local hurricane plans. [9J-5.0053(6)(a)4.m., 7. and 8.; 9J-5.006(3)(b)5.] Conservation Element 1. Include a comparison of the element's adopted objectives with actual results using measurable targets to determine whether objectives were achieved. The targets provided are not measurable and the statements of actual results and,. conditions for .each objective are vague and incomplete.' [9J-5.0053(6)(a)3.] (Guidebook Pages 25-29) 2. Include an analysis of the major problems of development, physical deterioration, location of land uses and the social and economic effects of the major problems identified in the conservation element, as required by Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a) 4.a. through o., F.A.C. Only subsections d., n. and o. were analyzed. Subsections a., b., c., e., f., g. and h. should 4 96- 796 3 n AA'' IIrr rr�� fh (� ��wta fJJJ AU —2 1, 1 10: 26 STATE OF F L 0 R I D A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES Governor July 29,.1996 Mr. Jack Luft, Director Department of Community Planning & Revitalization City of Miami P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: Response to Evaluation and Appraisal Report Sufficiency Issues Dear Mr. Luft: The Department has received three copies of your response to the issues raised in our review of the City of Miami's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated January 29, 1996. We received the response on July 15, 1996. This letter is provided to inform you of the Department's policies for reviewing EAR sufficiency responses. { The Department will review your response and provide comments within 60 days. If f your response is determined to address all sufficien.cy issues, then the City may proceed to either: ; (1) adopt the changes addressed in the response by resolution or ordinance as a supplement to the adopted EAR; or (2) incorporate the changes addressed in the response into the EAR and then adopt the revised EAR by resolution or ordinance. The City must then transmit the adopted changes to the Department for final sufficiency determination. Once the Department has issued a final sufficiencv determination on the changes, the City may then amend its Comprehensive Plan at any time. Please keep in mind that, pursuant to Rule 9J-5.0053(3), Florida Administrative Code, the City is required to submit EAR -based amendments within one year of adoption. These EAR -based amendments will count toward the twice per year amendment allowance. i 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE P.O. Box 4022 FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 8600 N.W. 361h Street 155 East Summerlin Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 Miami, Florida 33159.4022 Bartow, Florida 33830-4641 + - 796 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ZI LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Governor Secretary September 13, 1996 Mr. Jack Luft, Director Department of Community Planning & Revitalization City of Miami P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 RE: City of Miami Proposed Revisions to the Adopted EAR Dear Mr. Turner: The Department has completed its review of your response to the issues raised in our review of the City of Miami's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated January 29, 1996. This letter is to provide further comments on your proposed revisions and to recommend adoption of these changes prior to final sufficiency review by the Department. The Department commends the City for its thorough response to our concerns. We believe that the City has addressed most of the Department's sufficiency issues. In particular, the City did a good job of identifying needed actions to address the issue of stormwater management. However, staff has identified three items which need to be addressed by the City prior to adoption f of these changes. We have discussed our concerns with your staff, who have agreed to make these ` changes. In reading the following comments, please refer to the Department's letter dated January 2951996 (attached): L-La, 4 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN ~ FIELD OFFICE P.O. Box 4022 FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 8600 N.W. 36Ih Street 155 East Summerlin i Marathon, Florida 33050.2227 Miami, Florida 33159-4022 Banow, Florida 33830-4641 i I� i ~ I Mr. Jack Luft September 13, 1996 Page Two Future Land Use Element 1. In response to the Department's comment #3a. of the Future Land Use Element, you have indicated that the Miami River and Little River waterways are governed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Wagner Creek is governed by the City of Miami Public Works Department; and presently, the Dade County landfill serves as the dredge/spoil disposal site for these waterways. The spoil is considered non -hazardous material, even though it may or may not be contaminated. After speaking with City staff, we understand that the City does not have a site available for dredge materials from the Miami River, and that you are currently investigating the best possible method of disposal --either by encapsulation and disposal at sea or land transportation to a remote location. Until the City finds a suitable method of disposal, you will not be able to dredge the Miami River. This issue should be discussed within the adopted EAR and appropriate recommendations made. 2. In response to the Department's comment #3d. of the Future Land Use Element, you have indicated that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has produced a map series which is adequate for all of Dade County, including the City of Miami. In addition, you attached a 7 copy of Dade County's Hurricane Evacuation Areas map, which shows the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). However, Rule 9J-5.003(19), F.A.C., defines the CHHA as the evacuation zone for ..i a category 1 hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government, not as established by FEMA maps. None of the maps in the City's Future Land Use Map series include the newly defined CHHA. We have discussed this with your staff and have recommended that the City include the CHHA as shown on Dade County's Hurricane Evacuation Areas map on the Coastal Area map within the adopted EAR. Conservation Element 4 3. In response to the Departments comment #1 of the Conservation Element, the City has provided objectives, measurable targets, baseline conditions, current conditions, whether the objectives were achieved, future actions, and policy relevance for the element's adopted objectives. However, Objective NR-1.2 is not measurable in that it does not indicate what water quality standards need to be met in order to improve water quality and ensure health safety within the cited' waterways, and a time frame for meeting those standards. We have discussed this with your staff, who agree that the EAR should indicate that this objective needs to be amended to make it more, measurable. The Department recommends that the City make the above changes to the EAR and proceed with adoption of these changes by resolution or ordinance, either as a supplement to the adopted EAR or incorporated as part of the adopted EAR. The adopted changes must then be submitted to the Department for a final sufficiency determination. Once the Department has issued a final sufficiency determination on the adopted EAR, the City may proceed to amend its Comprehensive Plan. i � � 7 19 6